2005 Junior Worlds Accident

On Feb 11, 12:09 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
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

The report states that pilots did it to reduce induced drag by ground
effect, even though at high speeds profile drag is dominant, not
induced.

But I have the suspicion that some pilots were doing it as they enjoy
the rush of flying so low. Others were probably attempting to showing
off. And remember this was the Juniors - no doubt many of these young
people wanted to imitate their peers, and felt peer pressure upon
themselves to do so.


Dan

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.

At 11:12 11 February 2007, 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.

What really frightens me is that some appear to have
learned nothing from this tragic accident. While there
are those who are so irresponsible to believe that
a person going about their lawful business being hit
by a flying aircraft while they are on the ground is
an acceptable risk and if a person on the ground is
killed in this way then they are in some way responsible.
I am reluctant to get personal Mr Olson but is is exactly
the attitude that you display that got Neil Lawson
killed. While people have the attitude that you appear
to display, it is always someone elses fault, then
people will die and get injured as a consequence, the
sad bit that it is frequently the innocent person who
suffers the most, or in this case his nearest and dearest.

The pilot was committing an illegal, irresponsible
act as the report found. I take great solace that I
am never likely to be anywhere near where you are likely
to be flying, if you truly believe what you have written
here you are a danger to yourself, and more importantly
a danger to those around you. Do gliding a real favour
Mr Olson, never fly again.

Dan G schrieb:

This is a good point. It was undeniably a very dangerous place to be
and some measure of responsibility must fall on Lawson.

It was not only dangerous to them, it was also dangerous to the pilots.
It would be interesting to read the reactions of this group if not the
photographer but the pilot had been killed by flying into a car which
was deliberately parked in the forseeable finish glide path.

supposedly done to minimise induced drag, even though they do nothing
of the sort at high speeds, the report states), and good riddance.

It's much more simple: The faster you fly, the earlier you reach the
goal. Not exactly rocket science. Heck, this was *a race*! Racing people
tend to want to win, after all, this is the whole point of a race. Which
involves going to the limit.

If you want to avoid such finishes, the only way is to put the finish
line at some altitude. But then, it will be interesting to read your
comments when the first contender dies in a spin while trying to reach
that line.

Stefan

Don Johnstone schrieb:

a person going about their lawful business being hit
....
The pilot was committing an illegal, irresponsible

This persons lawful business fully depended on those irresponsible
pilots committing their illegal thing.

"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?

On Feb 11, 12:05 pm, Stefan wrote:
It's much more simple: The faster you fly, the earlier you reach the
goal. Not exactly rocket science. Heck, this was *a race*! Racing people
tend to want to win, after all, this is the whole point of a race. Which
involves going to the limit.

Flying at zero feet is not the quickest route to the finish.

But then, it will be interesting to read your
comments when the first contender dies in a spin while trying to reach
that line.

Eh?

This persons lawful business fully depended on those irresponsible
pilots committing their illegal thing.

Bull****. Visit whiteplanes.com - Lawson was a very accomplished
aviation photographer. Photographs of finishing gliders was a tiny
part of his trade.


Dan

Life is a risk Don. The Human race advances by taking
risks. Everday you get up in the morning Don you take
a risk. Sometimes the risks don't pay off and you end
up injured or dead. If your not aware of them Don
- then educate yourself to them - no amount of hiding
behind laws and rules will take the risks away.

Unfortunately both the pilot and Mr Lawson took risks
that resulted in his death - (please don't bleat on
about how he was an innocent bystander he wasn't and
he increased the risk to himself by his actions). I'm
not saying it was entirely Mr Lawson's fault - nor
the pilot's. You are.

Now please provide the statistics to say that competition
racing finishes are inherently more dangerous to so
called 'innocent bystanders' than you driving your
car on a public highway.

On Feb 11, 4:51 pm, Nick Olson
wrote:
Now please provide the statistics to say that competition
racing finishes are inherently more dangerous to so
called 'innocent bystanders' than you driving your
car on a public highway.

It cannot have escaped your notice that great strides have been made
in traffic safety - safer cars, better junction design, better
signage, better speed enforcement etc. etc. Why are you suprised that
the same happens in aviation?

Dan

Stefan wrote:

It would be interesting to read the reactions of this group if not the
photographer but the pilot had been killed by flying into a car which
was deliberately parked in the forseeable finish glide path.

A car leaping into the air like a kangaroo at the last moment? an
invisible car? Maybe a tractor or truck parked in a farmer's field a
hundred meters from the finish line? How about another aircraft disabled
on the runway?

Just how blind are we pilots allowed to be?


Jack