Colin McRae Fatal accident enquiry - Errr why ??
Discussion
WeirdNeville said:
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....
If my mother was found dead at the bottom of a quarry, I can pretty much guarateee that they wouldn't take at least 4 months and £millions to get to a conclusion over it 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 do agree, let's find out everything there is to stop this happening again.
Okay so AAIB has said nothing that they can see was wrong with the aircraft, and that it basically looks like he flew it into the ground ... after carrying out a rather demanding manoeuver. So, I'm curious how do we stop this from ever happening again?
I'm about to give up on this ...
Let's try again. based on what we know about this incident, is there any point in yet ANOTHER detailed investigation costing £££, and taking forever?, or will sombody actually agree with me that the legal system really could be doing something a little more productive over this period?
Who wants to bet that the final conclusion on this case is "recommendations = none" but at least we'll all be a little lighter in the pocket for it all.
WeirdNeville said:
Actually, even a straightforwards murder investigation costs over a million, and 4 months would be pretty good going.
I think you're on your own. You think it's a waste of your hard earned taxes.
Everyone else thinks it's part of a necessary and valuable process.
i think it should be payed for by the air industry.I think you're on your own. You think it's a waste of your hard earned taxes.
Everyone else thinks it's part of a necessary and valuable process.
WeirdNeville said:
Actually, even a straightforwards murder investigation costs over a million, and 4 months would be pretty good going.
I think you're on your own. You think it's a waste of your hard earned taxes.
Everyone else thinks it's part of a necessary and valuable process.
I fully understand why we do FAIs, but I think that there are cases where the case facts are so blooming obvious that it's a waste, or in this case, very little that is left to be found from speaking to dog walkers who were 3 miles away, and who contribute some rubbish such as "oh it sounded like it was in trouble, and it looked rather low - and was going rather fast" I think you're on your own. You think it's a waste of your hard earned taxes.
Everyone else thinks it's part of a necessary and valuable process.
and farmer Joe adding that "it was banking at a strange angle"
I mean seriously?
I think we all know what happened on that fateful day ... it's called testosterone, possibly combined with a strong wind coming from the wrong angle. We've all been there at some point, albeit probably not in the air.
I long for the day that the PH forum software includes the option to explain things with the use of animated finger-puppets as well as the written word.
Until that day, I fear, there will always be a cadre of hardcore Terry F*ckwit clones who will be incapable of grasping basic concepts explained in plain English.
Until that day, I fear, there will always be a cadre of hardcore Terry F*ckwit clones who will be incapable of grasping basic concepts explained in plain English.
SplatSpeed said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?
And what do you mean by "air industry"?
why not, this is a legitimate cost of air travel. removing this from the public sector would reduce wastage costs.And what do you mean by "air industry"?
by air industry I mean not me.
the aircraft manufacturers (French in this case)
The airline industry (this accident had nothing to do with an airline)
the engine manufacturer (also French)
And don't you believe that you wouldn't end up paying for it if there was somehow some sort of levy on "the air industry".
Who mostly flies in aeroplanes and who pays for the priviledge? The public i.e. you and me.
The "air industry" does, in fact, help fund air safety enquiries and legal matters relating to accidents in the form of insurances and bonds.
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 25th January 19:05
munroman said:
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.
Respect and admiration to you Sir. 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.
I have an "acquaintance" who was a "whistleblower" to some irregularities at a care home concerning the illegal and unethical use of tranquilisers at a care home by the non licensed owners, who were of Sri Lankan origin.
The fall out was severe, but at least that person has a clear conscience.
Eric Mc said:
SplatSpeed said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?
And what do you mean by "air industry"?
why not, this is a legitimate cost of air travel. removing this from the public sector would reduce wastage costs.And what do you mean by "air industry"?
by air industry I mean not me.
the aircraft manufacturers (French in this case)
The airline industry (this accident had nothing to do with an airline)
the engine manufacturer (also French)
And don't you believe that you wouldn't end up paying for it if there was somehow some sort of levy on "the air industry".
Who mostly flies in aeroplanes and who pays for the priviledge? The public i.e. you and me.
The "air industry" does, in fact, help fund air safety enquiries and legal matters relating to accidents in the form of insurances and bonds.
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 25th January 19:05
Fittster said:
Soovy said:
I wonder what Porkis ace to grind is.
New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
It's a legitimate question. If it had be a car rather than an aircraft would we see the same level of investigation? New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
Good linh here http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/law/fata...
Edited by matchmaker on Tuesday 25th January 20:08
Soovy said:
I wonder what Porkis ace to grind is.
New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
Jeez, suspicious minds eh? New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
Actually I don't have an "ace"? to grind at all, this story pops up on my local news every as a daily update, and I thought I would have a rant on PH, and see what the community thought of the whole thing.
Nothing more. nothing less, and we all have to be a "new" user at somepoint eh?
Fittster said:
Soovy said:
I wonder what Porkis ace to grind is.
New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
It's a legitimate question. If it had be a car rather than an aircraft would we see the same level of investigation? New poster, from Lanarkshire.....
Porkis said:
I think we all know what happened on that fateful day ... it's called testosterone, possibly combined with a strong wind coming from the wrong angle. We've all been there at some point, albeit probably not in the air.
That may well be the case. It is not something that idle speculation is going to determine though, so the only proper place for such speculation is within the confines of an official investigation conducted by suitably qualified persons, with full access to the facts and witnesses.As was mentioned previously, the AAIB investigation is there to determine the facts of the event as far as possible from a technical point of view. They will take on board the evidence, and apply their expertise to determine which details are most informative. An eyewitness account from a qualified and experienced pilot might well allow them to draw different conclusions than one from a casual bystander with no aviation experience. It is not there to apportion blame to any individuals.
A fatal accident enquiry has a different purpose than the aviation technicalities and will be able to draw conclusions outside the scope of the AAIB.
Porkis said:
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?
If it was proven to be a fault with the helicopter, the manufacturer & their insureres would be on the hook. McRae's insurers would pay out and then chase them for £££.
If Macrae was mucking about, his insurers would not have anyone to chase to mitigate some of their payout.
If McRae had no valid license, they may try to wriggle out (depending on the conditions of the insurance policy).
My only question is why should any of this be paid for by the tax payer?
My only answer - insurance companies & helicopter manufacturers are tax payers too!
A clear distinction needs to be made between what the AAIB does, which is a purely technical process, and what the inquest will do. It's very important that both processes are carried out, ignoring all side issues such as insurance payouts etc. I doubt I'm the only pilot on here glued to the AAIB and various inquest reports that are published each month hoping to glean a tiny spec of extra bit of info to ensure I or my passengers aren't the next people written about. The cost? Umm, 2 kids lives saved one time, maybe more the next. Expensive?
McRae was so, so highly talented, but not for the first time a highly, highly talented race driver has died whilst in control of an aircraft. It's only fair we know why, beyond just technical explination, it happened - and then maybe it won't happen again.
McRae was so, so highly talented, but not for the first time a highly, highly talented race driver has died whilst in control of an aircraft. It's only fair we know why, beyond just technical explination, it happened - and then maybe it won't happen again.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff