2005 Junior Worlds Accident

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?