If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On 6/16/2010 10:20 PM, 5Z wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:34 pm, wrote: There's several words to describe that - "competitor" and "big brass Actually, I'd call it pretty irresponsible. That glider could, at any moment have a system failure due to weakened structure. The only smart response is to land IMMEDIATELY, and definitely avoid overflying any people on the ground. Just checked the rules, and there's nothing in there regarding a pilot's responsibility after a collision. But several years ago, at a national contest, there was some heated debate at the mandatory meeting about what a pilot should do in such a case. If I recall correctly, an immediate landing for inspection was mandated, with one or two vocal "I'm here to WIN!!!" dissents. Nothing bad happened this time. But what if someone had been hurt or killed due to a system failure while the pilot continued to soar? What would be reported in the media? What would the NTSB response be? -Tom Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of the FARs: 49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification. The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (Board) field office when: (a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur: (1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight. (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less. (7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight): (i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments; (ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces; (iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and (iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized. (b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident. It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if you 1st finish flying the contest. -- Mike Schumann |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On Jun 16, 11:38*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy wrote: I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled his way back with 5 feet of wing missing... Ramy [snip] A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine. If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop- stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under power you would need time to do something like close the throttle, turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he made it back safe. The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I hope the rules committee look at this. Darryl The preliminary report is on the FAA web site today. Unless the FAA and NTSB were on site yesterday, I suspect until released by the FAA and pilot interviews completed, neither glider (and maybe pilot) is available for flight or repair. YMMV, Frank Whiteley |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.
I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives "irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true, why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing? -John |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
I totally agree that this rule is very sensible and should apply.
Besides, after two aircraft colide with enough force to tear a wing tip off you can bet your life that the FAA will ground both gliders until detailed examination is perfromed to prove that either is considered airworthy. So.....your going to miss the rest of the contest in any case, so why further risk your life and more importantly those of others with a potentially damaged glider that could loose control at the worst possible time, like when your at the top of a gaggle in a thermal. I understand that the pilot in the Ventus probably felt his glider suffered no signifigant damage, but would you not want to take responsibility and at the very least escort the damaged plane home so that you could radio for help if his glider went down somewhere. Even if a radio communication between the two pilots revealed that the clipped wing glider thought he was OK to make it home, I think escorting him to a safe landing would have been the most admiral thing the other pilot could do and would gain him much more respect and notatiaty than winning a contest day that nobody in the rest of the world gives a crap about. Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even close to winning the respect of your peers. I guess under this kind of stress it is difficult to make the best decissions. Its always easier to see it clearly sitting on the ground typing at a keyboard, but following your gut in this case might have been better than striving to win. Soap box dismounted! Ray On Jun 17, 4:36*am, stephanevdv wrote: This is the rule as laid out by IGC in Annex A (international competition rules) to the Sporting Code, Gliding section: 4.1.4 A competitor involved in a collision in the air shall not continue the flight but land as soon as practicable. Both pilots will be scored as having landed at the position at which the collision occurred. Seems a sensible rule to me... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On Jun 17, 4:27*am, brian whatcott wrote:
* I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that the Ventus is still (safely) flyable... A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of A&P). Andy |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On 6/17/2010 10:40 AM, Andy wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:27 am, brian wrote: I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that the Ventus is still (safely) flyable... A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of A&P). Andy I don't understand how one glider could take off the wing of another glider without suffering some damage itself. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs: 49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification. The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (Board) field office when: (a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur: [....] (5) Aircraft collide in flight. [....] It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if you 1st finish flying the contest. By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means available." B. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On 6/17/2010 2:22 PM, Bart wrote:
Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of the FARs: 49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification. The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (Board) field office when: (a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur: [....] (5) Aircraft collide in flight. [....] It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if you 1st finish flying the contest. By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means available." B. B. It will be interesting to see if that's what actually happened. -- Mike Schumann |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this
subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then-- if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every situation is different. I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced, qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions. Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire that we started. Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" USA |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Parowan midair?
On Jun 17, 12:43*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then-- if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every situation is different. I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced, qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions. Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire that we started. Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" USA Amen! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Midair near Minden | Fred | Soaring | 52 | September 1st 06 11:41 AM |
Midair near Minden | Jim Culp | Soaring | 0 | August 29th 06 05:52 PM |
Another midair! | tango4 | Soaring | 3 | April 27th 04 06:14 PM |
Pix of two midair F-18s | Pechs1 | Naval Aviation | 9 | January 8th 04 02:40 PM |
Midair in RI | Martin | Piloting | 3 | November 18th 03 10:29 PM |