Neil Lawson of whiteplanes, died yesterday

I also sent a private email, 17 minutes after JJ's original posting and
before any replies appeared on RAS. I said:

"JJ,

"For goodness sake stop it.

"You know as well as I do that the AAIB and the BGA acting together (which
they do) investigate and report accidents very thoroughly.

"PLEASE wait until we have the report.

"Regards,

"Bill."

This is his reply, 50 minutes after the original posting:

"Not much to investigate here, Bill. The pilot flew his ship into a
spectator. In the US he would be in violation of FAR's, ie, flew within 500
feet of a person, place or thing.

"I realize its in poor taste to drive a point home while the guy is still
warm, but its also in very poor taste to keep killing innocent people by
using a proven unsafe finish system.

"JJ"

When JJ says "Not much to investigate here," this surely tells us all we
need to know about JJ.

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


"Jeremy Hood"
wrote in message ...

What got me so angry was you stupid, insensitive posting,
not the underlying issue that you feel is present in
gliding. Have a clue man: a tragic accident occurs
which affects many in the gliding world, and you wait
all of 12 hours to start sounding off with you own
personal agenda.

I don't feel I was hurling insults, but placing them
where they are most definitely needed. By the way,
for the record, here is my private email to you, which
I stand by, so all can judge the 'torrent of abuse'
I gave you:

'John,

How dare you use the very tragic news of the Junior
worlds accident to further illustrate your own personal
views on finish lines. I find your posting completely
insensitive, very poorly timed, and judged. You don't
know what actually happened, as you were not there-
so why bother with the posting at all? I am actually
disgusted with you- next time think about what you're
saying.

Jez Hood'

Now I'm just disappointed with you.

When JJ says "Not much to investigate here," this surely tells us all
we need to know about JJ.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

Bill,

I agree with you and Jez Hood about the way this incident has been
discussed. My only quarrel would be with "this tells us all we need to
know about JJ." It's more complicated.

I know JJ from the competition circuit here in the U.S. and from his
RAS postings and other communications. He justifiably enjoys the
respect of many. I suspect that his reaction, although--in my
view--inappropriate, is based on personal conviction. I don't agree
with his position on finish lines vs. cylinders but that't not the
point. The issue is how we deal with situations before all the facts,
or should I say sufficient facts, are available.

We saw the same thing a few years ago when the SSA's Larry Sanderson
was pilloried in RAS for alleged misdeeds. Certain pilots decided
"where there's smoke, there's fire" and made it their personal agenda
to run Larry out of office with accusations and allegations stated as
fact. They justified what we would otherwise refer to as "vigilante
justice" (i.e., the practice in our Wild West days of citizen
groups--mobs--acting as judge, jury, and executioner) by saying they
"just knew" he was a crook. I didn't try to defend Larry; I merely
tried to persuade people that it was unfair--"un-American"--to
pre-judge someone. Based on private emails I received, I was successful
in some cases but a disheartening number of pilots I otherwise respect
behaved dangerously and dishonorably. Some appeared incapable of
understanding the distinction between defending someone blindly and
defending the concept of due process.

Soaring pilots are generally fine people. But as we see occasionally,
we are probably no different than any other segment of the population.
We can be just as prejudiced, biased, headstrong, narrowminded, and
prone to rush to judgment as any other group of people who share a
common interest.

Chip Bearden

This post reminds me that we have gone a year or two without Larry
Sanderson's name appearing in RAS. Without trying to relive that
matter, it should be noted that Sanderson was not being tried in a court
of law, but instead was an employee who never addressed (as far as I
know) certain serious allegations. In an employment situation it is not
"unfair--"un-American"--to pre-judge someone" -- instead, the employee
has the burden of proving the allegations false. If he can't do that,
he normally would be terminated. "Vigilante justice" has nothing to do
with it.


wrote:
When JJ says "Not much to investigate here," this surely tells us all
we need to know about JJ.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

Bill,

I agree with you and Jez Hood about the way this incident has been
discussed. My only quarrel would be with "this tells us all we need to
know about JJ." It's more complicated.

I know JJ from the competition circuit here in the U.S. and from his
RAS postings and other communications. He justifiably enjoys the
respect of many. I suspect that his reaction, although--in my
view--inappropriate, is based on personal conviction. I don't agree
with his position on finish lines vs. cylinders but that't not the
point. The issue is how we deal with situations before all the facts,
or should I say sufficient facts, are available.

We saw the same thing a few years ago when the SSA's Larry Sanderson
was pilloried in RAS for alleged misdeeds. Certain pilots decided
"where there's smoke, there's fire" and made it their personal agenda
to run Larry out of office with accusations and allegations stated as
fact. They justified what we would otherwise refer to as "vigilante
justice" (i.e., the practice in our Wild West days of citizen
groups--mobs--acting as judge, jury, and executioner) by saying they
"just knew" he was a crook. I didn't try to defend Larry; I merely
tried to persuade people that it was unfair--"un-American"--to
pre-judge someone. Based on private emails I received, I was successful
in some cases but a disheartening number of pilots I otherwise respect
behaved dangerously and dishonorably. Some appeared incapable of
understanding the distinction between defending someone blindly and
defending the concept of due process.

Soaring pilots are generally fine people. But as we see occasionally,
we are probably no different than any other segment of the population.
We can be just as prejudiced, biased, headstrong, narrowminded, and
prone to rush to judgment as any other group of people who share a
common interest.

Chip Bearden

Jeremy, Andrew & Bill,
Your remarks are clearly aimed at discrediting me and
my views on how we should finish a sailplane race.
I note that none of you accepted my offer to discuss
a serious problem that exists in sailplane racing today.

Many of us here in the US have been waging a 5-year
campaign to abolish the Finish Gate and go exclusively
with the Finish Cylinder (500 feet & 1 mile) centered
on the runway. We have had numerous Finish Gate accidents,
including fatalities over the years. We feel its time
for a change. Your recent tragic accident just renewed
the controversy.

Yes, I ask the hard questions. I believe someone should.

JJ Sinclair

Greg,

Your parenthetical "as far as I know" is sufficient to illustrate my
point. None of us did know, including at least one SSA director who
popped off without thinking clearly (and who later, to his credit,
reconsidered his action). I will offer that the SSA Executive Committee
handled the situation poorly at the time and exacerbated the loss of
confidence in due process. But that's hardly the case with the Neil
Lawson accident investigation.

However, in a classic example of how far apart some of us really are,
you provide additional fuel for the fire by stating that if an employee
cannot prove an allegation false, he/she would (should?) be terminated.
Thankfully neither most employers, most employees, nor the U.S. legal
system share your view. Denouncing someone to finish their career may
have been common in the Soviet era but the lines at U.S. employment
offices would be much, much longer if that were the situation here
today.

Chip Bearden

JJ,

Keep asking the hard questions (even though I think you're wrong about
the whole finish gate/cylinder debate).

But for the moment, I respectfully suggest that you limit yourself to
questions. Seizing upon this tragic incident without knowing what
really happened serves neither you nor your cause.

Chip Bearden

At 16:42 12 August 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Jeremy, Andrew & Bill,
Your remarks are clearly aimed at discrediting me and
my views on how we should finish a sailplane race.

On the contrary, I personally keep an open mind on
the matter of whether we should change the finish line
system.

I am agreeing with the sentiment that we find it distasteful
that you have jumped on this incident to further your
agenda before all the facts are in the open, and, no
I don't know what happened, I wasn't there, were you?

I note that none of you accepted my offer to discuss
a serious problem that exists in sailplane racing today.


Precisely because:

1. Now is most certainly not the time.
2. RAS is not the place, the FAI and local competition
committees are the appropriate place.

Many of us here in the US have been waging a 5-year
campaign to abolish the Finish Gate and go exclusively
with the Finish Cylinder (500 feet & 1 mile) centered
on the runway. We have had numerous Finish Gate accidents,
including fatalities over the years. We feel its time
for a change. Your recent tragic accident just renewed
the controversy.

Yes, I ask the hard questions. I believe someone should.

JJ Sinclair

JJ,

I am not expressing any opinion about sailplane race finish methods, or
about finish gate accidents; nor is Jeremy.

What he and I both object to is for you to use the accident at Husbands
Bosworth on 9th August to support your argument before anyone knows the full
story.

WAIT FOR THE REPORT.

Your methods of debate, using rumour and partial second hand reports,
discredit your opinions.

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


"John Sinclair"
wrote in message ...

Jeremy, Andrew & Bill,

Your remarks are clearly aimed at discrediting me and
my views on how we should finish a sailplane race.
I note that none of you accepted my offer to discuss
a serious problem that exists in sailplane racing today.

Many of us here in the US have been waging a 5-year
campaign to abolish the Finish Gate and go exclusively
with the Finish Cylinder (500 feet & 1 mile) centered
on the runway. We have had numerous Finish Gate accidents,
including fatalities over the years. We feel its time
for a change. Your recent tragic accident just renewed
the controversy.

Yes, I ask the hard questions. I believe someone should.

JJ Sinclair

If all competition were held away from spectators and
other potential traffic then the participants should
be able to decide for themselves if the risks are worth
the rewards. Since however that is normally not the
case, at least not here where public airports are often
used and spectators are encourged, just letting the
FAI and local competition committees make the call
would work about as well as the ball clubs and their
governing bodies have handled the doping problem here
in the US.


At 17:12 12 August 2005, Andrew Warbrick wrote:
At 16:42 12 August 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Jeremy, Andrew & Bill,
Your remarks are clearly aimed at discrediting me and
my views on how we should finish a sailplane race.

On the contrary, I personally keep an open mind on
the matter of whether we should change the finish line
system.

I am agreeing with the sentiment that we find it distasteful
that you have jumped on this incident to further your
agenda before all the facts are in the open, and, no
I don't know what happened, I wasn't there, were you?

I note that none of you accepted my offer to discuss
a serious problem that exists in sailplane racing today.


Precisely because:

1. Now is most certainly not the time.
2. RAS is not the place, the FAI and local competition
committees are the appropriate place.

Many of us here in the US have been waging a 5-year
campaign to abolish the Finish Gate and go exclusively
with the Finish Cylinder (500 feet & 1 mile) centered
on the runway. We have had numerous Finish Gate accidents,
including fatalities over the years. We feel its time
for a change. Your recent tragic accident just renewed
the controversy.

Yes, I ask the hard questions. I believe someone should.

JJ Sinclair

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:20:54 UTC, John Sinclair
wrote:

: There is a better way (GPS)
:
: Time to stop living in the past.

I have never been able to see how beat ups and competition finishes
squared up with Article 5 of the ANO, myself.

Ian

--