2005 Junior Worlds Accident

On Feb 10, 10:58 am, Nick Olson
wrote:
At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
-sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
ignored.

I'll agree with that.

Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
feel is quite idiotic.

The report states that as a contributory factor.

It also states, correctly IMHO, that the root cause was the pilots'
deliberate actions.

A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
people were grown men who understood the risks they
were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
-boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
fleet worldwide.

Now you're just being silly.

What about the other members of the public that were on public
property several hundred metres from the airfield? Do you also expect
them to have a similar understanding of the fine details of a
competition that they might not even realise existed?

The pilot pushed it too hard, and killed a bystander. That cannot and
should not be ignored. Would your position be the same if a rambler
had been killed?

As they say in a different context, "your right to swing your fist
ends at my nose".

At 11:00 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
At 23:24 09 February 2007, Dan G wrote:

Gentlemen it is quite easy -life is a game of risk
-sometimes the consequence of taking those risks is
death - in todays cuddly wuddly lets not do anything
in case we hurt ourselves society this seems to get
ignored.
Said photographer was taking a risk (as was the finishing
pilot who hit him) - he delibrately placed himself
under the flight path of competition gliders finishing,
to take photographs. He had full previous knowledge
of how competiton pilots fly a finish - to say he does
not bear any responsibility for the accident I frankly
feel is quite idiotic. I have seen many people take
this risk at competions - frankly it's behaviour I
wouldn't do -the risk is too great for me personally.

A combination of risks resulted in a death. Both
people were grown men who understood the risks they
were taking (or should have done). A death resulted
-boo hoo - let's grow up and move on, or shall we eliminate
all the risks of death by grounding the entire gliding
fleet worldwide.

I think you miss the point here. This accident took
place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
such a position. The point, and the finding of the
report is that the glider should never have been where
it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
are not that different. The photographer was in no
way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
as is clear from the report. No where in the report
does it say that the photographer was not entitled
to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
irresponsibly.
People have the right to expect that others will behave
in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
is never the 'fault' of the victim.

At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
I think you miss the point here. This accident took
place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
such a position. The point, and the finding of the
report is that the glider should never have been where
it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
are not that different. The photographer was in no
way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
as is clear from the report. No where in the report
does it say that the photographer was not entitled
to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
irresponsibly.
People have the right to expect that others will behave
in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
is never the 'fault' of the victim.

Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
- to not to be is just being stupid.
I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
that I could be killed doing that activity -however
the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
the same with gliding.

Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
finishes.
You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?

On 10 Feb 2007 16:42:44 GMT, Nick Olson
wrote:


Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
finishes.

I do not agree.
A glider pilot who is unable to avoid a collision with someone
standing outside the airfield parameter is the only one to blame.

You wouldn't blame the tree for being there if he had collided with a
tree, do you?




Bye
Andreas

Nick, read the report. To use your own anology the
photographer was not standing in the freeway he was
off the road by some distance. It is not unreasonable
to expect a standard or airmanship that avoids hitting
people on the ground while flying half a mile away
from an airfield. Hitting a pedestrian in the road
may be excuseable but going onto the pavement (sidewalk)
after them is not. To be that low in that position
was totally unecessary and reckless. While the rule
making authority, the IGC, must shoulder some of the
responsibility the accident was due to the total lack
of airmanship by the pilot.


At 16:48 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
I think you miss the point here. This accident took
place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
such a position. The point, and the finding of the
report is that the glider should never have been where
it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
are not that different. The photographer was in no
way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
as is clear from the report. No where in the report
does it say that the photographer was not entitled
to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
irresponsibly.
People have the right to expect that others will behave
in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
is never the 'fault' of the victim.

Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
- to not to be is just being stupid.
I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
that I could be killed doing that activity -however
the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
the same with gliding.

Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
finishes.
You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?

"In conversation

with the group on the van, he [the victim] had told them that on the

previous day, he had seen gliders brushing the edge of

the trees and he had been forced to jump from the roof of

his car in order to avoid a low-flying glider."

Known peril. Nonetheless, sad for all involved.

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...


Nick, read the report. To use your own anology the
photographer was not standing in the freeway he was
off the road by some distance. It is not unreasonable
to expect a standard or airmanship that avoids hitting
people on the ground while flying half a mile away
from an airfield. Hitting a pedestrian in the road
may be excuseable but going onto the pavement (sidewalk)
after them is not. To be that low in that position
was totally unecessary and reckless. While the rule
making authority, the IGC, must shoulder some of the
responsibility the accident was due to the total lack
of airmanship by the pilot.


At 16:48 10 February 2007, Nick Olson wrote:
At 12:00 10 February 2007, Don Johnstone wrote:
I think you miss the point here. This accident took
place outside the boundaries of the airfield. The photographer
was stationary and he was very well known for adopting
such a position. The point, and the finding of the
report is that the glider should never have been where
it was. Unless the pilot aimed specifically for the
photographer it could have been anyone he hit, (the
man on the Clapham ominibus), someone perhaps that
did not have the knowledge that the photographer did,
would you say then that such a person had any responsibility
for the accident or his death. Would you say a security
gaurd was responsible for his own death if he was shot
by a robber: of course not, and the circumstances here
are not that different. The photographer was in no
way acting outsdide the law, he was going about his
lawful business, the same can not be said for the pilot
as is clear from the report. No where in the report
does it say that the photographer was not entitled
to be where he was or that he was acting in any way
irresponsibly.
People have the right to expect that others will behave
in a reasonable and safe manner, when they do not it
is never the 'fault' of the victim.

Yes Don I would say the security gaurd was partly responsible
for his own death - there is a risk in being a security
gaurd that you may indeed be the targer of a shooting
-you should be alert to that risk or not do the job
- to not to be is just being stupid.
I ride a high powered motorcycle - I am fully aware
that I could be killed doing that activity -however
the rewards outweigh the risks for me personally -
the same with gliding.

Now Don said photographer deliberately situated himself
on top of his vechile behind a hedge, under the flight
path of finishing competition gliders knowing full
well how some competitors fly - very low and fast-
he was taking a risk to get a spectacular photographic
shot -he paid for that risk with his life -he wasn't
an innocent bystander with no knowledge of competition
finishes.
You seem to make some strong claims about the responsibility
and actions of the pilot, I'm saying it's not all his
responsibility. If some idiot went and stood in the
middle of a motorway (freeway) and got run over and
killed- would you blame the driver that hit him?

Well I have.
Oh yeah of course he was Don -miles away from the
finishing line - that's why he was famous for getting
those great close in shots .
Don looking at the map/photo,s he was directly in
front of the finishing line, where one might expect
finishing gliders to come from in that direction at
Hus Bos- low and fast. He took a risk he paid for it
- don't heap all the blame on the pilot.

Hey Guys...

Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.

Neil Lawson.
http://whiteplanes.com/people/people2.htm

Everyone is being so PC as to not even mention it.

What he did for gliding with his photo's cannot be replaced.
I never met Neil personally but used to talk with him on MSN all the
time.
He was a true gentleman.

It is a tragic loss for all concerned but there was no excuse for
hitting someone period.

In the report...
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...65%2002-07.pdf

If you look at figure 2 and you can see Neils car, the autopsy said
his injuries were consistent with him bending down at the tme of
the impact.
The bush by the front of the red van and to the one to the rear of
Neils car are at least 2-3ft above the roof line of the car.
There is not a wingspans width below those two bushes.
Which means the pilot had to basically aim his wingtip through that
gap in order to connect.

There is no excuse IMHO for the pilot to have hit Neil.
If you look at some of the footage of finishes on the Smoking2 video
you can see the pilots aiming at the cameras.
This pilot messed up his aiming or rather his aim was too good.

Shame someone was killed in an attempt to get on the cover of S and
G!!


Al

schrieb:

Lets just remember the victims name here firstly.

Neil Lawson.

Which means he was not some unwary spectator, but he had seen many
contests before and he was fully aware of how pilots fly final glides at
such contests. Heck, it was a race, yet he deliberately chose to climb
onto a car roof inmidst the final glide path and expose himself to the
risk, because he wanted to produce spectacular pictures. Or how do you
think he made e.g. the following pictures?

http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders23.htm
http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders42.htm
http://whiteplanes.com/gliders/gliders49.htm

If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

It's always sad when somebody gets killed, famous or not. My thoughts
are with the pilot who will have to live with the fact that he has
killed somebody.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
If you read the report, you'll learn that those spectators had to jump
from the car roofs before because some gliders came in low. And what did
they do? They climbed onto the roofs again!

Of course, this still leaves me with the question of why so many of
these pilots felt the need to fly quite that low that in the first
place? Maybe I'm lacking in competitive spirit, but I try to give
humans and vehicles in my path a wide berth. They have this odd habit of
doing unexpected things.

The accident report does mention that it was "improbable" that all of
these pilots were doing it for a photo opportunity. I can't imagine
there was any real competitive advantage, and they certainly had plenty
of energy to make the finish line. Perhaps it was just the "fun" of
watching people take a dive?

Marc