"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