Ventus-2cT / E1 Antares competition mid-air — Ventus turned inside in thermal

Melton Mowbray, United Kingdom Schempp-Hirth Ventus-2CT Lange Aviation E1 Antares

A Ventus-2cT and a Lange E1 Antares collided in a shared thermal south of Melton Mowbray during a competition; the Ventus pilot was fatally injured, the Antares landed safely. The Antares was circling left when the Ventus joined at the same height behind and below, in both gliders' blind spots. After three matched turns, the Ventus tightened its bank on the fourth as the Antares reduced bank to leave; the Ventus turned inside into conflict. The Antares' right wing severed the Ventus's tail at ~880 m AMSL; the Ventus tumbled ~18 s into ground impact. AAIB cited convergence in blind spots that FLARM did not resolve.

  1. Competition cross-country thermalling: Both gliders were taking part in a multi-day BGA competition at Husbands Bosworth gliding centre. The day's task: NE from Husbands Bosworth to a turning point N of Melton Mowbray, then S to a point near Oxford. Antares launched 12:36; Ventus 12:37. Both completed the first leg and were thermalling near Melton Mowbray to gain height before continuing to the second turning point.
  2. Same thermal, same height: Antares joined a thermal at 13:52, circling left as another glider was already doing. Ventus joined the same thermal at 13:54 at approximately the same height. Ventus took position between 5 and 7 o'clock relative to Antares, behind and below — within both gliders' typical cockpit blind spots. The relative positions held for three complete turns at matched bank.
  3. Blind spots, sun obscuration: Sun at ~50° elevation in the SSW; Ventus pilot was looking into the sun toward Antares in the latter part of the flight. Both gliders were white with no high-contrast paint and no strobes. Antares was in Ventus's lower blind spot; Ventus was in Antares's rear blind spot.
  4. FLARM didn't avert the collision: Both gliders carried PowerFLARM. FLARM Technology modelling: each unit would have provided 4-5 s warning if alerts had been correctly configured and not silenced. Antares's FLARM was at default 'Low' (showing all alerts); Ventus's FLARM settings could not be recovered. Pilot workload thermalling close to other gliders, plus possible alert habituation, can reduce FLARM effectiveness.
  5. Ventus turns inside Antares: On the fourth turn, the Ventus pilot increased bank angle and turn rate. Simultaneously, the Antares pilot began reducing bank to exit the thermal. This combination brought the Ventus inside the Antares's circle, eliminating their previous separation.
  6. Antares wing severs Ventus tail: At ~880 m AMSL (2,900 ft), the right wing of the Antares struck and severed the rear fuselage and fin of the Ventus from below in an upwards direction. The rudder cables, fin ballast tank dump cable, elevator pushrod, and pitot-static tubes all failed in overload.
  7. Uncontrolled tumble ~18 s: With its tail detached, the Ventus tumbled out of control for approximately 18 seconds. The pilot was wearing a parachute and the canopy release was inspected post-impact — there was no attempt to jettison the canopy or deploy the parachute (possibly unconscious from the collision or unable to act due to tumble forces).
  8. Ground impact, Ventus pilot fatal: Ventus struck rough ground on the southwest edge of Melton Mowbray in a nose-down, left-wing-low attitude; aircraft destroyed; pilot fatally injured. The detached tail and rear fuselage fell separately ~450 m to the west. Antares landed safely in a field 1.4 NM SE with substantial damage to its right wing (1.6-3.5 m outboard split open, winglet and outboard flaperon section missing); pilot uninjured.
Loading incidents...
Select Incident
Select Report
Filter
0/0
Incident year
1997 2024
Sort By
Search
0/0
Preferences
Save preferences locally
Enable map view
Language
Theme
About

gliderincidents.com gathers and lists soaring incident reports from official sources. The sources are indicated and linked. These reports are amended by summaries, metadata and translations, some of which have been generated utilizing machine learning (AI). You shouldn't trust the information provided here blindly, and consider reading the official incident report as a fact-check.

OR AND
Flight Phase
Circumstance
Severity Levels
Countries

Please describe what information is incorrect or needs review:

Bookmarked