Minimum Safe Altitude

John Sinclair wrote:
Nice little chat about how things should be, Jack.
Now lets talk about how things are. Lets get right
down where the rubber meets the road. I'm involved
with running a national contest, next year and I need
to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
Remember that I live in sue-happy California where
they'll sue you because the coffee you were served
was too hot! Who's liable if we should have a finish
line accident? The pilot because he did what we told
him to do? How about the SSA who continued to sanction
a procedure that violates FAR's. Next, my club.........good
luck, they haven't got a dime, but then they'll come
after me. I haven't got much, but it took me 72 years
to collect it and I'd kind'a like to keep what I got.

So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
year?


Does the fatal accident rate in recent years, show a major
statistical connection with contest finishes? Is it the 1st,
2nd, or 3rd most frequent context?

Given the amount of misunderstanding in the pilot community
(power and glider) about just what constitutes a legal approach to a
landing at an uncontrolled field, it's obviously a bucket of worms
that the FAA believes is best dealt with after the fact. For them,
91.13 -- "careless and reckless" -- is adequate when attention must
be paid. Some of us obviously would do it the same way if they were
in FAA's shoes.

In the meantime, down there where the rubber meets the runway, each
individual takes responsibility for the things he can control,
whether camera position, glider flight path, or contest rules. If
the sport is to benefit from keeping the low fast finish, then it's
up to the SSA to shore up the worm-burner's acceptability, because
that is a crusade on multiple fronts (legal, venue, pilot
competence, etc.) which is more than any single contest boss can be
expected to take on alone.

Because the solution is bigger than the problem -- like all
things political -- I suppose the odds are on the side of the
nanny-state approach and not with that of the robust individualists
who prefer to let the ignorant/incompetent fall where they may.

Best of luck, JJ. I know you'll do the right thing.


Jack
---------------------------------------

At 03:36 14 February 2007, Jack wrote:
John Sinclair wrote:

1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the
finish
line at Cal City.
Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.


2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but
saw
what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.
From this short description it sounds more like a
Darwin award
situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
detonation, decides to build a small explosive device
of his own.
Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if
he uses the
appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond
the age of
twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more
appropriately.
Some do, some don't. We move on.


3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
his actions influenced others to take unnecessary
risks.
I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand
the risk.
There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also
quite confident
that at least some pilots were accommodating him in
order to become
the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to
do so is
undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That
the photographer
would not have understood this gives him too little
credit, and
ignores his career achievements in the process.


4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
forever altered.
I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to
one form of
aviation or another, and there have been so many. That
doesn't
change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they
would choose
again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the
risks we take. We
who are left have the great advantage of learning from
their
mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful
to learn the
wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.

The responsibility for this most recent fatality must
lie with the
organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all
three. But we err
if we believe that our task is to determine degree
of fault or
proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection
between
desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever
we have an
opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems
there are so many
ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only
permutations
of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many
rules we
promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will
leak through
whenever we provide an avenue.

The organic punishment to each of the three entities
concerned in
the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden
to the wider
community through restrictions to flight only compounds
the tragedy.
The answer is education, and training, and some pride
to be taken in
what we can do, rather than in so much that we may
not.


Jack