Tanya I could have loved you forever In spite of the bad beginning we had but you have no compassion , no empathy you don't want to compromise. You just want is a govt backed pension because you think it gives you security. In ten years the pension won't even buy you an ice cream.
> On 28 Oct 2014, at 21:24, Bruce Home Email <[email protected]> wrote: > > You lost me Gary. > > I'm following this from a comfortable position on the couch. I wasn't there, > and don't even know the pilot. But there seems to be an issue with the rules > to me. > > A wise man* once told me that to win, you must be able to fly the next day. > Seems pretty clear for all but the last day given that points are on offer. > It is not unreasonable to think that this should apply on the last day too - > in my opinion. > > This might be controversial, but I am aware of a pilot winning the last day > of a 15m class nationals, and the nationals themselves, after a midair that > they flew away from (raced away from as I was told) whilst the other pilot > abandoned. I can also recall some pretty optimistic flying by several pilots > into the biggest storm I've ever seen at Narromine in about 2001, and ended > up in extremely difficult retrieve situations due to 125-200mm of rain in the > paddocks. Several were in no position to fly the next day even though a task > was possible. The comp director (RIP), faced with a revolt from those who > weren't ready to fly, did not set a task for three classes, but did for 18m. > (Shinzo "entered" his D2 in 18m in protest as I recall). Another example of a > last day skewed by poor airmanship? > > Those results stand. So does the Goondiwindi result. But for the future, > should similar situations be allowed to be repeated? > > Why not have a rule that says that after landing/finishing on the last day, > all gliders must be able to pass a daily inspection? > > As tempting as it is, I'm not going to comment on the finish arrangements, as > I'm not familiar with the detail. > > Cheers > > Bruce > > *PS-I attribute the quote to Terry C (to my best recollection) > >> On 28 Oct 2014, at 10:45 pm, "Gary Stevenson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Michael Texler in his post of the evening of 28 Oct, finally “Got It”. >> >> Tim has now amplified matters, so that to mis-quote one famous author, “even >> a schoolboy can understand”. Just a preamble: the point I really want to >> make is that on that last day when Jim choose to fly on, 2 pilots in Sports >> Class elected to make quite routine outlandings (into the same paddock >> apparently), just 7 km from home. As usual their traces are available on >> Soaring Spot. Names do not need to be mentioned – just look at Sports Class, >> and then check the outlandings and distances covered to pinpoint the two >> relevant traces. >> >> Tim , you are being a little bit shy in your use of the Oz vernacular. The >> “Municipal Dunny Man” filled a very valuable and quite unique place in >> servicing one the essential needs of communities prior to the development of >> reticulated sewerage systems. So to get the language straight, let me put >> “shed loads” back into its true blue and dinky di context: “shit-cart full >> loads”. >> >> Further ; >> For Australian Musical Researchers try Googling “Municipal Dunny Can”. ..... >> And of course do not overlook that Australian work of great literary worth >> titled “The Specialist”. For visual art buffs this work was no doubt part >> inspiration for the 2006 Oz movie “Kenny”. >> >> Cheers, >> Gary >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley >> Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2014 8:39 PM >> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Bizarre Comp Rules... >> >> Hi all, >> >> Once again a disclaimer: I hold no relevant official position with the GFA. >> I do have considerable experience as a rulemaker, as a Contest Director, as >> a Scorer, and as a competition pilot. I speak only for myself. >> >> What follows is general clarification about competitions and rules, and is >> not intended as a comment on any specific incident. >> >> Back when I was involved in competition rulemaking, I remember we introduced >> some principles as a preamble to the rules and on checking I found that most >> of them are still there: >> >> At all times it remains the responsibility of pilots to operate in >> accordance with the GFA Manual of Standard >> Procedures and all applicable laws and regulations. >> Pilots are expected to conduct themselves at all times in the spirit of >> these rules and in accordance with the practice of good sportsmanship. >> Safety is at all times the primary consideration. If at any time a pilot >> feels that the requirements of these rules compromises the safety of their >> flight then they should take whatever actions are required to ensure the >> safety of themselves and of other air users. This may include withdrawing >> from the task or from the competition. >> Pilots are required to conduct themselves in a manner that will not bring >> disrepute on the Organisers, the hosting club or the GFA. >> >> There is nothing in the competition rules that suspends any laws. There are >> no exemptions. Pilots flying in a competition are just pilots, and must >> obey every requirement of the law. They remain fully responsible as Pilots >> in Command for the conduct of the flight. If they choose to disobey the law >> or good practice then that is entirely their responsibility. The >> competition is a game. Flying is not. >> >> No one wants to break their glider or themselves, and the rules of the game >> clearly discourage that by the simple fact that most of the time there is >> another race tomorrow. You won't get any points from a hospital bed or if >> your glider is in bits. On the last day, well if there was a million >> dollars at stake I could imagine that the risk of rolling yourself into a >> ball might be worth taking for some - but in our game why would anyone break >> a $100K glider for a bottle of cheap wine and a round of applause? Or even >> for the opportunity to spend shed loads of their own money representing >> Australia? >> >> If you want to know who is responsible for the safety of a flight where you >> are the Pilot in Command, take a good look in a mirror. And be very sure of >> what you see. >> Cheers >> Tim Shirley >> tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare >> On 28/10/2014 2:06 PM, Texler, Michael wrote: >> The caveat should be in place that the crash was a result of your own poor >> decision making. >> >> Now what constitutes poor decision making is a matter of opinion. >> >> Surely competition rules should be in place to discourage crashing: >> i.e. you crash, you are out of the comp. You pack up and go home. >> >> >> I'll leave it to others more experienced in these matters to give reasons >> why. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
