Crash at Shoreham Air show

[anonymous-user]

RichB said:

RoverP6B said:

...If they hadn't been freeloading, they'd be alive today.

The Chauffeur and the footballers were freeloading were they? hard to believe your callousness ...

That bit does sound a bit harsh but the rest of the post is absolutely spot on.

[RichB]

el stovey said:

RichB said:

RoverP6B said:

...If they hadn't been freeloading, they'd be alive today.

The Chauffeur and the footballers were freeloading were they? hard to believe your callousness ...

That bit does sound a bit harsh but the rest of the post is absolutely spot on.

As may be.

[RoverP6B]

RichB said:

RoverP6B said:

...If they hadn't been freeloading, they'd be alive today.

The Chauffeur and the footballers were freeloading were they? hard to believe your callousness ...

I said SEVERAL - NOT all.

[RichB]

Ooo shouty, shouty! Touch a nerve did I?

[RoverP6B]

I used a bit of caps lock for emphasis, not to sound angry. However, it does irritate me when people misread then quote part of what was said out of context, then apply a wholly false interpretation to that partial quote.

[ali_kat]

RichB said:

Ooo shouty, shouty! Touch a nerve did I?

To be fair, it was a snip that totally changed the context of what he'd said; unfairly

[EskimoArapaho]

Scuffers said:

EskimoArapaho said:

NEEP said:

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

Interesting and surprising to me. Pretty scummy behaviour from the AAIB/BALPA.

did you actually read the link?

there is a very solid case for NOT letting the CPS go mad with this stuff, if you do, then people will not report/provide witness statements to AAB etc for fear of prosecution further down the line.

in this case, the judge forced them to hand it over:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

then delayed:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/islands/...

then upheld:

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/06/22/judge-gran...

not sure what's happened since then?

Yes I did read the article. But I believe justice (for the dead) now should prevail. Full stop.

Special pleading that investigation of future incidents will be hampered is not a strong enough argument for me.

[Mave]

EskimoArapaho said:

Yes I did read the article. But I believe justice (for the dead) now should prevail. Full stop.

Special pleading that investigation of future incidents will be hampered is not a strong enough argument for me.

Which bit isn't good enough for you? Justice for the dead versus preventing future incidents? Or you don't believe that investigations of future incidents will be hampered?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 27th October 18:19

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Its a view that's clearly also held by the AAIB, and which the police do not appear to have refuted.
Your view that a police investigation in parallel with the AAIB wouldn't undermine the work of the AAIB is the ficticious work of YOUR imagination.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Would that be more disgraceful than a potentially fruitless investigation into criminal charges needlessly resulting in future deaths due to the AAIB investigation being undermined?

[BrabusMog]

This seems like quite a contentious subject, so I'll phrase my question as delicately as possible. Do people saying there should not be criminal proceedings brought feel that the aviation industry is, as a whole, above the law?

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which bit of the logic don't you get? Seems clear enough to me.

[bitchstewie]

BrabusMog said:

This seems like quite a contentious subject, so I'll phrase my question as delicately as possible. Do people saying there should not be criminal proceedings brought feel that the aviation industry is, as a whole, above the law?

I don't think it should be above the law, but we also don't know the facts yet, even if what's been released so far seems to suggest that the pilot simply got things badly wrong.

I may not do a great job of articulating it but it seems clear to me that there's a difference between, for example, a commercial pilot involved in an accident vs. a pilot at an air show where by definition the purpose of the flight is essentially to "show off".

I remember saying some pages back that I was surprised the pilot hadn't been interviewer by the Police. Not because of any criminal element, simply because it seems that with the smallest of road accident the Police are there as routine, so I found it hard to believe that you can drop an aircraft on a dual carriageway and they don't speak to you.

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

you are of course, right.

the problem comes when the police (or realistically, the CPS) get all politicised and put under pressure to 'DO' somebody following an accident.

this case in point, people died, the pilot is still with us, so he is a very much in the frame for this, and as I am sure you have seen, the papers are already all over this.

So, what's the chances of him getting a fair hearing?

[EskimoArapaho]

Mave said:

EskimoArapaho said:

Yes I did read the article. But I believe justice (for the dead) now should prevail. Full stop.

Special pleading that investigation of future incidents will be hampered is not a strong enough argument for me.

Which bit isn't good enough for you? Justice for the dead versus preventing future incidents? Or you don't believe that investigations of future incidents will be hampered?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 27th October 18:19

Why are you asking me a question that my post answers?

[BrabusMog]

bhstewie said:

BrabusMog said:

This seems like quite a contentious subject, so I'll phrase my question as delicately as possible. Do people saying there should not be criminal proceedings brought feel that the aviation industry is, as a whole, above the law?

I don't think it should be above the law, but we also don't know the facts yet, even if what's been released so far seems to suggest that the pilot simply got things badly wrong.

I may not do a great job of articulating it but it seems clear to me that there's a difference between, for example, a commercial pilot involved in an accident vs. a pilot at an air show where by definition the purpose of the flight is essentially to "show off".

I remember saying some pages back that I was surprised the pilot hadn't been interviewer by the Police. Not because of any criminal element, simply because it seems that with the smallest of road accident the Police are there as routine, so I found it hard to believe that you can drop an aircraft on a dual carriageway and they don't speak to you.

I'd agree with that. I guess the police know all about road traffic accidents but obviously they won't be so knowledgable regarding air crashes. That's when I had presumed the AAIB and police would work in tandem...

[Mave]

BrabusMog said:

This seems like quite a contentious subject, so I'll phrase my question as delicately as possible. Do people saying there should not be criminal proceedings brought feel that the aviation industry is, as a whole, above the law?

Nope. The law is the law, but it is there for a purpose, and generally in aviation that purpose is safety. The laws help achieve safety, but they do not neccesarily result in safety on their own.

On occasions laws are broken; sometimes maliciously, sometimes inadvertently.
The law tells you what you should and shouldn't do. It doesn't determine the consequences of breaking the law.

The question is; how do you maximise safety (and what do you do if a law has been broken)?
Do you focus your attention punishing law breakers on the basis that most law breaking is deliberate and therefore can be deterred?
Or do you focus your attention understanding if the laws are effective and practicable, on the basis that most law breaking is accidental and therefore likely to recur?

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's not what it says.
Its not making the police wait for a report.
Its making the police wait until they've finished they're investigation.

If I wait behind somebody at a urinal, its not because I want their wee

[Mave]

EskimoArapaho said:

Mave said:

EskimoArapaho said:

Yes I did read the article. But I believe justice (for the dead) now should prevail. Full stop.

Special pleading that investigation of future incidents will be hampered is not a strong enough argument for me.

Which bit isn't good enough for you? Justice for the dead versus preventing future incidents? Or you don't believe that investigations of future incidents will be hampered?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 27th October 18:19

Why are you asking me a question that my post answers?

Because your post can be interepreted in at least two ways. That's why I wrote those two, distinctly different ways in my question.

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I disagree. People tend to brush their mistakes under the carpet, especially if they think (potentially incorrectly) that its unimportant. Concern over criminal investigation, disciplinary action, or just a good old bking all lead to cover ups.

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

With respect, a lot of incidents involving AAIB are extremely serious and have multiple fatalities.