Stefan,

A five year history (including this accident) of
only a single US non-pilot glider fatality suggests
non-pilot passengers are well protected by the status
quo.

This particular accident does nothing to contradict
this conclusion.

I also haven't seen any evidence that more or less
time makes a particular pilot safer, in itself. Of
27 US fatalities in five years, NONE were student pilots,
for example.

Over time, there will be some very experienced pilots,
and some inexperienced pilots killed in accidents.


Concluding that

the inexperienced ones died from inexperience and

the experienced ones died from overconfidence

seems a bit simplistic to me.

I personally think the insurance company method of
paying someone to report their involvement in an accident
, and then raising their premium, is a much more sophisticated
and effective way to improve safety.

At 10:00 22 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

This was not the point. The point was that the whole
idea of a
commercial rating should be to protect the costomer.
A commercial rating
should be a certificate that I can trust somebody.
That's the idea.

That this is not achived by the ridiculous requirements
to get such a
rating (in the USA) was exactly my point.

Stefan

Mark J. Boyd