Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: collision (10 articles)

The 2022 Highland Challenge, aka The Charlie Mini-Comp

Fri, Jun 17 2022, 8:49:44 pm MDT

DelMarVa peninsula

altitude|beer|Charles "Charlie" Baughman|Charles Allen|cloud|collision|competition|equipment|harness|Highland Challenge 2022|Jim Messina|John Simon|Knut Ryerson|landing|Lawrence "Pete" Lehmann|meteorology|Moyes RX|radio|Richard "Ric" Caylor|Robert "Rob" Dallas|software|sport|towing|triangle|weather

Pete Lehmann writes:

Demonstrating both the vitality and decline of hang gliding, Charlie Allen has once again put together a small competition on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. This is the area that for years was host to the much larger aero-towed East Coast Championship at nearby Ridgely, MD. When Highland Aerosports closed their doors, and the airport changed hands, the sport lost an important focal point. Nonetheless, aerotowing has quietly continued on a private basis on the Eastern Shore, and a couple of years ago Charlie decided to put on a small, un-sanctioned meet to encourage competition and xc flying in what is a meteorologically interesting place to fly. The original objective was to hold the competition with ten pilots, but as is too often the case in hang gliding nowadays, he could induce only six pilots to participate. Shame on those who passed on the opportunity for some wonderful flying.

The DelMarVa peninsula over which we are flying is essentially flat, and at this time of year, enjoys ample, enormous landing fields. What distinguishes the flying is, however, the peninsula’s location between three bodies of water, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. The presence of the water bodies greatly influences the meteorology of the land, and consequently the flying conditions experienced. The interaction of the solar heated land with the onshore breezes originating from the three bodies of water creates a marvelously complex variety of convergences that both create and limit soaring opportunities. Flying near the cooler waters can be either terribly difficult, or fabulous if a convergence line sets above the collision of cold and warm air. It’s a place that puts a premium on pilot knowledge of cloud formations, and pilot skill in working crap conditions until getting into the better lift marked by the clouds. Added to that is the caveat that the conditions are dynamic. Conditions vary greatly over the course of the day as winds shift direction and strength with the heating of the land mass.

We are towing from Ben’s, a private farm airstrip near Chestertown, MD. Its location adds to the difficulty by being just 15 miles east of the Chesapeake, while also being much nearer one of its major estuaries. It’s wet nearby. This makes it often necessary to scratch very hard for the first ten miles when while heading inland to the better conditions. Indeed, it is sometimes necessary for the tugs to pull us up towards the inland east in order to contact workable lift. All of this is by way of saying that flying around here is complicated. A pilot has to juggle a number of decision-making balls, keeping a weather eye on the clouds, and using three-dimensional visualization software to imagine how the land and water will interact as one flies the course. It’s fun.

Day One was an epically good day for this region. We under-called the 44-mile dog leg task to the southeast. Conditions were so good that the vastly experienced local pilot Jim Messina experienced his best ever local altitude, getting to 8,100 feet, while Charlie got to 8,300msl. Five of the six competitors made goal including John Simon who won the day, and Knut Ryerson who made goal on his first flight with his new Moyes RX.

Ric / Knut: https://ayvri.com/scene/gdkz603ojz/cl44bjt7m00013b61xozernl6

John / Charlie / Jim: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl477ukq400032a6m4avh96mj

Day Two’s much weaker forecast had a short 23-mile dogleg task to the north that proved tricky despite its short length. A convergence line set up around the turn point, but it was very hard to climb under it. Two pilots landed while Jim and John fairly easily made goal, with John once again winning. They then turned around and nearly made it back to the field, coming up just short of Ben's. I royally screwed the pooch by loading the wrong task into my instrument. Eventually acknowledging the impossibility of flying the incorrect task, I bagged it and succumbed to beer suck. I scratched back to Ben’s flying an absurd dogleg that included an 850 ft. save with three bald eagles.

Ric / Knut: https://ayvri.com/scene/gdkz603ojz/cl44c4ziz00023b6127x19syj

Charlie / John / Jim: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl4781sbe00032a6muikfxxl7

Day Three had a low, blue forecast which again proved partially incorrect. Climbs were good, and we climbed to six grand in the blue, much higher than forecast. However, the winds were sufficiently strong that the triangle task proved impossible, and in frustration two of us gave up on the task and flew back to Ben’s. Beer suck is real. Of those who persisted, Jim Messina won the day, with Ric Niehaus in second, but they were still well short of the forty-mile task. In fact, the wind really won the day.

Ric / Knut / Pete: https://ayvri.com/scene/gdkz603ojz/cl44c8o3n00013b61xjcehat3

Charlie / John / Jim: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl4789fii00032a6mqmhtlzue

Day Four was blown out and we spent it fixing broken stuff. In fact, it seems that every day of the comp has involved one or the other of us trying to sort out equipment problems: blown out harness zippers, broken vario mounts, inaudible varios, and all manner of radio problems. We need a day off. The flying has been great fun, but somewhat stressful. We needed a day off.

Day Five: Task Four

Today’s task was a 40-mile triangle with the final turn being Ridgely’s airport, scene of the past East Coast Championships. It was, as Jim Messina said, good to be flying back in the ‘hood. Five out of six of us made goal, with John Simon and Jim once again being fastest, while we laggards experienced varying degrees of low saves along the way. Once again, the forecast conditions proved to have been pessimistic, and we were grateful to be getting more than a thousand feet higher than the predicted 3,500 feet agl.

The goal was not Ben’s Farm, our starting airstrip. Rather it was nearby at Ben’s Palatial Estate. The place is vast and has the feel of visiting the South Fork Ranch of the old Dallas tv series. Ben wasn’t home, so we made ourselves comfortable drinking beer at his poolside, telling lies, and enjoying life. Hang gliding is hell, but someone’s gotta do it.

Pete / Charlie / Jim: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl47566i000082a6m7buuitil

John / Knut / Ric: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl478h4nd00032a6mxsoi3xqv

Day Six: Blown out, but we should be able to fly again on Friday.

Day Seven: Task 5

By Charles Allen

We opted for a 90.5km dog leg task to Indian Beach. However, we had an 8km turn point at goal so as not to force pilots to race low to the beach as there are limited suitable landing fields for about 4 miles prior to beach and we were concerned about an onshore sea breeze. The day was epic with climbs to almost 6,500 with great looking clouds. I ended up taking the 1:45pm start clock and heading off early. I was ahead until about half way into course when I got down to about 900ft and had to slow down. Jim and Pete who were close behind ended up passed me at this point as I was left of course line by about 5k. I arrived at the beach 12min after them. John took the 2:15pm start clock and arrived at the beach ~20min after me. Knut and Tom made goal but did not make the beach. The day ended with drinks and dinner at a Tiki bar a few minutes from the beach.

Pete / Charlie / Jim: https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl4cv8cyx00032a6mtqv6l34o

John / Knut / Tom (guest): https://ayvri.com/scene/z15yrzn1jx/cl4cvfxt200032a6mcn22xtqw


Discuss "The 2022 Highland Challenge, aka The Charlie Mini-Comp" at the Oz Report forum   link»

3D⁣ Collision Animation »

Wed, Apr 28 2021, 9:53:37 am EDT

Not adjusted for QNH

3D|collision|video

https://youtu.be/2UJKaR4iFWQ

Discuss "3D⁣ Collision Animation" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Reviewing the Midair Collision in FsFlight

Wed, Apr 28 2021, 9:51:29 am EDT

Looking at the data

collision|FsFlight

Maria Garcia, Pedrro's wife, is the score keeper here at Wilotree Park. She provided a series of screen shots showing pre-collision and collision from the data provided by the pilots' Flymaster trackers. She states that every morning when the task is announced she sets the take off altitude for the QNH for that day. The GPS altitude is 108 feet. The QNH altitude varies depending on the current air pressure. All pilots' QNH altitude is set to be the same when they are scored by FsComp and displayed in FsFlight. For example, here is the launch, with the pilot's QNH altitude set to 34 meters. These are just pictures on a screen and we do not know their exact relationship to actual reality. For convenience we call them Tyler and Pedro, but their are merely data representations of Tyler and Pedro and not actually Tyler and Pedro. Tyler is represented by the red dot and Pedro by the black one.

FsFlight shows the pilots at 15:52:45, but in separated displays. This is not an animation.

At 15;52:50. You can compare altitudes and locations, but they are not in the same display unfortunately.

The displays are getting closer time and distance wise.

Now the displays are only 2 or 3 seconds apart. Again this is a "feature" of FsFlight.

Now only one display is required as the pilots are close together in distance and time. The green horizontal lines just show their horizontal separation. Tyler is seven meters QNH above Pedro and to his left and slightly behind him.

Tyler is six meters higher than Pedro and to his left. The pilots are turning clockwise in the thermals, which are being blown to the northwest by an 18 mph wind which is why the circles over the ground look elongated, but could easily be just circles relative to the moving air.

Tyler is still six meters above Pedro, to his left and very slightly behind him.

Tyler and Pedro appear to have collided in this display, but with Tyler five meters above Pedro, maybe not, or maybe the representation is slightly off in the altitude displayed.

Now with only two meters of altitude separation Tyler crosses over Pedro from left to right.

Discuss "Reviewing the Midair Collision in FsFlight" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

2021 Wilotree Park Nationals - Midair During Task 3 »

Sat, Apr 24 2021, 7:40:01 pm EDT

Pedro and Tyler collide while thermaling

CIVL|collision|Wilotree Park Nationals 2021

Below you will see frames of the period just before and at the time of the collision taken every two seconds from their track log files. You can make your own interpretation of who should have done what to avoid this incident. Tyler is the red glider (978) and Pedro the blue one (969). I have left the pictures at their original size as taken on my computer.

Be aware that at launch Pedro's instrument measured 140' and Tyler's measured 120' of elevation (GPS altitude). Therefore the altitudes displayed in these frames could easily be off from each other by 20' (or more) or not at all.

You can make your own interpretation of what you see here. Note the different climb rates between the two gliders. Both gliders were flying after the collision and both pilots followed the CIVL section 7 rule: "A competitor involved in a collision in the air must not continue the flight if the structural integrity of his glider is in doubt."

Discuss "2021 Wilotree Park Nationals - Midair During Task 3" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

2012 Midair at Crestline

Sun, Apr 26 2015, 4:07:41 pm PDT

The "graphic" video

collision|video|Rob McKenzie

https://youtu.be/n6noJ1s9W5I

The details: http://hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=32801

Not necessarily what it seems in the video.

Jonathan's take: http://hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=32801&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=7

Robe McKenzie's take: http://hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=32801&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=87

Jonathan's follow up: http://hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=369493#369493

Discuss "2012 Midair at Crestline" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Two deaths at Emberger-Alm

Tue, Jun 3 2014, 8:54:21 am EDT

Above Greifenburg

Olga Nekhamina, Herbert Klaushofer

collision|Corinna Schwiegershausen|fatality|Herbert Klaushofer|midair collision|Olga Nekhamina

http://kaernten.orf.at/news/stories/2650500/

On the Emberger Alm in upper Carinthia, a serious accident of hang-glider has occurred Monday at noon. A 67-year-old man (Herbert Klaushofer) and a 30 year old wife (Olga Nekhamina) clashed in the air and crashed. Both athletes were killed.

The accident occurred shortly after the start of the two hang gliders at 1,750 metres above sea level. The 67-year-old Austrian and the 30-year-old Russian lost control of their aircraft, clashed in the air. The aircraft caught together, the pilots crashed from a height of 80 to 100 meters in a forest clearing.

Thanks to Christina.

Olga Nekhamina was the Russian women.

Corinna's Sky

Discuss "Two deaths at Emberger-Alm" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Mid Air at the 15-meter Nationals in Uvalde

Thu, Aug 12 2010, 9:04:35 am CDT

South of Big Spring

Mid Air

collision

The article here.

FLARM: http://soaringcanada.riq.ca/viewtopic.php?t=3608

Sadly the fatal mid-air at the 15m US contest is exactly what the Flarm would have avoided.

Thanks to Martin.

Discuss "Mid Air at the 15-meter Nationals in Uvalde" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Competition Formats / Start times

Thu, Jul 3 2003, 3:00:03 pm EDT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Alex Ploner|Angelo Crapanzano|cloud|collision|competition|Europe|FAI|gaggle|game|GAP|GAP 2002|Gerolf Heinrichs|GPS|Ivan Twose|midair collision|power|Richard Walbec|scoring|Thomas "Tom/Tomas" Weissenberger|weather

Angelo Crapanzano <angelo@metamorfosi.com> writes:

The pre Europeans is over and it was a good competition. The weather was varying but good overall and Richard Walbec was a very good meet director plus all the crew was friendly and willing to help (thanks a lot to everybody!) Unfortunately we lost what we discovered had been the best day ever in Millau: in this day a local pilot got up to 4700 m (15500 ft) while most of the competitors were blocked on takeoff by an unpredicted strong side wind.

This day Federico Bausone waited, ready for takeoff, for over one hour and fifteen minutes (with nobody pushing, of course), then the task was cancelled because there was not enough time for all the pilots to get the start gate. Fifteen minutes later the wind started changing and in half an hour it was perfectly straight but most pilots already packed the gliders :-(

As far as I know Millau was, both last year and this one, the only international competition using the GAP 2002 at "full power" (i.e. with the Leading bonus calculated from the actual tracklog of each pilot). Despite the scoring explanation was published besides the daily score, there were several questions on it; probably because pilots like to ask instead of reading and possibly because they know I like to answer.

I had the feeling pilots did like the idea of the Leading bonus when they exactly understood how it works (to know more have a look at my webpage www.metamorfosi.com and click on the GAP icon). On the first day Betiño did perfectly show how the leading bonus works: he started 15 minutes before the first gaggle, flew always on his own well in front of everybody but landed 4 km short of goal. Despite he was not in goal Betiño got the biggest leading bonus on that day to reward his early flying.

On another day Tom Weissenberger and Alex Ploner were for most of the task in front of the leading gaggle trying to escape but, just before goal, got stacked and the leading gaggle flew above them to goal. Alex and Tom got goal shortly afterwards with, of course, a worse time and less speed points but the leading bonus allowed them to reduce the loss of points as a reward for leading for most of the flight.

During the comp there was some discussion about start systems. Except on the last day, where it was set a pure race with single start for everybody, Richard always set a multiple start (mostly with 15 minutes interval but once 10 minutes and once 30 minutes). There was also a debate (mainly between Gerolf and me) about using a multiple start for everybody, except the first 20 in the general standing forced to get the central start.

This proposal come out because many top pilots prefers races but it was not felt safe to have 110 pilots taking the same start. Top pilots like races because it's more fun, they can fly in the same conditions, it's easier to know how one is doing compared to the others and it's also easy to control the opponents because everybody has to start at the same time.

I was strongly against this proposal because to set a different start system to some pilots compared the others is almost like to set a different task. All pilots in a competition are supposed to play the same game with the same rules but if we force the first 20 pilots in the total ranking to take a single start while the others can chose, we could end up with the same tracklog giving different points depending if the pilot was placed 20th or 21st.

To make it clear let's make an example with five starts every 15 minutes, from 14:00 to 15:00, but top 20 pilots have to start at 14:30. If a pilot placed in the first 20 is late and only manages to start at 14:45 he will be scored as he started at 14:30 while if he's not in the first 20 he will be scored as he started at 14:45. This means the same tracklog would bring to quite a different score and, in my opinion, this is not acceptable: all pilots are in the same competition and must play with the same rules.

Somebody says the priority on takeoff for the best scored pilots is already a different rule but I don't agree: it's just a "courtesy" - on the ground - to the pilots which are fighting for the top positions. Once in the air every pilot must follow the same rules!

Of course I do perfectly agree races are a lot of fun and easier to understand for everybody but, unfortunately, the risk of a midair collision gets quite high if there are too many pilots and there is an easy to get cloud base. The multiple start was invented after at the preworld in Ager '94 we ended up with 180 pilots waiting for the tarp in the same thermal for over half an hour: we were lucky enough not to have a midair collision but it was a nightmare!

Unfortunately it looks that pilots and organizers are too conservative and always want to do the same thing: in Brazil only races while in Europe only multiple starts but, in my opinion, in both cases it's not the best thing to do.

Let's analyze our possibilities: we can use three different start cylinders:

- start on Exit

- start on Enter without achieving the turn point inside

- start on Enter plus achieving the turn point inside

we can use four different in flight start time systems:

- Race start

- Free start

- Multiple start

- Open start. These, combined, give us 12 different options: some bad some better but, several, simply different.

Let's speak first about the start cylinder.

- Start on Exit Most pilots and organizers in hang gliding are used to the Start on Exit: normally it's a 5 km radius start cylinder centered on takeoff, where pilots have to be inside the radius just after start time. Pilot start time for scoring purpose is thus last exit from the cylinder (rounded to the previous start time interval which is usually 15 minutes). This system will somehow reduce the crowding only if the radius is quite big.

Unfortunately there is always a single optimum point where all pilots are likely going to met. With the Start on Exit pilots have to make a GoTo to takeoff then, after start, make a GoTo to the next turnpoint or activate the route which, depending on the GPS used, may require to press several buttons.

- Start on Enter without turnpoint inside this is mostly used in paragliding: Start is usually the first turnpoint and the pilot has to be outside of the start cylinder just after start time, then goes in and can immediately go for the next turnpoint without going to the FAI 400 m cylinder at the centre. This is not much different from the Start on Exit because there is still an optimum point where to make the start. However there are some problems calculating the correct task distance (Takeoff-StartCircumference-TP1) which shall be used instead of the distance calculated by the GPS (Takeoff-StartCentre-TP1).

- Start on Enter plus turnpoint inside this is the system we mostly use in Italy since this season and was often used at the pre Europeans in Millau: usually the start is the first turnpoint, with a big enough radius to have the start at a reasonable distance from takeoff. The pilot has to be outside of the cylinder after start time then has to go to the FAI 400 m cylinder at the center.

With this kind of start the pilot has to remember the start radius (which would be different on each day) but will only have to make a GoTo to the first turnpoint or just set the route. In this case pilots can, theoretically, spread along the whole circumference because any point of the start circumference is at the same distance from the turnpoint at the centre. Of course there would be better places than others depending on ridges, thermals and wind, but is undoubtedly more likely to get the pilots spread than with the other systems.

Giving this analysis, except possibly on some quite particular cases, the Start on Enter plus turnpoint inside should always be the preferred start cylinder: has no disadvantages, it's safer, gives more flight options to the pilot and it's the easier to handle with the GPS.

Now let's go to the start time systems.

- Race start this is for sure the simplest one: there is one single start for everybody. It's a lot of fun, everybody knows if he's doing good or bad and it's easy to understand both for pilots and spectators (are there any?). Pilots will fly in the same conditions and the fastest one wins. The pure race reduces the chance of a lucky start time but also eliminates the possibility to choose a better one.

This system gives to a pilot who wants to recover no options except to try to escape from the first gaggle by flying very fast and gives the pilot which is leading the competition the possibility to better control his opponents. The race will put all pilots at the start cylinder at the same time. This could be extremely dangerous if there are too many pilots and especially if cloudbase is too easy to achieve.

Of course there are systems to reduce the crowding which, in a proper day, could allow to make a safe race even with lots of pilots: should be a good day with good thermals and ceiling to spread pilots vertically, but little no clouds, start cylinder should be on enter plus turnpoint inside and wind should be at an angle to the Takeoff-StartTP direction to help the spreading along the start circumference. Start should also be reasonably far from takeoff (about 15 to 20 km) to reduce the crowding because some pilot would already bomb out and others would be late or low. Taking these expedients it would be possible to make a Race even with lots of pilots.

- Free start looks very simple and easy to handle but is totally unused: with this system the pilot start time is the last time he crosses the start circumference. Top pilots would need to wait forever (and bottom pilots would wait for them to go) because the best tactic is to wait for your opponent to start, then follow him after a few minutes and catch him. Being the tactic the same for everybody, all pilots will wait until it's almost too late to complete the task. This system is unsafe because we'll end up with lots of pilots waiting for a long time. Moreover we'll also waste the first part of the day and everything will end up later.

- Multiple start it's right now the most used system in hang gliding. Normally start interval is 15 minutes and there are 3 to 5 starts (half an hour to one hour). Pilots crossing the start circumference are scored as they started at the previous start interval. It reduces the crowding by spreading the pilots into several starts. Multiple starts also allow good pilots to play different tactics from his direct opponents to recover some places: one could start earlier and fly on his own to get more leading points or one could start later and fly fast by using the pilots in front. This system proved to be well suited on most conditions but this doesn't mean it should be the only one to be used.

- Open start this used by sailplanes and is a good option in some cases. Let's say start is open from 14:00 to 14:30. Every pilot starting while the start is open will be scored according to the last time he crossed the start circumference, while pilots starting after 14:30 will be scored as they started at 14:00.

With this kind of start is likely that several pilots will start as soon as they get cloudbase but the top pilots cannot afford to have their opponent starting just after so would likely wait for the start closing (14:30 in the example). If a good pilot has to recover he could risk to start on his own at start opening (14:00 in the example) and go for the leading bonus. In my opinion the start should, almost always, be 30 minutes long: shorter it would be useless and longer would oblige the top pilots to wait too much.

This kind of start is very useful in case of too much crowding (low and easy to get cloudbase for example) because most pilots would go away as soon as they are high and only the top ones have a reason to wait (but they are the ones which could handle the situation better). The Open start gets, practically, the same results of "forcing" the top 20 pilots to make a race (but using the same rule for everybody) but still gives a top pilot which wants to recover the option to play a different tactic from the others.

Conclusions: analyzing start cylinders format we ended up with the start on enter plus turnpoint in centre to be clearly better than the other possibilities but, speaking of start times, there is not a better one. We have to exclude the Free start but Race, Multiple and Open start have advantages one over the other depending on clouds, ceiling, wind and flight area. In my opinion it's simply wrong to use always the same system: all of them should be used depending on which one is better in the given day. They also test different pilots abilities and that's why, possibly, all these start systems should be used within the same competition: as a minimum it's more fun than playing always the same game :-)

Speaking about testing different pilots abilities, I've designed a system to be able to score an X-MAX task, with GAP scoring, within a normal competition. This way we'll test new pilot's abilities: to be able to find the best route and to correctly judge the day and himself (please don't tell me it's a matter of luck because I bet would be always the same in front…). Ivan Twose had not yet enough time implementing this but I'm sure it would be tested in Italy before the end of the season and would be ready next year.

Discuss competition formats at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Competition Formats / Start times" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Mid airs

Mon, Apr 7 2003, 2:00:03 pm EDT

accident|Bart Doets|book|collision|FAA|Gary Osoba|job|Jules Gilpatrick|Ken Ward|NTSB|Oz Report|Richard Heckman|safety|sailplane|school|site|Steve Kroop|tow

Ken Ward <kenward1000@mac.com> writes:

Typically in a mid-air they cite both pilots for "inadequate lookout". Check NTSB records for IAD99FA041B and MIA99LA051B at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp

In each case you would think that they would fault only the sailplane pilot, but they end up blaming both pilots. It's also possible that unless something gross was done by the sailplane pilot, that 103.13(a) will be cited and the HG pilot faulted.

You can find the FAR’s that are applicable to hang gliders here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr103_00.html

§ 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

Jules Gilpatrick <freeflite@centurytel.net> writes:

Steve Kroop hit it right on the head. I can tell you from first-hand acquaintance with a number of FAA guys,.attempting to hide accidents from them only pisses them off and causes them to redouble their efforts to get to the truth. And if they think they've been diddled, you can book microscopic scrutiny with a regulatory noose at the bitter end.

There are reams of articles regarding the harshness with which the FAA deals with miscreants and they almost always get backed up at the highest authority when they go after someone. Like any hierarchical bureaucracy they have their share of "never-got-any-respect-in-high-school" d…kheads, but overall they are few in number. I have been a licensed pilot for over 50 years and every FAA guy I have ever encountered has been a serious, true-blue, safety oriented, sincerely "I'm-here-to-help" kind of guy. All they want is cooperation in helping them do their job. A little respect doesn't hurt, either.

It has been well established that the rapport that the free flight community has with the FAA is excellent. Much of that rapport is based on mutual trust Misguided attitudes like Mike Williams' do nothing more than destroy part of a very carefully constructed respect for each other's integrity and responsibility. The primary aim of an accident investigation is to learn what can be done to prevent it from happening again. If the accident ends up being blamed on someone's lack of responsibility for their actions, as they say in Russia, “Too bad” (I’m getting filters stopping the Oz Report because of bad language). The "perp" has a number of avenues to discharge any penalties laid, and their severity will depend very much on the amount of cooperation the FAA gets. None of us should ever lose sight of the fact that the primary aim of accident investigation is prevention, not punishment, but if the FAA thinks you are hampering an attempt at the former, you can be 100% sure that the latter will ensue!

Part 830 of the NTSB regulations specifically requires immediate notification of the NTSB of an in-flight collision (Sec. 830.5 {5)) All pilots should be familiar with AIM Section 6, 7-6-1 which provides for the waiver of certain disciplinary actions in exchange for timely reporting of aircraft accidents. Hiding behind the definition of an "aircraft" as opposed to an "ultralight vehicle" will avail you nothing.

Thanks to the hard work and dedication of a lot of free flight pilots, we have a good thing going with the FAA. Let's not screw it up with immature and sophomoric attitudes towards the serious responsibilities we take on when navigating through the air, regardless of the craft we choose to do it in.

You did the right thing!

Bart Doets <bart.doets@hetnet.nl> writes:

I remember a report from France, in the eighties, where near the launch of St. Hilaire du Touvet (today a site overpopulated by paragliders) a hang glider got hit by a sailplane passing under him. The rudder of the sailplane hit the control bar of the hang glider and broke it in two, apparently injuring the hands of the pilot in the process. The glider did not fold up immediately which gave the pilot a chance to grab the downtubes and hold on for some time, to get more ground clearance, after which he threw his chute. The sailplane had only slight damage.

If that bar had been fitted with a cable, as was already custom back then in German gliders, the two might well have joined together with much more serious consequences.

Richard Heckman <hekdic@worldnet.att.net> writes:

No ultra lights have right of way over any aircraft. We are required to give way in all instances. It doesn't matter who was in the thermal first. We should hope the there would be some courtesy shown between all soaring types but legally speaking I think that we have the short end of the stick.

Gary Osoba <wosoba@cox.net> writes:

What Mike Williams needs to understand is that if a sailplane, or any other registered aircraft moves into his area or thermal, he either needs to be able get out of their way quickly if they decide to fly into him, or he needs to leave the area before they arrive.

I thought your "tone" was quite neutral.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, or unsympathetic, simply point out something that most ultralight pilots seem completely unaware of even though they are supposed to have studied the pertinent FAR to be rated by private orgs. Someone is going to get burned financially, legally, or worst of all corporally if they continue to operate under ignorant supposition.

Same thing applies to the tow plane incident

Discuss mid airs, the FAA, sailplanes colliding with hang gliders at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2/.

Discuss "Mid airs" at the Oz Report forum   link»

I suck (was originally you suck)

Sun, Apr 6 2003, 6:00:04 pm EDT

collision|FAA|Jules Gilpatrick|Michael Williams|Mike Barber|radio|sailplane|school

https://OzReport.com/Ozv7n92.shtml

Michael Williams <michaelj@mail.ev1.net> writes:

I heard that someone may have been on our radio frequency while I was on the way down and may have heard of my predicament. There are issues. No one has agreed to pay for anything. I was concerned that something may have gotten published prematurely, and it did.

Mikey called you trying to get you to tone it down or hold off for a little bit, but no!!! You had to be a dickhead. Give me my ten dollar donation back. And if anything you have published influences any recourse on my part, I'll want to speak to you later. Publish that you inconsiderate bastard!

(editor’s note: Ah, the joys of publishing. The story I wrote was the story I got from Mike Barber. I used the tone he used. I interviewed Mike Barber as reported. I think that only “fact” in dispute here is whether Nathan committed to replacing Michael’s hang glider.

I’m sure that Mike Williams has a lot of feelings after just being almost killed. I’m of the school of thought that says, “give ‘em enough rope.”)

Jules Gilpatrick <freeflite@centurytel.net> writes:

What's the FAA going to say (about the collision of the HG and the sailplane)? How about FAR 91.13 (careless and reckless operation) or FAR 91.111? My bet is that somebody is going to be in deep doo-doo over this if the FAA is apprised of the incident.

Discuss "I suck (was originally you suck)" at the Oz Report forum   link»