glider/airplane collision

On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible for
their own separation."


None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija board,
there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.

The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be an
indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all the
data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents that
do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy until
we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play the
crusader.


Jack
[ crusader for restraint and focus ] :

Dear crusader for restraint and focus,

It seems you may have missed my point.
I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident in question,
other than that it occurred.
While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.
In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable insight has
emerged regarding the genesis of said accident and,
even if there is valuable information, the FAA rarely acts fully on NTSB
recommendations. This is particularly true
of human factor associated accidents.
Perhaps I over generalize - but that is my opinion.

While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?
In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box"
and that it is published in NOTAMS for visiting pilots?
What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?
I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.

If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.

[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]

Allan


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving
in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible
for
their own separation."


None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija
board,
there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.

The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be
an
indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all
the
data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents
that
do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy
until
we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play
the
crusader.


Jack
[ crusader for restraint and focus ] :

(Sandy McAusland) wrote in message . com...
I heard a report of a collision between a glider and a power plane
somewhere in California sometime in December 2003. Does anyone have
any info on this ??

Information is available online from the NTSB site.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X00028&key=2

NTSB Identification: ANC04FA016A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 28, 2003 in Peoria, AZ
Aircraft: Piper J3C-65, registration: N2094M
Injuries: 2 Fatal.


NTSB Identification: ANC04FA016B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 28, 2003 in Peoria, AZ
Aircraft: Schleicher ASK-21, registration: N274KS
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On December 28, 2003, about 1312 mountain standard time, a
wheel-equipped Piper J3C-65 airplane, N2094M, and a Schleicher ASK-21
aerobatic glider, N274KS, were destroyed during an in-flight collision
about one-half mile north of the Pleasant Valley Airport, Peoria,
Arizona. The two occupants of the Piper, and the two occupants of the
glider, were fatally injured. The two aircraft collided after the
Piper departed runway 05L at the Pleasant Valley Airport, and turned
southbound, into the area where the glider was performing aerobatic
maneuvers. Witnesses reported that following the collision, both
aircraft entered uncontrolled descents and impacted the desert terrain
north of the airport. The private pilot of the Piper was seated in the
rear seat, and the airplane owner, a commercial pilot and certificated
flight instructor, was seated in the front seat. The Piper was being
operated under Title 14, CFR Part 91, as a local area personal flight.
According to the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) Medical
Records Center, the airplane owner did not possess a current airman's
medical certificate. The Schleicher glider was operated by the Turf
Soaring School, Peoria, under Title 14, CFR Part 91, as an
instructional/demonstration flight. The pilot of the Schleicher
glider, a commercial glider pilot and certificated flight instructor,
was seated in the rear seat, and the sole passenger was seated in the
front seat. The glider departed the Pleasant Valley Airport about
1250. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plans
were filed.

During the on-scene investigation on December 29, witnesses familiar
with both powered airplane and glider operations near the accident
airport, related to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
investigator-in-charge (IIC) that the Piper departed runway 05L,
followed by a climbing left turn, leveling off at pattern altitude, or
about 600 feet agl (above ground level). The witnesses said that the
left turn continued until the airplane was on a southerly heading,
consistent with a left downwind approach for a landing on runway 05L.

Concurrently, the Schleicher glider was performing aerobatic maneuvers
in an area located just to the north of the Pleasant Valley Airport,
within a predetermined area known to local pilots as the "aerobatic
box," which measures 1 kilometer square, and extends from the surface
up to 6,600 feet msl.

Witnesses reported to the NTSB IIC that as the Schleicher glider was
performing a loop, the glider climbed to an altitude of about 800 feet
agl, above the path of the southbound Piper. The witnesses said that
as the Schleicher glider reached the top of the loop, the nose
lowered, eventually pointing straight down. As the glider began to
recover from the maneuver, about 600 feet agl, the left wing of the
oncoming Piper struck the tail of the Schleicher glider between the
empennage and the main fuselage, severing the empennage of the glider.
The witnesses said that during the collision, a large portion of the
left outboard wing of the Piper separated.

Unfortunately we all fly invisible aircrafts.
Maybe one day all aircrafts will be required to use technology which exists
for many years and can eliminate midairs.

Ramy

"Shaber CJ" wrote in message
...
The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
actions can do that.

Dear Airmen/Airwomen:

There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic
box).
That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and
friends
of these Airmen, what a tragedy.

I came within 5 feet of an American Airlines MD 80 out of Burbank airport,
and
we were both talking to the same controller (at slightly different times
so I
did not hear the airline clearance). The controller said "sorry guys my
fault," but that would be of little of little condolence to the 92 souls
if we
had hit. Ultimately we can only depend on ourselves. What if you are on
a
victor hwy at FL20 and someone busts the Class A airspace in front of you?
it
is dangerous business even if we just do it for fun and we must always be
aware.

Craig

Questions to ponder:
1)What was the K21 doing at the top of a loop at approx 800 feet agl, and where
was it a few seconds before that, and at what speed?
2)What is the official floor of the aerobatic box, NTSB states surface to 6600
msl, this must not be correct: How can the box be in the traffic pattern and
still extend to the surface?
3)see FAR 91.303(e) for aerobatic flight AGL limitations.



-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-

On 2004/01/17 20:34, in article
, "Ramy Yanetz"
wrote:

Unfortunately we all fly invisible aircrafts.
Maybe one day all aircrafts will be required to use technology which exists
for many years and can eliminate midairs.

Thinking "invisible" is good.

Tech is, however, just one more trick in your bag. It cannot eliminate
midairs, anymore than ILS has eliminated landing accidents on IMC
approaches. Available technology can assist alert pilots in avoiding
collisions when used properly, and some of it is affordable.

Though I'll install a mode C transponder in my bird and listen up on the
appropriate frequencies, no piece of equipment can give me a decisive
advantage. Preflight planning that helps me know when and where traffic is
most likely to be a threat is necessary. Keeping my eyes outside the
cockpit, and my head on a swivel is essential. Flying a glider with a
standout paint scheme is helpful.

But there will always be days when there are aircraft out there that you
never know about. The best you can do is to work smart and hard to make sure
that those days are few and far between.



Jack

On 2004/01/18 01:08, in article
, "Mark Navarre"
wrote:


2) What is the official floor of the aerobatic box, NTSB states surface to
6600 msl....

The boxes are, very unfortunately, not charted -- but they are listed in the
A/FD, along with their exact locations and dimensions.


How can the box be in the traffic pattern and still extend to the surface?

I think a better question is, "Would you want to fly your traffic pattern
through an existing aerobatic box? I would not.


3)see FAR 91.303(e) for aerobatic flight AGL limitations.

Waivers are available from the FAA and are often used to create aerobatic
boxes and aerobatic practice areas outside the restrictions of 91.303(e).

Take a look at the A/FD for the area, and do a Google search on aerobatic
boxes and practice areas, and waivers to 91.303(e). I think there is a lot
which doesn't get mentioned in the training many of us receive. Aerobatic
boxes and practice areas are one category which is often over looked.



Jack

In article ,
Shaber CJ wrote:
The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
actions can do that.

Dear Airmen/Airwomen:

There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic box).
That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and friends
of these Airmen, what a tragedy.

One of the newspaper articles said the wreckage was within a few
hundred feet of the airport. Is this true? Does this mean the
aerobatic box is within the traffic pattern of the airport?
And it is a private airport?

The NTSB report seemed to indicate that the PIC for each
flight was flying from the rear seat (including the rear seat of
a high-wing Piper Cub). Is this the understanding
of others as well?

Yesterday I flew a glider solo around our local, private
gliderport, and there was a cropduster doing his dusting
very nearby. I lost sight of him a few times, and it got
me more nervous than usual (mostly because of this thread).
I actually had a low level 1 knot thermal at one point,
but came back and landed instead (after a LOT of S-turning).

I fly a high-wing airplane with bad visibility into our
private airport a lot, and we do training (including simulated
airbrakes stuck open) frequently there. As I think about it,
situations similar to this thread happen at my gliderport evey
week. This is really making me think hard...

What a rotten bit of luck...

On 2004/01/17 16:05, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident
in question, other than that it occurred.

Hmmmm....


While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.

My frustration with the ability/willingness of human beings to acquire and
use knowledge probably compares to your own, and I appreciate those who make
a sincere effort.


In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable
insight has emerged regarding the genesis of said accident....

That has not been my experience, though there are many frustrating examples
of a lack either of significant data or of emphasis on certain information
which was available -- in my opinion.


While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?

No, but let's avoid the type of pointed discussion which is little more than
veiled accusation and ignorant speculation concerning the accident in
question, particularly after it has been made clear to the participants here
that there are active r.a.s. members who were personally acquainted with the
victims, and while the psychic wounds are sill fresh. I think that is not
too much to ask of one another.

Now that the NTSB has published a preliminary report, we have something
which can be sifted for reminders of how to improve our own piloting skills
and judgment.


In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box" and that it is published in NOTAMS for
visiting pilots?

Exactly the sort of thing we should do, and in fact we must encourage every
pilot to be aware of every acrobatic box/area in the airspace in which he
operates. This information is a part of preflight planning and can be found
in the A/FD and updated via NOTAM.

One of my pet annoyances is that radio usage and discipline is frequently
unsatisfactory among users of the sort of airfields where glider operations
are usually found. However, that's no excuse for sailplane pilots not to
participate. Particularly in the older two-seaters used in much training, I
find that radio usage is under emphasized.


What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?

The few with which I am familiar are all quite near an airport, though the
airports themselves are very small out-of-the-way fields. That may not be
true elsewhere. I expect that acrobatic pilots can give you reasons why
establishing the box close to the field is a good idea.


I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.

True enough, if carried out with some regard for the fact that the members
of r.a.s. in particular and the soaring community in general have closer
connections with one another than some posters may realize.


If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.

[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]

Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack

My point, exactly.

Allan

" Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that
nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being
what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack