Luge Coach Believes In Death Penalty

[bush_cheney2004]

VANOC and the IOC don't approve these tracks, that is up to the sled associations themselves. I doubt anyone in VANOC or the IOC knows much about designing one of these things. You hire an expert to do it, just like in a good golf course.

Not so fast...looks like VANOC did have a say in track design, starting with location:

WHISTLER - With skeleton races taking place and bobsledders crashing in advance of the two-man weekend competition, the International Luge Federation (FIL) said Thursday it will investigate the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili.

He died a week ago after being thrown from his sled into a steel pole near the bottom of the track. His funeral is Saturday.

The FIL's announcement comes a day after the designer of the track,

Udo Gurgel, told The Globe and Mail that the extremely high speed of the Whistler Sliding Centre resulted from marketing and investment decisions made by the Vancouver Olympic Committee, VANOC.

While defending his design, Udo Gurgel says the speed and its jarring turns for the luge, bobsleigh and skeleton track were considered acceptable tradeoffs for a more appealing location.

"It wasn't desired or demanded that the track be as fast as it is," Gurgel said from his Leipzig lab. "The track had to be near Whistler, for use after the Olympics. You don't want to ruin an investment so the track is on terrain that's a little steep."

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/luge/news/newsid=46256.html

There will be more investigation prompted by continuing criticism (and expected lawsuit!).

[Wilber]

Everyone is in ass covering mode.

[Guest American Woman]

According to this recent article (dated today): Although the IOC runs the games, Rogge said the responsibility for "field of play" issues rests with the international sports federations.

AP Interview: IOC to act on luge death tragedy

[wyly]

Those of you claiming that this track is unsafe - have you participated in the design of a track or participated in the sport?

crashes are a part of the sport this one has the media jumping over each other every time there is an incident...statistics back the safety concerns, this track has a lower rate of accidents per 100 runs, about 1.5 compared to and average of 3 on other courses...

[wyly]

Not so fast...looks like VANOC did have a say in track design, starting with location:

WHISTLER - With skeleton races taking place and bobsledders crashing in advance of the two-man weekend competition, the International Luge Federation (FIL) said Thursday it will investigate the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili.

He died a week ago after being thrown from his sled into a steel pole near the bottom of the track. His funeral is Saturday.

The FIL's announcement comes a day after the designer of the track,

Udo Gurgel, told The Globe and Mail that the extremely high speed of the Whistler Sliding Centre resulted from marketing and investment decisions made by the Vancouver Olympic Committee, VANOC.

While defending his design, Udo Gurgel says the speed and its jarring turns for the luge, bobsleigh and skeleton track were considered acceptable tradeoffs for a more appealing location.

"It wasn't desired or demanded that the track be as fast as it is," Gurgel said from his Leipzig lab. "The track had to be near Whistler, for use after the Olympics. You don't want to ruin an investment so the track is on terrain that's a little steep."

http://www.ctvolympics.ca/luge/news/newsid=46256.html

There will be more investigation prompted by continuing criticism (and expected lawsuit!).

it wasn't Vanoc that wanted the track placed where it was, that's what was available...the sliding organizations wanted the move they were responsible for approving it...

Edited February 21, 2010 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

it wasn't Vanoc that wanted the track placed where it was, that's what was available...the sliding organizations wanted the move they were responsible for approving it...

Bullpuckey...VANOC was looking past the games for commercial success of the track.

Designers of the track have also revealed that its location, in a valley near to the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains, was too narrow and steep, but it was put there for commercial reasons.

[Wilber]

Bullpuckey...VANOC was looking past the games for commercial success of the track.

Designers of the track have also revealed that its location, in a valley near to the Whistler and Blackcomb mountains, was too narrow and steep, but it was put there for commercial reasons.

Yes sir, I crashed that airplane because the person who was paying me wanted me to fly in conditions that I knew weren't safe. A good defence at the hearing? I think not.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes sir, I crashed that airplane because the person who was paying me wanted me to fly in conditions that I knew weren't safe. A good defence at the hearing? I think not.

You picked a very bad analogy....commercial and general aviation rules are also written in blood.

[Wilber]

You picked a very bad analogy....commercial and general aviation rules are also written in blood.

It's a perfectly valid analogy. These guys were the pros. They were hired because they were the pros. If they weren't prepared to stand behind their work, they should have walked. If that is the way they felt about it, they had no business being there.

It has nothing to do with aviation rules being writen in blood and everything to do with taking responsibility for what you do. This guy is a weasel.

You and I obviously have different ideas on the definition of accountability.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a perfectly valid analogy. These guys were the pros. They were hired because they were the pros. If they weren't prepared to stand behind their work, they should have walked. If that is the way they felt about it, they had no business being there.

Even the "pros" make decisions based on cost benefit analysis. That is their business....constrained by cost, schedule, and in this case, the chosen location.

It has nothing to do with aviation rules being writen in blood and everything to do with taking responsibility for what you do. This guy is a weasel.

No more than the IOC or VANOC.....you said it yourself...everybody is in CYA mode.

You and I obviously have different ideas on the definition of accountability.

Why should "this guy" fall on his sword for everybody else? Other tracks he designed did not have this "fatal flaw"....so what is different about how this one was born? ALL factors should/will be considered, just like a good 'ole aviation disaster and subsequent investigation.

[Wilber]

Even the "pros" make decisions based on cost benefit analysis. That is their business....constrained by cost, schedule, and in this case, the chosen location.

No more than the IOC or VANOC.....you said it yourself...everybody is in CYA mode.

Why should "this guy" fall on his sword for everybody else? Other tracks he designed did not have this "fatal flaw"....so what is different about how this one was born? ALL factors should/will be considered, just like a good 'ole aviation disaster and subsequent investigation.

So you think that if you hire an engineering company to build something for you, they should build it exactly the way you want and not have any responsibility for the result? If so, what the hell do you need them for?

I don't think he should fall on his sword, just have enough integrity to stand behind his work.

As for aviation disasters, "the devil made me do it" has never been a valid argument.

Yes, everyone is in CYA mode. Let's not forget that.

[bush_cheney2004]

So you think that if you hire an engineering company to build something for you, they should build it exactly the way you want and not have any responsibility for the result? If so, what the hell do you need them for?

Lot's of things...but that's besides the point. If the client has chosen an incompatible site, then the client will bear some of the risk. A sliding track is not exactly rocket science.

I don't think he should fall on his sword, just have enough integrity to stand behind his work.

He is standing behind his work, and constraints he did not have any control over. He will have lots of company.

As for aviation disasters, "the devil made me do it" has never been a valid argument.

Yes it has been...from gundecked maintenance records to risks taken because of system redundancies.

Yes, everyone is in CYA mode. Let's not forget that.

That's fine...but VANOC has a much bigger ass to cover.

[Wilber]

Lot's of things...but that's besides the point. If the client has chosen an incompatible site, then the client will bear some of the risk. A sliding track is not exactly rocket science.

Exactly, so if the site is obviously unsafe, why would he commit to buiding it? One word. Money.

He is standing behind his work, and constraints he did not have any control over. He will have lots of company.

He designed and built it. How can you say he had no control over his own actions. His only control. Money.

Yes it has been...from gundecked maintenance records to risks taken because of system redundancies.

Nonsense, a pilot has no knowledge of fudged maintenance records and as far as system redundancies go, every aircraft has a minimum equipment list published by the manufacturer and it is a pilots job to ensure the aircraft's maintenance logs conform to that list before a flight. If it doesn't, he is responsible.

That's fine...but VANOC has a much bigger ass to cover.

Maybe but my guess is this guys course designing days are over. Who will hire him when they know he will turn on them the first time something goes wrong?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, so if the site is obviously unsafe, why would he commit to buiding it? One word. Money.

Indeed...money...for all involved.

He designed and built it. How can you say he had no control over his own actions. His only control. Money.

Did the provided project budget include cutting into the mountain? Nope.

Nonsense, a pilot has no knowledge of fudged maintenance records and as far as system redundancies go, every aircraft has a minimum equipment list published by the manufacturer and it is a pilots job to ensure the aircraft's maintenance logs conform to that list before a flight. If it doesn't, he is responsible.

Nope....the ground crews and pilots play this game every day. If they get caught, then the airline pays the fine. A calculated risk. Hell man, you know this better than I do!

Maybe but my guess is this guys course designing days are over. Who will hire him when they know he will turn on them the first time something goes wrong?

Maybe...but I want to wait for all the dirt to come out. Cross-cut shredders are busy as we type!

[Wilber]

Indeed...money...for all involved.

So he does bear some responsibility.

Did the provided project budget include cutting into the mountain? Nope.

The budget is not his problem, it's VANOC's If he couldn't do the job to his satisfaction with the money available, the only responsible thing to do would be pass on the job.

Nope....the ground crews and pilots play this game every day. If they get caught, then the airline pays the fine. A calculated risk. Hell man, you know this better than I do!

Yes, I know much better than you and at the five airlines I flew for, they absolutely did not. You can play all the "games" you want but the buck stops in one place. The airline may pay the fine but the pilot loses his livelihood and possibly his life along with a few hundred others.

Maybe...but I want to wait for all the dirt to come out. Cross-cut shredders are busy as we type!

I'm sure the dirt will come out but I have no respect for someone who will not stand behind his work. If he did, he would be sticking up for his course, not trying to blame it on someone else. That will not go unnoticed.