2005 Junior Worlds Accident

[Justin Craig]

Having just read the posting by Alistair Wright I was
some what alarmed by his narrow minded attitude in
respect to a club that he does not appear to have flown
at for thirty years. Highlighting a one off incident
which involved a small number of people, and using
this as a stick to beat the whole operation with.

Reading further into the post, I rather wonder if in
fact he is a competition pilot himself. I am guessing
probably not a current one. Granted at some point he
may well have been, but grounding highly experienced
pundits because he did not like their circuit pattern……come
on, he must have been the laughing stock of the whole
comp.

Given his attitude, I would hazard a guess that he
has some sort of military back round, and may have
learned to fly with the RAF GSA.

[[email protected]]

It is the Alistair Wrights of the instructor world that cause many to
avoid flying with an instructor unless it is absolutely necessary.
Some like to exercise their power just becouse they can.

[Dan G]

Justin, you probably think you are God's gift to flying but here's
some news for you: YOU ARE NOT.

Have you ever read the accident reports in the back of S&G? Pundit
after pundit sticking their Discus 2s and LS8s into fields from messed
up final glides. At the Juniors last year a kid smashed an Astir into
the hill below the field at Dunstable and was lucky to walk away.

You think the death of a person is not a good enough reason to "beat
people with a stick"? Then what the hell is? Two deaths? Three?

And what's with the dig at the GSA? Is safe flying something you do
not approve of? You'd do damned well to listen to instructors - they
know better than you do.


Dan

On Feb 9, 12:14 pm, Justin Craig
> wrote:
> Having just read the posting by Alistair Wright I was
> some what alarmed by his narrow minded attitude in
> respect to a club that he does not appear to have flown
> at for thirty years. Highlighting a one off incident
> which involved a small number of people, and using
> this as a stick to beat the whole operation with.
>
> Reading further into the post, I rather wonder if in
> fact he is a competition pilot himself. I am guessing
> probably not a current one. Granted at some point he
> may well have been, but grounding highly experienced
> pundits because he did not like their circuit pattern......come
> on, he must have been the laughing stock of the whole
> comp.
>
> Given his attitude, I would hazard a guess that he
> has some sort of military back round, and may have
> learned to fly with the RAF GSA.

[Don Johnstone]

At 12:18 09 February 2007, Justin Craig wrote:
>Having just read the posting by Alistair Wright I was
>some what alarmed by his narrow minded attitude in
>respect to a club that he does not appear to have flown
>at for thirty years. Highlighting a one off incident
>which involved a small number of people, and using
>this as a stick to beat the whole operation with.
>
This is what the official report had to say about a
one off incident involving a few people 'The investigation
concluded that gliders involved in the race had been
flying unecessarily low during the approach to the
finish. The accident and other evidence suggested a
problem with the safe conduct of race finishes and
deficiencies in the training for and oversight of such
events'. I have read many accident reports over the
years and the AAIB are not given to making unfounded
adverse comments, and I have never read a more damming
indictment in an AAIB report. One glider pilot has
done untold damage to the reputation of the gliding
movement and the repercussions of his actions will
be felt by every competition pilot in the UK. While
Alistair has not put across the point as I would have
done his inference that we should have taken more care
to ensure that such accidents could not happen is justified.
Having said that the airmanship, competence and self
discipline of the vast majority of competition pilots
in the UK is a credit to the organisation. We do need
to address the problem of the few irresponsible louts.
What I find objectionable is that the vast majority
of competition pilots are likely to suffer restrictions
because of the idiotic act of one such irresponsible
lout.

[Nick Olson]

At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
>You'd do damned well to listen to instructors - they
>know better than you do.
>

Hmmn not always the case. 200 hour instructor with
Silver C who never ventures more than gliding distance
from an airfield knows more than pilot who flies several
thousand hours cross country and competition - think
not. I have flown with some instructors who quite
frankly scare the sh++ out of me.

Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
-sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
ignored.
Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
feel is quite idiotic. I have seen many people take
this risk at competions - frankly it's behaviour I
wouldn't do -the risk is too great for me personally.

A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
people were grown men who understood the risks they
were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
-boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
fleet worldwide.

[Don Johnstone]

At 11:00 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
>At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:

>Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
>-sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
>death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
>in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
>ignored.
>Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
>pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
>under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
>to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
>of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
>not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
>feel is quite idiotic. I have seen many people take
> this risk at competions - frankly it's behaviour I
>wouldn't do -the risk is too great for me personally.
>
> A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
>people were grown men who understood the risks they
>were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
>-boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
>all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
>fleet worldwide.
>
I think you miss the point here. This accident took
place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
such a position. The point, and the finding of the
report is that the glider should never have been where
it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
are not that different. The photographer was in no
way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
as is clear from the report. No where in the report
does it say that the photographer was not entitled
to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
irresponsibly.
People have the right to expect that others will behave
in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
is never the 'fault' of the victim.

[Dan G]

On Feb 10, 10:58 am, Nick Olson
> wrote:
> At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
>
> >You'd do damned well to listen to instructors - they
> >know better than you do.
>
> Hmmn not always the case. 200 hour instructor with
> Silver C

You forget that instructors don't get their ratings by hours alone.
They are trained and examined by far more senior instructors -
instructors with rather more than 200 hours!

Hours does not automatically equal flight safety, especially with non-
professionals. People can fly with bad habits for years and "get away
with it", until one day they don't, just like the pilot at Hus Bos
(and frankly many other gliding "accidents").

Anyone can make a mistake, even experienced comp pilots with thousands
of hours (or an instructor for that matter). But if your basic flying
technique is safe, i.e. what an instructor would do, it's less likely
to end in disaster. I'll grant you though that there is the odd
instructor with the odd bad habit, but they are the minority.

There's a reason instructors get a discount on their insurance
premiums!


Dan

[verhulst]

> There's a reason instructors get a discount on their insurance
> premiums!

I get an insurance discount because I have a commercial rating. When I
asked (Costello) if I would also get a discount because of my CFI
ticket, the answer was "no".

Tony V.

[Nick Olson]

At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>I think you miss the point here. This accident took
>place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
>was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
>such a position. The point, and the finding of the
>report is that the glider should never have been where
>it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
>photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
>man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
>did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
>would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
>for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
>gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
>by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
>are not that different. The photographer was in no
>way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
>lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
>as is clear from the report. No where in the report
>does it say that the photographer was not entitled
>to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
>irresponsibly.
>People have the right to expect that others will behave
>in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
>is never the 'fault' of the victim.
>
Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
- to not to be is just being stupid.
I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
that I could be killed doing that activity -however
the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
the same with gliding.

Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
finishes.
You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?

[[email protected]]

In general, it seems to be instructors in the US are far WORSE than
their Brit counterparts. They don't even have to have flown any X-C
whatsoever.

On Feb 10, 5:58 am, Nick Olson
> wrote:
> At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
>
> >You'd do damned well to listen to instructors - they
> >know better than you do.
>
> Hmmn not always the case. 200 hour instructor with
> Silver C who never ventures more than gliding distance
> from an airfield knows more than pilot who flies several
> thousand hours cross country and competition - think
> not. I have flown with some instructors who quite
> frankly scare the sh++ out of me.
>
> Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
> -sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
> death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
> in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
> ignored.
> Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
> pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
> under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
> to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
> of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
> not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
> feel is quite idiotic. I have seen many people take
> this risk at competions - frankly it's behaviour I
> wouldn't do -the risk is too great for me personally.
>
> A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
> people were grown men who understood the risks they
> were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
> -boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
> all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
> fleet worldwide.

[Gary Emerson]

Nick Olson wrote:
> At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
>
>>You'd do damned well to listen to instructors - they
>>know better than you do.
>>
>
>
> Hmmn not always the case. 200 hour instructor with
> Silver C who never ventures more than gliding distance
> from an airfield knows more than pilot who flies several
> thousand hours cross country and competition - think
> not. I have flown with some instructors who quite
> frankly scare the sh++ out of me.
>
> Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
> -sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
> death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
> in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
> ignored.
> Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
> pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
> under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
> to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
> of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
> not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
> feel is quite idiotic. I have seen many people take
> this risk at competions - frankly it's behaviour I
> wouldn't do -the risk is too great for me personally.
>
> A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
> people were grown men who understood the risks they
> were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
> -boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
> all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
> fleet worldwide.
>
>
>
>
>
Just having an instructor rating does NOT mean you are a good pilot and
does NOT mean you necessarily are a good instructor and does NOT mean
you have lots of experience.

With all things, be it mechanics who work on your car, with a doctor who
is going to do your surgery, whatever... there are those who are great
at it and those that suck at it. In the converse, there are pilots who
would be excellent instructors, but don't choose to instruct just as
there are scrub techs and nurses who would do a better job on your
appendix than the surgeon who went to med school.

[Don Johnstone]

Nick, read the report. To use your own anology the
photographer was not standing in the freeway he was
off the road by some distance. It is not unreasonable
to expect a standard or airmanship that avoids hitting
people on the ground while flying half a mile away
from an airfield. Hitting a pedestrian in the road
may be excuseable but going onto the pavement (sidewalk)
after them is not. To be that low in that position
was totally unecessary and reckless. While the rule
making authority, the IGC, must shoulder some of the
responsibility the accident was due to the total lack
of airmanship by the pilot.


At 16:48 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
>At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>I think you miss the point here. This accident took
>>place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
>>was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
>>such a position. The point, and the finding of the
>>report is that the glider should never have been where
>>it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
>>photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
>>man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
>>did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
>>would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
>>for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
>>gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
>>by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
>>are not that different. The photographer was in no
>>way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
>>lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
>>as is clear from the report. No where in the report
>>does it say that the photographer was not entitled
>>to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
>>irresponsibly.
>>People have the right to expect that others will behave
>>in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
>>is never the 'fault' of the victim.
>>
>Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
>for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
>gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
>-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
>- to not to be is just being stupid.
> I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
>that I could be killed doing that activity -however
>the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
>the same with gliding.
>
>Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
>on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
>path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
>well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
>he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
>shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
>an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
>finishes.
> You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
>and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
>responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
>middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
>killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Nick Olson]

Well I have.
Oh yeah of course he was Don -miles away from the
finishing line - that's why he was famous for getting
those great close in shots .
Don looking at the map/photo,s he was directly in
front of the finishing line, where one might expect
finishing gliders to come from in that direction at
Hus Bos- low and fast. He took a risk he paid for it
- don't heap all the blame on the pilot.

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 10, 10:58 am, Nick Olson
> wrote:
> At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
> Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
> -sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
> death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
> in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
> ignored.

I'll agree with that.

> Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
> pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
> under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
> to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
> of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
> not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
> feel is quite idiotic.

The report states that as a contributory factor.

It also states, correctly IMHO, that the root cause was the pilots'
deliberate actions.

> A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
> people were grown men who understood the risks they
> were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
> -boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
> all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
> fleet worldwide.

Now you're just being silly.

What about the other members of the public that were on public
property several hundred metres from the airfield? Do you also expect
them to have a similar understanding of the fine details of a
competition that they might not even realise existed?

The pilot pushed it too hard, and killed a bystander. That cannot and
should not be ignored. Would your position be the same if a rambler
had been killed?

As they say in a different context, "your right to swing your fist
ends at my nose".

[[email protected]]

Hey Guys...

Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.

Neil Lawson.
http://whiteplanes.com/people/people2.htm

Everyone is being so PC as to not even mention it.

What he did for gliding with his photo's cannot be replaced.
I never met Neil personally but used to talk with him on MSN all the
time.
He was a true gentleman.

It is a tragic loss for all concerned but there was no excuse for
hitting someone period.

In the report...
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07.pdf

If you look at figure 2 and you can see Neils car, the autopsy said
his injuries were consistent with him bending down at the tme of
the impact.
The bush by the front of the red van and to the one to the rear of
Neils car are at least 2-3ft above the roof line of the car.
There is not a wingspans width below those two bushes.
Which means the pilot had to basically aim his wingtip through that
gap in order to connect.

There is no excuse IMHO for the pilot to have hit Neil.
If you look at some of the footage of finishes on the Smoking2 video
you can see the pilots aiming at the cameras.
This pilot messed up his aiming or rather his aim was too good.

Shame someone was killed in an attempt to get on the cover of S and
G!!


Al

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.
>
> Neil Lawson.

Which means he was not some unwary spectator, but he had seen many
contests before and he was fully aware of how pilots fly final glides at
such contests. Heck, it was a race, yet he deliberately chose to climb
onto a car roof inmidst the final glide path and expose himself to the
risk, because he wanted to produce spectacular pictures. Or how do you
think he made e.g. the following pictures?

http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders23.htm
http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders42.htm
http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders49.htm

If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

It's always sad when somebody gets killed, famous or not. My thoughts
are with the pilot who will have to live with the fact that he has
killed somebody.

Stefan

[Marc Ramsey]

Stefan wrote:
> If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
> from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
> they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

Of course, this still leaves me with the question of why so many of
these pilots felt the need to fly quite that low that in the first
place? Maybe I'm lacking in competitive spirit, but I try to give
humans and vehicles in my path a wide berth. They have this odd habit of
doing unexpected things.

The accident report does mention that it was "improbable" that all of
these pilots were doing it for a photo opportunity. I can't imagine
there was any real competitive advantage, and they certainly had plenty
of energy to make the finish line. Perhaps it was just the "fun" of
watching people take a dive?

Marc

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 3:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> schrieb:
>
> > Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.
>
> > Neil Lawson.
>
> Which means he was not some unwary spectator, but he had seen many
> contests before and he was fully aware of how pilots fly final glides at
> such contests. Heck, it was a race, yet he deliberately chose to climb
> onto a car roof inmidst the final glide path and expose himself to the
> risk, because he wanted to produce spectacular pictures. Or how do you
> think he made e.g. the following pictures?
>
> http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders23.htmhttp://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders42.htmhttp://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders49.htm

Neil used large lenses to pull the action into the camera.
We used to talk a lot about lens choices and photography techniques.

What do you notice about the above 3 pics.

They all had their wings level!!


>
> If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
> from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
> they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

That is their own judgement or lack of it the red van roof was
clearly above any bushes that might have forced a glider higher.

The fact is if the glider that hit Neil hadn't banked he would have
been forced higher by the bushes on either side of Neils car.


>
> It's always sad when somebody gets killed, famous or not. My thoughts
> are with the pilot who will have to live with the fact that he has
> killed somebody.


That is something to be considered but you know what I rather enjoyed
chatting with Neil.

[Don Johnstone]

At 23:48 10 February 2007, Stefan wrote:
schrieb:
>
>> Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.
>>
>> Neil Lawson.
>
>Which means he was not some unwary spectator, but he
>had seen many
>contests before and he was fully aware of how pilots
>fly final glides at
>such contests. Heck, it was a race, yet he deliberately
>chose to climb
>onto a car roof inmidst the final glide path and expose
>himself to the
>risk, because he wanted to produce spectacular pictures.
>Or how do you
>think he made e.g. the following pictures?
>
>http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders23.htm
>http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders42.htm
>http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders49.htm
>
>If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators
>had to jump
>from the car roofs before because some gliders came
>in low. And what did
>they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!
>
>It's always sad when somebody gets killed, famous or
>not. My thoughts
>are with the pilot who will have to live with the fact
>that he has
>killed somebody.
>
>Stefan

My thoughts are with the family and friends of Neil
Lawson, those who have lost someone they love in a
completely uneccesary accident caused by an irresponsible
and illegal act.
I think you may have your priorites a little mixed
up.

[Dan G]

On Feb 10, 11:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
> from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
> they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

This is a good point. It was undeniably a very dangerous place to be
and some measure of responsibility must fall on Lawson.

However it could have been anyone - these gliders were flying at about
4 feet above the crop. Someone could have been walking on a footpath
through the fields. A tractor could have trundled along the lane. The
people treating Lawson had to duck later on. As Tom said above:

> What about the other members of the public that were on public
> property several hundred metres from the airfield? Do you also expect
> them to have a similar understanding of the fine details of a
> competition that they might not even realise existed?
>
> The pilot pushed it too hard, and killed a bystander. That cannot and
> should not be ignored. Would your position be the same if a rambler
> had been killed?

It will be interesting to see the 2007 BGA rules and the CAA response.
I expect this is the end of these ultra-low level finishes (which are
supposedly done to minimise induced drag, even though they do nothing
of the sort at high speeds, the report states), and good riddance.


Dan

[Dan G]

On Feb 11, 12:09 am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Of course, this still leaves me with the question of why so many of
> these pilots felt the need to fly quite that low that in the first
> place? Maybe I'm lacking in competitive spirit, but I try to give
> humans and vehicles in my path a wide berth. They have this odd habit of
> doing unexpected things.
>
> The accident report does mention that it was "improbable" that all of
> these pilots were doing it for a photo opportunity. I can't imagine
> there was any real competitive advantage, and they certainly had plenty
> of energy to make the finish line. Perhaps it was just the "fun" of
> watching people take a dive?
>
> Marc

The report states that pilots did it to reduce induced drag by ground
effect, even though at high speeds profile drag is dominant, not
induced.

But I have the suspicion that some pilots were doing it as they enjoy
the rush of flying so low. Others were probably attempting to showing
off. And remember this was the Juniors - no doubt many of these young
people wanted to imitate their peers, and felt peer pressure upon
themselves to do so.


Dan

[Nick Olson]

Ok a question - how many deaths or serious injuries
have been caused to bystanders by low flying gliders
executing a competition finish? Maybe someone can furnish
the statistics? Is it really that dangerous (risky?)
an activity? i.e. compared to crossing the road? driving
a car? or are we using the old asinine 'one death is
a death too many argument?'.

I'm not saying the pilot wasn't partly to blame - just
not wholly to blame as Don seems to state - Mr Lawson
increased the risk to himself by his actions -as did
the other bystanders standing on the top of vechiles
under the flightpaths of finishing competition gliders.

[Don Johnstone]

At 11:12 11 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
>Ok a question - how many deaths or serious injuries
>have been caused to bystanders by low flying gliders
>executing a competition finish? Maybe someone can furnish
>the statistics? Is it really that dangerous (risky?)
>an activity? i.e. compared to crossing the road? driving
>a car? or are we using the old asinine 'one death is
>a death too many argument?'.
>
>I'm not saying the pilot wasn't partly to blame - just
>not wholly to blame as Don seems to state - Mr Lawson
>increased the risk to himself by his actions -as did
>the other bystanders standing on the top of vechiles
>under the flightpaths of finishing competition gliders.
>
What really frightens me is that some appear to have
learned nothing from this tragic accident. While there
are those who are so irresponsible to believe that
a person going about their lawful business being hit
by a flying aircraft while they are on the ground is
an acceptable risk and if a person on the ground is
killed in this way then they are in some way responsible.
I am reluctant to get personal Mr Olson but is is exactly
the attitude that you display that got Neil Lawson
killed. While people have the attitude that you appear
to display, it is always someone elses fault, then
people will die and get injured as a consequence, the
sad bit that it is frequently the innocent person who
suffers the most, or in this case his nearest and dearest.

The pilot was committing an illegal, irresponsible
act as the report found. I take great solace that I
am never likely to be anywhere near where you are likely
to be flying, if you truly believe what you have written
here you are a danger to yourself, and more importantly
a danger to those around you. Do gliding a real favour
Mr Olson, never fly again.

[Stefan]

Dan G schrieb:

> This is a good point. It was undeniably a very dangerous place to be
> and some measure of responsibility must fall on Lawson.

It was not only dangerous to them, it was also dangerous to the pilots.
It would be interesting to read the reactions of this group if not the
photographer but the pilot had been killed by flying into a car which
was deliberately parked in the forseeable finish glide path.

> supposedly done to minimise induced drag, even though they do nothing
> of the sort at high speeds, the report states), and good riddance.

It's much more simple: The faster you fly, the earlier you reach the
goal. Not exactly rocket science. Heck, this was *a race*! Racing people
tend to want to win, after all, this is the whole point of a race. Which
involves going to the limit.

If you want to avoid such finishes, the only way is to put the finish
line at some altitude. But then, it will be interesting to read your
comments when the first contender dies in a spin while trying to reach
that line.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone schrieb:

> a person going about their lawful business being hit
....
> The pilot was committing an illegal, irresponsible

This persons lawful business fully depended on those irresponsible
pilots committing their illegal thing.

[user]

"In conversation

with the group on the van, he [the victim] had told them that on the

previous day, he had seen gliders brushing the edge of

the trees and he had been forced to jump from the roof of

his car in order to avoid a low-flying glider."

Known peril. Nonetheless, sad for all involved.

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nick, read the report. To use your own anology the
> photographer was not standing in the freeway he was
> off the road by some distance. It is not unreasonable
> to expect a standard or airmanship that avoids hitting
> people on the ground while flying half a mile away
> from an airfield. Hitting a pedestrian in the road
> may be excuseable but going onto the pavement (sidewalk)
> after them is not. To be that low in that position
> was totally unecessary and reckless. While the rule
> making authority, the IGC, must shoulder some of the
> responsibility the accident was due to the total lack
> of airmanship by the pilot.
>
>
> At 16:48 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
>>At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>>I think you miss the point here. This accident took
>>>place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
>>>was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
>>>such a position. The point, and the finding of the
>>>report is that the glider should never have been where
>>>it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
>>>photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
>>>man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
>>>did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
>>>would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
>>>for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
>>>gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
>>>by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
>>>are not that different. The photographer was in no
>>>way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
>>>lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
>>>as is clear from the report. No where in the report
>>>does it say that the photographer was not entitled
>>>to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
>>>irresponsibly.
>>>People have the right to expect that others will behave
>>>in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
>>>is never the 'fault' of the victim.
>>>
>>Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
>>for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
>>gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
>>-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
>>- to not to be is just being stupid.
>> I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
>>that I could be killed doing that activity -however
>>the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
>>the same with gliding.
>>
>>Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
>>on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
>>path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
>>well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
>>he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
>>shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
>>an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
>>finishes.
>> You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
>>and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
>>responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
>>middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
>>killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Dan G]

On Feb 11, 12:05 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> It's much more simple: The faster you fly, the earlier you reach the
> goal. Not exactly rocket science. Heck, this was *a race*! Racing people
> tend to want to win, after all, this is the whole point of a race. Which
> involves going to the limit.

Flying at zero feet is not the quickest route to the finish.

> But then, it will be interesting to read your
> comments when the first contender dies in a spin while trying to reach
> that line.

Eh?

> This persons lawful business fully depended on those irresponsible
> pilots committing their illegal thing.

Bull****. Visit whiteplanes.com - Lawson was a very accomplished
aviation photographer. Photographs of finishing gliders was a tiny
part of his trade.


Dan

[Nick Olson]

Life is a risk Don. The Human race advances by taking
risks. Everday you get up in the morning Don you take
a risk. Sometimes the risks don't pay off and you end
up injured or dead. If your not aware of them Don
- then educate yourself to them - no amount of hiding
behind laws and rules will take the risks away.

Unfortunately both the pilot and Mr Lawson took risks
that resulted in his death - (please don't bleat on
about how he was an innocent bystander he wasn't and
he increased the risk to himself by his actions). I'm
not saying it was entirely Mr Lawson's fault - nor
the pilot's. You are.

Now please provide the statistics to say that competition
racing finishes are inherently more dangerous to so
called 'innocent bystanders' than you driving your
car on a public highway.

[Dan G]

On Feb 11, 4:51 pm, Nick Olson
> wrote:
> Now please provide the statistics to say that competition
> racing finishes are inherently more dangerous to so
> called 'innocent bystanders' than you driving your
> car on a public highway.

It cannot have escaped your notice that great strides have been made
in traffic safety - safer cars, better junction design, better
signage, better speed enforcement etc. etc. Why are you suprised that
the same happens in aviation?

Dan

[Jack[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:

> It would be interesting to read the reactions of this group if not the
> photographer but the pilot had been killed by flying into a car which
> was deliberately parked in the forseeable finish glide path.

A car leaping into the air like a kangaroo at the last moment? an
invisible car? Maybe a tractor or truck parked in a farmer's field a
hundred meters from the finish line? How about another aircraft disabled
on the runway?

Just how blind are we pilots allowed to be?


Jack

[Stewart Kissel]

>Life is a risk Don.
True, perhaps pilots could perform better in competition
by not wearing seatbelts or parachutes, thus allowing
them to see better behind and above them.

The Human race advances by taking
>risks. Everday you get up in the morning Don you take
>a risk. Sometimes the risks don't pay off and you end
>up injured or dead.
True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?

I'm
>not saying it was entirely Mr Lawson's fault - nor
>the pilot's. You are.
Personally, the organizers that allow this to happen
can and should be held accountable. And I apply that
to future contests in the US.

>Now please provide the statistics to say that competition
>racing finishes are inherently more dangerous to so
>called 'innocent bystanders' than you driving your
>car on a public highway.


What is your point here?, we can compare low flying
to Russian Roulette for that matter. It is an unecesary
procedure that combines the desire to show off as
a stunt pilot might, but with none of the controls
inherit to acrobatic flying.

Hell, why not just organize a 'low pass' competition
and eliminate the need for the cross country component?
>

This subject gets batted around so often, now we see
a fatality caused directly by these stupid activities,
and we still listen to the justifications for this.
Gee, only one guy died. It hurts our sport, all of
us for this to continue. Reasonable thinking people
within the sport and particularly out of the sport
are not going to buy into the *logic* presented here.








>
>
>

[Alistair Wright]

"Justin Craig" > wrote in message
...
> Having just read the posting by Alistair Wright I was
> some what alarmed by his narrow minded attitude in
> respect to a club that he does not appear to have flown
> at for thirty years.

What's that got to do with it? Hus Bos looks just the same to me in the
accident report pictures as I remember it. Oh no, sorry. The caravan park is
bigger.

> Reading further into the post, I rather wonder if in
> fact he is a competition pilot himself.

No, I never flew comps but I did fly a lot of cross country.

>I am guessing probably not a current one.

Well that's right, I am 74. I retired from instructing before the current
glass fibre era.

.....grounding highly experienced
> pundits because he did not like their circuit pattern..come
> on, he must have been the laughing stock of the whole
> comp.

Well, no. The CFI agreed with me, went up with the grounded pilots, and two
of the offenders had further check rides. Have a look at the picture and map
of HB. Circuit discipline was essential on such a narrow strip with no
escape routes. With a whole heap of competion pilots swanning around, good
patterns were ESSENTIAL to see and be seen. Several of the competitors took
me on one side later and congratulated me on my stand. I have to say I
wondered why HB had been selected for those Nationals (at which incidentally
I was chief scorer) unless it was because we were furthest from the sea in
all directions of any other club.
>
> Given his attitude, I would hazard a guess that he
> has some sort of military back round, and may have
> learned to fly with the RAF GSA.

No. I was a founder member of the private club that trained me (not HB). I
was the first ab initio to solo at that club, and the first to complete the
Silver, and the second to become an instructor. I sent nearly 100 people
solo in my time and AFAIK none of them went on to have accidents.

The volume of correspondence that my comment has produced is amazing, but at
least it shows a measure of understanding of the problem by most
contributors, though alas no consensus on a solution.

Alistair W

[Werner Schmidt]

Hello Stewart, hello @all,

first let me introduce myself shortly. I'm 44, still learning to fly a
glider (until now: ASK13, ASK8, ASK6), of course not experienced in
competitions nor cross-country flights, made my B last year and going to
make C and PPL this year. I started in 2004 together with my son, going
slowly due to work and family (me, my wife, 3 children 17-15-4 years
old). Reading this newsgroup since some weeks, now my first try of
writing something. Not a native english speaker, I learned this language
at school until about 28 years ago and hope to write something
understandable for all of you - if not so, please tell me any of my
mistakes if you like to, I'd like to become better.

If there are still any questions, ask them! :-)

Now to the matter of discussion:

>> The Human race advances by taking
>> risks. Everday you get up in the morning Don you take
>> a risk. Sometimes the risks don't pay off and you end
>> up injured or dead.
> True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
> risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?

Thats not exactly the point, I think. The risk of death is a matter of
fact as long as you live, regardless of what you are just doing and of
what you may estimate acceptable.

An example: while flying your glider, you may be hit by a jet plane
coming from out of your sight. You save your life by using your
parachute, but parts of the glider hit someone on the ground and kill
him. Oh, this risk is very low, I know, but it exists and you know that.
In spite of this knowledge you decided to fly just this day and just
this time, and the accident happened.

In this example you certainly were not guilty in any legal way, but in
some way still *responsible*, cause *you* *accepted* this risk - a risk
for yourself to die, but also a risk for other people prior not involved
to be killed.

So the point is, as I think, the *responsibility*. And our
responsibility is to reduce every risk to an acceptable and achievable
minimum by establishing appropriate rules and by *obeying* them. But we
cannot reduce any risk to zero - this is just impossible!

Remains the question, what might be an *acceptable* risk. Hard to
answer. But one way to solve the problem in cases as the one discussed
here is to analyze any accident (as it is done, for good) and see what
may be done to prevent similar accidents in future. If one finds a
solution for the problem, we're fine. If not, we may decide to go on as
before (risk acceptable) or to stop gliding (risk unacceptable).

In my mind this is the right way to handle this accident and others like
this. To blame someone - may this one be the pilot or the killed victim
of the accident or both of them - may not be the aim of the efforts. It
doesn't lead any further and it doesn't help anybody - not the pilot
(who might need psychological help, not to forget!) nor the sadly killed
person or his relatives. But to analyze and to draw the appropiate
consequences out of the results helps all persons who *could* be killed
in future if not done so.

Just my 2 cts.

Have a fine day

Werner

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On 10 Feb 2007 16:42:44 GMT, Nick Olson
> wrote:


>Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
>on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
>path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
>well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
>he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
>shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
>an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
>finishes.

I do not agree.
A glider pilot who is unable to avoid a collision with someone
standing outside the airfield parameter is the only one to blame.

You wouldn't blame the tree for being there if he had collided with a
tree, do you?




Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:05:43 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:


>It was not only dangerous to them, it was also dangerous to the pilots.

Hi Stefan,

how often were you *forced* in your gliding career to perform a 3 km
long highspeed final approach four feet above the ground?


>It would be interesting to read the reactions of this group if not the
>photographer but the pilot had been killed by flying into a car which
>was deliberately parked in the forseeable finish glide path.

I guess anyone agrees that the forseeable glide path of a glider on
final approach does not include extremely low high-speed flying for
couple of kilometers...

Would you blame the tree if the pilot had struck a tree instead of the
photographer?


>If you want to avoid such finishes, the only way is to put the finish
>line at some altitude. But then, it will be interesting to read your
>comments when the first contender dies in a spin while trying to reach
>that line.

If you want to avoid such finishes, simply add one simple competition
rule:
Anyone whose logger data shows that he was below 50 ft outside
airfield perimeter gets a penalty of, say, 2.000 points.
Done.


Bye
Andreas

[Alistair Wright]

"Werner Schmidt" > wrote in message
...
> Hello Stewart, hello @all,
>
> first let me introduce myself shortly. I'm 44, still learning to fly a
> glider (until now: ASK13, ASK8, ASK6), of course not experienced in
> competitions nor cross-country flights, made my B last year and going to
> make C and PPL this year. I started in 2004 together with my son, going
> slowly due to work and family (me, my wife, 3 children 17-15-4 years old).
> Reading this newsgroup since some weeks, now my first try of writing
> something. Not a native english speaker, I learned this language at school
> until about 28 years ago and hope to write something understandable for
> all of you - if not so, please tell me any of my mistakes if you like to,
> I'd like to become better.
>
> If there are still any questions, ask them! :-)
>
> Now to the matter of discussion:
>
> >> The Human race advances by taking
> >> risks. Everday you get up in the morning Don you take
> >> a risk. Sometimes the risks don't pay off and you end
> >> up injured or dead.
> > True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
> > risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?
>
> Thats not exactly the point, I think. The risk of death is a matter of
> fact as long as you live, regardless of what you are just doing and of
> what you may estimate acceptable.
>
> An example: while flying your glider, you may be hit by a jet plane coming
> from out of your sight. You save your life by using your parachute, but
> parts of the glider hit someone on the ground and kill him. Oh, this risk
> is very low, I know, but it exists and you know that. In spite of this
> knowledge you decided to fly just this day and just this time, and the
> accident happened.
>
> In this example you certainly were not guilty in any legal way, but in
> some way still *responsible*, cause *you* *accepted* this risk - a risk
> for yourself to die, but also a risk for other people prior not involved
> to be killed.
>
> So the point is, as I think, the *responsibility*. And our responsibility
> is to reduce every risk to an acceptable and achievable minimum by
> establishing appropriate rules and by *obeying* them. But we cannot reduce
> any risk to zero - this is just impossible!
>
> Remains the question, what might be an *acceptable* risk. Hard to answer.
> But one way to solve the problem in cases as the one discussed here is to
> analyze any accident (as it is done, for good) and see what may be done to
> prevent similar accidents in future. If one finds a solution for the
> problem, we're fine. If not, we may decide to go on as before (risk
> acceptable) or to stop gliding (risk unacceptable).
>
> In my mind this is the right way to handle this accident and others like
> this. To blame someone - may this one be the pilot or the killed victim of
> the accident or both of them - may not be the aim of the efforts. It
> doesn't lead any further and it doesn't help anybody - not the pilot (who
> might need psychological help, not to forget!) nor the sadly killed person
> or his relatives. But to analyze and to draw the appropiate consequences
> out of the results helps all persons who *could* be killed in future if
> not done so.
>
> Just my 2 cts.
>
> Have a fine day
>
> Werner

First off Werner let me congratulate you on your command of English. Then a
further congratulation for your command of logic. My input to this
discussion was mainly aimed at pointing out that HB is a 'difficult' site to
fly from. The pundits whose flying I criticised made no allowances for this
in my view and by flying carelessly had the potential to cause an accident.
I felt as a responsible instructor at the club concerned that I had no
option but to bring these'experts' to an understanding of the risks they
imposed to fellow pilots. That's all I was trying to do. The people who
accused me of being power mad, and lumped all instructors in that category,
do not deserve to have the pleasure given by our wonderful sport. I have no
doubt that there are good instructors and not so good ones but sure as hell
we were all examined by the BGA Head Coach before we were turned loose to
teach other pilots.

Alistair W

[Dan G]

On Feb 10, 3:10 pm, "Dan G" > wrote:
> Hours does not automatically equal flight safety, especially with non-
> professionals. People can fly with bad habits for years and "get away
> with it", until one day they don't, just like the pilot at Hus Bos
> (and frankly many other gliding "accidents").
>
> Anyone can make a mistake, even experienced comp pilots with thousands
> of hours (or an instructor for that matter). But if your basic flying
> technique is safe, i.e. what an instructor would do, it's less likely
> to end in disaster.

I've found a great little article which explains this well. Two
quotes:

"Remember, the principles of good airmanship and aerodynamics apply
the same to all pilots, whatever their position and skills. Don't be
tempted to do something fancy by cutting safety margins. If you do,
sooner or later you will need that margin to survive and it will not
be there. Remember also that others with less experience will be
watching how you operate the aircraft and could well try to emulate
your performance, which could lead them to disaster sooner rather than
later. So set a good example at all times by following the approved
procedures and operate the aircraft as safely and efficiently as
possible. "

and

"an old definition of a superior pilot - "one who uses his superior
experience, airmanship and judgment to ensure that he never gets into
situations which would require him to use his superior skills". "

Despite the terrifying lack of paragraph breaks, the article is a good
read: http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=23


Dan

[user]

People stand on the side of public roads to watch auto rallye cars whip by
at high speed. Sometimes, spectators are killed when drivers lose control,
caroming off the road and into a crowd. They run the bulls through towns in
Spain and Portugal at the beginning of the bullfighting season each year.
People choose to run with them and are sometimes maimed or killed. People
congregate to watch airshows, and despite reasonable efforts to clear low
altitude traffic and ground observers, people get killed. These examples all
involve illegal acts (speeding, stampeding, aerobating) that are condoned
within the context of an EVENT. These events are for the entertainment of
those people who choose to participate.

Those parked on the road were expressly there to witness low passes. They
congregated to get a closer look at something unusual, even dangerous. A
wise person might choose not to do this.

How many of the gliders would have crashed without the spectators in the
way? It appears that the actions of the pilots were not inherently unsafe
(to the pilots) - though certainly not wise.

This is a sad, sad incident, and rare among gliding competitions. But not at
all unusual in the context of observers wanting a close look at something
unusual and exciting.

Is there fault on the part of the pilot(s)? Of course. Their poor judgment
was amply reflected by their inability to alter their practices even with
emergency vehicles and a broken glider on the scene. But to insist that Mr.
Lawson was ignorant of the risk and just going about quotidian activities is
near sighted. Even worse is to suggest that the pilot was guilty of criminal
negligence. This was an environment of contrived, obvious risk. All who
participated were aware of the danger, and therefore incumbent on each
individual to manage his or her own risk.

The remedy is simple. The pilot can alter his practices. Or, the spectators
can stand well clear. If the specatators stand clear, it is an acceptable
practice. If there are people in the way, the pilot must alter his approach.
The condundrum is that the two are joined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard in traffic court:

Defendant: Yes, I turned left in front of the oncoming car, but he was
speeding. That's why he hit me.

Judge: Why did you pull out in front of a speeding car?

Defendant: (silence)

[Richard Hood]

At 18:48 11 February 2007, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>Hell, why not just organize a 'low pass' competition
>and eliminate the need for the cross country component?

Finally - someone with a sensible suggestion! Let's
get rid of the dangerous 'flying around in circles
10 feet away from other gliders' bit and get straight
on with the good stuff. Who's up for this one?

[Don Johnstone]

At 14:12 12 February 2007, User wrote:
>People stand on the side of public roads to watch auto
>rallye cars whip by
>at high speed. Sometimes, spectators are killed when
>drivers lose control,
>caroming off the road and into a crowd. They run the
>bulls through towns in
>Spain and Portugal at the beginning of the bullfighting
>season each year.
>People choose to run with them and are sometimes maimed
>or killed. People
>congregate to watch airshows, and despite reasonable
>efforts to clear low
>altitude traffic and ground observers, people get killed.
>These examples all
>involve illegal acts (speeding, stampeding, aerobating)
>that are condoned
>within the context of an EVENT. These events are for
>the entertainment of
>those people who choose to participate.

Yes indeed, but in the context of the circumstances
we are talking about a racing driver does not deliberately
drive very close to the spectators, and display pilots
go to great lengths to avoid pointing at people let
alone flying near them. Of course there are risks.
Yes the racing driver or the display pilot may end
up close to people, even kiling or injuring them but
they have not deliberately gone there. I have deliberately
avoided the bulls thing as a local aberration not copied
in the rest of the world.

All of this is a bit of a moot point, the accident
report clearly set out the causes of it and also made
recomendations which, in the UK at least, will have
to be acted on. The bottom line the CAA are going to
decide what we can and cannot do and whatever we say
here will make no difference to them. The only purpose
of publishing the report is so that others may learn
from it and not repeat the action which led to it.
Having read some of the responses on here it would
seem that that aim at least has fallen on some selectively
deaf ears.

[user]

Far from disagreeing with the report and its recommendations... the point is
simply to put this accident in context. There were no innocents harmed, as
some contributors to this and related threads have suggested. There was,
however, foolishness on the ground and in the air.

It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to continue the practice of
flying the last part of their final glides in ground effect with people in
the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part of spectators to place
themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in the path of low flying
aircraft.

These pilots were not seeking out people on the ground for dangerous close
passes. The people brought themselves to a place where they knew they could
witness a close pass. You see the same thing on the rallye circuit. The
difference is that you're more likely to have a race warden shoo people away
from the danger zone. That, however, doesn't keep knowledgeable spectators
from "taking their chances" to get a better view or photograph of the action
as it passes. Their presence has little affect on drivers, who worry more
about maintaining control than the number of spectators they'll impact if
they lose it.

As for the aberration of the bulls, some choose to run, others to watch from
above. It is a matter of choice, with measurable differences in risk. And I
think you'll find more people from around the world attend such runnings
than watch or compete in glider races! As abberations go...

And, finally, the display pilot hasn't changed his maneuvers other than to
"box" them. Instead, the air wardens have moved people back to a safer (but
hardly safe, as experience has proved) distance.

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> At 14:12 12 February 2007, User wrote:
>>People stand on the side of public roads to watch auto
>>rallye cars whip by
>>at high speed. Sometimes, spectators are killed when
>>drivers lose control,
>>caroming off the road and into a crowd. They run the
>>bulls through towns in
>>Spain and Portugal at the beginning of the bullfighting
>>season each year.
>>People choose to run with them and are sometimes maimed
>>or killed. People
>>congregate to watch airshows, and despite reasonable
>>efforts to clear low
>>altitude traffic and ground observers, people get killed.
>>These examples all
>>involve illegal acts (speeding, stampeding, aerobating)
>>that are condoned
>>within the context of an EVENT. These events are for
>>the entertainment of
>>those people who choose to participate.
>
> Yes indeed, but in the context of the circumstances
> we are talking about a racing driver does not deliberately
> drive very close to the spectators, and display pilots
> go to great lengths to avoid pointing at people let
> alone flying near them. Of course there are risks.
> Yes the racing driver or the display pilot may end
> up close to people, even kiling or injuring them but
> they have not deliberately gone there. I have deliberately
> avoided the bulls thing as a local aberration not copied
> in the rest of the world.
>
> All of this is a bit of a moot point, the accident
> report clearly set out the causes of it and also made
> recomendations which, in the UK at least, will have
> to be acted on. The bottom line the CAA are going to
> decide what we can and cannot do and whatever we say
> here will make no difference to them. The only purpose
> of publishing the report is so that others may learn
> from it and not repeat the action which led to it.
> Having read some of the responses on here it would
> seem that that aim at least has fallen on some selectively
> deaf ears.
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

At 18:54 12 February 2007, User wrote:
>Far from disagreeing with the report and its recommendations...
>the point is
>simply to put this accident in context. There were
>no innocents harmed, as
>some contributors to this and related threads have
>suggested. There was,
>however, foolishness on the ground and in the air.

So a person standing on the ground hit by an aircraft
flying unecessarily low is guilty of what? Reckless
standing?
Unlawful photograph taking? Loitering on a glider approach?

>It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to
>continue the practice of
>flying the last part of their final glides in ground
>effect with people in
>the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part
>of spectators to place
>themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in
>the path of low flying
>aircraft.

It was not poor judgement it was criminal recklessness
for pilots to fly so low unecesarrily, so they could
stike someone on the ground 500 metres from the airfield.
There was no valid reason whatsoever to compel the
pilots to fly close to the ground that far from the
airfield. The crash pilot admitted he saw people and
yet chose to continue passing very close to other people.
>
>These pilots were not seeking out people on the ground
>for dangerous close
>passes. The people brought themselves to a place where
>they knew they could
>witness a close pass. You see the same thing on the
>rallye circuit. The
>difference is that you're more likely to have a race
>warden shoo people away
>from the danger zone. That, however, doesn't keep knowledgeable
>spectators
>from 'taking their chances' to get a better view or
>photograph of the action
>as it passes. Their presence has little affect on drivers,
>who worry more
>about maintaining control than the number of spectators
>they'll impact if
>they lose it.

While that might be true right on the aircraft boundary
or on the airfield itself there is no justifiable reason
at all why a glider has to be that low that far out.

To say that being so low is required to minimise the
losses through sinking air is, as we all know, total
b0ll0cks. There is no suggestion that any of these
aircraft were in low energy situations when being in
ground effect is of benefit in an effort to fly further.

Like I said, there are those who will, for reasons
which are a completely mystery to me, refuse to learn
the lesson from this accident. Becasue of those few
people we will all have to suffer unecessary restrictions.

If you believe in something at least have the courage
to use your name, or perhaps all you are is a flamer.

[Marc Ramsey]

user wrote:
> It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to continue the practice of
> flying the last part of their final glides in ground effect with people in
> the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part of spectators to place
> themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in the path of low flying
> aircraft.

These "pilots" remind me of those increasingly prevalent drivers who,
when confronted by a jaywalker (colloquial term for those who cross the
street against the rules and/or law), refuse to make any effort to avoid
them, or better yet, speed up and maneuver to clear the pedestrians butt
by a few inches, thus showing them who is boss.

I personally consider this to be a sign of cultural decline, the sort of
attitude that justifies "preventive" invasions of annoying countries
that pose no actual threat. 8^)

Marc

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 5:10 am, Nick Olson
> wrote:
> Ok a question - how many deaths or serious injuries
> have been caused to bystanders by low flying gliders
> executing a competition finish? Maybe someone can furnish
> the statistics? Is it really that dangerous (risky?)
> an activity? i.e. compared to crossing the road? driving
> a car? or are we using the old asinine 'one death is
> a death too many argument?'.
>
> I'm not saying the pilot wasn't partly to blame - just
> not wholly to blame as Don seems to state - Mr Lawson
> increased the risk to himself by his actions -as did
> the other bystanders standing on the top of vechiles
> under the flightpaths of finishing competition gliders.

You make good points in your post.....except for the "one death is a
death too many" being "asinine". What??? Do you think an occiasional
death here and there should be tolerated so we don't have to change or
create a rule to improve safety? Now that's asinine!

[Dan G]

On Feb 12, 6:49 pm, "user" > wrote:
> Far from disagreeing with the report and its recommendations... the point is
> simply to put this accident in context. There were no innocents harmed, as
> some contributors to this and related threads have suggested. There was,
> however, foolishness on the ground and in the air.
>
> It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to continue the practice of
> flying the last part of their final glides in ground effect with people in
> the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part of spectators to place
> themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in the path of low flying
> aircraft.

Jeez, the guy was standing on a road 350m outside the airfield
boundary!! It happened to be a photographer who was hit but it could
have been anyone, e.g. the farmer walking through is his field while
our dumbass pilot was busy flying at zero feet so he could look *up*
at the telegraph wires...


Dan

[Werner Schmidt]

Hallo Alistair,

> First off Werner let me congratulate you on your command of English.

thanks, but I think you should be glad only to read - and not to hear me
speak :-)

When writing, I have all time I need to use a dictionary, e.g.
http://dict.leo.org/ende was very helpful.

> My input to this
> discussion was mainly aimed at pointing out that HB is a 'difficult' site to
> fly from.

But adding a handicap may have the positive and wished effect to make a
competition more interesting and / or to enlarge the challenge for the
competitors, isn't it?

Presumed there was an appropriate briefing, I don't see this must be a
dangerous problem.

> The pundits whose flying I criticised made no allowances for this
> in my view and by flying carelessly had the potential to cause an accident.
> I felt as a responsible instructor at the club concerned that I had no
> option but to bring these'experts' to an understanding of the risks they
> imposed to fellow pilots. That's all I was trying to do.

Allright, if you see a potential risk and the possibility to avoid it
think I would do so either; err - perhaps a bit more reluctant,
according to my level of experience.

> The people who
> accused me of being power mad, and lumped all instructors in that category,
> do not deserve to have the pleasure given by our wonderful sport. I have no
> doubt that there are good instructors and not so good ones but sure as hell
> we were all examined by the BGA Head Coach before we were turned loose to
> teach other pilots.

Oh, I understand your anger, but I think we shouldn't expand the
discussion to this point - thread is big enough and this might just
burst it :-)

Werner

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On 12 Feb 2007 19:30:03 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:


>So a person standing on the ground hit by an aircraft
>flying unecessarily low is guilty of what? Reckless
>standing?
>Unlawful photograph taking? Loitering on a glider approach?

Hi Don,

give it up - he won't get it.
There'll always be people who find someone else to blame...


Bye
Andreas

[user]

Don,

Facts, please, not conjecture. An innocent bystander was not hit by an
aircraft. A professional photographer intentionally placed himself in a
position of danger, knowing full well that gliders were flying low as part
of a sporting event. His intent was to take compelling photographs. He was
standing on the roof of a car, his head 12 feet above the ground, when he
was hit by the dipping wing of an aircraft estimated to be 15 feet above the
ground (the height of the tallest tree in the hedge row). He had advised
others he had nearly been hit the previous day, but was still willing to
place himself in peril for a good picture. This is an informed choice. As a
result of that choice, he lost his life, grieved his friends and family, and
may have left a lifelong emotional scar on the young man who hit him.

On the other side of the coin, the poor judgement and unfortunate choice of
a young pilot has left a well-known soaring figure dead and his friends and
family grieving, and more than one misinformed soul calling it criminal
homicide. This was an accident, a tragic accident. What makes it tragic is
that BOTH VICTIMS should have known better. The photographer should have
been standing behind his car, not on top of it. The pilot should have made a
greater effort to maintain safe separation.

The photographer's distance from the airfield (350 meters) is of only minor
consequence. I'm sure that if aircraft were staying high until crossing the
airport boundary, he'd have placed himself there instead, since his intent
was to be as close as possible to the aircraft to create unusual, compelling
images. And I think it likely, given his reputation, he would have received
permission from the contest authority to do so. (I recall many instances of
photogs on the flight line during launch snapping pictures from within the
arc of a high energy ground loop.)

I once landed on a playing field (pitch), never coming within a thousand
feet of any person. In fact, no witnesses whatsoever. A safe landing in all
respects. However, after hearing of my "crash," a local newspaper reporter
interviewed a woman (at random) who declared that only by the grace of God
had my negligence spared the life of her child who had been playing there
the day before. This thread reminds me of that intrepid reporter. (The
official report, on the other hand, handles the accident in a very
even-handed manner.)

And lest you think me wholly one sided, the fact that pilots, in their
competitive ardor, continued the practice even after emergency vehicles,
including a helicopter, appeared on the scene, demonstrated an appalling
callousness and disregard for safety.

By all means, let's learn from these mistakes and not repeat them. Don't fly
close to people. And don't intentionally place yourself in the path of
low-flying aircraft. And the informed should advise the uninformed, leading
by example rather than misleading by example. Especially where young, eager,
impressionable pilots are present. On the ground and in the air. Very
simple, really. Failing that, I guess we need to ask regulators to
intercede.

BTW,
One more factual error in the thread... Ground effect improves glide at ALL
speeds. The improvement as a ratio of total drag is much BETTER at low
speeds. At 80 knots, you will see significant and increasing improvement in
glide once you enter ground effect. The reason is that total drag is the sum
of profile and induced drag. While your induced drag may only be 1/2 of your
profile drag at 80 knots, it is still 1/3 of your total drag. A 20%
reduction in induced drag would yield a 7% improvement in efficiency, and it
gets significantly better as you slow down. Whether the maneuver is worth
the risk (as opposed to slowing to max L/D earlier in the glide) is
determined by circumstances. Personally, I think it's not worth the few
extra seconds it might net given the risk of hitting unseen objects outside
the boundaries of the airport.

As for pop ups over wires... obviously things were getting out of hand.
Where were the adults? Some of them were obviously out enjoying, first hand
and at close quarters, the unusual flying of the contestants.

If I get personal, I'll stop being anonymous ;-)


"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> At 18:54 12 February 2007, User wrote:
>>Far from disagreeing with the report and its recommendations...
>>the point is
>>simply to put this accident in context. There were
>>no innocents harmed, as
>>some contributors to this and related threads have
>>suggested. There was,
>>however, foolishness on the ground and in the air.
>
> So a person standing on the ground hit by an aircraft
> flying unecessarily low is guilty of what? Reckless
> standing?
> Unlawful photograph taking? Loitering on a glider approach?
>
>>It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to
>>continue the practice of
>>flying the last part of their final glides in ground
>>effect with people in
>>the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part
>>of spectators to place
>>themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in
>>the path of low flying
>>aircraft.
>
> It was not poor judgement it was criminal recklessness
> for pilots to fly so low unecesarrily, so they could
> stike someone on the ground 500 metres from the airfield.
> There was no valid reason whatsoever to compel the
> pilots to fly close to the ground that far from the
> airfield. The crash pilot admitted he saw people and
> yet chose to continue passing very close to other people.
>>
>>These pilots were not seeking out people on the ground
>>for dangerous close
>>passes. The people brought themselves to a place where
>>they knew they could
>>witness a close pass. You see the same thing on the
>>rallye circuit. The
>>difference is that you're more likely to have a race
>>warden shoo people away
>>from the danger zone. That, however, doesn't keep knowledgeable
>>spectators
>>from 'taking their chances' to get a better view or
>>photograph of the action
>>as it passes. Their presence has little affect on drivers,
>>who worry more
>>about maintaining control than the number of spectators
>>they'll impact if
>>they lose it.
>
> While that might be true right on the aircraft boundary
> or on the airfield itself there is no justifiable reason
> at all why a glider has to be that low that far out.
>
> To say that being so low is required to minimise the
> losses through sinking air is, as we all know, total
> b0ll0cks. There is no suggestion that any of these
> aircraft were in low energy situations when being in
> ground effect is of benefit in an effort to fly further.
>
> Like I said, there are those who will, for reasons
> which are a completely mystery to me, refuse to learn
> the lesson from this accident. Becasue of those few
> people we will all have to suffer unecessary restrictions.
>
> If you believe in something at least have the courage
> to use your name, or perhaps all you are is a flamer.
>
>
>

[Werner Schmidt]

Hallo "user",

> Facts, please, not conjecture. An innocent bystander was not hit by an
> aircraft.

But it *could* have hit an innocent bystander. Imagine a farmer, passing
by on his tractor on the road behind the hedge where the photoprapher
and the others stood with their cars. Or has the road been closed? I
can't remember to have read anything about closed roads in the report.

Much of the effort man spends in setting up rules is spent in avoiding
things that *could* happen. Thinking about things that in fact
*happened* does lead us to such things that *could* happen, and further
thinking may lead us to solutions to avoid them. Is there anything wrong
about this?

> On the other side of the coin, the poor judgement and unfortunate choice of
> a young pilot has left a well-known soaring figure dead and his friends and
> family grieving, and more than one misinformed soul calling it criminal
> homicide. This was an accident, a tragic accident.

Here you're right, but we just shouldn't stop at this point, I think. As
i said above, it wasn't necessarily a person with knowledge of the
specific danger who was hit.

> The photographer's distance from the airfield (350 meters) is of only minor
> consequence. I'm sure that if aircraft were staying high until crossing the
> airport boundary, he'd have placed himself there instead, since his intent
> was to be as close as possible to the aircraft to create unusual, compelling
> images. And I think it likely, given his reputation, he would have received
> permission from the contest authority to do so.

Hey, now *you" are conjecturing!

> And lest you think me wholly one sided, the fact that pilots, in their
> competitive ardor, continued the practice even after emergency vehicles,
> including a helicopter, appeared on the scene, demonstrated an appalling
> callousness and disregard for safety.

!

> By all means, let's learn from these mistakes and not repeat them. Don't fly
> close to people.

.... and where unseen people could be!

> And don't intentionally place yourself in the path of
> low-flying aircraft.

But don't forget that there *exist* uninformed people! If one wants to
fly that low, it must be ensured that roads and fields in his path are
closed, don't you think so?

> And the informed should advise the uninformed, leading
> by example rather than misleading by example. Especially where young, eager,
> impressionable pilots are present. On the ground and in the air. Very
> simple, really. Failing that, I guess we need to ask regulators to
> intercede.

!

And (now I'm conjecturing) you're right: an excess of regulations kills
fun. If we (all of us, or at least the vast majority) don't learn out of
such accidents, we have to swallow the bitter pill (meaning we are
*urged* to learn - even more rules).

> Where were the adults? Some of them were obviously out enjoying, first hand
> and at close quarters, the unusual flying of the contestants.

Again, you are a bit conjecturing. But you may be right.

> If I get personal, I'll stop being anonymous ;-)

Huh, you could *become* personal ;-)

Werner

[John Bojack]

I'm all for low-passes.

That said, I think getting so low as to make hitting ground based
"obstructions" a possibility with a wing bank is a whooole 'nother thing.
Exponentially increased danger factor!

Spectating around racing events is always a risk...whether the crowd
realizes it, or not. Consider all the reality TV shows you've seen footage
of with various cars, go carts...etc and their associated parts going flying
into the stand and over "safety-barriers" into the crowd.

Over-exuberant and testosteronized youth + highly perched photographer = one
unfortunate accident occurence in our racing sport.

Do we need to mandate mile-high finishes and safety bunkers for spectators?

Life's a risk.

[Nyal Williams]

At 16:24 13 February 2007, John Bojack wrote:
>I'm all for low-passes.
>
>That said, I think getting so low as to make hitting
>ground based
>'obstructions' a possibility with a wing bank is a
>whooole 'nother thing.
>Exponentially increased danger factor!
>
>Spectating around racing events is always a risk...whether
>the crowd
>realizes it, or not. Consider all the reality TV
>shows you've seen footage
>of with various cars, go carts...etc and their associated
>parts going flying
>into the stand and over 'safety-barriers' into the
>crowd.
>
>Over-exuberant and testosteronized youth + highly perched
>photographer = one
>unfortunate accident occurence in our racing sport.
>
>Do we need to mandate mile-high finishes and safety
>bunkers for spectators?
>
>Life's a risk.

Especially so for both the stupid and the reckless.
The problem is that neither recognize their status.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 13, 10:24 am, Nyal Williams > Especially so for both the stupid
and the reckless.

> The problem is that neither recognize their status.

I can't help wondering how much the known presence of the photographer
influenced the behavior of the pilots. Is it normal at UK contests to
finish as described in the accident report or are approaches more
conservative without the known photo op. Perhaps a UK competition
pilot could answer that please.

Andy

[bumper]

There's been so much written about how "unsafe" low, high speed finishes
are. A shame, as this "is" truly the most spectator worthy part of a contest
.. . . guess I should say "was", at least in the USA.

It's hard to argue against the "S" word, and in our culture, the "L"
(liability) word too. Many who read ras are smart enough to not even bother.
Those who think everyone else should behave in the manner they deem
appropriate know that well. As others have posted, much of life is about
risk. Stay home and do nothing, have a heart attack. NO! Get out there and
be active, try to mitigate those risks you can, accept those you can't, and
get on with the activities you enjoy. I want to enjoy my grandkids, but I'm
not going to stop riding motorcycles or flying.

I enjoy watching gliders flying fast and close. Those are some nice
pictures, Asbjorn, and show that other countries still know how to finish a
soaring contest properly (grin). There's nothing quite so elegant,
beautiful, and with such an awesome sound, as a glider that passes close.
Er, well, I guess I can think of one thing.

bumper
ASH26E
Minden, NV
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink"

"Asbjorn Hojmark" > wrote in message
t...
> On 13 Feb 2007 11:26:34 -0800, "Andy" > wrote:
>
>> Is it normal at UK contests to finish as described in the accident
>> report or are approaches more conservative without the known photo
>> op.
>
> ... Pribina Cup (Slovakia):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ysftt2
> http://tinyurl.com/ynrnp5
> http://tinyurl.com/2cywst
> http://tinyurl.com/ywmgzf
> http://tinyurl.com/23772j
> http://tinyurl.com/2cv5ou
> http://tinyurl.com/2xzmeg
> http://tinyurl.com/yuxvuc
> http://tinyurl.com/yvbo7u
>
> ... or the European Gliding Championships (Finland)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2hjqua
> http://tinyurl.com/yns5ql
> http://tinyurl.com/yqgneo
> http://tinyurl.com/yvc69d
> http://tinyurl.com/28warp
> http://tinyurl.com/29sgnq
> http://tinyurl.com/2f5zww
> http://tinyurl.com/24zeek
> http://tinyurl.com/ynohep
>
> ... or the World Gliding Championship (Sweden)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26vp8w
> http://tinyurl.com/youoaf
> http://tinyurl.com/2d5xe6
> http://tinyurl.com/22hssr
> http://tinyurl.com/2gmnva
> http://tinyurl.com/2euc68
> http://tinyurl.com/2cyhrd
> http://tinyurl.com/ypjkfo
> http://tinyurl.com/yt4aws
>
> -A
> --
> Hvis du bruger et anti-spam program, der spammer os andre i hvert
> eneste indlæg, ser jeg ikke dine indlæg. Jeg filtrerer dem bort.

[MaD]

On 14 Feb., 00:06, Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 11:26:34 -0800, "Andy" > wrote:
>
> > Is it normal at UK contests to finish as described in the accident
> > report or are approaches more conservative without the known photo
> > op.
>
> ... Pribina Cup (Slovakia):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ysftt2http://tinyurl.com/ynrnp5http://tinyurl.com/2cywsthttp://tinyurl.com/ywmgzfhttp://tinyurl.com/23772jhttp://tinyurl.com/2cv5ouhttp://tinyurl.com/2xzmeghttp://tinyurl.com/yuxvuchttp://tinyurl.com/yvbo7u
>
> ... or the European Gliding Championships (Finland)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2hjquahttp://tinyurl.com/yns5qlhttp://tinyurl.com/yqgneohttp://tinyurl.com/yvc69dhttp://tinyurl.com/28warphttp://tinyurl.com/29sgnqhttp://tinyurl.com/2f5zwwhttp://tinyurl.com/24zeekhttp://tinyurl.com/ynohep
>
> ... or the World Gliding Championship (Sweden)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26vp8whttp://tinyurl.com/youoafhttp://tinyurl.com/2d5xe6http://tinyurl.com/22hssrhttp://tinyurl.com/2gmnvahttp://tinyurl.com/2euc68http://tinyurl.com/2cyhrdhttp://tinyurl.com/ypjkfohttp://tinyurl.com/yt4aws
>

And you can add the European Championships 2004 in Slovakia:
http://www.nitra2005.sk/photos.php?gal=day11_2005-07-20_Landings_by_Elfo&P=1
and http://www.nitra2005.sk/photos.php?
gal=day11_2005-07-20_by_Puppy_landings

Two of the pictures where used in the accident report. I'm pretty
sure, actually, that the guy in the blue T-Shirt is Neil.

In some pictures you can see power lines in the background. They are
about 7-800m from the finishline and it was expressely forbidden to go
lower and then pulling up over them. So everybody cleared them and
then dived for the wheat. Great fun, I can tell you!

Regards
Marcel

[Robert Danewid]

All the pictures from the WGC in Sweden shows gliders either
inside the airfield perimeter (after crossing the finish
line for a straight in landing) or on final approach after a
speed finish. Piltos flying below 50 metres at the finish
line were penalized.

If you were so low out side the airfield you will hit the
trees that are visible in the photos.

Low finishes was a topic taken seriously by both the comp
management and our stewards.

Robert Danewid
Championships Director WGC2006


Asbjorn Hojmark skrev:
> On 13 Feb 2007 11:26:34 -0800, "Andy" > wrote:
>
>> Is it normal at UK contests to finish as described in the accident
>> report or are approaches more conservative without the known photo
>> op.
>
> ... Pribina Cup (Slovakia):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ysftt2
> http://tinyurl.com/ynrnp5
> http://tinyurl.com/2cywst
> http://tinyurl.com/ywmgzf
> http://tinyurl.com/23772j
> http://tinyurl.com/2cv5ou
> http://tinyurl.com/2xzmeg
> http://tinyurl.com/yuxvuc
> http://tinyurl.com/yvbo7u
>
> ... or the European Gliding Championships (Finland)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2hjqua
> http://tinyurl.com/yns5ql
> http://tinyurl.com/yqgneo
> http://tinyurl.com/yvc69d
> http://tinyurl.com/28warp
> http://tinyurl.com/29sgnq
> http://tinyurl.com/2f5zww
> http://tinyurl.com/24zeek
> http://tinyurl.com/ynohep
>
> ... or the World Gliding Championship (Sweden)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26vp8w
> http://tinyurl.com/youoaf
> http://tinyurl.com/2d5xe6
> http://tinyurl.com/22hssr
> http://tinyurl.com/2gmnva
> http://tinyurl.com/2euc68
> http://tinyurl.com/2cyhrd
> http://tinyurl.com/ypjkfo
> http://tinyurl.com/yt4aws
>
> -A

[[email protected]]

Okay, I will bite again.

Let's say this person who was killed outside the boundary of the
airport was hit by a 747 landing...we see plenty of images from some
airport in the Carribean where just this situation occurs, aircraft
very low over public roadway on final. So the idea expressed by Nick
is....someone standing under the flight path of an aircraft is
responsible for their death...including those areas outside of an
airport? Sure this guy was there to take pictures, but it was a
public road for Christ's sake. Public roads are not the domains of
gliders doing competion finishes, at least not in the US.

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Why do you think it is a public road? I think it is an access road to farm
buildings, and owned by the farmer.

Does this make any difference? I think not, which is why the AAIB do not
comment on the status of the road.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Okay, I will bite again.
>
> Let's say this person who was killed outside the boundary of the
> airport was hit by a 747 landing...we see plenty of images from some
> airport in the Caribbean where just this situation occurs, aircraft
> very low over public roadway on final. So the idea expressed by Nick
> is....someone standing under the flight path of an aircraft is
> responsible for their death...including those areas outside of an
> airport? Sure this guy was there to take pictures, but it was a
> public road for Christ's sake. Public roads are not the domains of
> gliders doing competition finishes, at least not in the US.
>

[[email protected]]

So if I understand correctly...if the individual killed on the ground
had been "Joe Public" minding his own business...this would still be
an acceptable consequence? Or is the fact that the photographer had
knowledge of the flight path make him at fault?

And the analogy to landing out is something of a bit of a stretch.
What if the individual killed had been a child who was perched on the
van to get a better view? And sorry Bumper, in regards to the
spectator appeal of low passes...I think they are entirely appropriate
to air-shows....and entirely inappropriate to glider competions.

And now we get the comparisons to auto race accidents and the such.
Rubbish. We as pilots decide what risks to accept, and what risks
should be regulated. Why not ridge soar at 5' above the ground over a
crowded hiking trail?

[Jack[_1_]]

wrote:

> Let's say this person who was killed outside the boundary of the
> airport was hit by a 747 landing...we see plenty of images from some
> airport in the Carribean where just this situation occurs, aircraft
> very low over public roadway on final. So the idea expressed by Nick
> is....someone standing under the flight path of an aircraft is
> responsible for their death...including those areas outside of an
> airport? Sure this guy was there to take pictures, but it was a
> public road for Christ's sake. Public roads are not the domains of
> gliders doing competion finishes, at least not in the US.


I would hope that any person in the US who witnessed such a
hazardous condition over any public or private property would
immediately report it to both local police and to the FAA.


Jack