Discussion
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 f
king around that led to this problem. Edited by BunkMoreland on Thursday 18th January 21:41
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.
Tony1963 said:
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.
I think you overestimate the power the consumer has to choose what plane they get on. If I want to go long haul and BA is only using 787. Then I'm getting on a 787. 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.
In terms of "lied and misled" I agree.
But I don't hold any reverence for the management whose deliberate actions led to the accidents. I don't think "well its a shame that people died as a result of their actions, because they were nice guys outside of work" Which seems to be the prevailing McRae fan narrative.
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….t/unsafe driver on 4rd Feb? Of course not!The recklessness is a totally separate issue however and deserves the approbrium received...
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:
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.
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?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.
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.
DodgyGeezer said:
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….t/unsafe driver on 4rd Feb? Of course not!The recklessness is a totally separate issue however and deserves the approbrium received...
To be fair, the expired licence was, like a drivers’ licence, a missed paperwork exercise under a new scheme of renewal that wasn’t brilliant. Think about when drivers’ licences went from lifetime documents to needing occasional renewal.
The three missed or late compulsory annual check rides on his helicopter type, on the other hand, were somewhat more serious, and definitely had insurance implications. That, and the severely reckless flying with others on board including children. It’s very much illegal to be below 500’ unless taking off or landing, without explicit permission such as for an air show display.
Both the AAIB and the Scottish equivalent of the Coroner, in their public reports posted on this thread, went well above and beyond their usual very legalistic language to critisise McRae’s actions. It’s highly likely that, had he survived the crash, he’d have been charged with offences up to and including manslaughter. If he was lucky, he might have been getting his liberty back around now.
By way of comparison, the Shoreham Airshow accident pilot was charged with manslaughter, but found not guilty by the jury. He was alone in the aircraft, and was adjudged to have been careless rather than reckless in his flying. He was correctly licenced and authorised to fly his display. https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17486789.shoreham-...
One point; it’s not actually illegal to fly below 500ft.
The Rule states that, except for the purpose of take-off or landing, an aircraft should remain no closer than 1,000 ft over a built-up area.
Or, outside of a built up area, no closer than 500ft from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.
This means that, over water or open countryside, a helicopter can legitimately fly as close to the ground as the pilot deems safe, if none of the above apply.
The Rule states that, except for the purpose of take-off or landing, an aircraft should remain no closer than 1,000 ft over a built-up area.
Or, outside of a built up area, no closer than 500ft from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.
This means that, over water or open countryside, a helicopter can legitimately fly as close to the ground as the pilot deems safe, if none of the above apply.
GravelBen said:
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?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.
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.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Report on page 1 states he was trying low and at high speed. This comment is to Gravelben.
Yes, I may not have put it very clearly but that's what I meant by putting the helicopter in that situation - not just in the valley but low and fast. Presumably he made a judgement/decision that he thought the risk was manageable, and obviously got that very badly wrong, tragically for all involved. Whatever it was that did happen in those final moments, his decisions to fly down into the valley low and fast meant there was little chance for recovery. The topic has already been discussed ad nauseam over the years really, at this point I guess we just have to accept that some people think his whole existence should be reviled for the accident with no room to consider anything positive he did, while others (like me) think his positive achievements can still be appreciated while acknowledging his flaws and tragic end. And probably neither view is likely to be changed by the other now no matter how many times the discussion goes around in circles!
Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 21st January 04:34
I think you can have the two opinions here actually. Because he had two distinct careers.
My real sadness (other than for those involved in the accident) is the huge legacy he could have had moving forward, the impact he could have had on rallying, both he and Richard actually. You could see Richard running academies.
To lose both of them is unbelievable, especially Richard who was taken so quickly and so almost unfairly for a top level sportsman. I know they were different but at various times they were the pick of the bunch and we have had nothing remotely like it before or since really.
And rallying in the UK was a huge sport because of them, and it has since been decimated by accidents and the MSA's complete and utter panic at anything else happening, so leave it in a corner and let it go away.
My real sadness (other than for those involved in the accident) is the huge legacy he could have had moving forward, the impact he could have had on rallying, both he and Richard actually. You could see Richard running academies.
To lose both of them is unbelievable, especially Richard who was taken so quickly and so almost unfairly for a top level sportsman. I know they were different but at various times they were the pick of the bunch and we have had nothing remotely like it before or since really.
And rallying in the UK was a huge sport because of them, and it has since been decimated by accidents and the MSA's complete and utter panic at anything else happening, so leave it in a corner and let it go away.
flatlandsman said:
I think you can have the two opinions here actually. Because he had two distinct careers.
My real sadness (other than for those involved in the accident) is the huge legacy he could have had moving forward, the impact he could have had on rallying, both he and Richard actually. You could see Richard running academies.
To lose both of them is unbelievable, especially Richard who was taken so quickly and so almost unfairly for a top level sportsman. I know they were different but at various times they were the pick of the bunch and we have had nothing remotely like it before or since really.
And rallying in the UK was a huge sport because of them, and it has since been decimated by accidents and the MSA's complete and utter panic at anything else happening, so leave it in a corner and let it go away.
Well said. My real sadness (other than for those involved in the accident) is the huge legacy he could have had moving forward, the impact he could have had on rallying, both he and Richard actually. You could see Richard running academies.
To lose both of them is unbelievable, especially Richard who was taken so quickly and so almost unfairly for a top level sportsman. I know they were different but at various times they were the pick of the bunch and we have had nothing remotely like it before or since really.
And rallying in the UK was a huge sport because of them, and it has since been decimated by accidents and the MSA's complete and utter panic at anything else happening, so leave it in a corner and let it go away.
Burnsey always gets overlooked, but he beat Colin fair and square.
Oh and I'm Scottish btw.
Gassing Station | Rallying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff