A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

N.O.H.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th 06, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ian Cant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default N.O.H.

All the flight crews involved in the mid-air at Minden seem to have reacted
well to the emergency. There is no evidence to suggest that either aircraft
was contravening any regulations or being flown in any irresponsible way.
We all know that gliders can be hard to see, and we all know that gliders
have large blind spots. The time taken to make one turn in a thermal is
sufficient for 300 kt traffic to close from well over a mile down to zero.
These are the facts of nature that we all live with.

Bird strikes happen, and even though birds are much smaller than gliders,
they can still bring down a large aircraft by injuring pilots or destroying
engines. Lightning strikes happen. Many of us fly experimental or
homebuilt aircraft, and structural failures occasionally happen [and
sometimes in certificated modern aircraft too].

Let's not get carried away by the fear of, or a sudden enthusiasm for, even
more regulations or mandatory equipment. We already do things to help
minimize, but not eliminate, these Normal Operating Hazards. That is why it
is important for gliders in general to stay out of Class A and restricted
airspace. It is why we have glider operating areas marked on sectionals.
It is why we try to be aware of bird migration paths, and not to fly into
obvious electrical storms, and perform condition inspections and preflights.
We apply common sense and reasonable prudence, and we accept the known
residual risks.

Sometimes **** happens even after extensive potty training. Surely we can
live with that ? After the investigation into this accident, perhaps some
reasonable adjustments to operating patterns will be considered useful.
Perhaps not. But I suspect that we will all try to keep a slightly better
lookout for a while, and perhaps that's all that can be hoped for.

Ian






  #2  
Old August 30th 06, 04:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Fred[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default N.O.H.

Ian:

I've added some thoughts to my original post about this event. Some of
these thoughts anticipate some of what you write in this post. You've
got some good points here and you're welcome to visit what I just wrote
and react to that. I share your reluctance -- resistance -- to a
mandated technical fix. Fred

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.