Narrative:

Glider spn declared downwind runway 30 at mev, because of finding that aircraft canopy was in unlatched position. Pilot elected to hold canopy closed with 1 hand and fly with the other. No further radio transmission was made on unicom frequency. Small transport entered traffic pattern after glider and made all advisory calls, i.e., downwind, base, final. Pilot of small transport acknowledged he heard downwind of spn and further acknowledged that assumed the glider not to be a factor he proceeded to land. Because of the glider's problem no air brake usage was made because the pilot's hand (that is used for the brakes) was holding the canopy shut. With no air brake the glider landed longer than normal and at the intersection of the 2 runways crossed in front of the small transport. Real problem: small transport did not maintain awareness of traffic. Difference in category aircraft/airspds, etc, was not a contributing factor. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the small transport pilot created a great fuss at time of the incident. He contacted the FAA who investigated and took statements from all involved. Result was that small transport pilot was informed he had violated several FARS but since no accident the issue would be dropped. Spn pilot was a student pilot who did the best he knew how to do. Learned a great deal. Supplemental information from acn 193868: a no air brake landing with that type of glider is an emergency, was this emergency declared clearly on 122.8? I cannot answer that question. If it was the case, it will be useful to inform pilots (airplane and glider) that it is better to declare an emergency any time something is going wrong on board rather than take a chance to end up with an accident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SPN PLT HAS CANOPY PROBLEM. RETURN LAND AND HAS NMAC WITH SMT ON ROLL OUT.

Narrative: GLIDER SPN DECLARED DOWNWIND RWY 30 AT MEV, BECAUSE OF FINDING THAT ACFT CANOPY WAS IN UNLATCHED POS. PLT ELECTED TO HOLD CANOPY CLOSED WITH 1 HAND AND FLY WITH THE OTHER. NO FURTHER RADIO XMISSION WAS MADE ON UNICOM FREQ. SMT ENTERED TFC PATTERN AFTER GLIDER AND MADE ALL ADVISORY CALLS, I.E., DOWNWIND, BASE, FINAL. PLT OF SMT ACKNOWLEDGED HE HEARD DOWNWIND OF SPN AND FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ASSUMED THE GLIDER NOT TO BE A FACTOR HE PROCEEDED TO LAND. BECAUSE OF THE GLIDER'S PROBLEM NO AIR BRAKE USAGE WAS MADE BECAUSE THE PLT'S HAND (THAT IS USED FOR THE BRAKES) WAS HOLDING THE CANOPY SHUT. WITH NO AIR BRAKE THE GLIDER LANDED LONGER THAN NORMAL AND AT THE INTXN OF THE 2 RWYS CROSSED IN FRONT OF THE SMT. REAL PROBLEM: SMT DID NOT MAINTAIN AWARENESS OF TFC. DIFFERENCE IN CATEGORY ACFT/AIRSPDS, ETC, WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE SMT PLT CREATED A GREAT FUSS AT TIME OF THE INCIDENT. HE CONTACTED THE FAA WHO INVESTIGATED AND TOOK STATEMENTS FROM ALL INVOLVED. RESULT WAS THAT SMT PLT WAS INFORMED HE HAD VIOLATED SEVERAL FARS BUT SINCE NO ACCIDENT THE ISSUE WOULD BE DROPPED. SPN PLT WAS A STUDENT PLT WHO DID THE BEST HE KNEW HOW TO DO. LEARNED A GREAT DEAL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 193868: A NO AIR BRAKE LNDG WITH THAT TYPE OF GLIDER IS AN EMER, WAS THIS EMER DECLARED CLRLY ON 122.8? I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IF IT WAS THE CASE, IT WILL BE USEFUL TO INFORM PLTS (AIRPLANE AND GLIDER) THAT IT IS BETTER TO DECLARE AN EMER ANY TIME SOMETHING IS GOING WRONG ON BOARD RATHER THAN TAKE A CHANCE TO END UP WITH AN ACCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.