2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.

Although I fly SC, I'm not a competition pilot, and I won't even
attend my first competition until this spring. So please make
allowances for my ignorance. That said, things about this accident
don't make sense:

1. Why were the spectators and cars on the opposite side of the hedge
from where the planes were coming? If you want to be seen and avoided,
wouldn't it be much better to be in front of the hedge?

2. Why were the planes allowed to fly so low (30 feet) at least 1,000
meters from the airport? I've spent a lot of time in rural England,
and I know that there are a lot of hikers in the country. Were there
signs posted to warn any poor hikers about fast, quite, low flying
aircraft?

3. Why, in this day of GPS, didn't the organizers simply use a 500 or
a 1,000 foot finish? It eliminates problems of misjudging your energy,
although admittedly it isn't as exciting for people hanging around the
airfield.

As a group, we worry about someday an airliner hitting a glider and
what that would do to the sport. Why is killing a spectator (or worse,
a hiker) on the ground any different?

-John

I'll concede that the cars would park on the access road, not in the
field. Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

-John

On Feb 8, 5:14 pm, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
<bill.d...@freeuk.comic> wrote:
> The answer to question 1. is that the road/track where the cars were parked
> is on the west side of the hedge and easily accessible, on the east side
> from where the gliders were finishing is just a field. This is clearly
> shown in the photo at the top of page 59 (4th page of the report).
>
> Part of the answer to question 3. is that the rules for a world competition
> are FAI rules, on page 69 (14th page of the report) the report points out
> that the rules for an IGC sanctioned competition are not the BGA's
> Competition Rules. This is why the third Safety Recommendation 2006-121 by
> the AAIB is addressed to the IGC. So your question is addressed to the IGC,
> not the BGA in this instance.

jcarlyle wrote:
> Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
> on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
> of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
> when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
> clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
> seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
> necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
> preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

Uh, maybe because that particular person wanted to get yet another
spectacular photograph, and the pilot was trying to help and/or give him
a bit of a scare?

Marc

John Cochrane wrote:
> This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

I agree with John. I also agree one solution is the 500' finish rule
he's advocated. I don't agree it's the only solution or necessarily
the best solution, but we've thrashed out that subject at length
already so there's no need to again. I'll simply observe that part of
the reason many of us fly contests is for fun and that the best way to
eliminate the risks of flying is never to launch.

What struck me about the report was that nearly all of the parties who
might have contributed to this accident--the pilot, the organizers,
and the photographer himself--could and should have taken steps to
have avoided it. My impression is that had the rules in effect at the
time been adhered to and enforced (whether those were CAA regulations
or the contest rules or just general safe flying practices and common
sense), this accident wouldn't have happened.

I've never flown in the U.K. but I've seen comparable situations at
many U.S. contests owing to (1) pilots emulating their fellow pilots
(for all of our much-touted individualistic personalities, we can be
like a bunch of sheep at times); and (2) the sense that because it's a
contest, the normal rules for safe flying are suspended.

These are serious problems, but they're problems of attitude. And the
solution to them is not necessarily a new rule addressing one, albeit
potentially dangerous, situation. The analogy is a little weak but as
one example, we in the U.S. had a tragedy at a national contest a few
years ago launching a water ballasted glider too close to bystanders.
The solution to this dangerous practice was not to eliminate water
ballast but to insist that all bystanders remain behind the launch
line.

It's certainly possible that a random hiker could be mowed down by a
low-finishing glider but it's also possible that any of us could do
the same thing landing out in a farmer's field somewhere. Should we,
then, eliminate all practices that might lead to outlandings?

Like most aviation accidents, there appears to be no single cause
here, but rather a series of questionable decisions and actions that
cascaded and culminated in loss of life. Without trying to fix blame,
it seems to me that at any point any of the parties could have acted
to comply with the aforesaid rules/practices, broken the "chain," and
unilaterally prevented this tragedy.

And now that I've offended almost all involved, I apologize for
drawing conclusions about an accident I have no knowledge of apart
from a report I had absolutely no role in preparing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

First of all let me add to others prior statements of what a tragedy this
was resulting in the loss of a renowned photographer as well as the certain
burden it has placed on the pilot and families involved and the organizers.

As usual Chip has thoughtfully remarked on what many of us have felt about
racing and the attempt to make it safer. Most importantly is the idea that
it is the attitude and vigilance of the pilot that is the primary reason all
flights are conducted safely or not. No amount of regulation will overcome
the poor judgement that some pilots exhibit.

Having considered what has happened to others and with realization of the
consequences it is our practice locally that we finish one mile out and if
after doing so, wish to do a pass, do it down the runway after making
several radio calls announcing our intention and asking for traffic
advisories. If there are any conflicts we abort the pass. I do not think
that the 500 foot finish is any safer for reasons that have been discussed
here in the past. I also respect the opinion of others that disagree.

Thanks for your thoughts Chip,
Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

> Observant readers of the report will note that the
> silver car that the photographer was standing on was
> situated on the left hand margin of the extended landing
> area boundary which rather begs the question as to
> why the pilot of the glider concerned felt it necessary
> to bank to the left, with a bank angle of 20 degrees,
> which on the face of it would take him further away
> from the landing area. I do not have a great deal of
> trouble reaching a conclusion but it is up to you to
> make your own decision on that.

If you look closely at the GPS tracks on Figure 5 you'll see that the
accident pilot appears to have approached the hedge a bit from the
left/South at less than a 90 deg angle/not perpendicular (see black
track). An estimated 20 deg bank angle to the left is most likely a
consequence of him making a slight adjustment/bank to the left to line
up perpendicular to the runway/finish line. The accident report
mentions that the pilot does not recall having conciously banked which
suggests that he might have done one of those instinctive adjustments
we all do when lining up for the runway, his primary focus appeared to
have been on clearing the hedge (page 58). My humble guess is that he
popped up to clear the hedge and upon seeing past the hedge
subconciously banked a bit to better aline with the runway. Looking at
the red and blue track as a reference he probably needed to adjust his
track by about 10 deg to the South when crossing the hedge to line up
the same way the other two competitors did.

Looking at figures 4a/4b and how close he was to the hedge supports
that he probably did not do a concious banking maneuver; had he been
just a couple of meters or so further to the South (to the right in
figures 4a/4b) he would most likely have struck the hedge with the
wing tip and not the unfortunate photographer. Any concious banking
maneuver should have triggered him to pull up more before banking
irrespective of the cavalier attitude shown by flying this low in the
first place.

My humble two cents,

Markus Graeber