This post reminds me that we have gone a year or two without Larry
Sanderson's name appearing in RAS. Without trying to relive that
matter, it should be noted that Sanderson was not being tried in a court
of law, but instead was an employee who never addressed (as far as I
know) certain serious allegations. In an employment situation it is not
"unfair--"un-American"--to pre-judge someone" -- instead, the employee
has the burden of proving the allegations false. If he can't do that,
he normally would be terminated. "Vigilante justice" has nothing to do
with it.


wrote:
When JJ says "Not much to investigate here," this surely tells us all
we need to know about JJ.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

Bill,

I agree with you and Jez Hood about the way this incident has been
discussed. My only quarrel would be with "this tells us all we need to
know about JJ." It's more complicated.

I know JJ from the competition circuit here in the U.S. and from his
RAS postings and other communications. He justifiably enjoys the
respect of many. I suspect that his reaction, although--in my
view--inappropriate, is based on personal conviction. I don't agree
with his position on finish lines vs. cylinders but that't not the
point. The issue is how we deal with situations before all the facts,
or should I say sufficient facts, are available.

We saw the same thing a few years ago when the SSA's Larry Sanderson
was pilloried in RAS for alleged misdeeds. Certain pilots decided
"where there's smoke, there's fire" and made it their personal agenda
to run Larry out of office with accusations and allegations stated as
fact. They justified what we would otherwise refer to as "vigilante
justice" (i.e., the practice in our Wild West days of citizen
groups--mobs--acting as judge, jury, and executioner) by saying they
"just knew" he was a crook. I didn't try to defend Larry; I merely
tried to persuade people that it was unfair--"un-American"--to
pre-judge someone. Based on private emails I received, I was successful
in some cases but a disheartening number of pilots I otherwise respect
behaved dangerously and dishonorably. Some appeared incapable of
understanding the distinction between defending someone blindly and
defending the concept of due process.

Soaring pilots are generally fine people. But as we see occasionally,
we are probably no different than any other segment of the population.
We can be just as prejudiced, biased, headstrong, narrowminded, and
prone to rush to judgment as any other group of people who share a
common interest.

Chip Bearden