glider/airplane collision

"Terry Claussen" wrote in message
The facts are similar and involve the risks accepted by low altitude
aerobatics. I guarantee that risk was not contemplated by the
passenger. The creation of an aerobatic box is not some type of
shield that will protect your aircraft. Only your eyes and your
actions can do that.
Respectfully,
Terry Claussen

I've been told that the passenger was a REPEAT cutomer for an aerobatic ride
at Turf. I've also been told that the passenger specifically asked for ride
pilot that he got that day. Perhaps he was far more aware of the risks than
you state.

I really, really do appreciate your appearent concern for everyones safety.
I only suggest that you don't put forth your opinions/links/etc. as being
relevant to this accident when I really don't think you know much about the
specifics of what really happened, or the character of those involved. I do
know people who fit the profile of the article you linked to and I did know
the (slightly) the pilot of the glider involved in the subject accident; I
don't think he was anything like what your link describes. To imply this
without any real knowledge is irresponsible, bordering on slanderous, and
cruel.

Mike McNulty

The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
causes.

I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot involved
in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could not
possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen an
instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.

The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes, prod
us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called "experts"),
while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.

It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.



Jack

Jack,
Yours is the most thoughtful response to this thread thus far.
David R.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
causes.

I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot
involved
in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could
not
possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen
an
instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.

The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes,
prod
us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called
"experts"),
while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.

It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.



Jack

Amen

While I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, I have a slightly
different view of debates surrounding accidents.
Aviation is a unique business and those participating in it have unique
skills.
It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible for
their own separation."
"Neither pilot had filed a flight plan."

No one wishes the families of accident victims ill. We all empathize with
their grief.
On the other hand, if we can learn one single thing from ongoing discussion
that will make our flying safer, we ought not stifle such a discussion.
The Airlines learned this many years ago. Within days of an accident or
incident, there is a full disclosure (usually internal) of the events
surrounding the episode.
The hope is that the professional aviator can and will learn from such an
event. Perhaps by questioning his or her own behavior or by imagining what
could have been done differently to avoid the accident, one can become a
safer pilot.

This is not a bad thing and no disrespect to participants or survivors is
intended or implied.

The day we stop learning from the mistakes of others (and ourselves) is the
day we should "hang it up and retire to the rocking chair."

Allan

"Jack" wrote in message
...
The emotional responses to accidents are even more predictable than the
causes.

I can't remember an instance where the wife of a professional pilot
involved
in a tragic accident did not immediately conclude that pilot error could
not
possibly have been a factor, because her husband was such a conscientious
professional. Often the facts eventually prove otherwise. Nor have I seen
an
instance where members of the public didn't immediately offer explanations
for an accident about which they could not possibly have any direct
knowledge. That too is natural human behavior, unfortunately.

The media, mercenaries who fan emotional sparks for their own purposes,
prod
us to jump to conclusions (sometimes with the help of so-called
"experts"),
while the real experts, investigators who actually have the responsibility
to find the truth, take many months to publish an official finding.

It's not too much to ask that the family and friends be given plenty of
leeway, and that the rest of us exercise restraint. Those still in shock
from the loss cannot be expected to be objective. The rest of us can
certainly sympathize, and while doing so it might be wise to also give
thanks that we are not in a position to empathize.



Jack

On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible for
their own separation."


None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija board,
there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.

The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be an
indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all the
data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents that
do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy until
we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play the
crusader.


Jack
[ crusader for restraint and focus ] :

Dear crusader for restraint and focus,

It seems you may have missed my point.
I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident in question,
other than that it occurred.
While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.
In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable insight has
emerged regarding the genesis of said accident and,
even if there is valuable information, the FAA rarely acts fully on NTSB
recommendations. This is particularly true
of human factor associated accidents.
Perhaps I over generalize - but that is my opinion.

While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?
In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box"
and that it is published in NOTAMS for visiting pilots?
What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?
I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.

If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.

[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]

Allan


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On 2004/01/17 14:19, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


It does not further knowledge to wait for a predictable report, arriving
in
a year, which concludes that "Both pilots were in VMC and responsible
for
their own separation."


None of us on r.a.s. possesses enough facts yet to even discuss, let alone
predict effectively, WRT the referenced accident. As usual, those who are
talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking. If one is able to
better the record of the NTSB and other professionals with ones Ouija
board,
there is always room for another "aviation consultant" on CNN.

The fact that too little is learned from many official reports should be
an
indicator of how hard it is to make a useful contribution to the
understanding of an accident, even when one has full time access to all
the
data and can approach it in a professional manner. But we can "further
knowledge" by discussing NTSB and other published reports of accidents
that
do contain extensive detail. There are enough of them to keep us busy
until
we tire of the subject. Of course that's more like work, and doesn't serve
as an emotional release for that part of each of us which wants to play
the
crusader.


Jack
[ crusader for restraint and focus ] :

On 2004/01/17 16:05, in article , "ADP"
wrote:


I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident
in question, other than that it occurred.

Hmmmm....


While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.

My frustration with the ability/willingness of human beings to acquire and
use knowledge probably compares to your own, and I appreciate those who make
a sincere effort.


In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable
insight has emerged regarding the genesis of said accident....

That has not been my experience, though there are many frustrating examples
of a lack either of significant data or of emphasis on certain information
which was available -- in my opinion.


While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?

No, but let's avoid the type of pointed discussion which is little more than
veiled accusation and ignorant speculation concerning the accident in
question, particularly after it has been made clear to the participants here
that there are active r.a.s. members who were personally acquainted with the
victims, and while the psychic wounds are sill fresh. I think that is not
too much to ask of one another.

Now that the NTSB has published a preliminary report, we have something
which can be sifted for reminders of how to improve our own piloting skills
and judgment.


In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box" and that it is published in NOTAMS for
visiting pilots?

Exactly the sort of thing we should do, and in fact we must encourage every
pilot to be aware of every acrobatic box/area in the airspace in which he
operates. This information is a part of preflight planning and can be found
in the A/FD and updated via NOTAM.

One of my pet annoyances is that radio usage and discipline is frequently
unsatisfactory among users of the sort of airfields where glider operations
are usually found. However, that's no excuse for sailplane pilots not to
participate. Particularly in the older two-seaters used in much training, I
find that radio usage is under emphasized.


What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?

The few with which I am familiar are all quite near an airport, though the
airports themselves are very small out-of-the-way fields. That may not be
true elsewhere. I expect that acrobatic pilots can give you reasons why
establishing the box close to the field is a good idea.


I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.

True enough, if carried out with some regard for the fact that the members
of r.a.s. in particular and the soaring community in general have closer
connections with one another than some posters may realize.


If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.

[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]

Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack

My point, exactly.

Allan

" Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that
nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being
what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack

Not sure it is a better way, but this is how we do this:

We have two pilots who regularly exercise their aerobatic capabilities
in gliders.
We have no aerobatics box.
Power , microlight, autogiros and the occasional helicopter share the
field.

We keep the aerobatics close to the field - for a couple of reasons.
1] It is easy to misjudge energy use or miss changes in conditions,
while engaged in such maneuvers, so it is better to be near a runway.
2] These are higher risk activities, and I would prefer they crash on
the airfield if they are going to - at least we have all the rescue kit
handy...
3] People on the ground can, and (in the case of our club) the launch
marshal is expected to keep a look out. That improves safety by
increasing the chance of people noticing an unsafe situation.
4] Communication is better, the ground station can warn any potential
conflicting traffic.

For safety we have some restrictive rules, that the aerobatics pilots
sometimes resent.
1] No loops / spins / rolls initiated below 2000" agl, chandelles etc
have a bottom altitude of 1000" AGL.
2] Practice finishes and high speed passes are on a "permission basis"
at the discretion of the duty instructor. Any pilot doing an impromptu
aerobatic pull up from his unannounced high speed pass will get a lecture.
3] Any aerobatics flying waits till normal traffic is clear of the
airfield. "Normal" flying has precedence.

Typically we then have "predictable" traffic at circuit height. Lots of
eyes watching the show, and looking out, and decent separation. works
for us so far.



Jack wrote:

On 2004/01/17 16:05, in article , "ADP"
wrote:



I don't need to know any "official" thing about the accident
in question, other than that it occurred.


Hmmmm....



While you have an interesting degree of faith in NTSB reports, I do not
share it.


My frustration with the ability/willingness of human beings to acquire and
use knowledge probably compares to your own, and I appreciate those who make
a sincere effort.



In any accident with which I am familiar, little valuable
insight has emerged regarding the genesis of said accident....


That has not been my experience, though there are many frustrating examples
of a lack either of significant data or of emphasis on certain information
which was available -- in my opinion.



While we are waiting for the NTSB report shall we continue as if nothing has
happened?


No, but let's avoid the type of pointed discussion which is little more than
veiled accusation and ignorant speculation concerning the accident in
question, particularly after it has been made clear to the participants here
that there are active r.a.s. members who were personally acquainted with the
victims, and while the psychic wounds are sill fresh. I think that is not
too much to ask of one another.

Now that the NTSB has published a preliminary report, we have something
which can be sifted for reminders of how to improve our own piloting skills
and judgment.



In the present case, can we not make certain that everyone on the field
knows the bounds of the "Acro box" and that it is published in NOTAMS for
visiting pilots?


Exactly the sort of thing we should do, and in fact we must encourage every
pilot to be aware of every acrobatic box/area in the airspace in which he
operates. This information is a part of preflight planning and can be found
in the A/FD and updated via NOTAM.

One of my pet annoyances is that radio usage and discipline is frequently
unsatisfactory among users of the sort of airfields where glider operations
are usually found. However, that's no excuse for sailplane pilots not to
participate. Particularly in the older two-seaters used in much training, I
find that radio usage is under emphasized.



What is the wisdom of establishing an aerobatic area so near an operating
airport?


The few with which I am familiar are all quite near an airport, though the
airports themselves are very small out-of-the-way fields. That may not be
true elsewhere. I expect that acrobatic pilots can give you reasons why
establishing the box close to the field is a good idea.



I don't pretend to know the answers but surely discussion can not harm the
expansion of knowledge.


True enough, if carried out with some regard for the fact that the members
of r.a.s. in particular and the soaring community in general have closer
connections with one another than some posters may realize.



If discussion makes one uncomfortable then perhaps one is in the wrong
business.


[Seeker of the truth and Grand Wizard of the Anti-politically correct
movement.]


Some here are in the "business" of soaring, but I am confidant that nearly
everyone here has a far deeper interest in the sport than just the bottom
line. And it has been my experience during my short time in the company of
soaring enthusiasts that there is relatively little political correctness
when it comes to soaring. Lift, drag, and that old devil gravity being what
they are, calling a spade a spade is pretty much the order of the day.



Jack