SAFA Skysailor Magazine

32 SKY SAILOR January | February 2020 Changes in the local aerology at Mystic A very recent AIRS report (#1157) describes a PG pilot having a pretty torrid time over Emily spur. Flying a Triple Seven Queen 2 (EN-C), the pilot experienced an asymmetric collapse, which was allowed to progress to a spin, before excess brake input on the open side was applied, leading to a stall. The PIC held the stall to initiate a back-slide, then recovered the wing and flew on. While pilot input led to the complicated path to recovery, what was behind the turbulent conditions deserves close scrutiny and warrants a warning to all pilots flying Mystic, or any other site for that matter. Recent logging operations have been carried out on the back of Emily Spur. As Karl Texler, NEVHGC PG SSO and AIRS Manager notes: “The logged areas on the backside of Emily Spur have changed conditions at Mystic signifi- cantly. When these bare slopes heat up, they can kick quite hard. I have noticed changes in all our normal ‘go to’ places (‘Marcus’, ‘Emily’). The lift tends to get a bit suppressed at Marcus ,but can get turbulent behind Emily (especially if you’re low). The air on the approaches to both landing paddocks has also changed. We have already had incidents where pilots have experienced turbulence and suffered significant collapses. Please think carefully about flying Mystic in the height (most thermic time) of the day, and whether the conditions are appropriate to your level of experience.” Evaluate the conditions as you encounter them; don’t rely on past behaviour of the air at sites that you fly frequently. Changes in ground cover can have profound changes in the atmosphere above them and in the local area. Reserve deployments During the year we have seen a few reports involving reserve deployments. We are currently reviewing a couple of these, but two completed ones are #1126 and #966. In both cases, the pilots encountered turbulence leading to an undesirable aircraft state and the decision was made to throw the reserve. In the case of #1126, all went as expected and the pilot walked away from the landing point without injury or damage to gear. In #966, the pilot had complications. The wing had experienced several twists in the risers and lines and could not be collapsed. The wing and reserve then started flying down in rotation, result- ing in an accelerated descent and leading to a hard landing and spinal injuries. The reserve deployments are not restricted to PG pilots. One report still under review involved a HG pilot competing in NSW. At the present time (late November), a video has recently gone out via Youtube, in Andre Bandarra’s channel [ youtube.com/watch?v=-HS1ppN6vw4] . In this video, Andre discusses with Dr Matt Wilkes some research Matt has been conducting into PG reserve deployments. It’s pretty interesting, with some conclusions drawn and observations noted. He ran some experiments with over 50 pilots at a swing and fling event. The pilots were on a flying fox, suspended at awkward angles, and were performing a couple of tasks when released from the suspension point. Although the pilots were mentally prepared to deploy their reserve (they were going to be repacked anyway), they were under a degree of mental load. Instinctively, the pilots moved their hands to their hips, then their thighs, then from there seeking the deployment handle. For equipment designers this indicates it would make sense to site the deployment handle close to the thigh. For pilots, it stresses the importance to practise reaching for and recognising where their deployment handle is situated. One of the things that has come up is the ease of deployment, and how an integrated system works better. Meaning that having a reserve, container, handle and harness that are all compatible will make for an easy, dependable deployment. Mixing components can lead to extractions that take a few seconds longer. In a situation where every second is vital, this could lead to dire consequences. In two of the cases we have looked at, there was a high degree of compatibility within the systems. In one case, a Macpara Vonblon Champion reserve was installed in a Macpara front container, mounted on a Macpara Levity harness. In #1126, a Companion SQR was mounted in an Advance Axcess 3 harness – all compatible. After every reserve repack, a compatibility check is highly advised, especiallywhere there is amix of equipment brands: Buckle into the harness in a hanging situation, and check whether the reserve can be extracted from the container without hindrance. An important consideration is the mental preparedness to throw the reserve. In a report under review, the pilot told me that as soon as he saw the wing, he knew it was not going to fly so went straight into the reserve deployment routine. This is a pilot with many years flying hang gliders, who had never thrown a reserve before. The pilot found that the front container pulled up (something Matt Wilkes also noted) but the deployment went smoothly, and the reserve performed as expected. In #1126, the pilot attempted to first correct the situation, but as g-forces started to build, recog- nised the uncertainty of the separation distance to the terrain and decided to deploy. Again, all worked as it should. In the case of the HG report, the pilot deployed his reserve following a violent pitch up and found AIRS Wrap-up – 25 November 2019 There are a few things I would like to touch on in this issue’s wrap-up of some of the AIRS reports we have processed recently. So, buckle in and awayyyyy we goooooo… by Iain Clarke, Safety Management Officer Photo: Phil Kirkman