accident at 2005 junior worlds

Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)
if one reads the report it is obvious that the photographer
deliberately put himself in the flight path and had
to jump off the car to avoid being hit the day before.
He is therefore at fault, had he hot been there, there
would have been no accident, simple really.

If he had been standing on a 500ft tower he could
have been hit by a glider at 500ft just as easily.
The report makes clear this was a common practice at
this comp and this incident should not be used to further
the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
state type ways. The pilot should sleep fine, its those
who love to blame who should hang their heads in shame.

There is a significant advantage as stated in the report
and on rec.aviation in flying close to the ground,
closer the better just because you don’t do it doesn’t
mean that others should not. Personally I do not fly
like that myself but that is MY choice and I wouldn’t
dream of telling others what they should do, by all
means don’t do it yourself but let those that wish
to and can do so have their fun.

Dav Law wrote:
Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)

If the photographer had been on airport property, had ignored requests
to stay out of the flight path, and if the pilots had been unaware of
the presence of people and vehicles in his flight path, I might see your
point. But, given that the pilots all knew where these people were, and
could easily see them and their vehicles as they approached, it was
criminally stupid of them not to give them a lot more than a few feet of
clearance. This goes way beyond simple like/dislike of low contest
finishes. It shows that some people simply don't give a flying f*ck
about the safety of others, even when all they have at stake is a point
or two in a silly contest.

Marc Ramsey, who is most decidedly non-anonymous, has flown in plenty of
contests, and considers himself lucky never to have met anyone quite so
disgustingly negligent as some of these pilots appear to have been...

I couldn't have said it stupider myself.

Do ever think that the anonymous posters could be the press trolling for a
story !

Mal wrote:
Do ever think that the anonymous posters could be the press trolling for a
story !

Oh my Schweizer, NO! Not that!

Yet how fortunate we are that such a dastardly scheme can be
diverted by the simple application of a few text characters
to an email signature block, for an airtight guarantee of
authenticity, wholesomeness, and respect for all that is Holy.


Nott D. Press

One must admire the genteel, sophisticated and reserved manner in
which Dav Law tore into those "fun-killing safety Nazis" who would
want to insist on safer competitions, as well as into the gutless
*******s who post anonymously. The pilot banked, therefore
deliberately turned towards the spectators, before impact. The
analysis of the accident specifies that had it not been for that bank,
the plane would have cleared the spectators safely. There is no
question that the pilot was responsible for the accident, even if the
photographer and the other spectators should have known better than
place themselves in the path of fast, low flying planes. The two
photographs which accompany the report showing spectators ducking and
one plane's belly apparently touching the crops give me the willies.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

"He is therefore at fault, had he not been there, there would have
been no accident, simple really."

So, if there's a guy standing in my driveway when I come home and I
drive right through him, it's his fault for thinking that he could
stand in my driveway and not get hit, right?

On Feb 13, 2:46 pm, Dav Law
wrote:
Well I totally disagree that the pilot was in anyway
responsible and am disgusted by the comments on rec.aviation,(espe
cially those from anonymous posters, gutless *******s)
if one reads the report it is obvious that the photographer
deliberately put himself in the flight path and had
to jump off the car to avoid being hit the day before.
He is therefore at fault, had he hot been there, there
would have been no accident, simple really.

If he had been standing on a 500ft tower he could
have been hit by a glider at 500ft just as easily.
The report makes clear this was a common practice at
this comp and this incident should not be used to further
the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
state type ways. The pilot should sleep fine, its those
who love to blame who should hang their heads in shame.

There is a significant advantage as stated in the report
and on rec.aviation in flying close to the ground,
closer the better just because you don't do it doesn't
mean that others should not. Personally I do not fly
like that myself but that is MY choice and I wouldn't
dream of telling others what they should do, by all
means don't do it yourself but let those that wish
to and can do so have their fun.

"fbrahic" wrote in message
oups.com...
"He is therefore at fault, had he not been there, there would have
been no accident, simple really."

So, if there's a guy standing in my driveway when I come home and I
drive right through him, it's his fault for thinking that he could
stand in my driveway and not get hit, right?


Yup, you got it!

I go into full autopilot about a block away from home. If some sucker is
standing in my driveway and chooses not to dive out of the way, he's pretty
much toast (g).

bumper

Mr Law wrote:

..........to further
the cause of the minority of nasty vindictive power
crazed fun killing safety Nazis instructors who are
slowly destroying gliding membership with their nanny
state type ways.

Two things he

Firstly, I take it that the persons who taught you to fly Mr Law were not
'Nazis', or were they, because they insisted on you not killing yourself?

Secondly, it is fortunate for you that you are not a UK citizen otherwise
you would be helping the police with their enquiries. It is a CRIMINAL
offence to call anyone a 'Nazi' in the UK.

Please moderate your language on this forum. I'm surprised that the
moderator tolerates your input.

Alistair W

Alistair Wright wrote:

Secondly, it is fortunate for you that you are not a UK citizen otherwise
you would be helping the police with their enquiries. It is a CRIMINAL
offence to call anyone a 'Nazi' in the UK.

Please moderate your language on this forum. I'm surprised that the
moderator tolerates your input.

Alistair W

Firstly there is not such a thing as a moderator on this usenet
group.
Secondly I'm surely glad I'm not in the UK if calling some of the
"flakes" in the environmental movement Nazis would get me in trouble.
Now I'll admit using some words that conote color etc could get
you in trouble here.
...lew...