Discussion
5150 said:
Fat chance! Couldn't work out how to put it in italics!
Coincidentally, my Uncle who was Chief of Avionics at BA at the time, had to appear at his trial to explain to a jury how an ILS works, amongst other things.
Good luck to him. When I did my ATPL groundschool we had a few baby pilots in the class that struggled with it, so getting that across to the man in the street must have been fun. Not.Coincidentally, my Uncle who was Chief of Avionics at BA at the time, had to appear at his trial to explain to a jury how an ILS works, amongst other things.
'Just remember pilots are odd' was how it finally got through. Your uncle would get the reference.
Hainey said:
Good luck to him. When I did my ATPL groundschool we had a few baby pilots in the class that struggled with it, so getting that across to the man in the street must have been fun. Not.
'Just remember pilots are odd' was how it finally got through. Your uncle would get the reference.
I'll pass it on! He's still got his marbles, bless him. 'Just remember pilots are odd' was how it finally got through. Your uncle would get the reference.
The irony is that in the US a trial of this type could be allocated to a judge and lawyers who all have flight crew experience and are aviation specialists. Empanelling the jury would involve challenging jurors who have difficulty understanding highly technical evidence and an impartial prosecution would look at joining the CAA & BA as co-defendants for procedural & regulatory defects.
Highly technical competition law and corporate fraud cases (although civil and often with a elective-option of jury or judge-alone) are generally adjudicated on a judge-only basis because the vast quantity and complexity of the evidence would readily overwhelm a jury which may be asked to decide on a particularly arcane & technical item of evidence which needs to be proven to prove the charge to the required standard of proof.
Beaty's point about the court being an inappropriate adjudication forum for this type of incident at this stage in the investigatory process is a valid one - the court is looking to lay blame not establish causation and contributory responsibility.
If this was to be a criminal investigation it should have been dismissed when the aircraft was not treated as an item of evidence immediately post-landing and quarantined and grounded & the missing engineering log pages should also have been treated as fatally tainting the prosecution case.
There's always two sides to every story.
Highly technical competition law and corporate fraud cases (although civil and often with a elective-option of jury or judge-alone) are generally adjudicated on a judge-only basis because the vast quantity and complexity of the evidence would readily overwhelm a jury which may be asked to decide on a particularly arcane & technical item of evidence which needs to be proven to prove the charge to the required standard of proof.
Beaty's point about the court being an inappropriate adjudication forum for this type of incident at this stage in the investigatory process is a valid one - the court is looking to lay blame not establish causation and contributory responsibility.
If this was to be a criminal investigation it should have been dismissed when the aircraft was not treated as an item of evidence immediately post-landing and quarantined and grounded & the missing engineering log pages should also have been treated as fatally tainting the prosecution case.
There's always two sides to every story.
The whole handling of the situation post incident was a stain on BA for many years, some would say it still is. Its still talked about in the industry and the sympathy does not fall with the company.
Its similar to the fume events endemic on the 75/76 fleet. A known problem that has made many people ill, even leading to premature deaths in more than one case, but ignored and litigated against by the management.
Its similar to the fume events endemic on the 75/76 fleet. A known problem that has made many people ill, even leading to premature deaths in more than one case, but ignored and litigated against by the management.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Shame the flight recorders weren't preserved before they buggered off the next morning!Couple of things related to this.
Back in the mid 70's there was a cark park spotters could use on the north side of 09L
One evening we were sitting there watching them come in and had the Airband on, when someone shouted out 'he is off line' and looking at the planes on finals there was one that was waaaay over to the left of the approach. Suddenly ATC called up and told the craft ,An Air Ghana DC-10, to do a go around as he was not lined up.he was about 4th in line at the time
As regards to SFO incident, iflew an AC flight from Toronto to Montreal ( A320) and asked the pilot about it, esp as i had been in SFO fromm 6-10 july.
Without saying too much he intimated that that was the crews last flight.
Back in the mid 70's there was a cark park spotters could use on the north side of 09L
One evening we were sitting there watching them come in and had the Airband on, when someone shouted out 'he is off line' and looking at the planes on finals there was one that was waaaay over to the left of the approach. Suddenly ATC called up and told the craft ,An Air Ghana DC-10, to do a go around as he was not lined up.he was about 4th in line at the time
As regards to SFO incident, iflew an AC flight from Toronto to Montreal ( A320) and asked the pilot about it, esp as i had been in SFO fromm 6-10 july.
Without saying too much he intimated that that was the crews last flight.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff