Don,

Facts, please, not conjecture. An innocent bystander was not hit by an
aircraft. A professional photographer intentionally placed himself in a
position of danger, knowing full well that gliders were flying low as part
of a sporting event. His intent was to take compelling photographs. He was
standing on the roof of a car, his head 12 feet above the ground, when he
was hit by the dipping wing of an aircraft estimated to be 15 feet above the
ground (the height of the tallest tree in the hedge row). He had advised
others he had nearly been hit the previous day, but was still willing to
place himself in peril for a good picture. This is an informed choice. As a
result of that choice, he lost his life, grieved his friends and family, and
may have left a lifelong emotional scar on the young man who hit him.

On the other side of the coin, the poor judgement and unfortunate choice of
a young pilot has left a well-known soaring figure dead and his friends and
family grieving, and more than one misinformed soul calling it criminal
homicide. This was an accident, a tragic accident. What makes it tragic is
that BOTH VICTIMS should have known better. The photographer should have
been standing behind his car, not on top of it. The pilot should have made a
greater effort to maintain safe separation.

The photographer's distance from the airfield (350 meters) is of only minor
consequence. I'm sure that if aircraft were staying high until crossing the
airport boundary, he'd have placed himself there instead, since his intent
was to be as close as possible to the aircraft to create unusual, compelling
images. And I think it likely, given his reputation, he would have received
permission from the contest authority to do so. (I recall many instances of
photogs on the flight line during launch snapping pictures from within the
arc of a high energy ground loop.)

I once landed on a playing field (pitch), never coming within a thousand
feet of any person. In fact, no witnesses whatsoever. A safe landing in all
respects. However, after hearing of my "crash," a local newspaper reporter
interviewed a woman (at random) who declared that only by the grace of God
had my negligence spared the life of her child who had been playing there
the day before. This thread reminds me of that intrepid reporter. (The
official report, on the other hand, handles the accident in a very
even-handed manner.)

And lest you think me wholly one sided, the fact that pilots, in their
competitive ardor, continued the practice even after emergency vehicles,
including a helicopter, appeared on the scene, demonstrated an appalling
callousness and disregard for safety.

By all means, let's learn from these mistakes and not repeat them. Don't fly
close to people. And don't intentionally place yourself in the path of
low-flying aircraft. And the informed should advise the uninformed, leading
by example rather than misleading by example. Especially where young, eager,
impressionable pilots are present. On the ground and in the air. Very
simple, really. Failing that, I guess we need to ask regulators to
intercede.

BTW,
One more factual error in the thread... Ground effect improves glide at ALL
speeds. The improvement as a ratio of total drag is much BETTER at low
speeds. At 80 knots, you will see significant and increasing improvement in
glide once you enter ground effect. The reason is that total drag is the sum
of profile and induced drag. While your induced drag may only be 1/2 of your
profile drag at 80 knots, it is still 1/3 of your total drag. A 20%
reduction in induced drag would yield a 7% improvement in efficiency, and it
gets significantly better as you slow down. Whether the maneuver is worth
the risk (as opposed to slowing to max L/D earlier in the glide) is
determined by circumstances. Personally, I think it's not worth the few
extra seconds it might net given the risk of hitting unseen objects outside
the boundaries of the airport.

As for pop ups over wires... obviously things were getting out of hand.
Where were the adults? Some of them were obviously out enjoying, first hand
and at close quarters, the unusual flying of the contestants.

If I get personal, I'll stop being anonymous ;-)


"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
At 18:54 12 February 2007, User wrote:
Far from disagreeing with the report and its recommendations...
the point is
simply to put this accident in context. There were
no innocents harmed, as
some contributors to this and related threads have
suggested. There was,
however, foolishness on the ground and in the air.

So a person standing on the ground hit by an aircraft
flying unecessarily low is guilty of what? Reckless
standing?
Unlawful photograph taking? Loitering on a glider approach?

It was very poor judgment on the part of pilots to
continue the practice of
flying the last part of their final glides in ground
effect with people in
the way. It was also very poor judgment on the part
of spectators to place
themselves in harm's way by deliberately standing in
the path of low flying
aircraft.

It was not poor judgement it was criminal recklessness
for pilots to fly so low unecesarrily, so they could
stike someone on the ground 500 metres from the airfield.
There was no valid reason whatsoever to compel the
pilots to fly close to the ground that far from the
airfield. The crash pilot admitted he saw people and
yet chose to continue passing very close to other people.

These pilots were not seeking out people on the ground
for dangerous close
passes. The people brought themselves to a place where
they knew they could
witness a close pass. You see the same thing on the
rallye circuit. The
difference is that you're more likely to have a race
warden shoo people away
from the danger zone. That, however, doesn't keep knowledgeable
spectators
from 'taking their chances' to get a better view or
photograph of the action
as it passes. Their presence has little affect on drivers,
who worry more
about maintaining control than the number of spectators
they'll impact if
they lose it.

While that might be true right on the aircraft boundary
or on the airfield itself there is no justifiable reason
at all why a glider has to be that low that far out.

To say that being so low is required to minimise the
losses through sinking air is, as we all know, total
b0ll0cks. There is no suggestion that any of these
aircraft were in low energy situations when being in
ground effect is of benefit in an effort to fly further.

Like I said, there are those who will, for reasons
which are a completely mystery to me, refuse to learn
the lesson from this accident. Becasue of those few
people we will all have to suffer unecessary restrictions.

If you believe in something at least have the courage
to use your name, or perhaps all you are is a flamer.