LET National Corporation Blanik L13 , VH-GVS

As a result of the investigation into this occurrence, the
Bureau of Air Safety Investigation made the following
recommendation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in
conjunction with the Gliding Federation of Australia on 13 August
1997:

R970092

The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority in conjunction with the Gliding
Federation of Australia;

1. establish a protected circuit area around airfields that have
   considerable gliding activity;
2. establish a procedure that all inbound aircraft be required to
   make an all-stations radio call advising their intention to enter
   the protected circuit area mentioned above;
3. apply a speed restriction of 80 kts indicated airspeed to
   gliders operating in this protected circuit area at all times other
   than during official competition events (aircraft other than
   gliders should operate at minimum safe speed within the area);
   and
4. investigate the benefit of the application of high-visibility
   markings for all Australian registered gliders.

Gliding Federation of Australia response

An initial response was received from the Gliding Federation of
Australia (GFA) on 12 September 1997, rejecting all but the last
recommendation. A further response was received from the GFA on 9
October 1997. The response stated in part:

Summary

1. The GFA recognizes that the rate of mid-air collisions
   involving gliders is unacceptably high in the circuit areas of
   aerodromes and will implement measures to improve discipline in
   flying the pattern and making better use of the radio.
2. The GFA is unwilling to accept the imposition of mandatory
   radio for gliders in an area where it is optional for all other
   traffic.
3. Although it is, on the face of it, difficult to argue with the
   recommendation for a speed limit for gliders, there are
   considerable numbers of fast homebuilt aircraft such as the Long
   Eze which have a frontal area not much different from that of a
   glider and are thus just as difficult to see. In fact, because of
   their shorter wingspan, they have even less frontal area in some
   cases. Given that the Tocumwal accident occurred above the circuit
   area and there are no other accidents on record where high glider
   speed in the circuit was shown to be a factor, there is no
   justification for the recommendation.
   
   
   
   In spite of the above comment, GFA will closely examine the
   feasibility of requiring in future that any "abnormal" circuit
   entry, be it a high-speed entry or an inadvertent entry from an
   unusual position, be preceded by an "all stations" call from a
   radio-equipped glider, warning other traffic of the glider's
   position and intentions. In the case of a non-radio glider, a high
   speed circuit entry will not be permitted (except at a NOTAMed
   contest) and pilots "caught out" by conditions and entering from
   unusual positions must fly so as to avoid other traffic in
   accordance with the CARs.
4. A shift in emphasis is needed in cross-country training, from
   the euphoria of completing the task to a positive concentration on
   the complex circuit-joining task ahead and its consequent need for
   a full lookout scan and any radio calls that may be appropriate.
   For all joining traffic, whether from cross-countries or not, the
   concept of a "wake-up call" when about to enter the circuit area
   must be developed and we are working on that.
5. A strategy needs to be devised to cope with the increasing
   complexity of cockpit instrument systems, especially when entering
   known busy traffic areas.
6. BASI has identified the phenomenon of "skill fatigue", one of
   the symptoms of which is fixed vision and a failure to scan the
   sky. Given that the complex nature of many gliding tasks makes
   skill fatigue a likely factor in our sport, there will be an
   education campaign warning of the need to "keep something in
   reserve" for the complex task of joining a known busy part of the
   sky after the relatively low-risk enroute task which has just been
   flown.
   
   
   
   I trust this explains and summarises the GFA position on this
   matter".

Response classification: CLOSED - PARTIALLY ACCEPTED

GFA/BASI Meeting

Subsequently a meeting between BASI and the Director of
Operations of the GFA was held on 13 January 1998. The following is
a summary of the outcomes of that meeting:

1. The proposal for a protected area around aerodromes with
   significant gliding activity was not supported. Instead it was
   agreed that the size of the CTAFs at these locations be reduced
   from a non-standard 15 NM radius to the standard 5 NM radius.
2. It was agreed that the GFA recommend a circuit entry broadcast
   become a standard operational procedure for all radio-equipped
   gliders that, due to variation in conditions or unforeseen
   circumstances, can not enter or comply with the standard traffic
   pattern for that location. The GFA publication "Airways and Radio
   Procedures for Glider Pilots" to be amended accordingly. It was
   also agreed that a procedure would be developed for non
   radio-equipped gliders to follow in similar circumstances.
3. The recommendation for an 80 kt speed restriction to gliders
   operating in the circuit area was rejected. An alternative course
   of action to address this issue, as suggested by CASA, was the
   avoidance of abrupt vertical manoeuvres in the circuit area. It was
   proposed that BASI discuss with CASA the incorporation of the
   avoidance of abrupt vertical manoeuvres in the circuit area, into
   the relevant section of the Aeronautical Information
   Publication.
4. The GFA expressed a willingness to participate in any
   additional study to investigate the benefit of high-visibility
   markings on gliders. BASI will encourages the GFA and others to
   continue research on this subject.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority response

A response was received from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) on 19 September 1997. This response disagreed with some of
the recommendations and instead suggested some alternatives.

Following the GFA/BASI meeting, a copy of the letter to the GFA,
summarising the agreements reached at that meeting, was sent to
CASA.

The following response was received from CASA on 6 April
1998:

"Thank you for your letter of 3 February 1998 with the
results of a meeting between BASI and the GFA at which the BASI
report on the Tocumwal and Horsham glider mid air collisions were
discussed.

CASA concurs with the recommendations resulting from this
meeting and will instigate action to implement the reduction in the
size of the Tocumwal and Benalla CTAFs".

Response classification: CLOSED - ACCEPTED

LOCAL SAFETY ACTION

As a result of this occurrence, Sportavia Soaring Centre of
Tocumwal, wrote to BASI on 27 August 1997, advising:

"Having read your Air Safety Recommendation on No
R970092, we are in full agreeance with the report and also fully
agree with the recommendations put forward.

It is our intention to implement immediately the recommendations
outlined in the report: They are:

1. A mandatory 15nm inbound radio transmission by all
   gliders.
2. A 3nm inbound transmission by all gliders entering the circuit
   area.
3. A radio call on executing the circuit entry.
4. 80 knots indicated airspeed maximum for all gliders inside the
   circuit area, except during official competitions.
5. The circuit is defined as below 2000 AGL and 3nm radius.

We believe these actions will reduce the possibility of a repeat
accident of this nature. Trusting that this is to your
satisfaction".