Colin McRae

[Voldemort]

GravelBen said:

Others of us have a more balanced view, acknowledging the tragic end while still appreciating the good things.

I - and, it seems, many others - am unable to square being a fantastic driver with being responsible for killing children. It isn't 'balanced' in any way. The scale of his final actions is so far beyond acceptable as to be unforgivable and reputationally final. It's like saying Jimmy Saville was a great DJ and charity fund raiser, pity about the kiddy fiddling though.

[PRO 5T]

flatlandsman said:

There are others that stay with you, Depailler in the wet at Montreal, Estre at the Ring a few years back, Sabine on slicks in the wet a bit earlier, and a few other rally ones.

Not to do Sabine any form of disservice, but that clip of her at the ‘ring I presume you’re on about-she is about the only driver on WETS, while everyone around her was on slicks.

She took a gamble on tyres and it massively payed off, it’s a superb video but one that proves the old adage of being on the right tyres at the right time.

[PlywoodPascal]

Lefty said:

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots.

And cold pilots.
and sold pilots.
Even downright told pilots.
There’s fold pilots
And mold pilots
And with this ste poem,
You hear that low hum?
that’s lol’d pilots too

[coppice]

Tony1963 said:

Agreed, but there's more to it as a spectator than outright speed. As with F1, I'd rather watch almost any era of racing before anything since the beginning of 2014.

Perhaps as motorsport ages it loses something. There are fairly regular road cars with more power than any current BTCC or WRC car, and quite a few hypercars with more power than any F1 car... it's a strange old world, and I'm not a happy (former) spectator.

Oh sure - but bhp headlines never tell the full story except on clckbait nonsense . I've seen sundry hypercars and the like on track I've yet to be impressed by their pace. Buy a Chiron for 2 million quid and wonder which way a third hand F3 car went .... I've seen Time Attack cars boasting of 1000bhp - brisk yes , but not even 200 odd bhp F Renault quick .

I went to see live F1 a couple of years ago after a long absence and guess what? It was bloody terrific and you'd have to be a very grumpy old sod indeed not to have been thrilled by watching a Norris or a Verstappen turing into Copse at 185mph . It was fabulous. The sport changes but we change even more as we age - I should know, its 53 years since I first went to a GP.

[GravelBen]

Voldemort said:

I - and, it seems, many others - am unable to square being a fantastic driver with being responsible for killing children. It isn't 'balanced' in any way. The scale of his final actions is so far beyond acceptable as to be unforgivable and reputationally final. It's like saying Jimmy Saville was a great DJ and charity fund raiser, pity about the kiddy fiddling though.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, though your analogy is ridiculous unless you think Saville abused all those children accidentally or McRae deliberately crashed his helicopter with the intention of killing children.

Presumably you believe that if you yourself were ever to make a mistake or misjudgement (or the cumulative effect of several smaller misjudgements) resulting in children accidentally dying, you should never be remembered for anything except being responsible for killing children, and people on the internet should compare you with Jimmy Saville. If you apply that to others but not yourself, then you're just a hypocrite.

[Voldemort]

GravelBen said:

Voldemort said:

I - and, it seems, many others - am unable to square being a fantastic driver with being responsible for killing children. It isn't 'balanced' in any way. The scale of his final actions is so far beyond acceptable as to be unforgivable and reputationally final. It's like saying Jimmy Saville was a great DJ and charity fund raiser, pity about the kiddy fiddling though.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, though your analogy is ridiculous unless you think Saville abused all those children accidentally or McRae deliberately crashed his helicopter with the intention of killing children.

Presumably you believe that if you yourself were ever to make a mistake or misjudgement (or the cumulative effect of several smaller misjudgements) resulting in children accidentally dying, you should never be remembered for anything except being responsible for killing children, and people on the internet should compare you with Jimmy Saville. If you apply that to others but not yourself, then you're just a hypocrite.

I think McRae, if he had been the sole survivor of the accident, would have gone to prison for culpable homicide - or whatever the Scottish equivalent is.

There are accidents and there are negligent actions. His was very much the latter. He deliberately took a child without parental consent into a helicopter he was not qualified to fly, flew it like a dick, and killed that child and his own and himself.

I am - as you say - entitled to my opinion. And that is it.

[flatlandsman]

Please be careful with your facts, Colin was entirely qualified to fly the aircraft he was in, the simple fact was he had not renewed his licence, a stupid mistake, but he was more than qualified to pilot it. please be careful what you write here.

[Voldemort]

flatlandsman said:

Please be careful with your facts, Colin was entirely qualified to fly the aircraft he was in, the simple fact was he had not renewed his licence, a stupid mistake, but he was more than qualified to pilot it. please be careful what you write here.

AAIB said:

At the time of the accident, the pilot did not hold a valid
flying licence, or a valid AS350B2 type rating

AAIB Bulletin 2/2009

fyi Page 19 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542...

Feel free to read the whole thing. There is a photo on P3 showing where the aircraft impacted the tree. I stand by what I said.

[flatlandsman]

He had both, they were just not renewed, if you are going to post stuff, please post all of it, he also had over 900 hours I think flying the machine I read in the same report. The lack of renewal is an oversight and a stupid thing to do but to claim he was unable to fly that machine is simply utterly wrong.

Please at least try and be transparent.

[Muzzer79]

Voldemort said:

I - and, it seems, many others - am unable to square being a fantastic driver with being responsible for killing children. It isn't 'balanced' in any way. The scale of his final actions is so far beyond acceptable as to be unforgivable and reputationally final. It's like saying Jimmy Saville was a great DJ and charity fund raiser, pity about the kiddy fiddling though.

To compare McRae to Jimmy Saville is just beyond absurd.

So much for balanced viewpoints.....

[Tony1963]

I wonder if those here with a holier than thou attitude will be refusing to ever fly on a Boeing airliner.

[DodgyGeezer]

Tony1963 said:

I wonder if those here with a holier than thou attitude will be refusing to ever fly on a Boeing airliner.

<yawn> I am ver disappoint.

You're not trying hard enough, I'd have expected Autobahnen and Adolf mentioned...

[Tony1963]

DodgyGeezer said:

<yawn> I am ver disappoint.

You're not trying hard enough, I'd have expected Autobahnen and Adolf mentioned...

Please accept my (fake, heartfelt, false angry) apologies

[flatlandsman]

The question has to asked, if you had the choice would you with your family choose a 777 over anything else if you could pick 2 or 3?

[and31]

flatlandsman said:

He had both, they were just not renewed, if you are going to post stuff, please post all of it, he also had over 900 hours I think flying the machine I read in the same report. The lack of renewal is an oversight and a stupid thing to do but to claim he was unable to fly that machine is simply utterly wrong.

Please at least try and be transparent.

So he had over 900 hours on that machine but still managed to crash it killing everyone on board.Crashed because he was flying like a dick.
If in doubt flat out eh? It’s ok because he was a rally legend?
He was a .

[Tony1963]

BunkMoreland said:

GravelBen said:

Tony1963 said:

I wonder if those here with a holier than thou attitude will be refusing to ever fly on a Boeing airliner.

I genuinely fail to see the link there.

If you're referring to the MCAS problem. (that led to 2 crashes) It's not like the pilots were deliberately fking around that led to this problem.

Edited by BunkMoreland on Thursday 18th January 21:41

Fknell you’re surely not THAT stupid?

Boeing DELIBERATELY lied and misled. Boeing were the cause of deaths. Their QA processes are flawed.

But hey, they’re ok to fly with, ok to support with your money.

Well done, you’re a weird one.

[and31]

flatlandsman said:

The question has to asked, if you had the choice would you with your family choose a 777 over anything else if you could pick 2 or 3?

I wouldn’t fly with pilots with expired licences….

[DodgyGeezer]

and31 said:

flatlandsman said:

The question has to asked, if you had the choice would you with your family choose a 777 over anything else if you could pick 2 or 3?

I wouldn’t fly with pilots with expired licences….

TBF - if your driving licence ran out on the 31st of Jan and (for myriad reasons) you didn't renew/forgot to renew would that mean you were a st/unsafe driver on 4rd Feb? Of course not!


The recklessness is a totally separate issue however and deserves the approbrium received...

[GravelBen]

Regarding the lapsed licence, from the Scottish Courts report if his licence had been issued just a month and half earlier it would have been a lifetime licence that never needed renewing, he had been advised by his instructor that he would get a lifetime licence, and he had not been reminded by CAA that it was due for renewal. It's not difficult to understand how the failure to renew could have occurred (they note only 30% of people required to renew the same year had done so), even though legally the responsibility would clearly still rest with him as the licence itself did state the limited timeframe.

Also quoting the court findings:

Scottish Court said:

Again, there was no evidence to suggest that he would not have satisfactorily renewed his type rating had he applied to do so. The Crown did not suggest any causal connection between Mr McRae's failure to meet timeously the licensing requirements and the accident. The evidence would not support such a proposition. Mr McRae had considerable flying experience. He had logged 965 hours, 490 of which were on the Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel helicopter. His flying experience was current, having flown an estimated 50 hours in the three months prior to the accident. He was a competent and confident pilot and would have experienced no difficulty in renewing the required licences. There was nothing in the tests he would have had to pass which is likely to have better prepared him for the last flight. However, his tolerance of such lapses in licensing, some of which he must have become aware of and therefore should have been on guard against on future occasions, indicates a somewhat cavalier attitude to the safety regime imposed by the Civil Aviation Authority. Doubtless he put faith in his own ability, as did others, however the legislation requires an objective, external check of continuing knowledge and skill and to fail to engage with that assessment may be seen as reckless.

[GravelBen]

Voldemort said:

AAIB Bulletin 2/2009

fyi Page 19 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542...

Feel free to read the whole thing. There is a photo on P3 showing where the aircraft impacted the tree. I stand by what I said.

The specific point of impact on one particular tree on the side of a relatively steep valley is completely irrelevant. Would your opinion be different if he had hit the top of the tree below it on the hillside? or the bottom of the tree above it? or the ground between the trees?

Flying into the valley in the manner he did was clearly (at least with hindsight) irresponsible, and IMO may well have reached a threshold for negligent manslaughter (or whatever the relevant legal term is there) if he had survived the crash while others died.

As the reports say, it isn't clear what caused the crash directly (whether he just misjudged position/height/speed until it was too late, or mechanical issues or a passenger bumping the controls etc which can't be ruled out) and he was attempting to recover control at the time of impact. BUT if he hadn't made the decision to put the helicopter in that situation there would have been less risk of anything happening, and much greater chance of recovery. I presume he assessed the risk and made a wrong decision that the risk was manageable, though its possible the decision was made on a whim without conscious risk assessment.

I don't think anybody is saying 'oh well its just an accident, could have happened to anybody' - he clearly made some serious errors of judgement leading to the accident.

But personally I think the way some people cast him as some kind of irredeemably evil public enemy to be hated and reviled at all costs is batsh*t crazy.