John Cochrane wrote:
This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

I agree with John. I also agree one solution is the 500' finish rule
he's advocated. I don't agree it's the only solution or necessarily
the best solution, but we've thrashed out that subject at length
already so there's no need to again. I'll simply observe that part of
the reason many of us fly contests is for fun and that the best way to
eliminate the risks of flying is never to launch.

What struck me about the report was that nearly all of the parties who
might have contributed to this accident--the pilot, the organizers,
and the photographer himself--could and should have taken steps to
have avoided it. My impression is that had the rules in effect at the
time been adhered to and enforced (whether those were CAA regulations
or the contest rules or just general safe flying practices and common
sense), this accident wouldn't have happened.

I've never flown in the U.K. but I've seen comparable situations at
many U.S. contests owing to (1) pilots emulating their fellow pilots
(for all of our much-touted individualistic personalities, we can be
like a bunch of sheep at times); and (2) the sense that because it's a
contest, the normal rules for safe flying are suspended.

These are serious problems, but they're problems of attitude. And the
solution to them is not necessarily a new rule addressing one, albeit
potentially dangerous, situation. The analogy is a little weak but as
one example, we in the U.S. had a tragedy at a national contest a few
years ago launching a water ballasted glider too close to bystanders.
The solution to this dangerous practice was not to eliminate water
ballast but to insist that all bystanders remain behind the launch
line.

It's certainly possible that a random hiker could be mowed down by a
low-finishing glider but it's also possible that any of us could do
the same thing landing out in a farmer's field somewhere. Should we,
then, eliminate all practices that might lead to outlandings?

Like most aviation accidents, there appears to be no single cause
here, but rather a series of questionable decisions and actions that
cascaded and culminated in loss of life. Without trying to fix blame,
it seems to me that at any point any of the parties could have acted
to comply with the aforesaid rules/practices, broken the "chain," and
unilaterally prevented this tragedy.

And now that I've offended almost all involved, I apologize for
drawing conclusions about an accident I have no knowledge of apart
from a report I had absolutely no role in preparing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"