Finish lines

BB wrote:

What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
Are you saying they have no standing.
Udo

In a word, no. Those waivers slow down suits by about 5 minutes,
especially if they can prove some sort of negligence. Your waiver also
says nothing about contest organizer's liability to third parties. If
you crash and do damage to someone on the ground, they can sue contest
organizers, and your waiver of liability to you has nothing to do with
it. For example, consider the glider that ran into a spectator at
tonopah at takeoff. The spectator can sue the contest organizers and
the SSA.

BB

My club was recently looking at 'meet' insurance as described by Costello to
cover neglience that might not be otherwise covered by our existing
policies, including premises liability coverage as we own our airfield. If
hosting a contest 'meet' insurance is available for around $800 (around
$500 if SSA sanctioned).

Frank Whiteley

Have soloed about 200 students over the years so I think I have a
pretty good idea what my personal risk threshhold is. My students solo
when they demonstrate consistency in their performance. Rarely as few
as 25 landing, most in the range of 35 to 40. Occasionally a lot more.
Difference is that they remain under supervision and continue to get
feedback.
UH

UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we are
not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the "liability"
issue.

I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone to think
that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as former
instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in the
powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been witness to
the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper that they
are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the grounds of
duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will line up
to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to pad their
own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the standard
of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.

In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club board
due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting
involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport after
drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.

Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US legal
system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA certified
instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done here
in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project dead in
its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if organizers
become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will all be.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally"

Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish.
Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1
miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to
pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow,
pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left
to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern.

And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I
don't agree.

Here is another problem: The next day, Joe Newbie having survived his
first finish with only some minor scratches to his ego and gelcoat,
decides to really nail his finish this time. So he adds some extra
altitude in his last thermal (which involves some extra heads-down time
with his fancy new PDA), then as he is approaching the finish, he is
concentrating on his altitude (mustn't be too low), airspeed (mustn't
bee too fast), and where the line is (gee that PDA screen is hard to
see).

So what we have here is a bloody IFR finish!

Yeah, that's a BIG improvement.

OTOH, if Joe has been reminded that until he is comfortable, it is
perfectly OK to finish a bit high or to setup for a straight-in if he
is low and slow, on both days he just has to look out the window,
visually navigate across the finish line, then make the appropriate
pattern entry.

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view.

66

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
little fun along the way.
I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
so we can all keep doing worm burners.
The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
easily fixed by raising the finish height.
I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
excessively low energy patterns.
The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
makes it better for everybody.
The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
Thanks for sharing
UH

wrote:

As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be
curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I,
for one will not be doing this.

So how would that be any different from signing somebody off for aerotow? Or
any other maneuver? You sign them off on low-altitude rope breaks every day.

Somebody signs off those few who do glider acro shows, because they have
proven they can do it within the established bounds of safety. If somebody
from the FAA will sign off on glider acro near an airshow crowd, why can't a
well-qualified CFIG sign off for low fast finishes? Apparently some
bureaucrats know how to use the regulations to let the job get done, rather
than using "liability" fears to bolster their own pet peeves.

If the perceived liability problem can't be overcome, then we deserve what
we get -- which will be even more liability for ham-handed no-clue so-called
pilots -- right up to the day when _nobody_ gets into a glider, period.


Jack

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
of view.

We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
the finish line.
Enough said.
JJ

When I was building the Super Albatross replica I asked the well known
aeronautical engineer, Stan Hall to take a look at what I was doing and
to run the numbers on my wing attach fittings. I told Stan that I
understood that my request involved some "liability issues" and I would
understand if he refused.
Stan told me something I will never forget, he said, I always do the
very best job I know how to do and don't worry much about "liability
issues". That's it in a nutshell, you shouldn't have liability problems
if you always do a good job, the right way, the first time.

What's this got to do with soaring? Some feel that any effort to
correct known safety problems is to have the organization "held hostage
to safety and liability issues". Not true, in fact not addressing known
safety issues is the definition of "liability".
JJ


Kilo Charlie wrote:
UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to
promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we
are
not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the
"liability"
issue.

I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone
to think
that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as
former
instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in
the
powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been
witness to
the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper
that they
are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the
grounds of
duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will
line up
to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to
pad their
own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the
standard
of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.

In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club
board
due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting

involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport
after
drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.

Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US
legal
system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA
certified
instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done
here
in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project
dead in
its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if
organizers
become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will
all be.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"John Sinclair" wrote in message
:

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
of view.

We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
the finish line.
Enough said.
JJ

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk
posited.

Regards,

Larry Goddard
"01" USA

01-- Zero One wrote:
There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited.

NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful recoveries?