accident at 2005 junior worlds

[Dav Law]

Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)
if one reads the report it is obvious that the photographer
deliberately put himself in the flight path and had
to jump off the car to avoid being hit the day before.
He is therefore at fault, had he hot been there, there
would have been no accident, simple really.

If he had been standing on a 500ft tower he could
have been hit by a glider at 500ft just as easily.
The report makes clear this was a common practice at
this comp and this incident should not be used to further
the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
state type ways. The pilot should sleep fine, its those
who love to blame who should hang their heads in shame.

There is a significant advantage as stated in the report
and on rec.aviation in flying close to the ground,
closer the better just because you don’t do it doesn’t
mean that others should not. Personally I do not fly
like that myself but that is MY choice and I wouldn’t
dream of telling others what they should do, by all
means don’t do it yourself but let those that wish
to and can do so have their fun.

[Marc Ramsey]

Dav Law wrote:
> Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
> responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
> cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)

If the photographer had been on airport property, had ignored requests
to stay out of the flight path, and if the pilots had been unaware of
the presence of people and vehicles in his flight path, I might see your
point. But, given that the pilots all knew where these people were, and
could easily see them and their vehicles as they approached, it was
criminally stupid of them not to give them a lot more than a few feet of
clearance. This goes way beyond simple like/dislike of low contest
finishes. It shows that some people simply don't give a flying f*ck
about the safety of others, even when all they have at stake is a point
or two in a silly contest.

Marc Ramsey, who is most decidedly non-anonymous, has flown in plenty of
contests, and considers himself lucky never to have met anyone quite so
disgustingly negligent as some of these pilots appear to have been...

[[email protected]]

I couldn't have said it stupider myself.

[Mal[_3_]]

Do ever think that the anonymous posters could be the press trolling for a
story !

[Jack[_1_]]

Mal wrote:
> Do ever think that the anonymous posters could be the press trolling for a
> story !

Oh my Schweizer, NO! Not that!

Yet how fortunate we are that such a dastardly scheme can be
diverted by the simple application of a few text characters
to an email signature block, for an airtight guarantee of
authenticity, wholesomeness, and respect for all that is Holy.


Nott D. Press

[[email protected]]

One must admire the genteel, sophisticated and reserved manner in
which Dav Law tore into those "fun-killing safety Nazis" who would
want to insist on safer competitions, as well as into the gutless
*******s who post anonymously. The pilot banked, therefore
deliberately turned towards the spectators, before impact. The
analysis of the accident specifies that had it not been for that bank,
the plane would have cleared the spectators safely. There is no
question that the pilot was responsible for the accident, even if the
photographer and the other spectators should have known better than
place themselves in the path of fast, low flying planes. The two
photographs which accompany the report showing spectators ducking and
one plane's belly apparently touching the crops give me the willies.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[fbrahic]

"He is therefore at fault, had he not been there, there would have
been no accident, simple really."

So, if there's a guy standing in my driveway when I come home and I
drive right through him, it's his fault for thinking that he could
stand in my driveway and not get hit, right?

On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Dav Law
> wrote:
> Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
> responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
> cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)
> if one reads the report it is obvious that the photographer
> deliberately put himself in the flight path and had
> to jump off the car to avoid being hit the day before.
> He is therefore at fault, had he hot been there, there
> would have been no accident, simple really.
>
> If he had been standing on a 500ft tower he could
> have been hit by a glider at 500ft just as easily.
> The report makes clear this was a common practice at
> this comp and this incident should not be used to further
> the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
> crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
> slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
> state type ways. The pilot should sleep fine, its those
> who love to blame who should hang their heads in shame.
>
> There is a significant advantage as stated in the report
> and on rec.aviation in flying close to the ground,
> closer the better just because you don't do it doesn't
> mean that others should not. Personally I do not fly
> like that myself but that is MY choice and I wouldn't
> dream of telling others what they should do, by all
> means don't do it yourself but let those that wish
> to and can do so have their fun.

[bumper]

"fbrahic" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "He is therefore at fault, had he not been there, there would have
> been no accident, simple really."
>
> So, if there's a guy standing in my driveway when I come home and I
> drive right through him, it's his fault for thinking that he could
> stand in my driveway and not get hit, right?


Yup, you got it!

I go into full autopilot about a block away from home. If some sucker is
standing in my driveway and chooses not to dive out of the way, he's pretty
much toast (g).

bumper

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 14, 10:52 am, Owain Walters
> wrote:
> I am not ashamed to admit that one of those photos
> is of me.

Good to see someone that isn't hiding behind anonymity.

> Please dont forget that this death was caused by incredibly
> poor airmansihp. Not bad rules or practices.

Yes, but... Rules and practices are usually the codification
of how to avoid bad airmanship. As such, they should be
continually reviewed and revised, and as such they are
useful and necessary.

> We could
> easily hurt people within a multitude of other current
> rules. We should expect to employ common sense within
> the rules as well.

Very true. But common sense isn't necessarily common,
and young/inexperienced people haven't had the time to
develop their understanding of what's common and sensible.
Rules help in those cases.

Tom Gardner

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 14, 11:57 am, Owain Walters
> wrote:
> I understand what you are saying. But I think we are
> going to have to agree to disagree. The problem was
> the individual pilot. Not the 10's (or even 100's)
> of thousands of incident free finishes we have had.

Hmm. That's a variant of "guns don't kill people, people
kill people", which is perfectly true but (IMHO) insufficient.
(And I'm not going to reply to any comments that mention
guns; I'm not going down that tangential rathole!)

BTW, please don't think that I'm after a risk-free life,
but I don't like the possibility that someone else
endangers my life. In that vein, sure, the spectators
standing there were knowingly putting themselves
in harm's way; that doesn't bother me too much
since it is their choice.
I am more concerned about random third parties
(walkers, farmers etc) that might get caught up
unwittingly.

> Its interesting to read the range of views when we
> are all here to enjoy the same thing!

Yes, though some of the more extreme views (and
the extreme way in which they are expressed) looks
bad. Very bad.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 14, 3:52 am, Owain Walters
> wrote:
>
> I am not ashamed to admit that one of those photos
> is of me.
>
> Neil, whom was my team manager at the time of the photo,
> is the guy in the blue t-shirt in the foreground.

Owain, Did you know that Neil was there taking photos? Was the way
you flew influenced in any way by the possibility you could be the
subject of a great photo?

thanks

Andy

[BB]

>
> Please dont forget that this death was caused by incredibly
> poor airmansihp. Not bad rules or practices.

I've read a lot of this sort of post in this thread -- one bad pilot,
one lout who ruined it all for us, and so forth. Yet the AAIB report
was very explicit that everyone else at this comp was doing exactly
the same thing, and many others cleared the hedge and spectators by
only a few feet.

What exactly was the "poor airmanship" that so distinguished this
particular pilot? From reading the report, it seems 20 pilots played
Russian Roulette with the same gun; one hit the chamber with the
bullet. Well, he just showed poor gunmanship.

John Cochrane

[Alistair Wright]

Mr Law wrote:

> ..........to further
> the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
> crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
> slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
> state type ways.

Two things here:

Firstly, I take it that the persons who taught you to fly Mr Law were not
'Nazis', or were they, because they insisted on you not killing yourself?

Secondly, it is fortunate for you that you are not a UK citizen otherwise
you would be helping the police with their enquiries. It is a CRIMINAL
offence to call anyone a 'Nazi' in the UK.

Please moderate your language on this forum. I'm surprised that the
moderator tolerates your input.

Alistair W

[Lew Hartswick]

Alistair Wright wrote:
>
> Secondly, it is fortunate for you that you are not a UK citizen otherwise
> you would be helping the police with their enquiries. It is a CRIMINAL
> offence to call anyone a 'Nazi' in the UK.
>
> Please moderate your language on this forum. I'm surprised that the
> moderator tolerates your input.
>
> Alistair W
>
Firstly there is not such a thing as a moderator on this usenet
group.
Secondly I'm surely glad I'm not in the UK if calling some of the
"flakes" in the environmental movement Nazis would get me in trouble.
Now I'll admit using some words that conote color etc could get
you in trouble here.
...lew...

[Werner Schmidt]

Hello Alistair,

> Please moderate your language on this forum. I'm surprised that the
> moderator tolerates your input.

this is not a forum but a newsgroup. This is usenet. It's free and not
moderated. For good.

Werner

[Dan G]

On Feb 14, 3:23 pm, Lew Hartswick > wrote:

> Secondly I'm surely glad I'm not in the UK if calling some of the
> "flakes" in the environmental movement Nazis would get me in trouble.

There is no such law in the UK (beyond the normal libel laws).
However, it does break Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a
comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the
Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."


Dan

[Jono Richards]

do any of you yanks watch the driving programme Top
Gear? the recent episode was them on a road trip through
some of the southern states across the pond..

I'm surely glad I'm not in the USA...


At 15:24 14 February 2007, Lew Hartswick wrote:
> Secondly I'm surely glad I'm not in the UK

[fbrahic]

> do any of you yanks watch the driving programme Top
> Gear? the recent episode was them on a road trip through
> some of the southern states across the pond..

Ah yes, what a great show... Obviously though, that episode was a mix
of both reality and selective focus. Alot of what you saw in there was
indeed real, but that doesn't mean that it's entirely representative
of an entire nation.

On Feb 14, 1:40 pm, Jono Richards
> wrote:
> do any of you yanks watch the driving programme Top
> Gear? the recent episode was them on a road trip through
> some of the southern states across the pond..
>
> I'm surely glad I'm not in the USA...
>
> At 15:24 14 February 2007, Lew Hartswick wrote:
>
>
>
> > Secondly I'm surely glad I'm not in the UK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 14, 2:40 pm, Jono Richards
> wrote:
> do any of you yanks watch the driving programme Top
> Gear? the recent episode was them on a road trip through
> some of the southern states across the pond..
>
> I'm surely glad I'm not in the USA...

Hmm, I was so disappointed when I got to the UK after watching Monty
Python's Flying Circus.

I thought it would be just like the TV show...

66