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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
BB wrote:
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 My club was recently looking at 'meet' insurance as described by Costello to cover neglience that might not be otherwise covered by our existing policies, including premises liability coverage as we own our airfield. If hosting a contest 'meet' insurance is available for around $800 (around $500 if SSA sanctioned). Frank Whiteley |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Have soloed about 200 students over the years so I think I have a
pretty good idea what my personal risk threshhold is. My students solo when they demonstrate consistency in their performance. Rarely as few as 25 landing, most in the range of 35 to 40. Occasionally a lot more. Difference is that they remain under supervision and continue to get feedback. UH |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we are not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the "liability" issue. I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone to think that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as former instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in the powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been witness to the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper that they are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the grounds of duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will line up to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to pad their own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the standard of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well. In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club board due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport after drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse. Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US legal system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA certified instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done here in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project dead in its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if organizers become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will all be. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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" Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish. Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1 miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow, pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern. And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I don't agree. Here is another problem: The next day, Joe Newbie having survived his first finish with only some minor scratches to his ego and gelcoat, decides to really nail his finish this time. So he adds some extra altitude in his last thermal (which involves some extra heads-down time with his fancy new PDA), then as he is approaching the finish, he is concentrating on his altitude (mustn't be too low), airspeed (mustn't bee too fast), and where the line is (gee that PDA screen is hard to see). So what we have here is a bloody IFR finish! Yeah, that's a BIG improvement. OTOH, if Joe has been reminded that until he is comfortable, it is perfectly OK to finish a bit high or to setup for a straight-in if he is low and slow, on both days he just has to look out the window, visually navigate across the finish line, then make the appropriate pattern entry. Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view. 66 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a little fun along the way. I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right so we can all keep doing worm burners. The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is easily fixed by raising the finish height. I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of excessively low energy patterns. The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate. When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do a pattern and take the rolling finish time. All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge makes it better for everybody. The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver. Thanks for sharing UH |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view. We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years, now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at the finish line. Enough said. JJ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
When I was building the Super Albatross replica I asked the well known
aeronautical engineer, Stan Hall to take a look at what I was doing and to run the numbers on my wing attach fittings. I told Stan that I understood that my request involved some "liability issues" and I would understand if he refused. Stan told me something I will never forget, he said, I always do the very best job I know how to do and don't worry much about "liability issues". That's it in a nutshell, you shouldn't have liability problems if you always do a good job, the right way, the first time. What's this got to do with soaring? Some feel that any effort to correct known safety problems is to have the organization "held hostage to safety and liability issues". Not true, in fact not addressing known safety issues is the definition of "liability". JJ Kilo Charlie wrote: UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to promote soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we are not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the "liability" issue. I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone to think that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as former instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in the powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been witness to the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper that they are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the grounds of duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will line up to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to pad their own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the standard of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well. In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club board due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport after drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse. Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US legal system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA certified instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done here in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project dead in its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if organizers become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will all be. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"John Sinclair" wrote in message
: Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view. We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years, now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at the finish line. Enough said. JJ There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. Regards, Larry Goddard "01" USA |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
01-- Zero One wrote:
There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful recoveries? |
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 |