Colin McRae Fatal accident enquiry - Errr why ??
Discussion
StevieBee said:
On the assumption that other helicopters of the same make are flying, then surely it would be good to know that certain scenarios do not impact on technical aspects as a similar instance over a heavily populated area would have far worse outcomes.
Bingo, and that is why EVERY air crash is investigated with a fine tooth comb.But of course, its actually about "jobs for the boys" and wasting public funds.
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
It's all just "jobs for the boys", and sod all to do with actually trying to find out anything ..
Ignorance.What experience do you have which allows to opine on the process?
None, I'll wager. Who do you dislike? Lawyers?
You're picking me up wrong on this. Actually I don't dislike lawyers or judges in the slightest, I would just like them to be doing something a little more worthwhile than this pointless exercise. I'm having a dig at the the people who make the decisions that this inquiry is actually necessary, and let's be honest, it's the same old crowd that then decide that this will drag on and on and on, and oh we need to go on trips out into the countryside, and oh let's drag it on even more ... my point is this, what exactly is this going to achieve? and who benefits by rewarding themselves with rather nice jobs/salary at the same time?
If as some have said, it's an insurance thing, then sure, let the insurance companies pick up the tab ... why oh why should this ridiculous investigation be funded by the taxpayer?
As for having experience to opine on the process, damn, I didn't know that as a taxpayer I had to have a law degree, or experience in the courts to query why this investigation was necessary, which is what I'm doing.
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 25th January 16:13
Marf said:
SplatSpeed said:
how much will all this cost??
So fashionable to lambast public spending, whether it be justified or not.Edited by Marf on Tuesday 25th January 16:20
how many lives will it save for what price?
what are the lives per pound saved?
Marf said:
Soooooo ignorant.
Marf and Co, go and troll somewhere else The Air Accident Investigation Board have ALREADY read the word ALREADY done their job, and have reached their final conclusion
This isn't what I querying .. I'm querying the now additional accident enquiry and having a second investigation ..
READ THE OP BEFORE diving in and making an idiot of yourself !!!
Porkis said:
As for having experience to opine on the process, damn, I didn't know that as a taxpayer I had to have a law degree, or experience in the courts to query why this investigation was necessary, which is what I'm doing.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/law/fatalaccidentinquiriesThe AAIB investigation itself is purely a technical exercise - what failings, either human or mechanical - caused the accident, and does not (should not) have any findings as to the legalities involved; these have to be decided by legal process.
The link above states there are generally 50 or 60 FAIs in Scotland each year - why is it this one in particular has rattled your chain?
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
It's all just "jobs for the boys", and sod all to do with actually trying to find out anything ..
Ignorance.What experience do you have which allows to opine on the process?
None, I'll wager. Who do you dislike? Lawyers?
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 25th January 16:13
Do you know anyone who actually likes Lawyers?
julian64 said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
It's all just "jobs for the boys", and sod all to do with actually trying to find out anything ..
Ignorance.What experience do you have which allows to opine on the process?
None, I'll wager. Who do you dislike? Lawyers?
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 25th January 16:13
Do you know anyone who actually likes Lawyers?
Soovy said:
julian64 said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
Soovy said:
Porkis said:
It's all just "jobs for the boys", and sod all to do with actually trying to find out anything ..
Ignorance.What experience do you have which allows to opine on the process?
None, I'll wager. Who do you dislike? Lawyers?
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 25th January 16:13
Do you know anyone who actually likes Lawyers?
Porkis said:
Marf said:
Soooooo ignorant.
Marf and Co, go and troll somewhere else The Air Accident Investigation Board have ALREADY read the word ALREADY done their job, and have reached their final conclusion
This isn't what I querying .. I'm querying the now additional accident enquiry and having a second investigation ..
READ THE OP BEFORE diving in and making an idiot of yourself !!!
The CAA's job was to investigate the accident from a technical and aviation point of view. This they have done and have reported as was their brief.
It has been decided that there should be a wider investigation into other aspects of the accident which would include areas not covered by the CAA team and which could result in criminal or negligence charges being raised.
Thios would have significant ramifications for the families of those who have died and could raise the possibility of whether any sort of compemnsation might be payable.
Fortunately, not everything in human activity is subject to a "cost/benefit" analysis. Seeking justice and the truth goes beyond "taxpayer value".
eharding said:
Porkis said:
As for having experience to opine on the process, damn, I didn't know that as a taxpayer I had to have a law degree, or experience in the courts to query why this investigation was necessary, which is what I'm doing.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/law/fatalaccidentinquiriesThe AAIB investigation itself is purely a technical exercise - what failings, either human or mechanical - caused the accident, and does not (should not) have any findings as to the legalities involved; these have to be decided by legal process.
The link above states there are generally 50 or 60 FAIs in Scotland each year - why is it this one in particular has rattled your chain?
I'm not rattled by just this one .. it's just that from my zero experience in flying, zero experience as a lawyer/judge/sheriff, zero experience as a medical examiner/petrolhead psycologist I just feel that there really isn't anything further to be gained by trawling through all of this, especially at great financial cost for months and months. There is no one left to blame, and I would have thought that taking on board the AAIB findings, and by what we do actually know as fact in this case, there's not really that much to be gained by this investigation, or is there?
That's what I'm asking, what is to be gained by this further investigation that we don't already know, or that will actually benefit us in some way, especially if it's good value for money.
I'm waiting to be blown away by an answer to that, rather than a few t
ts simply saying " soo ignorant" But I am prepared to be educated .. as contrary to belief I don't actually know it all
StevieBee said:
Turbodiesel1690 said:
Although no technical reason was found to explain it, a technical fault, whilst considered unlikely, could not be ruled out entirely.
Would say that this needs absolute determination. On the assumption that other helicopters of the same make are flying, then surely it would be good to know that certain scenarios do not impact on technical aspects as a similar instance over a heavily populated area would have far worse outcomes.Surely when the AAIB performed their investigation it was as technical as it can get and therefore this investigation is to aportion blame for the purposes of insurance and the like. If there had been an engineering issue found in the original report it definitely should go through court and further tragedy prevented but I assume that all the technical evidence (inclusive of potential issues with the helicopter) will all be referenced to the previous investigation rather than performed again.
Regardless, the case is a necessity - if the court deem, based on the technical evidence, that someone other than the pilot had been at fault they need to be brought to justice and further repeats prevented.
What was wrong with my answer or that of Mr Harding.
E harding is a pilot and I am a keen aviation enthusiast. I also have some legal knowledge (I'm an accountant) so between the two of us we have explained the legal reasons why the CAA investigation was limited in scope and why other aspects of the accident might need a more wide ranging enquiry.
E harding is a pilot and I am a keen aviation enthusiast. I also have some legal knowledge (I'm an accountant) so between the two of us we have explained the legal reasons why the CAA investigation was limited in scope and why other aspects of the accident might need a more wide ranging enquiry.
Eric Mc said:
Porkis said:
Marf said:
Soooooo ignorant.
Marf and Co, go and troll somewhere else The Air Accident Investigation Board have ALREADY read the word ALREADY done their job, and have reached their final conclusion
This isn't what I querying .. I'm querying the now additional accident enquiry and having a second investigation ..
READ THE OP BEFORE diving in and making an idiot of yourself !!!
The CAA's job was to investigate the accident from a technical and aviation point of view. This they have done and have reported as was their brief.
It has been decided that there should be a wider investigation into other aspects of the accident which would include areas not covered by the CAA team and which could result in criminal or negligence charges being raised.
Thios would have significant ramifications for the families of those who have died and could raise the possibility of whether any sort of compemnsation might be payable.
Fortunately, not everything in human activity is subject to a "cost/benefit" analysis. Seeking justice and the truth goes beyond "taxpayer value".
Okay, so seeing as the person that "may" have been negligent in this case is dead, are we saying that this is really all down to the families of the dead being able to make a claim?
If so, how can it really be possible to apportion blame, seeing as non of the potential witnesses were in the helicopter, but from a distance, and in all cases so far, we're talking about farmers, and normal average people out dog walking .. hardly the voice(s) of people experienced in aircraft behaviour, so really, where is any evidence going to come from that may actually pin the blame on the pilot?
My question goes on ... what good really, can we expect to come from all of this?
There's just gotta be some money involved somewhere, either a civil case or compensation!!
As mentioned, the technical report is done and dusted, no one with more expertise than the AAIB is going to look at the availible data and suddenly come up with some new facts.
Unfortunately in today's society we have formed a bad habit of wasting lots of cash in an attempt to find the "truth" or be able to occupy the moral "high ground" (lets face it, the government apparently spent >£10M just to find out what when wrong at MG Rover, when any idoit could have just told them "they made crap cars no one wanted to buy, and they spent all their money on stupid racing projects rather than invest in new models".......)
As mentioned, the technical report is done and dusted, no one with more expertise than the AAIB is going to look at the availible data and suddenly come up with some new facts.
Unfortunately in today's society we have formed a bad habit of wasting lots of cash in an attempt to find the "truth" or be able to occupy the moral "high ground" (lets face it, the government apparently spent >£10M just to find out what when wrong at MG Rover, when any idoit could have just told them "they made crap cars no one wanted to buy, and they spent all their money on stupid racing projects rather than invest in new models".......)
It's so sad that you don't seem to recognise that a death requires an investigation to explain it, and in cases of a complex 'accident' such as this that investigation may be a long and expensive process.
There are many good reasons to fully investigate such accidents: future safety, insurance, learning from the mistakes of others.
But the human cost is immeasurable and demands that everything that can be done is done to bring resolution to those affected whereever it is possible to do so.
Or put it another way: Your mother is found dead at the bottom of a quarry. 'She's dead, get over it.' Not such a reasonable response now, is it? You'd expect the authorites to do some form of investigation to ensure there's not a killer on the lose or that it wasn't her medication that made her jump. Or, you could pay for it all yourself if you think that's where the costs should come from, but post mortems and toxicology doesn't come cheap....
There are many good reasons to fully investigate such accidents: future safety, insurance, learning from the mistakes of others.
But the human cost is immeasurable and demands that everything that can be done is done to bring resolution to those affected whereever it is possible to do so.
Or put it another way: Your mother is found dead at the bottom of a quarry. 'She's dead, get over it.' Not such a reasonable response now, is it? You'd expect the authorites to do some form of investigation to ensure there's not a killer on the lose or that it wasn't her medication that made her jump. Or, you could pay for it all yourself if you think that's where the costs should come from, but post mortems and toxicology doesn't come cheap....
I am presently involved in a forthcoming Fatal Accident Enquiry involving the death of my Mother, over what we contend was a serious failing in medical care at a Care Home.
The purpose in our family doggedly pursuing an FAI is to identify what the failings were, and to prevent others suffering due to these failings in future.
Having been involved in the process, it is not undertaken lightly, but the level of attention paid once the bandwagon gets rolling is incredible, in our case this involved a world expert reviewing my Mother's care and treatment.
He uncovered falsification of Care Home records, which the so called 'Regulatory' Body's Michael Mouse investigation had failed to find, despite that being key to their investigation.
Hopefully, details will emerge from the McRae investigation that may stop other families suffering such a loss.
The purpose in our family doggedly pursuing an FAI is to identify what the failings were, and to prevent others suffering due to these failings in future.
Having been involved in the process, it is not undertaken lightly, but the level of attention paid once the bandwagon gets rolling is incredible, in our case this involved a world expert reviewing my Mother's care and treatment.
He uncovered falsification of Care Home records, which the so called 'Regulatory' Body's Michael Mouse investigation had failed to find, despite that being key to their investigation.
Hopefully, details will emerge from the McRae investigation that may stop other families suffering such a loss.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff