Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 8:30:45 GMT
I see you survived the Vodka/Schnapps
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 8:32:43 GMT
The 1915 Quintinshill rail crash caused the death of over 200, and two railway workers were prosecuted for culpable homicide, following an enquiry.
In essence a signalman shunted a train onto a loop, and forgot about it, before a second man sent a train on the same line. Huge collision, fire, devastation and the loss of life, largely being soldiers on a troop train.
Fascinating book on the disaster.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 23, 2018 9:01:11 GMT
Personally I find it rather offensive that the families are baying for him to be convicted. Do they think it’s going to bring their loved ones back? It’s all part of a cultural shift to vengeance and retribution, imported fro the yanks. Whatever happened to “having an accident”? Seems so last century (before the ambulance chasing lawyers). But prosecuting people whose actions lead to the death of others isn't just "last century", if I could be bothered to look I could find instances of, say, railway signalmen jailed for making mistakes from the 19th century. I’m not saying that people whose actions lead to the death of others shouldn’t be prosecuted, just that they shouldn’t automatically be prosecuted just because someone died. If a railway signalman of otherwise good record, made a mistake in the heat of a moment, I would not support prosecution. But we should bear in mind that drinking was an endemic problem on the railways until fairly recently, and so if a signalman made a mistake eg because he was pissed, distracted shagging the vicar’s daughter in the signal box, playing cards etc then prosecution is appropriate. In aviation we have managed to be mercifully free of spiteful retributive prosecutions for genuine mistakes, and there is good reason for that. Prosecutions don’t fix problems, don’t bring the dead back, don’t prevent future accidents. What fixes problems (or helps to) is a free and honest exchange of near-miss (near miss accident, not near miss collision) experiences ie incident reporting. Making a mistake is a bad thing, but if you learn from it it’s a good thing. If everyone else learns from it too, it’s a really good thing. Aviation is really good at sharing bad experiences via a culture of voluntary incident reporting. It works because pilots feel they can report their cockups for the greater good, without fear of punishment. Once you start prosecuting people for making mistakes, everybody keeps quiet and the information flow dries up. Flight safety is severely compromised as a result, and more people die. Interestingly in aviation engineering it is less like this. An engineer making a mistake is far more likely to be disciplined or prosecuted, which is a shame. Perhaps it is to do with the immediacy of the situation - a pilot is operating along a time line and when things get tricky, can’t slow time to increase thinking time. An engineer can, in theory at least (although he can still be influenced by commercial time pressure but part of his training is to resist it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 9:19:53 GMT
But prosecuting people whose actions lead to the death of others isn't just "last century", if I could be bothered to look I could find instances of, say, railway signalmen jailed for making mistakes from the 19th century. But we should bear in mind that drinking was an endemic problem on the railways until fairly recently, and so if a signalman made a mistake eg because he was pissed, distracted shagging the vicar’s daughter in the signal box, playing cards etc then prosecution is appropriate. Whilst drinking has been (largely) solved on the railways boredom/seeking distraction hasn't, if anything it has got worse recently. Incidentally the operational side of the railways now works very much like the operational side of aviation - so does the engineering side.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 23, 2018 9:45:10 GMT
But we should bear in mind that drinking was an endemic problem on the railways until fairly recently, and so if a signalman made a mistake eg because he was pissed, distracted shagging the vicar’s daughter in the signal box, playing cards etc then prosecution is appropriate. Whilst drinking has been (largely) solved on the railways boredom/seeking distraction hasn't, if anything it has got worse recently. Incidentally the operational side of the railways now works very much like the operational side of aviation - so does the engineering side. Yes I think the railways have caught up with aviation in this respect. A friend of mine was a signalman so I have some insight, although he retired about 8 years ago. The boredom level is an interesting point. There is an optimal level of arousal. To little to do, you get bored and seek distractions, or just shut down. Too much arousal and you get stressed and dysfunctional. The aim therefore is to keep a steady but moderate level of arousal. This is a problem faced by long haul aviation - hours spent in the cruise eg over the Atlantic with the plane flying itself and nothing for the crew to do, culminating in sudden frenetic activity for descent and landing at a very busy international airport. It can be hard for the psyche to wind up to the higher state of arousal in the relatively short time period, having spent many hours in a very low state of arousal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 10:47:58 GMT
Is that where shagging the vicars daughter / son helps ? Keeps the arousal level up.
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Mar 23, 2018 11:32:21 GMT
After a bit of searching, I located this AAIB Report...... AAIB 1/2017 LinkI've only scanned through it very quickly, as I haven't much time to spare today. But I'll have a good read later. It does tend to suggest pilot error (too low and slow attempting the manoeuvre).
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 23, 2018 12:59:54 GMT
Nick. The point you've been making does actually exist in life now. Magriatrate/judges are reluctant to send motorists to prison if they have killed someone.
5 to 10 years in prison for a mistake is quite harsh. Whilst I personally don't completely agree I have learned to accept it.
You have only have to look at how many drivers have killed cyclists and pedestrians and see how many went to jail.
On a different note. What is the pilot looking at if he is found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 23, 2018 13:21:24 GMT
After a bit of searching, I located this AAIB Report...... AAIB 1/2017 LinkI've only scanned through it very quickly, as I haven't much time to spare today. But I'll have a good read later. It does tend to suggest pilot error (too low and slow attempting the manoeuvre). Ah yes I thought I’d seen another report. Yes definitely too low and slow and pilot error, but does that make it causing death by recklessness / gross negligence, or making a mistake?
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Mar 23, 2018 14:18:45 GMT
After a bit of searching, I located this AAIB Report...... AAIB 1/2017 LinkI've only scanned through it very quickly, as I haven't much time to spare today. But I'll have a good read later. It does tend to suggest pilot error (too low and slow attempting the manoeuvre). Ah yes I thought I’d seen another report. Yes definitely too low and slow and pilot error, but does that make it causing death by recklessness / gross negligence, or making a mistake? Potentially a combination of all three. A blasé attitude to flying?? But there could be other factors that we don't know about. For example did Andy Hill suddenly see a flock of birds directly in front of him? Did he experience an engine surge? Did he have a momentary blackout due to the negative G? Personally, I think it's going to be hard to pin anything on him (apart from being to low & slow), to find him guilty of manslaughter.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 23, 2018 15:40:09 GMT
Ah yes I thought I’d seen another report. Yes definitely too low and slow and pilot error, but does that make it causing death by recklessness / gross negligence, or making a mistake? Potentially a combination of all three. A blasé attitude to flying?? But there could be other factors that we don't know about. For example did Andy Hill suddenly see a flock of birds directly in front of him? Did he experience an engine surge? Did he have a momentary blackout due to the negative G? Personally, I think it's going to be hard to pin anything on him (apart from being to low & slow), to find him guilty of manslaughter. Seems they will have a good go at pinning it on him. It's basically involuntary manslaughter isent it. I hope he gets a good lawyer. I suspect if he is found guilty then it won't be a long sentence. Just incase anyone hadent seen It, it does cone with a warning for some viewers. Interestinly It has a view I hadent seen from a cars dash cam.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 8, 2019 12:10:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 14:25:34 GMT
I'm no expert but it looks like he was in trouble as soon as he turned back to the airfield. He could have come round again.
|
|
|
Post by bills on Mar 8, 2019 14:33:22 GMT
Was that before you trained as an astronaut?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 14:38:43 GMT
Was that before you trained as an astronaut? I was the original Wonderwoman, not that I ever talk about it.....................
|
|