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.