Frank Whiteley wrote:
On May 3, 9:12 pm, Jack wrote:

Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".

Jack


I don't disagree that an individual in a personal glider accepts the
risk, but that's definitely not the case here.

I think the stated fact that he continued to flaunt the regs by flying
power and the club's tow plane for four years after the expiration of
his license and medical disqualification is telling. He was flight
disqualified, period, and did not sign the required self-certification
document.

That part is worrying - I am pretty sure all of us have had at least one flight
where we realised that we were not really fit to fly no matter what our medical
certificate said. I know I have. But this is different - It looks like he
consciously elected to disregard the rules and four years of illegal power
flying is cause for concern. This was clearly not a momentaty oversight, on his
part, or on the management where he flew.

The fact that he died in the glider drew significant attention. He
might have died in the pub later that night, in bed, or on the road,
and that would not have drawn this review. Re-read the last
paragraph. The tone is ominous, yet it has been shown over the years
that a flight medical is not a reliable predictor of whether a pilot
will succumb at the controls.

What it shows is that the club committee or board did not take due
diligence in it's obligations to the members and the greater soaring
community to ensure that those entrusted instructional and towing
duties were, in fact, qualified. The point is, whether some of them
knew, or suspected, they clearly were not auditing the situation.
It's a relatively simple matter to do so. The important fact is that
the individual put all of the members at risk, if not in personal
terms (instruction and towing), at the very least in financial terms.
It was a club glider after all.

Maybe the club was too short of members to be viable without him. Maybe he was
so dominant as the incumbent CFI that no checks were made on him.
People assume that previous behaviour will continue - so probably no-one
presumed to check up on the CFI.


Now it appears that entire national organization is is pressured to
jump through hoops due to the arrogance, and lack of personal
integrity, of one, and the negligence of a few.

This is sadly very true. While it is trite to say, the nanny state will make the
lives of those who follow the rules harder, while making very little difference
to those who for whatever reason have decided to ignore them.

We have the requirement to have and carry a valid license, with your ratings and
medical and flight review dates on it. This gets posted anually to the clubs
safety officer. (in our club thats me) Safety officer has job of keeping an eye
on who is due for renewal. Duty instructor is expected to make occasional checks
and enforce the rules. Expired anything means loss of solo flying privileges.

The associated assumption of responsibility is one factor in the increasing
difficulty we experience in getting people to fill the leadership roles such as
CFI, or Safety Officer or Club Exco. As a self empoloyed person, the reward I
can expect for my voluntary and unremunerated work is that the time and cost
involved in a legal case involving an incident at my club could bankrupt me.

Bruce