glider/airplane collision

A very poignant piece, but inappropriate to the subject of this
thread. I'd have preferred to read it without the implication that it
described, in part or whole, the cause of the accident at Turf. Let's
let the FAA do its job of finding causes and suggesting corrections.
Meanwhile, we should divorce these tangents from the event by pursuing
them as independent threads.

"Terry Claussen" wrote in message
om...
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/182980-1.html

It sound familiar because it is.

You have no clue as to what a disservice this does to the folks at Turf.
They have flown thousands of aerobatic flights without an accident until
this one. It was a midair with a plane going through the middle of the
aerobatic box so has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the article
you referenced therefore is not "familiar". This accident could have
occurred at 5000 feet. Please review the facts prior to posting next time.
And for God's sake think about the families and friends involved before
putting this on a public forum.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message news:22HNb.8888$Xq2.5042@fed1read07...
Please review the facts prior to posting next time.
And for God's sake think about the families and friends involved before
putting this on a public forum.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

Mr. Lennox,

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.

In my 25 years in aviation, I think daily about families and friends.
Friends I have already lost. These accidents should not be swept
under the rug, for if they are then we are all the worse for it. We
should all resolve to make today safer than yesterday.

I have spoken with the author of that piece, it is NOT about Turf, and
it was not my intention to imply that it was. The ultimate result of
these types of accidents are further restrictions on aviation to the
detriment of us all. I hope you will be able to see that, someday.

Respectfully,
Terry Claussen

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.

Dear Airmen/Airwomen:

There are no guarantees even when we have procedures in effect (aerobatic box).
That is the lesson to be learned. My heart goes out to the family and friends
of these Airmen, what a tragedy.

I came within 5 feet of an American Airlines MD 80 out of Burbank airport, and
we were both talking to the same controller (at slightly different times so I
did not hear the airline clearance). The controller said "sorry guys my
fault," but that would be of little of little condolence to the 92 souls if we
had hit. Ultimately we can only depend on ourselves. What if you are on a
victor hwy at FL20 and someone busts the Class A airspace in front of you? it
is dangerous business even if we just do it for fun and we must always be
aware.

Craig

Earlier, (Terry Claussen) wrote:

The facts are similar...

Hmmm. They parked the van _where?_

"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