When is too many at a glider meet

I will add this, even on a big field that is clear, that STILL does not mean someone (that stopped thinking) can't land in a bad spot and run into parked aircraft.
I know, I saw the aftermath at our field (no injuries to people, broken glider, broken towplane).

Max number of gliders has a lot to do with field size & approaches. Huge field with 360* of flat approaches should be able to handle more gliders that a small narrow field with trees on multiple sides.

I have never been to Nephi, so I can't comment on the site.

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:40:58 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Boy, is this a tough crowd!

People call it like they see it, true.

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Apology noted. Also for the record, the SSA event page clearly stated the 65 limit and that the event was oversubscribed. Also, the participant list detailed "confirmed" vs "wait list" so no matter what bad info you may have received, it would have been simple to verify that the info was bad before firing off a post. This is a public forum and predicting fatalities is about as irresponsible as you can get when your facts are wrong.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

And you didn't have the facts on your side (with regard to actual participants, nor any specific knowledge of the airport facilities, operations or surrounding landable fields when you did it so I don't see how this clarification represents an improvement.

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Okay, but you kind of had it coming by predicting fatalities and then doubling down when the facts turned against you.

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.


Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

I think you mostly missed the point. The criticism isn't with the theoretical question of what is the maximum capacity of a glider site or even asking it about a specific site. It was that you didn't ask the question, you asserted an answer without any demonstrable knowledge of the circumstances of the event or even the correct number of participants.

The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.


Specifically, for Nephi, it is really hard to construct a scenario where 60 (or 80) gliders launched 90-plus minutes apart and flying at altitudes from 6,000 to as much as 17,000 feet all get knocked out of the sky by a storm at exactly the same time (where none of them have headed out on course to escape the approaching storm) such that none can orbit more than 30 seconds, all the ground help is incapacitated, everyone lands midfield and just sits in their glider and no one decides to use the cross runway, the 7000x250 feet of turf to the west, the infield or any of the three dozen landable fields within range of the downwind entry point. Is there a theoretical limit? Probably, but your "IMHO" assertion was, whether you meant it or not, a misinformed slander of an event that has had a lot of thought put into operations and specific lessons from prior events. Also, raising a midair concern and reiterating it now for an event that was PowerFLARM mandatory, seems particularly ill-advised (and "ready!-fire!-aim!).

Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.


Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Not so - safety gets discussed regularly on r.a.s, generally with a great deal of seriousness. Also, an ad hominem criticism of the flying skills of a poster doesn't make his points incorrect nor does it validate the comment from you he might be criticizing. It's almost entirely irrelevant and comes across as a kind of "your momma" retort.

That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.


Okay, fire away, I can take it.

If you insist. :-)

Really Tom, it's not asking questions about safe operations that gets people jumping to defend Nephi, it's the assertion that they did it wrong and you know better. You don't. Your facts were wrong and your theories about what might happen were inconsistent with the operations and airport layout. When you double down on it you just dig the hole deeper. It is possible that some of the responses you got didn't come from daredevil morons who lack your insight or depth of experience operating large-scale glider events at Nephi or anywhere else.

My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.


There's a vast difference between making the last debating point and being right. A little active listening would go a long way. This is a public forum and wild assertions, if they stand uncorrected, can do damage to events, reputations and the sport more broadly.

Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.


With regards,

Andy
9B

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

In your own words:

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"

and

"All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."

Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.


The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second.

My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:

"They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."

I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.

9B

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Originally Posted by BruceGreeff

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Very sagacious Bruce. Lots of food for thought

:-)

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

2G,
I have to say that you don't have a very clear picture of the Nephi event. This year the airport (Which more than doubled in size a few years ago) had 6 areas that were landable and one could turn off the main runway into an expansive infield at any time. I have been in the pattern with 8 other gliders during last years contest and we all landed on the main runway with no stress. With cooperation and a well coordinated ground crew this is not a big deal. The airport is also surrounded by landable fields and you have to consider that without everyone bunched up in a start cylinder the chance of a mass landing is non existent. There were improvements this year in staging and landing (with penalties of being excluded from the following days flying) and things went very smooth. There is something to consider with Flarm, It does not replace diligence, it just makes scanning easier. I have found it more challenging to fly the contest at Air Sailing (Nevada) where most years there are 15 or so contestants but with Minden and Truckee busy ATC shows between 40-50 transponder equipped gliders in the air at any given time. Some of these people may or may not have the heightened awareness about a contest in the area. This is where the PF really pays for itself.
One of the big problems Bruno and the Utah Soaring Association have is that this format (And the site) have become hugely popular. The roster filled up in two weeks with a waiting list. Where else can you race all out, leisurely boat around the course with your buddies on a party line frequency, or ignore the task and go off on a personal best. Ive done all the above and this year I took the Hard working club president around the course in a club trainer which was something he had never done before. I suggest you hop in the car two years from now and try it out for yourself and then maybe you can make a little more educated posts.
Lastly, and you probably know this by now, don't start a post with "I recently learned" followed by stuff you know nothing about. It makes you look silly.

The British/South African contingent at Nephi did not consider the OP to be an asshole. We think he is a ******!

Mike

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

In your own words:

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"

and

"All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."


Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.

Neither of those statements are a prediction of a fatality. Sorry, you are the one making that interpretation. I cannot control what it "sounds like" to you. A "bad feeling" is EXACTLY that, a bad feeling, not a prediction.



The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

The number WAS NOT made up - it came from a member of their staff.


Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

Well, I HAVE! You just didn't fly on those days.


That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second..

Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me, therefore HIS character becomes fair game.


My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:

"They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."

I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

My concern came 31 years ago after the Ephrata 15M nationals.


Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.


That is your opinion. As I told someone else, I will defend to the death the right for you to have an opinion, even if it is wrong. My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to understand?

Best regards,
Tom

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - UNTIL THERE IS A FATALITY"

Is a prediction of a fatality.

It's pretty clear folks here think your a jerk and do not value whatever wisdom you think you are imparting to humanity, but keep going... digging yourself a deeper hole. The attempted public character assassination of good people who are very successfully and safely promotion soaring, the holier-than-thou I know more than you do (when you clearly have your facts wrong) and let me just tell all you idiots style, and the bull**** of arguing what you wrote when it's right in front of everybody to see.

Go on keep digging yourself a hole, I hope clubs, FBOs and event organizers are paying attention and will in future provide you with the "not welcome here" reception you are working so hard to earn. With an attitude like yours I would not want you anywhere near an event or glider port criticizing and arguing about stuff. And since you drive a motorglider and can go off an launch from somewhere else, that is a great thing for you, and everybody else here.

Doc? I need help! This thread is giving me flashbacks beyond-in-time even a
certain lurking Leonard, all the way back to middle school!!! (Did not! Did
too! Did NOT!! Did TOO!! etc.)

How about letting it go, Tom? Taking your most recent post-ending statement at
face value, i.e....

"My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too
many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to
understand?

"Best regards, Tom"

....and, further, having read and paid focused attention to this entire
revealing thread, IMO most serious posters did in fact understand the
question/point. I didn't see one poster who actually addressed the basic
question (as most have in some way or another), who did NOT seem to grasp and
address your question. The fact most (all?) of them seem to have a more
nuanced view than you seem to hold, and differing opinions, may be
disappointing to you, but it's one measure of reality. There comes a time
simply to deal with it and move on.

FWIW, it's my considered opinion that the response immediately below is
something I'd more likely expect to find in a middle school spat than between
respectful adults...and to be explicit, I found P3's and 9B's posts 100%
mutually respectful, even if you do not. Being forthright - blunt, if you will
- is not definitional disrespect. Nor is polite disagreement vilification. Sorry.


On 7/13/2015 1:46 PM, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

Major snip...

Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal
invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me,
therefore HIS character becomes fair game.

Wow. Not into "moral high ground," eh?

Respectfully,
Bob W.