Hallo "user",

Facts, please, not conjecture. An innocent bystander was not hit by an
aircraft.

But it *could* have hit an innocent bystander. Imagine a farmer, passing
by on his tractor on the road behind the hedge where the photoprapher
and the others stood with their cars. Or has the road been closed? I
can't remember to have read anything about closed roads in the report.

Much of the effort man spends in setting up rules is spent in avoiding
things that *could* happen. Thinking about things that in fact
*happened* does lead us to such things that *could* happen, and further
thinking may lead us to solutions to avoid them. Is there anything wrong
about this?

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.

Here you're right, but we just shouldn't stop at this point, I think. As
i said above, it wasn't necessarily a person with knowledge of the
specific danger who was hit.

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.

Hey, now *you" are conjecturing!

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 where unseen people could be!

And don't intentionally place yourself in the path of
low-flying aircraft.

But don't forget that there *exist* uninformed people! If one wants to
fly that low, it must be ensured that roads and fields in his path are
closed, don't you think so?

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.

!

And (now I'm conjecturing) you're right: an excess of regulations kills
fun. If we (all of us, or at least the vast majority) don't learn out of
such accidents, we have to swallow the bitter pill (meaning we are
*urged* to learn - even more rules).

Where were the adults? Some of them were obviously out enjoying, first hand
and at close quarters, the unusual flying of the contestants.

Again, you are a bit conjecturing. But you may be right.

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

Huh, you could *become* personal ;-)

Werner