Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Correction: October 4th death

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Correction: October 4th death



                


Thread: Correction: October 4th death

Message: Correction: October 4th death

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: Derek Sherlock <dereks at hpfcla.fc.hp.com>

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 21:46:13 UTC


Message:

  C O R R E C T I O N:

I just posted the following message before realizing my error:  I
mis-stated the runway numbers.  The eroneous paragraph should have read
as follows:

"The choice of the glider contingent to land on 33 was NOT due to a
failure to communicate any change of runway.  There was no change of
runway.  The power traffic had been using 15 all morning, and continued
to do so.  The glider operation had chosen to use 33.  It was a concious
choice to land the opposite direction to power traffic."

Sorry for the mistake.

Derek.


> 
> Jeffry,
> 
> I was an eyewitness to the accident, and a competitior at the contest.
> Although I now fly a Pitts exclusively, I have about 600 hours in
> gliders, most of them as a flight instructor, so I am fairly well
> aquainted with the issues involved here.
> 
> But I feel that it is inappropriate to turn this mailing list into the
> forum to "investigate" this tragedy, so I won't post an eyewitness
> account here.  I did file a written eyewitness account with the NTSB.
> They have not contacted me for any follow-up.
> 
> I am posting this just to clear up some misinformation in your post, not
> to express an opinion as to the cause of the accident.  [I do have
> opinions as to the (multiple) contributing factors, which I will discuss
> with you by email if you wish.]
> 
> The choice of the glider contingent to land on 33 was NOT due to a
> failure to communicate any change of runway.  There was no change of
> runway.  The power traffic had been using 33 all morning, and continued
> to do so.  The glider operation had chosen to use 15.  It was a concious
> choice to land the opposite direction to power traffic.
> 
> I've always opposed the opposite-direction operations that for some
> reason seem to be widely accepted at mixed glider/power operations in
> this country.  They are especially hazardous when the modus operandi is
> to land "long" to stop close to the launch point for the next launch -
> serverely limiting the pilot's options if things don't go as planned.
> 
> I'm NOT suggesting that the choice that was made was a wise one.  But I
> want to clear up the misinformation that there was a switch in active
> runway.
> 
> Derek.
> --
>  ___ __ /___ ___    Derek Sherlock
> |   /  /_ _ \   |   Fort Collins Systems Lab (FSL)
> |  /  / // / \  |   3404 E. Harmony
> |  \ / //_/  /  |   Fort Collins CO 80525
> |___\_ /____/___|
>       /             Direct: 970-229-7582
>   H E W L E T T     Fax:    970-229-7388
>   P A C K A R D     Email:  dereks at fc.hp.com

-- 
 ___ __ /___ ___    Derek Sherlock
|   /  /_ _ \   |   Fort Collins Systems Lab (FSL)
|  /  / // / \  |   3404 E. Harmony
|  \ / //_/  /  |   Fort Collins CO 80525
|___\_ /____/___| 
      /             Direct: 970-229-7582
  H E W L E T T     Fax:    970-229-7388
  P A C K A R D     Email:  dereks at fc.hp.com


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn