If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you, 'here's some 20mm and some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen in the films'? Or did they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs and debriefs, and lots of practice? Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground. Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would be 500 feet. Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate safety? Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into the rules and you want to establish a low altitude / high speed training school? Charlie has a way to make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces the names of all those who didn't do it the day before. Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance. We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats the problem. JJ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
John Sinclair wrote: Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you, 'here's some 20mm and some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen in the films'? Or did they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs and debriefs, and lots of practice? Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground. Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would be 500 feet. Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate safety? Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into the rules and you want to establish a low altitude / high speed training school? Charlie has a way to make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces the names of all those who didn't do it the day before. Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance. We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats the problem. JJ Assembly check has been very effectively enforced by many contest organisers with the simple policy of "no signiture on the wing tape- no tow". As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I, for one will not be doing this. Imagine the potential liability. We continuously do recurrent training at contests in the form of safety talks. Others of us also counsel pilots who are seen doing marginal finishes in order to try to prevent accidents. All that said, I love to do speed finishes, am sorry to see them on the way out, but think their time has come and gone. UH |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
So let me understand this: We get together at sanctionned contests, to
engage in a competitive activity that requires, shall we say, aggressive flying, but are unwilling to provide proper supervised training or evaluation of the skills necessary to safely engage in our sport? Because we are scared of getting sued? YGTBSM! So instead, why not eliminate all risk: Only one contestant can be airborne at a time, minimum altitude 3000' AGL, automatic disqualification if one lands out, and maximum speed on course limited to the Va of the glider. Dry, of course. And on a flight plan. Again, other risky sports seem to have no problem training, evaluating, and certifying their participants. What's so different about glider pilots? I sure would like to know that the stranger that just joined me in the prestart gaggle has a clue as to what he is doing - ditto with the guy next to me at the end of out final glides. Maybe it is time to gin up an alternative racing series. Heck, get (shudder) Red Bull to sponsor it. Make it interesting, challenging, and fun - not just another group XC around the local area. Seems like they are trying that out in France.... And sure, if it would do any good, I would be more than happy to teach someone everyting I know about safe low passes. 66 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Will try to focus on the issue through testosterone haze.
As an active racer and CFI for almost 30 years, I have taught countless courses in racing to new and not so new pilots. Final glides and finishes are an important part of this teaching. That said, consider the scenario in which Joe Racer Newbie is trained and performs satisfactorily in the training course under low stress and out of the competition environment. He is then signed off by someone as having been trained satisfactorily. Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and spins in- fatally. Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others? Are you volunteering to take on this duty? UH |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and spins in- fatally. Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others? Are you volunteering to take on this duty? UH And the lawyer, looking at the $1m contest liability insurance, will surely ask the contest organizers why they chose to require a 50 foot finish line when a 500 foot or higher finish was an available option in the rules. All the fun arguments we have here will evaporate in court with one crash in front of them and a long list of similar crashes in the NTSB database. Let us hope it won't happen, and let us hope nobody files a suit when it does. (Keep in mind it's not just spouses and children who might sue. Life insurance companies can sue, and pieces of glider can do a lot of damage to unsuspecting bystanders on the ground) But if it does happen the contest organizers are exposed to a significant liability. BB |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"BB" wrote in message oups.com... Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and spins in- fatally. Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others? Are you volunteering to take on this duty? UH And the lawyer, looking at the $1m contest liability insurance, will surely ask the contest organizers why they chose to require a 50 foot finish line when a 500 foot or higher finish was an available option in the rules. All the fun arguments we have here will evaporate in court with one crash in front of them and a long list of similar crashes in the NTSB database. Let us hope it won't happen, and let us hope nobody files a suit when it does. (Keep in mind it's not just spouses and children who might sue. Life insurance companies can sue, and pieces of glider can do a lot of damage to unsuspecting bystanders on the ground) But if it does happen the contest organizers are exposed to a significant liability. BB What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest? Are you saying they have no standing. Udo |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
Are you saying they have no standing. Udo In a word, no. Those waivers slow down suits by about 5 minutes, especially if they can prove some sort of negligence. Your waiver also says nothing about contest organizer's liability to third parties. If you crash and do damage to someone on the ground, they can sue contest organizers, and your waiver of liability to you has nothing to do with it. For example, consider the glider that ran into a spectator at tonopah at takeoff. The spectator can sue the contest organizers and the SSA. BB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finish Gate Accident no. 2 | [email protected] | Soaring | 50 | April 2nd 05 06:58 AM |
Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder | [email protected] | Soaring | 44 | March 25th 05 02:10 PM |
Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point??? | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 31 | October 18th 04 10:31 PM |
Carbon Fiber - Achieving Glossy Finish w/o GelCoat | RKT | Home Built | 7 | March 8th 04 06:15 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |