Coroners Finding on 2013 Glider Fatality

[Rotor Work]

From SMH
Interesting Read
Fly Safe
R W

Complacency, amateur rules contributed to fatal glider collision, coroner finds


Read more: Complacency, amateur rules contributed to fatal glider collision, coroner finds (http://www.smh.com.au/national/complacency-amateur-rules-contributed-to-fatal-glider-collision-coroner-finds-20141002-10peab.html#ixzz3EyngFYOr)



The mid-air collision between two gliders that claimed the life of a Sydney father occurred at a flying club whose members were "complacent, overconfident and seemingly confused by their own "fairly amateur rules and traditions", a coroner has found.
Andrew Ahern, a 50-year-old former Qantas flight simulation instructor from Mosman, died on April 27 last year when his glider and another collided immediately after take-off at the Southern Tablelands Gliding Club.
"The glider he was launching crashed, nosediving into the ground from about 30 metres, after another glider which was coming in to land, collided with [it] and irretrievably damaged the tail," acting Coroner Mary Jerram said in her findings on Thursday.
Ms Jerram found that a host of factors had contributed to the crash, including the fact that the two gliders were taking off and landing from the same runway because the grass on the club's second runway had been allowed to grow too long.
At the crucial take-off point on this runway a row of pine trees obscured the view for those on the ground of any aircraft that were coming in to land.
The NSW Coroner's Court heard contradictory evidence about whether those on the ground had made a thorough check of the sky before giving Mr Ahern and his co-pilot Lindsay Gamble the all-clear to take off, particularly the "wingman" on the day in question.
Further exacerbating the situation was apparent confusion among the members of the club about who was responsible for the different tasks involved in take-off and landing, and who, ultimately, was in charge of the entire activity.
"Time and time again I heard evidence of confusion about ultimate responsibility," Ms Jerram said in her findings. "Surely when anything becomes the responsibility of all it is in fact the responsibility of none."
Adding to the confusion surrounding the incident were the haphazard rules about the use of on-board radios among Australian glider users.
While radios are not compulsory, pilots who have them are required to use them when taking off and landing. But those on the ground are not required to respond to these calls and they often go unacknowledged.
There was evidence that the radio in Mr Ahern's plane was not working properly.
There was also confusion and differences of opinion about the role of co-pilot Lindsay Gamble.
A report by the Gliding Federation of Australia found that Mr Gamble, as the club's designated "pilot in command", was in charge of the operation.
"No individual can be blamed for any specific failure or act leading to the collision," Ms Jerram said.
"Nevertheless, perhaps they had become over-confident, complacent and reluctant to face the technological changes in the world which mock an old sport based on the winds and silence.
"The entire procedure depended on fairly amateur rules and traditions which were subject to human error at any time."
But Mr Ahern's wife, Dr Catherine Brassill, said an independent audit was needed.
"Within six years [of the accident] there had been three accidents occasioning two fatalities and two other people seriously injured," Dr Brassill said.
"CASA [the Civial Aviation Safety Authority] did nothing and GFA [Gliding Federation Australia] did nothing."

[Kharon]

Thanks RW – as you say, interesting read. One of the issues with 'coronial inquiry' is a lack of technical knowledge some coroners have and their dependence on 'external' advice. To really get the true picture the transcript needs to be read carefully, to see who presented what evidence and how it was framed. Coroners court has it's own particular rules and the 'advising' advocate can influence the coroner. For instance:-

"Nevertheless, perhaps they had become over-confident, complacent and reluctant to face the technological changes in the world which mock an old sport based on the winds and silence.

"The entire procedure depended on fairly amateur rules and traditions which were subject to human error at any time."

The 'tone' of that statement is dismissive, had it come from a 'gliding wizard', I'd say 'furry muff' – there's a need to tighten up and refresh procedures. But it comes from a coroner who probably wouldn't have ever been on a glider base, let alone have a rudimentary notion on 'best practice', or capable of defining 'worst' practice. What scares some witless is just a day at the office to others and therefore highly subjective.

But Mr Ahern's wife, Dr Catherine Brassill, said an independent audit was needed.

I would, personally have liked to see the coroner order that 'independent' inquiry and base her findings against an independent, expert opinion before deciding to make the statement above.

Too late now, sad event.

[yr right]

What's going to be more important is the findings into the drom accidents. The amount of people that signed off on it that have left there post is shocking. Nsw rfs is not useing dorms now because how can they afyer the loss of two aircraft and pilots. This has a lot bigger implications for Atsb and casa. Maybe the truth will finally come out. Time will see

[gerry111]

yr right,


I fail to see any connection between a mid-air prang, during gliding operations, and an aerial application aircraft disintegrating in flight.


Please explain?


If you have any information that you think the coroner needs to be aware of, then please write to the coroner. It isn't hard.


But make sure that you have facts to support your argument.

[yr right]

We'll Gerry lets say your a late stater on this subject. If you know the facts on the first accident and what other accidents with the turbine dromadras
and the cover up (ie FACTS) as you like to call it.
The comment related to the court and yes I no the facts and yes I'm a lot more aware of what has been sent and told to the investigation to the aircraft in question.
But thanx to informing me what I may or may not have to do.

Cheers

[Kharon]

Just ignore it Gerry – the GFA has had a slap in the chops; they have always seemed to be a 'sound' organisation, some of the best pilots I've had the pleasure of working with came from that stable. It concerns me a little as that 'finding' by the coroner could be seen as the thin end of the CASA wedge, bye bye independence. Word on the wind is the big dog is sniffing around the gliding tree house.

Only an impression, but if there are 'anomalies' creeping into gliding operations, which can happen even in the best run outfits, I've always thought the grown-ups there were quite capable of 'sorting' them.

Maybe it's only the tone of that article which rings the little warning bell.

Right – back to my knitting....:ok:

[Stikybeke]

Gerry,

You mightn't be aware of this but Yr Right is a LAME with vast legal experience and has given expert evidence in court. I know this because I've read it where he's shared this with us on some of his threads. I've done some research into the Glider accident and the coroner presiding is the former State Coroner which is why Yr Right probably knows the facts of what happened and all things this accident as he was probably one of the first the coroner turned to for advice given his former expert evidence. Not any wonder CASA didn't want to become involved, they probably heard that he was involved. I am curious though as this was a gliding accident what evidence a LAME could give.

Also Steve I've done some research into those Drom accidents. Which one are you talking about? The one down near Cootamundra doing fire fighting, the one out at Nyngan doing aerial ag work, the one in QLD doing the same or the one down at Ulludulla doing the fire fighting? Clearly you've given evidence in some, if not all, of these accidents but I'm guessing it was probably the first one....correct? Could you share with us the nature of your expert evidence if your allowed to?

Stiky

[Eyrie]

yr right, ancient history now but you may not be aware of the problems discovered with the STC on the two seat Pawnee that only got uncovered when a GFA group were trying to put a V6 engine in one.
The max cockpit load was something like 90 kg when the fuel tank was low. That's 90 kg total not each seat.
Several had spun in killing a few people.

[Eyrie]

Kharon,
Any glider pilot with more than a few tens of hours will probably have pretty good stick and rudder skills. Judgement is another matter.

You seem to be unaware of the legal framework the GFA operates under. It is a self administering organisation not a self regulating one and its rules are explicitly or not, approved by CASA.

In many ways these are far more prescriptive and restrictive than the rules applying to operating a privately owned light aircraft and there is no such thing as a Private Pilot in gliding. Everybody is a student under supervision by an Instructor or an Instructor. The exception is a L2 Independent operator who can operate under his own responsibility unless a gliding instructor is present in which case he falls under the Instructor's authority and supervision.

You need 200 hours to be considered for an L2 independent Operator rating but only 100 hours Total Aeronautical experience to get an L2 Instructor rating to be in charge of an operation. You can start getting that with 75 hours.

If you value your life or that of anyone who can't actually fly before he or she starts gliding, don't learn to fly in gliders in Australia. I certainly wouldn't let anyone I cared about do so.

In the last few years Australian glider pilots wishing to fly in Europe and the US have had trouble because they cannot get a licence to operate in those countries as they don't have an official CASA issued licence. This even applies to PPLs or CPLs or ATPLs as they don't have at least a PPL(G) issued by a government body.

So in a nasty little collusion CASA and the GFA have conspired to have CASA issue a PPL(G) that IS ONLY VALID OUTSIDE AUSTRALIA.
This is because if people have a real PPL(G) it might be difficult to force people to join the GFA in order to legally fly in Australia. The GFA President who helped negotiate this is now on the CASA Board.
Just in case you think the GFA is some kind of democratic co-operative society of like minded souls I'll disillusion you. It is a non profit, incorporated in Victoria and nobody who is a member ever gets a direct vote on who is on the Executive or Board. To be nominated to the Board requires two board members to nominate you. The organisation, if that is a fair use of the term, is effectively owned by the Executive who are a law unto themselves.

Many experienced pilots have expressed disquiet at some GFA SOPs and attitudes over the years but are powerless to get anything done. It has been decades since some of these things that are done have been properly evaluated. Take a look at the fatal/serious accidents this century and have a look at the ones with Instructors in the glider or where pilots are flying a new type for the first time under the direct supervision and briefing of an instructor.

A few years ago a former RAAF pilot and experienced glider pilot said to me:
"I think the GFA are a bunch of well meaning, bumbling amateurs". When told this another high time ATPL and glider pilot said "Are they that good?".
I'm not at all surprised by the Goulburn accident. Look up the one at Ararat 2 and a half years ago where one of the GFA "in group" (their Marketing and Development Ofiicer) killed a 21 year old student and himself.

CASA chooses to look the other way claiming that the gliding accident record is acceptable.

However in 2009 when filling out the stats return for my power plane I noted a little card that came with the return. It had the number of hours flown in 2008 in various branches of Sport Aviation. 160,000 hours in gliders in 2008. I did a little mental arithmetic and ran that past a couple of friends who do glider maintenance and they both took about 5 seconds to say "bull****!" they get see logbooks every year and reckoned the real figure was likely a third of that or less. Good way to make the injuries/fatalities per 100,000 hours look better.

So in the comments section of the return I noted that and got a nice phone call one Friday afternoon around 4pm from a bloke at the stats section of DoT. He agreed that number was way too high but said that is what the GFA supplied.

It is high time that the GFA was subject to outside adult supervision.

[Bunyan Wingnut]

Fact. The accident was investigated by NSW Police, including the head of NSW Police air wing.
Fact. ATSB did not investigate. GFA was advised, assistance was requested.
Fact. The GFA Regional Manager NSW assisted NSW police in investigating the accident. That included site visits on the day of the accident, the next day, and several other days for follow on investigations.
Fact. A thorough, objective GFA Field Investigation Report was completed, and provided as part of the brief of evidence to the NSW Coroner.
Fact. During the Coroner's Inquest, evidence was provided by the GFA Executive Manager Operations, also the GFA Chairman of Operations Panel, plus CASA's Director of Sporting Aviation.
Fact. The GFA Field Investigation Report was accepted by all parties, was not challenged, and drawn upon in the Coroner's findings and recommendations.
Fact. GFA and CASA cooperated fully with NSW Police and Coroner.

Fact. Yr Right was not involved and was not a witness at the inquest.

There has been some erroneous, uninformed commentary here, some very incomplete and selective media reporting. I suggest people pause before offering opinions, read the Coroner's findings and recommendations when they are published on the NSW coroner website.

[Frank Arouet]

Eyrie;


QUOTE "The GFA President who helped negotiate this is now on the CASA Board". QUOTE.


This happens regularly and Individuals and Associations/ Company's so afflicted with cronyism are said to be "compliant. It's part of the problem overall and has no bearing on safety or aviation problem solution. It makes one wonder what was going on in the minds of individuals just prior to the move to CAsA and while they were still engaged in "independent" decision making and responsibility on behalf of the members/ shareholders.


Organization's afflicted thus should, out of a duty of care, audit the previous 12 months decisions with the aim of assuming they are corrupted and re act accordingly. The one problem being of course, any subsequent amendment to SOP's would be "considered" to be, in the "opinion" of the CAsA delegate, "inconsistent" with any and all safety considerations.


The avenues of redress are then severely limited due to that same problem of cronyism up to very high places.

[Stikybeke]

Thanks Bunyan,

I guess Yr right was talking about the Drom accidents. I thought he might of been talking about the glider one as he's said he knows alot about all these accidents. A bit hard to figure out sometimes but as you see I've asked him what his expert evidence was / is for these accidents in any case.

Stiky

[yr right]

I made no comment on the GfA accident. The comment was to the court system. Fact.

[Bunyan Wingnut]

Fine. Good to hear. No problem with that clarified.

[Kharon]

Eyrie & BW - Thank you for the information, facts and 'disillusionment'. Not good; I've always innocently thought the GFA toddled along, minding it's own business and generally having a shed load of fun. I was, as usual suspicious of the 'article' and hoped the coroner had been taken out of context; which is why I like transcripts. As I said, an 'interesting' read from the SMH.

Let's hope the GFA can 'get sorted' in short order and things return to normal. Just goes to show – you'll never know – if you don't ask the question.

Which prompts one – the French had a 'sporting' license, back in the day (scratches around in third draw – more in hope) - Ah ha - Federation Aeronautique International – Sporting licence; can glider pilots acquire this – if it still exists??

[Eyrie]

Kharon,

The FAI Sporting licence still exists. It doesn't mean much. Just lets pilots apply for records and fly in sanctioned contests. Doesn't help you get a PPL(G) overseas.

The only way to sort out the GFA is to start again and use the US model of PPL(G) where there is no confusion about the responsibility of the PIC. Same ground school and exams as the power licence and a proper flight test for issue of the licence by an independent examiner (not done here and you might be surprised to find the level of knowledge or rather lack of it amongst most gliding instructors in Australia).

Proper Instructor ratings with a syllabus, written exams and a few tens of hours of flight training after maybe 250

hours MINIMUM (I'd prefer 500) before beginning the training for the rating. Nothing remotely like this happens here.

Nobody is forced to join the Soaring Society of America in order to fly gliders unless you want to fly in SSA sanctioned contests

Would you let your 16 year old son or daughter learn to fly with instructors who may have only 100 hours total aeronautical experience and who fly maybe 15 to 25 hours a year? That's what they would get in Australia.

I note the grieving widow is calling for an independent investigation. If others in the past had done so and the authorities had taken notice and acted maybe this one wouldn't be a widow.

Why do we have an ATSB? Because it was thought that CASA investigating accidents was a bad idea because if one of the contributing factors was a CASA rule or act of commission or omission that this would be downplayed in the report.

So here we had the authorities investigate a GFA club operation, operating with GFA members under GFA rules, who called in the GFA to help with the investigation which resulted in a report by the Coroner containing some mild
criticism and an irrelevant comment about radios. Nobody is found to blame.

This is the GFA system working exactly as intended. Diffuse responsibility and nobody can be blamed. Then sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

Perfect!

[cockney steve]

It's bugger all to do with me, as I'm on the other side of the world, (and not a pilot either!) BUT

The victims and present participants KNOW THE RISKS!
If they are mentally subnormal, incapable of makingadult, reasoned decisions, they should be barred from participation by their compatriots.

The regulatory bodies have made it clear that they can't or won't administer this sport/hobby , so it's up tothe individual groups/clubs to sit down work out the management risks and mitigations of safe operation and then confer with other like groups. I assume there's a national gliding magazine/forum/association?....It aint rocket science to communicate with others and set a safe,level field of play. there's no need to sit on your hands just because the "official" body is doing so.

Self regulation is needed quickly,otherwise the jobsworth beaurocrats will step in and tie up the lot with miles of red tape, then empty your wallet.

[Frank Arouet]

Good morning Steve;

There is a vast difference between self regulation and self administration.

Either way the participants are at the mercy of the Australian regulator who has made an art form of "tying up the lot with miles of red tape then emptying your wallet". As for the rest of your rant Steve, (and it's nice to get a Sunday reminder from a whining alien), reminding us what our problems are. If you were a pilot here you may well be subject to the same regulatory system that already infests the industry with mentally subnormal bureaucrats incapable of making adult, reasoned decisions.

There're known as "bureau-rats" here by the way, but then, you lot invented them didn't you.

[superdimona]

Self regulation is needed quickly,otherwise the jobsworth beaurocrats will step in and tie up the lot with miles of red tape, then empty your wallet.

I want the exact opposite - the GFA model has resulted in a system where it is literally impossible to be responsible for your own actions. You cannot be a glider pilot, only a student or instructor.

The GFA have been so terrified of over-regulation they've done it to themselves.

[yr right]

The aaaa won't self regulation as we'll. the problem with self regulation is people become super heroes and a mind set of the ultimate super hero with no way of controlling them. At least with casa you do have some way of control. The other way is doomed to failure. Sad but true. Bit like sporting clubs.

[kaz3g]

Whether the deceased pilot of the glider knew it was dangerous (assumed the risk) or didn't is a moot point because the law clearly knows it is:


CBP - Flying lessons in a single engine light aircraft - a dangerous recreational activity (http://www.cbp.com.au/Publications/Flying-lessons-in-a-single-engine-light-aircraft-)

The risk is there for all of us and responsibility therefore rests with all of us to do all we can to prevent the risk materialising.

Kaz

[Creampuff]

I agree with yr right.

Australians need regulation. It's in their DNA.

Absent rules regulating an activity, Australians are completely incapable of resisting the descent into dangerous anarchy.

[gerry111]

Creampuff wrote:

"Australians need regulation."

I sadly agree. One only has to listen in to talk back radio to hear: "There should be a law against that." :(

[gerry111]

Kaz's link is rather interesting...


Please look at the paragraphs under the heading:


Significant risk of physical harm even if the instructor was experienced.


"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk." (My bolding.)


I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.

[cockney steve]

As oficial arseclown of the week...(was that last week? -shortest reign in history :} Or week commencing this Sunday) I'll quote again, that which the red mist obscured.

.It aint rocket science to communicate with others and set a safe,level field of play. there's no need to sit on your hands just because the "official" body is doing so.
As Mr. Arouet intimated, the regulatory bodies are not doing the job, therefore it's up to individuals to maybe set up a new body?

In the days when the Rogallo hang -glider was a new invention, the Authorities were caught with pants down and thumb firmly implanted in rectal orifice. Darwin candidates (not the sort from Darwhine, Dunnunda!:p) found ever more imaginative ways to kill themselves with Lawn-darts......The British Hang Gliding Association was formed. they are nowadays officially recognised and effectively govern safe conduct.
Amazingly, Our CAA has backed-off to the extent that light single-seater powered Flex-wings (under the auspices of the British Microlight Aircraft Association) are now totally deregulated!

You have to hold the appropriate Pilot's licence, but if you reallyare stupid enough to fly something that's unairworthy, you are free to eliminate yourself from the gene pool.

Which brings us back to Mr. Ranga's suggestion that"Ab-Initio" = "thick as pig-5h1t, unable to see a problem with conflicting traffic, silent white aeroplanes heading into clouds to ride the lift....no radio, no transponder, no flashing beacon.......F..k me, I've never been in a glider but I could see the potential risks when I played with balsa models as a ten year old.

So, Am I to take it that the average Aussie has to be led by the hand, absolved from all personal responsibility and have his life ruled by Big Brother?


There you go,Fellas, another "rant" to provoke a bit of constructive thought.

[kaz3g]

.

"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk."


I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.

So do I, but it doesn't change the Appeal Court's decision.

Kaz

[Andy_RR]

I agree with yr right.

Australians need regulation. It's in their DNA.

Absent rules regulating an activity, Australians are completely incapable of resisting the descent into dangerous anarchy.

Australians don't need regulation but, as a populous, we seem to always seek it. Mostly to stop "the other fella" from doing something bad. Oh, and while we're at it, we can get "the other fella" to pay for it all too. That's the Aussie "fair go", isn't it?

Anyway, "secular government" is a religion like all other religions. It's such a widely held faith that when anyone questions it, they're treated like a heretic.

[Eyrie]

As sympathetic as I am to the view of Henri Mignet (the air is an ocean that comes to every man's door and he has a right to set sail on it) we *are* going to have some government regulation of our aviation activities.
The proper debate is what form this will take and how it is administered.

The moral case for regulation is in the first place that there are innocent third parties on the ground who want nothing to do with aviation and a good number of whom probably think aircraft are inventions of the Devil.
They have a right that some steps be taken to make the probability of an aircraft falling on their heads so low as to disappear into noise floor of the other everyday risks that everyone takes. If they choose to move next to an established airport they can be assumed to voluntarily take on the slightly higher risk.

Those of us who fly will all agree that there need to be some "rules of the air" so that we know who gives way, what to do arriving and departing from airports etc.

In the case of sport aviation we all know the activity is dangerous but this isn't an excuse to make it unnecessarily so by failing to carry out simple commonsense procedures like visually checking above and behind before launching a glider. This is especially important at gliding operations where the aircraft have no go round capability and a landing glider has no choice *but* to land and at low altitudes a very limited choice of where.

It is also fairly obviously undesirable for accidents where an organisation is involved, to have the organisation itself provide the bulk of any investigation.

In my experience the GFA is a heavily rules based organisation but actual on field operations use little common sense and there seems to be in most cases little concept of the sanctity of an active runway. It isn't for parking gliders or towplanes on (especially where aircraft have no go round capability).

There are other routine things done like making the aerotow launch point 100 to 150 meters up the runway from the threshold in order that gliders may land behind it and avoid lots of ground handling. All very nice until you have a rope break/uncommanded release/towplane engine failure shortly after takeoff where that extra unused runway behind may make the difference between a good recovery from the emergency and disaster.

There are other GFA SOPs that bear looking into by outside professional aviators to see whether they can be done better and whether some practice emergencies are better done by briefing and discussion rather than by creating real ones accidently during practice.

It is no wonder that the accident rate is so bad.

To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor.

In return, CASA forces anyone wishing to fly gliders to join the GFA and a gliding club (you also get to join a State Association as part of this). Gliding clubs may be your cup of tea if you are comfortable with the ambiance and efficiency of a poorly run Soviet era collective farm.

Don't look for any change from GFA or CASA here.

Nowadays there are many self launching sailplanes on the market (as distinct from the so called "travelling motor gliders" which are high L/D powered aircraft where the Flight Manual allows you to turn the engine off in flight) and there are people with PPLs or higher who may wish to buy same and operate from a nearby public or private aerodrome which doesn't have a gliding operation. This is very difficult to do as several people I know have found out. Simply getting approved to operate by the GFA requires 200 hours "under supervision" no matter how many hours you have in powered aircraft.

The ridiculous extreme was a bloke who, with a partner built a two seat homebuilt travelling type motor glider and was told by the GFA that, no, he couldn't do the test flying until he got 200 hours gliding under supervision despite the fact that he had 25,000 hours and was once a military test pilot.

Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.

In any case the gliding problem is a self limiting one. The GFA is half the size it was in 1983-84 (the population of Australia has increased by more than 50% since so it is worse than it looks) and the average age of GFA members must be around 60. Give it ten years and you'll be able to pick up a glider really cheap.

Pity really. Gliding is a lovely activity with a 100 year, mostly honorable, history . Sport for *pilots* and a technological activity that has produced beatiful and efficient aircraft.

It could be turned around fairly easily but the destruction of the GFA/CASA collusion as it currently exists is necessary.

[cockney steve]

Excellent post, eyrie
Everything I wanted to say, but as
You've just proven how much of an arseclown you are by not realising just how stupid the average Australian is
I must assume you're not an indiginous Digger.....Having said that, the whole of Aus's white population are immigrants, so unless Mr Ranga is insinuating that every country only sent retards to Aus.....:} Welll, that's obviously not right.

CASA is incompetent and unfit for purpose, you only have to read the "Colour Vision" thread to realise that....25 years of empirical, real world statistics showing safe professional aviation and these idiots decide to ignore the facts and start a vindictive persecution of a minority.
At the same time, they choose to ignore the abject failure of GFA to administer, regulate and promote the sport of gliding...instead they're seemingly intent on killing the goose that lays their particular golden egg.
In true terms, it would appear that they have managed to reduce the percentage of Australians who go gliding , by 75%
Or ,to put it another way, only a quarter of the numbers that indulged before 1984, (Orwell, anyone?) are still willing to tangle with GFA/ CASA.

3/4 of their revenue-base destroyed in 30 years!...so, in 10 years time there will be no gliders in Australia.

Yes, we know it won't actually happen, but the decline and failure of two inept organisations is self-evident.....A few pollies need a good application of boot to their rectal orifices to sort this shambles out.
Campaign Against Safe Aviation, indeed! Presumably the other stands for "Get F.... All."

[Pinky the pilot]

the whole of Aus's white population are immigrants,

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

I was born here. So was my Father, and his Father, and so on for I believe at least another two, possibly three generations.

How does that make me an immigrant? :confused:

[gerry111]

42 years ago, when I was learning to fly gliders, the pre take off checklist was BCHAOTIC. (IIRC)


Ballast, Controls, Harness(es), Airbrakes, Outside, Trim, Instruments, Canopy.


The 'Outside' call was responded to by the person hooking up the winch cable, "All clear above and behind." Seemed to be quite a safe arrangement.


( Pinky, Some therapeutic advice... Top up your glass of Shiraz as I've just done and relax!) :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Gerry, sounds like a Killer Item Checklist.

How much more regulation does one need :ok:

[kaz3g]

.
I was born here. So was my Father, and his Father, and so on for I believe at least another two, possibly three generations.

How does that make me an immigrant?


Didn't you make it to the Naturalisation Ceremony?

Kaz

[Kharon]

More good work from Eyrie – :ok: -it makes sense of the ambiguous statement :-

GFA AGM – "The big news is the resignation of our President Anita Taylor."

To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor.

Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.

And this is the 'expertise' which has been 'elevated' to the CASA bored. It answers a lot of questions and leaves little doubt about how matters aeronautical are to be dealt with.

Pity really. Gliding is a lovely activity with a 100 year, mostly honourable, history . Sport for *pilots* and a technological activity that has produced beautiful and efficient aircraft.

Second the motion.

[Sarcs]

Maybe the following article from the Goulburn Post will help to give some semblance of balance to an uninformed, apparently skewed SMH contribution...:ugh:Trust the 'only mistake' in glider crash
By LOUISE THROWER

Oct. 6, 2014, 10:39 a.m.

THE widow of a pilot killed in a glider crash says she is devastated and appalled by a coronial inquest’s findings.

Dr Catherine Brassill was speaking after coroner Mary Jerram handed down her findings on Thursday into the death of Andrew Ahern.

The 50-year-old former Qantas 747 simulator instructor died at Carrick airfield on April 27, 2013. The Blanik glider in which he was taking off with instructor Lindsay Gamble was struck by a landing Nimbus craft. The Nimbus hit the Blanik’s tail, causing it to plummet 30 metres, killing Mr Ahern instantly.

Magistrate Jerram concluded on Friday that “this accident was the responsibility of all in general and of no one in particular.” The inquest heard conflicting evidence from Southern Tablelands Gliding Club members on roles and responsibilities of key operating personnel in decision making and ensuring safety for takeoffs and landings.

Dr Brassill says the finding is not good enough and she’s considering her legal options.

“The message has gone out that it’s okay, there is no one to blame,” she said.

“We all know that gliding is not the safest sport in the world but when you only have one glider in the air and one about to take off, that is not a normal danger.

“Andrew and his family had a reasonable expectation that they should not be launched into the path of an incoming glider.”

Instead she felt that the coroner was saying “bad luck.”


Having this response from a judicial hearing into a death she believed should never have occurred was devastating for her and her two daughters, Dr Brassill said.

She argued it was not an “accident,” as Magistrate Jerram had described but a crash that was highly avoidable.

“People just had to take proper care and it was clear from the evidence that it was not taken,” Dr Brassill said.
She was disappointed the Coroner did not explicitly absolve her husband of fault.

Counsel assisting the coroner Peter Aitken SC had earlier told the inquest there was no evidence Mr Ahern was to blame.

As a former Qantas instructor, she had no doubt her husband made a take off call as he had always done everything “utterly by the book.”

“His only mistake was putting his trust in others around him,” Dr Brassill said.

Mr Ahern’s elderly mother also attended Friday’s inquest findings at Glebe Coroners Court.

But the family was heartened by some of Magistrate Jerram’s recommendations.

She recommended that not only should an audit be undertaken of operating procedures at the Southern Tablelands Gliding Club by the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA), but that the results be independently assessed.

The family had suggested the independent review, arguing that the GFA had previously missed aspects like the location of the launch site near a row of pine trees, which obscured views.

Importantly, the coroner recommended that GFA consider mandatory placement of dual band VHF radios in all gliders. The inquest had heard that some radio calls were not heard by operators due to inconsistent frequencies. The radio in the Nimbus had also been malfunctioning.
Dr Brassill welcomed this recommendation.

“Pilots have to be up there with as much as possible to keep them safe but if a radio is not working, there is no point having one at all,” she said.
“I believe there should be severe penalties for that.”

Other recommendations include: * That the GFA clearly define the roles of key operating personnel; * That the GFA and the club consider using a common VHF frequency at the airfield; * That the GFA consider the suitability of installing FLARM (an electronic device alerting aircraft of potential collision) in gliders; * That the club have a preference for performing landings and takeoffs on separate strips; and * That radio frequencies between gliders and to ground personnel be coordinated.

Dr Brassill said these suggestions were welcome but she was disappointed by Magistrate Jerram’s conclusion.

“A clear message hasn’t been sent that this is unacceptable,” she told the Post.

“It is not a level playing field.

If you have caused the death of someone in the air through what you have done, or failed to do, then you should be held just as accountable as though it were a road accident.

“…We put our faith in the justice system and it has let us down. There has been no justice for Andrew.”
Club commits to safety

THE Southern Tablelands Gliding Club (STGC) accepts the findings of a coronial inquest into Andrew Ahern’s death.

President John Wilkinson said coroner Mary Jerram’s determination spoke for itself. He has committed to implementing safety improvements and told the Post that some were already underway.

“The STGC from the very earliest stages has worked with the family to understand, learn and improve safety for everyone,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“This inquest gives very firm direction to us, the Gliding Federation of Australia and the family. I will support the family until the cows come home. From day one we have walked arm in arm with them and have been open, honest and frank. We have walked this journey together.”

He said the club had understood for some time the need for clarity around personnel roles and responsibilities. The inquest had been a firm reminder of its importance and provided direction.
Similarly, landings and takeoffs would be separated.

Mr Wilkinson said separate strips had always been available. On the day of the accident, club members decided to use a single strip because another had not been mown.

“There may be circumstances in the future where we use one runway but procedures are in place to deal with it quite safely,” he said.
The inquest heard from the GFA that single strip gliding operations were not uncommon and could work safely.

Mr Wilkinson also described the coroner’s recommendation for VHF radios in all gliders as a “very positive step.”

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which regulates gliding, will ultimately decide its implementation.

The club has already conducted trials on coordinating radio frequencies to Goulburn CTAF, which the coroner recommended. This frequency alerts glider pilots to general aviation around the Goulburn area.

“We are in a busy aviation environment not far from Goulburn airport and we’ve been aware of that from day one,” Mr Wilkinson said.

He described the recommendation for an audit as “absolutely logical”. The club was keen to ensure it had addressed all issues. The GFA undertook an audit after the accident.

“We have been a willing participant in this whole process and nothing will divert us from achieving the best outcome from tragic circumstances for the family,” Mr Wilkinson said.

“Our ultimate aim is to improve safety for all glider pilots and ensure it never happens again.”

Asked whether he agreed with Magistrate Jerram’s statement that the crash was “the responsibility of all in general and no one in particular,” Mr Wilkinson said he would let it speak for itself.

“I can’t second guess the coroner,” he said.

[Lookleft]

Just to clarify, being a former Qantas simulator instructor does not mean he was a Qantas pilot. My sim instructor had not the faintest idea how airline pilots went about their business, but he had plenty of wrong ideas about how he thought they should.

Those left behind always want someone to be responsible but not the person they are linked to. It seems to me that the Coroner was saying that it was an accident but that improvements can be made. A good starting point would be to implement ICAO recommendations regarding SMS at a local and organisational level. It is just as relevant at a sport and recreational level as it is at a commercial level.

[Eyrie]

Here's another article about that accident. It seems the deceased was a long time aviator.
Family remembers Glider crash victim | Goulburn Post (http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/2541836/family-remembers-glider-crash-victim/)

If I ever figure out what an SMS is I might agree with Lookleft. AFAIK it is just the latest buzzword in a long list like TQM, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, ISO 14000 etc etc. Gets the top brass off the hook. "See we set up an SMS and so it can't have been our fault that the accident happened".

This accident is just the latest in a long line of gliding accidents that should not have happened in the last few years.

Like the guy at Lake Keepit who had his head cut off by being put through the end fence after an aborted launch (what did I say about not using all the runway?). His first training flight in a glider.

The Instructor who killed his sister in law at Gympie by getting a little low before trying to join circuit, passed up three opportunities to turn in early or land safely on the cross runway and wound up turning final below the threshold of the runway (14 at Gympie - those familiar will know it is possible).

The bloke injured at Benalla in an inadvertant outlanding on his first weekend gliding(Instructor in aircraft).

The 21 year old female student at Ararat 2 1/2 years ago whose instructor proved incapable and tried to do a low altitude turnback resulting in a spin in killing them both.

The above aren't exhaustive and there was nothing daring or radical being attempted. Just normal operations.

It goes on and on and nothing gets done. The GFA makes excuses and CASA does nothing.

GFA does make more rules though. One excuse for not publishing the results of accident investigations was that it wasn't necessary as the GFA would simply make more rules to prevent that type of accident and all pilots had to do was follow the rules.

The latest GFA idiocy I've been told about is a REQUIREMENT that all pilots do full spins and recoveries on the annual check.
Many clubs have Puchacz gliders. I wouldn't spin one. 25 of the type have been spun in around the world out of a couple of hundred built. Including one with a couple of USAF Test Pilot School graduates. Interestingly the successor glider from that manufacturer has a completely different tail design of known good spin recovery characteristics.
As for the rest, these annual checks will commonly be done where the spins will be entered at relatively low altitude, parachutes won't be worn and the overall risk exposure will be high.

Properly trained glider pilots don't accidently spin.

Can someone say "risk management"?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Its been many years since I have had anything to do with gliding. Just not my thing to hang around all day helping out on the strip to get my "turn" in one of the club's gliders. However, I used to aero-tow a bit for them and solo'd in the Blanik as part of my training for that approval.

“this accident was the responsibility of all in general and of no one in particular.”

While a terrible tragedy for all concerned, I think the coroner got it right! Who are you going to blame, the poor "wingman" who gave the "go" for the TO probably without realising that a glider could be on final out of sight behind the trees, or whoever approved the strip for gliding ops, or the Nimbus pilot who didn't see the Blanik or wasn't able to dodge it, or whoever didn't ensure that comms were in place with all aircraft operating in the area.

I flew GA for a number of years out of one of the busiest weekend gliding clubs around. I don't recall any serious incidents. The club had a couple of highly experienced CFI's in that time and, as I recall it, an enviable safety record.

Dr :8

[LookinDown]

Thank you Dr for posting a little badly needed balance in this thread. Your positive experiences and anecdotes are as valid anyone else's and are typical of many.

Somewhat surprisingly despite the previous litanies, there are many sport, private and commercial pilots with both operational gliding experience and a positive view of that experience.

I feel for the family of the lost pilot and for the other pilots involved and their families. Sadly, at this time when the wounds are once again raw via the Coroner's Court, a number of the above postings have done them a disservice in a time of grief, loss and the inevitable soul searching through what appears to be some personal axe grinding sessions.

Anyone who has experienced a Coroners' finding knows that they never get it right, and they never get it wrong. Through an extremely tedious and detailed process of evaluating the human aspects, the facts, the possibilities and the probabilities, almost always involving various contributions of a number of expert witnesses, some of whom at times actually are, a big picture evaluation is arrived at.

Equally a major disservice has been done to the thousands, yes thousands, of supporters of gliding in Oz almost all of whom do so in a voluntary capacity. Gliding in this country has been self managed for nearly 70 years. As an old organisation which originally drew heavily on the British and military bureaucratic expertise and philosophy of that time, there are still some dated structural remnants remaining (do a couple of other aviation organisations come to mind?). These are becoming fewer and fewer as processes are continually reviewed and updated. I've watched this evolution over nearly forty years.

But this is just my opinion. For anyone who is seriously interested in finding out a little about the factual aspects of gliding ops in Australia, have a look through the website Gliding Australia for soaring and sailplane pilots (http://www.glidingaustralia.org).

Go to the Docs/Forms tab at the top of the page (its open to anyone), click on the All Documents drop down then on Operations and scroll through the various tabs like HF Resources, Instructor Bulletins, Ops advice notices, Ops Safety Bulletins, and then have a good look in the Manuals Folder at the Manual of Standard Procedures and Ops Regulations.

Make up your own mind on the degree of focus and emphasis on safety that this organisation holds and promulgates, or doesn't. Of course some will see all of this as 'just more over regulation'. People at all levels will make mistakes despite what is published, not because of it. Mistakes are what make us human and are how we learn. When Reason's slices of Swiss cheese align disastrously, we all pay some price and will continue to do so until we manage our cheese better. I don't work for GFA by the way!
LD

[Creampuff]

Wow!

Can I buy a T shirt too?

[Kharon]

Eyrie – a proper SMS would define the nature of the accidents you mention. It's a little difficult to truly identify the factors which led up to the events mentioned – without all the details, so it'll have to be a broad brush discussion. But, no matter the 'why and how' of an accident I believe the key is education. The old saw 'don't blame them, train them' is a truism. Take the Keepit event, it is not enough to state that all the runway should be used.

The reasons why the tow was abandoned, why was the take off path was fence obstructed and why the obvious risk was not reduced need definition. It seems to me (and I'll own I know little of glider launching) that the risk of a low, slow abandoned launch would imply that if the aircraft can't safely 'go', then it must be able to safely 'stop', i.e. land straight ahead, at least until it has enough height/speed to work with. That takes us into 'skill levels' – what an experienced instructor pilot can safely manage, is probably not achievable by a neophyte. So, if we can learn to take the fence out of the equation, we can reduce the low level 'disconnect' abandoned tow risks and explain the why of it to the troops.

But if no one else, bar you and I, know it then the research is wasted and the event can reoccur. The easy part is to draft rules which prohibit and restrict, the tough part is writing a rule set which allows for the operation – but mitigates the risk. From that rule a SOP can be developed for the airfield in question. Say one take off direction took you over a vineyard at low level, this is not a place you'd want to land in – so the SOP for that direction would be drafted to reflect the increased risk level and perhaps restrict. It's basically applied common sense - until it gets lost in the regulatory jungle.

It is not difficult at all these days to make a 'short' briefing video, pop it up on "U bend tube" and email the members to let them know it exists. Take all the lessons from Keepit explain them and suggest strategy to mitigate or avoid a repeat; get the troops thinking and aware. It would take a day to script it and a Saturday morning to do it; and, I am certain there's enough wit and talent in the ranks of the GFA to get it done. Sort of a poor mans crash comic to get the information out there, where it belongs. Use some CASA's ill gotten gains – ask 'em for 'more' if you need it; don't worry - they have plenty.

Risk management – not, repeat not rocket science. Murphy, the Fools Rule, Sods Law of the Ocean, gods willing and weather permitting cannot ever be 'mitigated' out of the game; you can make 10,000 rules and Murphy will invent object lesson 10,001, just to prove a point.

Forky & LookinDown make a valid argument and reflect what I have always believed of GFA. But, looking back over the submissions to the WLR (ASRR) and Eyrie's offerings – it seems there is 'trouble at mill'. Shirley men of good intentions and a common purpose can sort it out over a beer (or two), be a shame to see the fine record of a great organisation fall victim to in house wrangling and hair pulling – lots of examples of that.

I'll have two bob's worth of no agenda,....Oh, and one of those 'T' shirts please.....:ok:

Toot toot..

[yr right]

I normally don't coment on such things but it seams now more of a cya operation in progress.
The loss of simple airmanship has resulted in the loss of a life.
They will now factor in human resources etc and then something else when simple common sence is all that is required.

Most airports now demend that a simple taxy requires a radio cleareance that not even to leave the ground.

What has to be asked is what happened to airmanship. Simple radio calls.

It's a sad indictment on the GfA really.

Not being envied but I bet there is a lot of politics involed at the higher level of GfA.

[yr right]

So how can with the courts findings remember have a person from the GfA be appointed to the board of casa ????

[Eyrie]

yr right - that is certainly a good question and I agree there is a cya operation going on.
You are also correct about AIRMANSHIP.

The coroner seems to have been bamboozled into worrying about radios, radio calls etc.
Nobody here would taxi onto a runway by just relying on radio calls or lack of receipt of one without having a GOOD LOOK would they?
Same with launching a glider. There is part of the standard pre-takeoff check called "OUTSIDE?" and the response from the person hooking on or running the wingtip is "ALL CLEAR ABOVE AND BEHIND", if that is indeed the case or "WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE LANDING AIRCRAFT etc " if it isn't. Most gliders have poor rearward visibility when the pilot is strapped in so the person outside assisting with the launch does this. If there is a line of trees obscuring a possible approach path???????

kharon, I agree completely about risk management.
Before that though it would be nice just to have distributed an objective report from the powers that be that an accident has occurred and the basic objective facts (see NTSB reports for example). Later a thorough discussion of the lessons to be learned. This doesn't happen in the GFA nowadays. Instead some new rules will be made which likely don't address the real issue.*
One bloke I know wrote an article about gliding safety for the official magazine after he had had a serious accident in a glider that easily could have killed him. It was very mildly critical of GFA policy and was knocked back for publication.
That is what you get when you have a heirarchical top down organisation that communicates in only one direction and doesn't consult. (Sound like another organisation we all know and love?).

LookinDown is confusing reams of paperwork procedures and manuals/cya with having a airmanship/safety culture. Bit like CASA really. Just check the accident record over the last decade, mate. Note the bad ones with instructors in the aircraft.

* here's a little story that happened a long time ago. There is a glider, the H201 Libelle that has a really neat and elegant aileron drive mechanism that is hidden entirely within the wing profile.
Unfortunately if you take them out of both wings at the same time and put them back swapped the ailerons work in reverse.
One of the type had this happen during maintenance. The bloke who later rigged it to fly it (and presumably did the Daily Inspection) was told he wasn't current enough to do a test flight so another bloke was whistled up. He jumped in and around 40 knots at liftoff when the wing was still firmly on the ground he released the towrope and did a nice cartwheel which wrote off the glider, fortunately without hurting himself. The third bloke to look at the wreckage (the pilot was complaining the ailerons didn't work) picked that they were working backwards.
So the fact that this could happen was disseminated (this was a long time ago) and steps were taken to require the parts to be painted red and green with matching marks on the structure.
What wasn't figured out was that clearly checks weren't being done properly.
Again, part of the pre takeoff check is to stand next to the cockpit before getting in, check for full and free movement of the controls and IN THE CORRECT SENSE. Full and free is checked again after strapping in.

So about 14 years later it happened again in Australia with similar results.

About 4 years after that I was strapped in to a glider in NZ when I saw the H201 Libelle in front of me have two attempts at taking off. In both the wing was firmly on the ground. By this time I was unstrapping and as the guy was being pushed off I asked if he wanted to go again in front of me. He said he's think about it so I asked if it had just had maintenance - yep just had a major re-furbish. We went over and I demonstrated the reversed ailerons. Kiwi glider pilots don't do checks properly either! The maintainer is supposed to rig the glider and check the controls properly too, in both countries.

[Creampuff]

Post-maintenance flights are always an exciting journey of discovery of the various ways in which the maintainers have tried to surprise and kill you.

[Eddie Dean]

Post-maintenance flights are always an exciting journey of discovery of the various ways in which the maintainers have tried to surprise and kill you. A mate used say a little prayer before he hit the starter, "Lord don't let me die in this heap of sh1t maintained by XXXX today" Gave his clients pause for thought

[gerry111]

Creampuff,

I'm happy to come along again, in 2015, to be a second set of keen eyes when your aeroplane comes out of its next 100 hourly/ annual! :ok:

[yr right]

Gee creamie sounds like maybe they don't like you or you need to change your Maint org prehaps ????

[andrewr]

Pilot to LAME: Jump in buddy, you and me are going for a short test flight.

Is it legal to carry a passenger on a post maintenance test/check flight?

[Creampuff]

There's nothing special, from a regulatory perspective, of the first flight after an annual/100 hourly.

[skkm]

Is it legal to carry a passenger on a post maintenance test/check flight?

Yes, if they are maintenance personnel 'on board for the purposes of the test flight' (which they are in this case)

[yr right]

For a start it is not a test flight. It is a flight test totally different. And jack I guess you can't read. I've said on numerous occasions that I won't give out an aircraft I won't fly in myself. Second is that there are a lot of pilots I won't fly with. And when maintence accidents are the ame as pilot error I guess I won't fly !!!

[dribbler]

Has the GFA mandated some form of Safety Systems to be applied at the local club level?

[mary meagher]

On April 27, 2013, at Southern Tablelands Gliding club, a glider on approach hits a glider being winch launched. Evidently the person responsible for giving the up slack did not look out properly or was unable to see the glider on approach in time to stop the launch. The mid air collision caused damage to the tail of the glider being launched, resulting in the death of its pilot.

Only 7 people on the field, only two gliders being flown. And on only one runway was the grass cut short enough to be usable.

This is what I have gathered from reading the 3 pages of this thread, begun in response to the recent report of the coroner.

Such a terrible accident must be devastating for the club and everyone involved. Whenever anyone is injured or killed it is not easy to accept personal or group responsibility. People react in very different ways. Some say "not my fault!" Some simply leave and never come back. And some are devastated for years.

If the gliding club still exists at Southern Tablelands, I would like to know what changes have been made to prevent a recurrence. We are fortunate enough at our club in the UK to have wide grass runways that can cope with lots of gliders landing more or less at the same time. As far as a winch launch taking off at the wrong time, that happened once at the same time I was airtowing a glider, and only luck kept me from being sliced up by the wire.
There will always be the possibility of the wingtip holder not being qualified or not doing a good lookout. It is best to have TWO people doing the lookout, one is on the wingtip of the glider ready for launch, the other one is doing the radio and should ALSO be having a jolly good lookout for aircraft on approach. Thats how we try to do it, but it does take at least two knowlegable people on the ground. And of course the pilot on approach should also have his eyes on stalks, and the choice of more than one place to plonk the glider.

[Andy_RR]

Since gliders are pretty silent things, perhaps they should carry bulb horns for announcing their arrival on base and final approach?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Horn_%28instrument%29.jpg/330px-Horn_%28instrument%29.jpg

[mary meagher]

Thank you for the photo, Andy! This classic safety device is always carried in our Syndicate T21, which has 14 owners. It is quite effective in warning the sleepy ground crew of an impending arrival.

[Pinky the pilot]

Must admit that the mere fact that the accident occurred has me somewhat puzzled.:confused:

At my old Gliding Club where winch launching was the only method used for club ops. Once the Glider was ready for launching with cable hooked on, before the wings were levelled and the 'Take up slack' command given, the wing runner called out to the Pilot
'Canopy closed and locked? to which the pilot had to visually and physically check and read back.

Airbrakes closed and locked? was the next call and the Pilot reacted and responded.

The wingtip runner then looked overhead and behind him, panning to base and downwind, visually checking for traffic and if clear called out

All clear above and behind and then and only then levelled the wings and gave the take up slack command to the winch radio operator.

I was under the impression that this was supposed to be standard procedure at all Gliding Clubs in Australia!

The above mentioned procedures were SOP at my old Club anyway, and this was back in the 1970's.

G'day Mary. Think I met you somewhere here in Aussie back in the 80's. Cannot remember now. Too many Red wines.:O

[cirrus32]

My understanding is that there was a stand of tall trees at the end of the runway which obscured the view of the wing runner of the glider on short final.