2005 Junior Worlds Accident

Life is a risk Don.
True, perhaps pilots could perform better in competition
by not wearing seatbelts or parachutes, thus allowing
them to see better behind and above them.

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.
True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?

I'm
not saying it was entirely Mr Lawson's fault - nor
the pilot's. You are.
Personally, the organizers that allow this to happen
can and should be held accountable. And I apply that
to future contests in the US.

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.


What is your point here?, we can compare low flying
to Russian Roulette for that matter. It is an unecesary
procedure that combines the desire to show off as
a stunt pilot might, but with none of the controls
inherit to acrobatic flying.

Hell, why not just organize a 'low pass' competition
and eliminate the need for the cross country component?


This subject gets batted around so often, now we see
a fatality caused directly by these stupid activities,
and we still listen to the justifications for this.
Gee, only one guy died. It hurts our sport, all of
us for this to continue. Reasonable thinking people
within the sport and particularly out of the sport
are not going to buy into the *logic* presented here.

"Justin Craig" wrote in message
...
Having just read the posting by Alistair Wright I was
some what alarmed by his narrow minded attitude in
respect to a club that he does not appear to have flown
at for thirty years.

What's that got to do with it? Hus Bos looks just the same to me in the
accident report pictures as I remember it. Oh no, sorry. The caravan park is
bigger.

Reading further into the post, I rather wonder if in
fact he is a competition pilot himself.

No, I never flew comps but I did fly a lot of cross country.

I am guessing probably not a current one.

Well that's right, I am 74. I retired from instructing before the current
glass fibre era.

.....grounding highly experienced
pundits because he did not like their circuit pattern..come
on, he must have been the laughing stock of the whole
comp.

Well, no. The CFI agreed with me, went up with the grounded pilots, and two
of the offenders had further check rides. Have a look at the picture and map
of HB. Circuit discipline was essential on such a narrow strip with no
escape routes. With a whole heap of competion pilots swanning around, good
patterns were ESSENTIAL to see and be seen. Several of the competitors took
me on one side later and congratulated me on my stand. I have to say I
wondered why HB had been selected for those Nationals (at which incidentally
I was chief scorer) unless it was because we were furthest from the sea in
all directions of any other club.

Given his attitude, I would hazard a guess that he
has some sort of military back round, and may have
learned to fly with the RAF GSA.

No. I was a founder member of the private club that trained me (not HB). I
was the first ab initio to solo at that club, and the first to complete the
Silver, and the second to become an instructor. I sent nearly 100 people
solo in my time and AFAIK none of them went on to have accidents.

The volume of correspondence that my comment has produced is amazing, but at
least it shows a measure of understanding of the problem by most
contributors, though alas no consensus on a solution.

Alistair W

Hello Stewart, hello @all,

first let me introduce myself shortly. I'm 44, still learning to fly a
glider (until now: ASK13, ASK8, ASK6), of course not experienced in
competitions nor cross-country flights, made my B last year and going to
make C and PPL this year. I started in 2004 together with my son, going
slowly due to work and family (me, my wife, 3 children 17-15-4 years
old). Reading this newsgroup since some weeks, now my first try of
writing something. Not a native english speaker, I learned this language
at school until about 28 years ago and hope to write something
understandable for all of you - if not so, please tell me any of my
mistakes if you like to, I'd like to become better.

If there are still any questions, ask them! :-)

Now to the matter of discussion:

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.
True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?

Thats not exactly the point, I think. The risk of death is a matter of
fact as long as you live, regardless of what you are just doing and of
what you may estimate acceptable.

An example: while flying your glider, you may be hit by a jet plane
coming from out of your sight. You save your life by using your
parachute, but parts of the glider hit someone on the ground and kill
him. Oh, this risk is very low, I know, but it exists and you know that.
In spite of this knowledge you decided to fly just this day and just
this time, and the accident happened.

In this example you certainly were not guilty in any legal way, but in
some way still *responsible*, cause *you* *accepted* this risk - a risk
for yourself to die, but also a risk for other people prior not involved
to be killed.

So the point is, as I think, the *responsibility*. And our
responsibility is to reduce every risk to an acceptable and achievable
minimum by establishing appropriate rules and by *obeying* them. But we
cannot reduce any risk to zero - this is just impossible!

Remains the question, what might be an *acceptable* risk. Hard to
answer. But one way to solve the problem in cases as the one discussed
here is to analyze any accident (as it is done, for good) and see what
may be done to prevent similar accidents in future. If one finds a
solution for the problem, we're fine. If not, we may decide to go on as
before (risk acceptable) or to stop gliding (risk unacceptable).

In my mind this is the right way to handle this accident and others like
this. To blame someone - may this one be the pilot or the killed victim
of the accident or both of them - may not be the aim of the efforts. It
doesn't lead any further and it doesn't help anybody - not the pilot
(who might need psychological help, not to forget!) nor the sadly killed
person or his relatives. But to analyze and to draw the appropiate
consequences out of the results helps all persons who *could* be killed
in future if not done so.

Just my 2 cts.

Have a fine day

Werner

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

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:05:43 +0100, Stefan
wrote:


It was not only dangerous to them, it was also dangerous to the pilots.

Hi Stefan,

how often were you *forced* in your gliding career to perform a 3 km
long highspeed final approach four feet above the ground?


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.

I guess anyone agrees that the forseeable glide path of a glider on
final approach does not include extremely low high-speed flying for
couple of kilometers...

Would you blame the tree if the pilot had struck a tree instead of the
photographer?


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.

If you want to avoid such finishes, simply add one simple competition
rule:
Anyone whose logger data shows that he was below 50 ft outside
airfield perimeter gets a penalty of, say, 2.000 points.
Done.


Bye
Andreas

"Werner Schmidt" wrote in message
...
Hello Stewart, hello @all,

first let me introduce myself shortly. I'm 44, still learning to fly a
glider (until now: ASK13, ASK8, ASK6), of course not experienced in
competitions nor cross-country flights, made my B last year and going to
make C and PPL this year. I started in 2004 together with my son, going
slowly due to work and family (me, my wife, 3 children 17-15-4 years old).
Reading this newsgroup since some weeks, now my first try of writing
something. Not a native english speaker, I learned this language at school
until about 28 years ago and hope to write something understandable for
all of you - if not so, please tell me any of my mistakes if you like to,
I'd like to become better.

If there are still any questions, ask them! :-)

Now to the matter of discussion:

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.
True again, is the possibility of death an acceptable
risk for taking a picture? Or racing in a glider?

Thats not exactly the point, I think. The risk of death is a matter of
fact as long as you live, regardless of what you are just doing and of
what you may estimate acceptable.

An example: while flying your glider, you may be hit by a jet plane coming
from out of your sight. You save your life by using your parachute, but
parts of the glider hit someone on the ground and kill him. Oh, this risk
is very low, I know, but it exists and you know that. In spite of this
knowledge you decided to fly just this day and just this time, and the
accident happened.

In this example you certainly were not guilty in any legal way, but in
some way still *responsible*, cause *you* *accepted* this risk - a risk
for yourself to die, but also a risk for other people prior not involved
to be killed.

So the point is, as I think, the *responsibility*. And our responsibility
is to reduce every risk to an acceptable and achievable minimum by
establishing appropriate rules and by *obeying* them. But we cannot reduce
any risk to zero - this is just impossible!

Remains the question, what might be an *acceptable* risk. Hard to answer.
But one way to solve the problem in cases as the one discussed here is to
analyze any accident (as it is done, for good) and see what may be done to
prevent similar accidents in future. If one finds a solution for the
problem, we're fine. If not, we may decide to go on as before (risk
acceptable) or to stop gliding (risk unacceptable).

In my mind this is the right way to handle this accident and others like
this. To blame someone - may this one be the pilot or the killed victim of
the accident or both of them - may not be the aim of the efforts. It
doesn't lead any further and it doesn't help anybody - not the pilot (who
might need psychological help, not to forget!) nor the sadly killed person
or his relatives. But to analyze and to draw the appropiate consequences
out of the results helps all persons who *could* be killed in future if
not done so.

Just my 2 cts.

Have a fine day

Werner

First off Werner let me congratulate you on your command of English. Then a
further congratulation for your command of logic. My input to this
discussion was mainly aimed at pointing out that HB is a 'difficult' site to
fly from. 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. 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.

Alistair W

On Feb 10, 3:10 pm, "Dan G" wrote:
Hours does not automatically equal flight safety, especially with non-
professionals. People can fly with bad habits for years and "get away
with it", until one day they don't, just like the pilot at Hus Bos
(and frankly many other gliding "accidents").

Anyone can make a mistake, even experienced comp pilots with thousands
of hours (or an instructor for that matter). But if your basic flying
technique is safe, i.e. what an instructor would do, it's less likely
to end in disaster.

I've found a great little article which explains this well. Two
quotes:

"Remember, the principles of good airmanship and aerodynamics apply
the same to all pilots, whatever their position and skills. Don't be
tempted to do something fancy by cutting safety margins. If you do,
sooner or later you will need that margin to survive and it will not
be there. Remember also that others with less experience will be
watching how you operate the aircraft and could well try to emulate
your performance, which could lead them to disaster sooner rather than
later. So set a good example at all times by following the approved
procedures and operate the aircraft as safely and efficiently as
possible. "

and

"an old definition of a superior pilot - "one who uses his superior
experience, airmanship and judgment to ensure that he never gets into
situations which would require him to use his superior skills". "

Despite the terrifying lack of paragraph breaks, the article is a good
read: http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=23


Dan

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.

Those parked on the road were expressly there to witness low passes. They
congregated to get a closer look at something unusual, even dangerous. A
wise person might choose not to do this.

How many of the gliders would have crashed without the spectators in the
way? It appears that the actions of the pilots were not inherently unsafe
(to the pilots) - though certainly not wise.

This is a sad, sad incident, and rare among gliding competitions. But not at
all unusual in the context of observers wanting a close look at something
unusual and exciting.

Is there fault on the part of the pilot(s)? Of course. Their poor judgment
was amply reflected by their inability to alter their practices even with
emergency vehicles and a broken glider on the scene. But to insist that Mr.
Lawson was ignorant of the risk and just going about quotidian activities is
near sighted. Even worse is to suggest that the pilot was guilty of criminal
negligence. This was an environment of contrived, obvious risk. All who
participated were aware of the danger, and therefore incumbent on each
individual to manage his or her own risk.

The remedy is simple. The pilot can alter his practices. Or, the spectators
can stand well clear. If the specatators stand clear, it is an acceptable
practice. If there are people in the way, the pilot must alter his approach.
The condundrum is that the two are joined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard in traffic court:

Defendant: Yes, I turned left in front of the oncoming car, but he was
speeding. That's why he hit me.

Judge: Why did you pull out in front of a speeding car?

Defendant: (silence)

At 18:48 11 February 2007, Stewart Kissel wrote:
Hell, why not just organize a 'low pass' competition
and eliminate the need for the cross country component?

Finally - someone with a sensible suggestion! Let's
get rid of the dangerous 'flying around in circles
10 feet away from other gliders' bit and get straight
on with the good stuff. Who's up for this one?

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.