2005 Junior Worlds Accident

Why do you think it is a public road? I think it is an access road to farm
buildings, and owned by the farmer.

Does this make any difference? I think not, which is why the AAIB do not
comment on the status of the road.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay, I will bite again.

Let's say this person who was killed outside the boundary of the
airport was hit by a 747 landing...we see plenty of images from some
airport in the Caribbean where just this situation occurs, aircraft
very low over public roadway on final. So the idea expressed by Nick
is....someone standing under the flight path of an aircraft is
responsible for their death...including those areas outside of an
airport? Sure this guy was there to take pictures, but it was a
public road for Christ's sake. Public roads are not the domains of
gliders doing competition finishes, at least not in the US.

So if I understand correctly...if the individual killed on the ground
had been "Joe Public" minding his own business...this would still be
an acceptable consequence? Or is the fact that the photographer had
knowledge of the flight path make him at fault?

And the analogy to landing out is something of a bit of a stretch.
What if the individual killed had been a child who was perched on the
van to get a better view? And sorry Bumper, in regards to the
spectator appeal of low passes...I think they are entirely appropriate
to air-shows....and entirely inappropriate to glider competions.

And now we get the comparisons to auto race accidents and the such.
Rubbish. We as pilots decide what risks to accept, and what risks
should be regulated. Why not ridge soar at 5' above the ground over a
crowded hiking trail?

wrote:

Let's say this person who was killed outside the boundary of the
airport was hit by a 747 landing...we see plenty of images from some
airport in the Carribean where just this situation occurs, aircraft
very low over public roadway on final. So the idea expressed by Nick
is....someone standing under the flight path of an aircraft is
responsible for their death...including those areas outside of an
airport? Sure this guy was there to take pictures, but it was a
public road for Christ's sake. Public roads are not the domains of
gliders doing competion finishes, at least not in the US.


I would hope that any person in the US who witnessed such a
hazardous condition over any public or private property would
immediately report it to both local police and to the FAA.


Jack

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)

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

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.

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

"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

Hallo Alistair,

First off Werner let me congratulate you on your command of English.

thanks, but I think you should be glad only to read - and not to hear me
speak :-)

When writing, I have all time I need to use a dictionary, e.g.
http://dict.leo.org/ende was very helpful.

My input to this
discussion was mainly aimed at pointing out that HB is a 'difficult' site to
fly from.

But adding a handicap may have the positive and wished effect to make a
competition more interesting and / or to enlarge the challenge for the
competitors, isn't it?

Presumed there was an appropriate briefing, I don't see this must be a
dangerous problem.

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.

Allright, if you see a potential risk and the possibility to avoid it
think I would do so either; err - perhaps a bit more reluctant,
according to my level of experience.

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.

Oh, I understand your anger, but I think we shouldn't expand the
discussion to this point - thread is big enough and this might just
burst it :-)

Werner