Thomas Knauff wrote:
Assuming those of you who are most willing to criticize are also unwilling
to submit articles, perhaps you would volunteer to serve as editors? You can
choose to either be part of the answer or part of the problem.

Tom, why would you make an assumption like this?I dont think it is so
much about critisizing as it is trying to enhance safety.I would jump
at the chance to be an editor.There has been a few exellent articles
written by a couple of local pilots (One of which was about towing and
the divergent flight paths of the tow plane and glider, similar to the
one published in England only more in depth), that were submitted to
SSA but never published.I called the SSA about this and some other
stuff today and the impression that I got was that if your last name
isnt Knauff or Wander, or Compton or someone else who buys ad space in
soaring, you will go pretty far down the list.Before I would invest the
time and energy in writing an article I would need some assurance that
it would get some consideration.
As to your comment about being the answer or the problem, let me ask
you who is the problem.Is it the guy who writes a inaccurate column
with sometimes glaring omisions, or is it the people who write in to
Soaring with corrections and clarifications meant to prevent accidents
(Which never get published in his column).In terms of safety here Tom,
you are thinking backwards.

George Thelan has served the soaring community well for many years and has
made major contributions to gliding safety. Most of us read his monthly
column first, and the vast majority of us appreciate his efforts.

Tom, here you go with the basseless assumptions again.The "Vast
Majority" of the pilots that I know dont apprececiate George's dubiuos
level of accuracy.A good budy of mine who is a former Air Force
investigator makes jokes about Thelens column at our monthly
meetings.Thanks to the November column, alot of pilots will have
misconceptions about ATC and jet traffic.Why would you appreciate
that?

Tom Knauff