2005 Junior Worlds Accident

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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.