all of these has nothing to do with the aircrash, it wasn't a case of deliberately continuing to operate a vehicle after having been banned on health grounds. That was deliberately ignoring a known safety risk.
The plane crash was (as I understand it) probably pilot error but that is very different from being deliberately negligent. There is a huge difference between that and an error, although both may have the same result. In this case the exact cause of the error remains uncertain but the court has decided there wasn't proof of negligence.
the biggest disadvantage of age .... is that you can't outgrow it
I worked for BP for a while. It was essential that a written generic risk analysis and assessment was available for every possible activity - including using the stairs in an office, driving and staying in a hotel. .... seriously! On top of that a specific risk assessment must be carried out for each time that item of 'work' was done. In the case of stairs it was acceptable to do it in the head, not written. Which, to be honest, summarises what most risk-averse people do most of the time anyway. For new or more hazardous activities a written assessment had to be completed based on the generic, identifying any particular risks associated with the location, conditions, and so on. This procedure was undertaken primarily to keep employees and the public safe, but there may have been legal/culpability aspects involved. I would expect that pilots are obliged to carry out a similar assessment every time they submit a flight plan. Surely planning a potentially hazardous stunt flight near the public requires the pilot and the airshow organisers to do the same? Was such a risk assessment ever undertaken? Were the risks of black-out or disorientation considered? Was the proximity of the road considered? Will we ever know? It is no defence to say that being affected by high G forces was not anticipated, bearing in mind that it is established as a possible (even if unlikely) risk. For example, in the oil and gas industry ALL possible hazards and the associated risks must be identified, analysed and quantified, and Go-NoGo decisions made accordingly. I find it hard to understand why negligence was not proved, unless there was no-one in court with knowledge of risk analysis (in which case the trial was a joke). Perhaps the Inquiry will differ in its findings.
Very good, Mr Bodger, I agree. But so much is in theory - such as we bus drivers are advised to drive safely and in accordance with road conditions - yet are expected to drive to ridiculously tight timetables, which ensure that everyone has to drive over the speed limit to keep to time! Two-faced or what? Yes, the management know, the Police know, the Government knows. Nothing is done until there's an accident, and it all is designed for the driver to get the blame.
There is no-one apart from me at the bus garage (in the middle of nowhere) at 0630-0650 in the mornings. If I have an accident and am bleeding to death, or have a heart attack or stroke, there is no-one to come to my aid. Health & Safety consists of my telephone having enough battery power, and me being conscious. How do these companies get away with it? I wonder what my company's insurance company has to say about this - surely they must know, eh?
Quiet minds cannot be perplexed or frightened but go on in fortune or misfortune at their own private pace, like a clock during a thunderstorm.
I hope that I never become famous and someone trawls my contributions on this site looking for the odd post which may be offensive.
Force them to pluralise words by putting apostrophes in, then everyone will mock them as imbeciles!
I can't help feeling that if I was involved in an incident caused entirely by my misjudgement whilst driving an articulated lorry, in which 11 people died, that there would be no excuse imaginable which would save me from serving a long stretch in chokey. Perhaps being posh mitigates negligence?
You are right. But only because a specific offence of causing death by careless driving (or dangerous driving) was created not that long ago. Before that if you recall, people were sentenced based on the extent of their carelessness, not on the consequences of that carelessness. All part of the public’s demand for vengeance and retribution, someone must be to blame, someone must be prosecuted and sent to prison for causing an accident. I see it as a bad thing, the route back towards biblical justice - something I thought we had moved on from. Of course IS would approve I’m sure.
Even though it does nothing to make the roads safer and the likelihood of someone else doing it any less.
Anway, fortunately we don’t have such a law in aviation.
I mean this in a respectful way but I dont understand when someone is let off. The families are all claiming to have been let down by the justice system.
They are all upset that there is no justice.
What difference does it make. Is it one of those things where we are so used to hearing that people who have been killed can now be left on peace once the killer is jailed etc etc. That it's now normal.
It was tragic incident or am I just being cold hearted.
Of course they are. They want their pound of flesh. Vengeance and retribution. Lynch mobs etc. All part of anger in the grieving process I suppose, but really we are supposed to be civilised and not like that any more! No doubt the accident scene is strewn with flowers, probably causing a traffic hazard, but never mind, the poor things must be allowed to express their grief publicly. What ever happened to stiff upper lip? If there is ever another war in uk, remind me to set up a florist business. I’d make a killing. Pun intended.
doesn't explain why this potentially risky manouevre was attempted close to a main road.
his judgement when planning his flight was faulty, despite any other conditions he may have experienced.
I think he was following the approved display line. IIRC, Shoreham airport hadn’t really considered that a plane might come down there. For whatever reason! But this goes to show the weakness of the entire concept of risk assessments. It presumes that you have thought up all possible risks, which clearly most of the time doesn’t happen.
I worked for BP for a while. It was essential that a written generic risk analysis and assessment was available for every possible activity - including using the stairs in an office, driving and staying in a hotel. .... seriously! On top of that a specific risk assessment must be carried out for each time that item of 'work' was done. In the case of stairs it was acceptable to do it in the head, not written. Which, to be honest, summarises what most risk-averse people do most of the time anyway. For new or more hazardous activities a written assessment had to be completed based on the generic, identifying any particular risks associated with the location, conditions, and so on. This procedure was undertaken primarily to keep employees and the public safe, but there may have been legal/culpability aspects involved. I would expect that pilots are obliged to carry out a similar assessment every time they submit a flight plan. Surely planning a potentially hazardous stunt flight near the public requires the pilot and the airshow organisers to do the same? Was such a risk assessment ever undertaken? Were the risks of black-out or disorientation considered? Was the proximity of the road considered? Will we ever know? It is no defence to say that being affected by high G forces was not anticipated, bearing in mind that it is established as a possible (even if unlikely) risk. For example, in the oil and gas industry ALL possible hazards and the associated risks must be identified, analysed and quantified, and Go-NoGo decisions made accordingly. I find it hard to understand why negligence was not proved, unless there was no-one in court with knowledge of risk analysis (in which case the trial was a joke). Perhaps the Inquiry will differ in its findings.
Did you ever actually get any work done, or just spend all day doing risk assessments? This is why the oil industry can’t make a profit with oil at $50 a barrel these days. Personally I dislike paper risk assessments because it passes the buck and you don’t have to think for yourself.
He looked well shifty in the BBC new video reading names of deceased.
I don't think this story has come to an end.
Probably not, we now have to wait for the queue of people demanding answers and likewise demanding justice. Never sure what sort of answers are required because it seems quite simple, victims were blown up by a bomb, or they were struck by an out of control vehicle but often that is not good enough to satisfy the demands to "know what happened" followed by shouts of " Cover up" Phil
I worked for BP for a while. It was essential that a written generic risk analysis and assessment was available for every possible activity - including using the stairs in an office, driving and staying in a hotel. .... seriously! On top of that a specific risk assessment must be carried out for each time that item of 'work' was done. In the case of stairs it was acceptable to do it in the head, not written. Which, to be honest, summarises what most risk-averse people do most of the time anyway. For new or more hazardous activities a written assessment had to be completed based on the generic, identifying any particular risks associated with the location, conditions, and so on. This procedure was undertaken primarily to keep employees and the public safe, but there may have been legal/culpability aspects involved. I would expect that pilots are obliged to carry out a similar assessment every time they submit a flight plan. Surely planning a potentially hazardous stunt flight near the public requires the pilot and the airshow organisers to do the same? Was such a risk assessment ever undertaken? Were the risks of black-out or disorientation considered? Was the proximity of the road considered? Will we ever know? It is no defence to say that being affected by high G forces was not anticipated, bearing in mind that it is established as a possible (even if unlikely) risk. For example, in the oil and gas industry ALL possible hazards and the associated risks must be identified, analysed and quantified, and Go-NoGo decisions made accordingly. I find it hard to understand why negligence was not proved, unless there was no-one in court with knowledge of risk analysis (in which case the trial was a joke). Perhaps the Inquiry will differ in its findings.
Did you ever actually get any work done, or just spend all day doing risk assessments? This is why the oil industry can’t make a profit with oil at $50 a barrel these days. Personally I dislike paper risk assessments because it passes the buck and you don’t have to think for yourself.
I must disagree. The discipline of assessing all the risks and then having your peers pointing out any deficiencies was an excellent way of planning the job, and when crews went out to actually do the work it usually went like clockwork because the risk assessment process was like walking through the task before getting to site.
And the time spent was not actually significant, and often saved time at site. It just amounted to planning the job instead of going at it gung-ho. Often the crew's input while discussing the job in hand resulted in all the tools and materials being taken to site instead of being missed.
But you haven't commented on whether such assessments are worthwhile (essential) for potentially catastrophic activities like stunt flying. Are they not done as a matter of course in the aviation business?
Did you ever actually get any work done, or just spend all day doing risk assessments? This is why the oil industry can’t make a profit with oil at $50 a barrel these days. Personally I dislike paper risk assessments because it passes the buck and you don’t have to think for yourself.
I must disagree. The discipline of assessing all the risks and then having your peers pointing out any deficiencies was an excellent way of planning the job, and when crews went out to actually do the work it usually went like clockwork because the risk assessment process was like walking through the task before getting to site.
And the time spent was not actually significant, and often saved time at site. It just amounted to planning the job instead of going at it gung-ho. Often the crew's input while discussing the job in hand resulted in all the tools and materials being taken to site instead of being missed.
But you haven't commented on whether such assessments are worthwhile (essential) for potentially catastrophic activities like stunt flying. Are they not done as a matter of course in the aviation business?
Yes they are. The airport did the risk assessments for the display flights (same every year, obviously). So a pilot coming along to do a display would have a sheaf of paper thrust into their hand with a “here’s the risk assessment, everything’s fine” which would then absolve the pilot from having to think about it.
Latterly in our company, due to the influence from our clients (the oil companies) we had all sort of bullshit around risk assessments and safety management systems. Did it have any effect on flight safety? Not one iota. But it did keep a whole department of people of limited ability in a job.
Same bullshit that has most carparks in Aberdeen, certainly all those with any connection to the oil industry, labelled “reverse park only”. And stairs in every building labelled “use the handrails” with a bollocking for anyone not doing so. It is just pretend safety. Real safety resides between the ears. Meanwhile offshore oil installations are rusting rotten accidents waiting to happen.
naughtyfox: 'G' has changed his name to 'Tillerpin'. How sweet. I wonder if he has knitted himself some rainbow-patterned pyjamas.
Jun 6, 2023 17:41:35 GMT
naughtyfox: Oh, look - 'Tillerpin', formerly known as 'G', has changed his name yet again to Gg.
Jun 7, 2023 18:37:33 GMT
naughtyfox: Giddy-up, Gg! Haha!
Jun 7, 2023 18:42:57 GMT