2005 Junior Worlds Accident

Author: Stephanevdv mailto:Stephanevdv
=20
Date/Time: 13:00 14 February 2007

________________________________

If I'm right, no competitor would be justified in doing low finishes
by the idea of flying an optimal finish. Their only justification
would be "showing off" or "having fun". Now who has got the knowledge
of physics to do the maths?

------
=20
So if there is no clear competitive advantage, we dont need new rules to
prevent competitors harming themselves as they desperately strive to
win.
We might need some training (in the final glide), especially if novices,
and we should not endanger other competitors nor third parties.
"Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
why most of us participate in recreational activities.
=20
Rory
=20

--

On Feb 14, 1:17 pm, Rory O'Conor
wrote:
"Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
why most of us participate in recreational activities.

Very true.

The difficulty comes when one person's fun hurts "uninvolved"
and "unwitting" third parties. (I also agree with the report which
acknowledges those spectators weren't completely "uninvolved").

wrote:
"Having fun" seems a very strong reason for allowing activities. That is
why most of us participate in recreational activities.

Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
"efficiency", and if efficiency was proved to involve abandoning the
low finish, then you can bet most other, less serious competitors
would follow suit, just by copycat effect. You'll never get them to
abandon "fun" for "lawfullness", even with penalties. Heavy fines do
not deter most people from speeding... because when the road invites
you to go fast, you go fast. So take away the invitation.

Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
"efficiency",

True, but one thing we are missing is that this is a JUNIOR
championship. These are young people and FUN does come higher for the
majority - I say this having crewed at several UK juniors for top
competitors. For top pilots efficiency was top of the list until they
knew they could get back - then the fun element hit the top of the list.
For lesser mortals it's a fun event surrounded by similar thinking
young people. This changed when I crewed for the same pilots at full
nationals - the atmosphere was different as they were surrounded by more
experienced competition pilots.

Face it - gliding is fun, if it weren't we wouldn't do it. That's why
we don't fly powered.

Dave Kearns

PS these were RAFGSA pilots!!

Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

Bert
who likes to do worm burners, but in an controlable setting

"Dave K" wrote in message
...
Indeed, but a serious competitor would always subordinate "fun" to
"efficiency",

True, but one thing we are missing is that this is a JUNIOR championship.
These are young people and FUN does come higher for the majority - I say
this having crewed at several UK juniors for top competitors. For top
pilots efficiency was top of the list until they knew they could get
back - then the fun element hit the top of the list. For lesser mortals
it's a fun event surrounded by similar thinking young people. This
changed when I crewed for the same pilots at full nationals - the
atmosphere was different as they were surrounded by more experienced
competition pilots.

Face it - gliding is fun, if it weren't we wouldn't do it. That's why we
don't fly powered.

Dave Kearns

PS these were RAFGSA pilots!!

On Feb 15, 12:22 pm, "Bert Willing" willing_no_spam_ple...@ir-
microsystems.com wrote:
Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

This is the view the lawmakers and courts take - something often
grossly misunderstood. AFAIK no activity which risks *only yourself*
has ever been banned. You can legally go cave diving, BASE jumping
etc. to your hearts content, despite them being probably the most
dangerous sports around. (Thirteen people died BASE jumping last year
and someone died doing it only last Saturday, the third death this
year.)

What the law does mandate is that if you're organising anything that
other people will take part in, every effort to minimise risk to the
participants and others is taken (e.g. hard hats and spinal protectors
for horse riding, helmets for BASE jumpers, F1 cars now have their
wheels tethered to the chassis so they can't fly off into the stands
etc. etc.).

For example in Britain there's a diving center where at least one
person has died every year since 1978. The center is still open as
they simply do everything they can to make it safe (apart from one
death where they broke the governing association's rules and were
fined £50,000). It's just a rather risky pastime. (They are in fact
building a medical center on site now).

As another example, every year in Idaho there's a BASE jumping
convention at Perrine Bridge. Four people have died there but the
event will not stop.

The law will never stop you doing any sport dangerous to *yourself* -
that's your choice, and the law respects that. What it will cane your
for is killing someone else who should have been safe while you do it
(as happened at Hus Bos), and if you're responsible for the safety of
others and you slip up.


Dan

I think it's common sense in the first place.

"Dan G" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 15, 12:22 pm, "Bert Willing" willing_no_spam_ple...@ir-
microsystems.com wrote:
Having fun by risking one own's life is a personal choice.
Having fun by risking other peoples' life is criminal.

This is the view the lawmakers and courts take - something often
grossly misunderstood. AFAIK no activity which risks *only yourself*
has ever been banned. You can legally go cave diving, BASE jumping
etc. to your hearts content, despite them being probably the most
dangerous sports around. (Thirteen people died BASE jumping last year
and someone died doing it only last Saturday, the third death this
year.)

What the law does mandate is that if you're organising anything that
other people will take part in, every effort to minimise risk to the
participants and others is taken (e.g. hard hats and spinal protectors
for horse riding, helmets for BASE jumpers, F1 cars now have their
wheels tethered to the chassis so they can't fly off into the stands
etc. etc.).

For example in Britain there's a diving center where at least one
person has died every year since 1978. The center is still open as
they simply do everything they can to make it safe (apart from one
death where they broke the governing association's rules and were
fined £50,000). It's just a rather risky pastime. (They are in fact
building a medical center on site now).

As another example, every year in Idaho there's a BASE jumping
convention at Perrine Bridge. Four people have died there but the
event will not stop.

The law will never stop you doing any sport dangerous to *yourself* -
that's your choice, and the law respects that. What it will cane your
for is killing someone else who should have been safe while you do it
(as happened at Hus Bos), and if you're responsible for the safety of
others and you slip up.


Dan