2005 Junior Worlds Accident

[Justin Craig[_2_]]

Last week I posted a message which made reference to
the RAF GSA. What I had said was incorrect. In a moment
of extreme anger, replying to a post by Alistair Wright,
I mistakenly made the reference.

In fact the GSA is a super / safe organisation, with
a good fun approach to our sport. What I actually was
thinking, was more along the lines of an ATC “ text
book circuit” ie, base leg at 500ft, final turn at
250ft, what ever the scenario.

However I still completely condemn Alistair’s narrow
minded attitude regarding the flying operation at Husbands
Bosworth. As somebody else stated, it is instructors
like this who stop capable pilots taking the odd check
flight. They are also the “fun Police” who given a
chance would take the fun out of our wonderful sport.


To address Dan G’s post….. NO I do not think I am gods
gift to flying. I am a competent XC pilot and a mediocre
comp pilot. I have grown up on gliding clubs. First
flight at 6 months (in the back of a tug with my father)
, and my earliest memories of flying, beating up the
ridge in a Capstan at Bellarena in Northern Ireland.

COMP FINISHES ARE NOT DANGEROUS, BAD AIRMANSHIP IS!
IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE THE JUDGE

[stephanevdv]

Somebody wrote:

"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."

I'm not so sure about callousness. It could very well be what the
French call "mental viscosity", the inability under stress to react
correctly to a changing situation. These pilots were so concentrated
on their task, that they were simply unable to grasp what was
happening and react accordingly. They just continued doing what they
were used to do. For them, this kind of finish is the only optimal
one.

Now for the reason for making low speed finishes:

It would be interesting indeed to calculate for diverse circumstances
if the reduction of the induced drag in ground effect compensates for
the energy loss consecutive to the high speed dive (as profile drag is
directly proportional to the square of the speed) needed to get near
the ground at very nearly Vne. Given the added energy loss of having
to jump over hedges and wires (deflection of control surfaces is drag-
inducing), I think it would probably be mathematically better to make
a sensible approach aiming for the runway threshold.

If I'm right, no competitor would be justified in doing low finishes
by the idea of flying an optimal finish. Their only justification
would be "showing off" or "having fun". Now who has got the knowledge
of physics to do the maths?

[Rory O'Conor]

Author: Stephanevdv > <mailto:Stephanevdv
>>=20
Date/Time: 13:00 14 February 2007

________________________________

If I'm right, no competitor would be justified in doing low finishes
by the idea of flying an optimal finish. Their only justification
would be "showing off" or "having fun". Now who has got the knowledge
of physics to do the maths?

------
=20
So if there is no clear competitive advantage, we dont need new rules to
prevent competitors harming themselves as they desperately strive to
win.
We might need some training (in the final glide), especially if novices,
and we should not endanger other competitors nor third parties.
"Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
why most of us participate in recreational activities.
=20
Rory
=20

--

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 14, 1:17 pm, Rory O'Conor
> wrote:
> "Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
> why most of us participate in recreational activities.

Very true.

The difficulty comes when one person's fun hurts "uninvolved"
and "unwitting" third parties. (I also agree with the report which
acknowledges those spectators weren't completely "uninvolved").

[stephanevdv]

> > wrote:
> > "Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
> > why most of us participate in recreational activities.

Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
"efficiency", and if efficiency was proved to involve abandoning the
low finish, then you can bet most other, less serious competitors
would follow suit, just by copycat effect. You'll never get them to
abandon "fun" for "lawfullness", even with penalties. Heavy fines do
not deter most people from speeding... because when the road invites
you to go fast, you go fast. So take away the invitation.

[MaD]

On 14 Feb., 13:59, "stephanevdv" > wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>
> Now for the reason for making low speed finishes:
>
> It would be interesting indeed to calculate for diverse circumstances
> if the reduction of the induced drag in ground effect compensates for
> the energy loss consecutive to the high speed dive (as profile drag is
> directly proportional to the square of the speed) needed to get near
> the ground at very nearly Vne. Given the added energy loss of having
> to jump over hedges and wires (deflection of control surfaces is drag-
> inducing), I think it would probably be mathematically better to make
> a sensible approach aiming for the runway threshold.
>
> If I'm right, no competitor would be justified in doing low finishes
> by the idea of flying an optimal finish. Their only justification
> would be "showing off" or "having fun". Now who has got the knowledge
> of physics to do the maths?

There's no need to do those maths because the most efficient final
glide is clearly the one that gets you to the finishline at the
McCready speed according to the last thermal.
Unless...
1. you encounter sink on the way
2. you encounter lift on the way
3. you add a little safety margin by climbing higher than what the
calculator says

Most people do 3. because they cannot assess to what degree 1. and 2.
will happen.
So at some point, after maybe nothing or 2. happened, you have this
excess height and are confident you won't need it. I find that point
is usually at about 8-12km out. And from then on it is definitely not
the most efficient to continue at "low" speed.

Marcel Duenner

[Dave K]

> Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
> "efficiency",

True, but one thing we are missing is that this is a JUNIOR
championship. These are young people and FUN does come higher for the
majority - I say this having crewed at several UK juniors for top
competitors. For top pilots efficiency was top of the list until they
knew they could get back - then the fun element hit the top of the list.
For lesser mortals it's a fun event surrounded by similar thinking
young people. This changed when I crewed for the same pilots at full
nationals - the atmosphere was different as they were surrounded by more
experienced competition pilots.

Face it - gliding is fun, if it weren't we wouldn't do it. That's why
we don't fly powered.

Dave Kearns

PS these were RAFGSA pilots!!

[Bert Willing]

Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

Bert
who likes to do worm burners, but in an controlable setting

"Dave K" > wrote in message
...
>> Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
>> "efficiency",
>
> True, but one thing we are missing is that this is a JUNIOR championship.
> These are young people and FUN does come higher for the majority - I say
> this having crewed at several UK juniors for top competitors. For top
> pilots efficiency was top of the list until they knew they could get
> back - then the fun element hit the top of the list. For lesser mortals
> it's a fun event surrounded by similar thinking young people. This
> changed when I crewed for the same pilots at full nationals - the
> atmosphere was different as they were surrounded by more experienced
> competition pilots.
>
> Face it - gliding is fun, if it weren't we wouldn't do it. That's why we
> don't fly powered.
>
> Dave Kearns
>
> PS these were RAFGSA pilots!!

[Dan G]

On Feb 15, 12:22 pm, "Bert Willing" <willing_no_spam_ple...@ir-
microsystems.com> wrote:
> Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
> Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

This is the view the lawmakers and courts take - something often
grossly misunderstood. AFAIK no activity which risks *only yourself*
has ever been banned. You can legally go cave diving, BASE jumping
etc. to your hearts content, despite them being probably the most
dangerous sports around. (Thirteen people died BASE jumping last year
and someone died doing it only last Saturday, the third death this
year.)

What the law does mandate is that if you're organising anything that
other people will take part in, every effort to minimise risk to the
participants and others is taken (e.g. hard hats and spinal protectors
for horse riding, helmets for BASE jumpers, F1 cars now have their
wheels tethered to the chassis so they can't fly off into the stands
etc. etc.).

For example in Britain there's a diving center where at least one
person has died every year since 1978. The center is still open as
they simply do everything they can to make it safe (apart from one
death where they broke the governing association's rules and were
fined £50,000). It's just a rather risky pastime. (They are in fact
building a medical center on site now).

As another example, every year in Idaho there's a BASE jumping
convention at Perrine Bridge. Four people have died there but the
event will not stop.

The law will never stop you doing any sport dangerous to *yourself* -
that's your choice, and the law respects that. What it will cane your
for is killing someone else who should have been safe while you do it
(as happened at Hus Bos), and if you're responsible for the safety of
others and you slip up.


Dan

[Bert Willing]

I think it's common sense in the first place.

"Dan G" > wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 15, 12:22 pm, "Bert Willing" <willing_no_spam_ple...@ir-
microsystems.com> wrote:
> Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
> Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

This is the view the lawmakers and courts take - something often
grossly misunderstood. AFAIK no activity which risks *only yourself*
has ever been banned. You can legally go cave diving, BASE jumping
etc. to your hearts content, despite them being probably the most
dangerous sports around. (Thirteen people died BASE jumping last year
and someone died doing it only last Saturday, the third death this
year.)

What the law does mandate is that if you're organising anything that
other people will take part in, every effort to minimise risk to the
participants and others is taken (e.g. hard hats and spinal protectors
for horse riding, helmets for BASE jumpers, F1 cars now have their
wheels tethered to the chassis so they can't fly off into the stands
etc. etc.).

For example in Britain there's a diving center where at least one
person has died every year since 1978. The center is still open as
they simply do everything they can to make it safe (apart from one
death where they broke the governing association's rules and were
fined £50,000). It's just a rather risky pastime. (They are in fact
building a medical center on site now).

As another example, every year in Idaho there's a BASE jumping
convention at Perrine Bridge. Four people have died there but the
event will not stop.

The law will never stop you doing any sport dangerous to *yourself* -
that's your choice, and the law respects that. What it will cane your
for is killing someone else who should have been safe while you do it
(as happened at Hus Bos), and if you're responsible for the safety of
others and you slip up.


Dan