|
Post by Trina on Mar 9, 2019 23:09:45 GMT
At the end of the day,he has to live with what happened due to his actions.Unless he's a really evil barsteward,his every day life,will be coloured by this & his life will never be normal again.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 9, 2019 23:10:44 GMT
I seem to recall that he has previously been reprimanded for unsafe flying at another air show in the past. No, actually that was fake news. Not news as such, but evidence presented during the trial. "A fast jet pilot flew too low over the M11 motorway about a year before he crashed in a fireball on the A27 dual carriageway during the Shoreham air show, a court heard. Andrew Hill was practising his Hawker Hunter jet display over Duxford airfield in Cambridgeshire ahead of the 2014 Shoreham air show in Sussex, the Old Bailey was told. Analysing cockpit video of the 2014 flight for the benefit of the jury, prosecution expert witness Jonathon Whaley said Hill breached airfield rules against flying below 500ft over the M11, which is close to one end of the Duxford runway. Mr Whaley, a former Fleet Air Arm pilot with extensive Hawker Hunter flying experience, told the court: “Duxford has several standing rules. One of them was ‘no overflying of the M11 below 500ft [altitude]’. “I can take a reading of the altimeter. You can see it was 250ft or 200ft. “Basically, you don’t want an aeroplane, especially a jet, flying low over a motorway with cars and lorries going up and down it.”
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 7:54:36 GMT
No, actually that was fake news. Not news as such, but evidence presented during the trial. "A fast jet pilot flew too low over the M11 motorway about a year before he crashed in a fireball on the A27 dual carriageway during the Shoreham air show, a court heard. Andrew Hill was practising his Hawker Hunter jet display over Duxford airfield in Cambridgeshire ahead of the 2014 Shoreham air show in Sussex, the Old Bailey was told. Analysing cockpit video of the 2014 flight for the benefit of the jury, prosecution expert witness Jonathon Whaley said Hill breached airfield rules against flying below 500ft over the M11, which is close to one end of the Duxford runway. Mr Whaley, a former Fleet Air Arm pilot with extensive Hawker Hunter flying experience, told the court: “Duxford has several standing rules. One of them was ‘no overflying of the M11 below 500ft [altitude]’. “I can take a reading of the altimeter. You can see it was 250ft or 200ft. “Basically, you don’t want an aeroplane, especially a jet, flying low over a motorway with cars and lorries going up and down it.” That was the prosecution’s evidence, however it was ultimately discredited. But guilty by trial by social media, of coutse. Have you ever seen a news item about something you know about, and found it to be accurate? I haven’t. But anyway, even if true, so what? If you were being prosecuted for death by careless driving, would it be a “big deal” if the prosecution led evidence that a couple of years ago you were known to have done 35 in a 30 limit?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 7:55:10 GMT
Bit of a Show Off, then? I see these flash twats every day overtaking me - and then a few kilometres up the road their car in the ditch.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 7:58:34 GMT
Bit of a Show Off, then? I see these flash twats every day overtaking me - and then a few kilometres up the road their car in the ditch. That is the picture the prosecution and press were trying to portray.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 10, 2019 8:03:17 GMT
Bit of a Show Off, then? I see these flash twats every day overtaking me - and then a few kilometres up the road their car in the ditch. That is the picture the prosecution and press were trying to portray. Well luckily a jury of our peers saw through it. Perhaps if they had focused on actual evidence they may of got a prosecution. I wonder how much evidence they had. It wasent a long trial. I do wonder if it only got to trial because of public pressure and never had any realistic chance of a guilty verdict.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 8:40:55 GMT
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. then the whole concept is wasted. It is essential that a pre-work briefing is undertaken ("toolbox talk") based on the generic assessment and all members of the work crew are invited to contribute. The airport management should learn how to do it properly.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 9:05:25 GMT
I have to keep this in mind all the time whilst at work: Safety First. And sod the timetable. I play around a lot with the kids, but I keep the goal in mind which is to get the metal box back to the bus garage at the end of the day with no damage to vehicle, passengers, or bystanders. I hope to reach retirement age with no black marks on my record. It is a thin line, though.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 9:25:40 GMT
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. then the whole concept is wasted. It is essential that a pre-work briefing is undertaken ("toolbox talk") based on the generic assessment and all members of the work crew are invited to contribute. The airport management should learn how to do it properly. If you are working in a group, a “toolbox talk” can make some sense. If you are working alone, who are you going to talk to? Anyway the thing with all this SMS and risk assessment crap is that, as you imply, it only works if those participating have the right attitude and do it properly. But then again, if you have the right attitude you don’t need reams of paper to back it up. The oil industry is very arrogant and thinks it knows best about everything. Despite the fact that there continues to be a lot of accidents mostly down to stupidity and cost cutting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 9:41:18 GMT
The evidence has been thoroughly examined and a decision reached, based upon it.
That is justice.
The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions for which he may be damned in the public eye, and hopefully from which any lessons have been learned.
He must live with the consequences of his actions.
Justice is done, but I suspect the families actually seek retribution.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 10, 2019 9:48:28 GMT
The evidence has been thoroughly examined and a decision reached, based upon it. That is justice. The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions for which he may be damned in the public eye, and hopefully from which any lessons have been learned. He must live with the consequences of his actions. Justice is done, but I suspect the families actually seek retribution. Rog I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with the decision to prosecute, but will point out that harm does not need to be intended for workplace prosecutions to be brought. www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/sentencing-for-signalman-who-raised-barriers-in-level-crossing-crash-death
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 10:41:23 GMT
The evidence has been thoroughly examined and a decision reached, based upon it. That is justice. The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions for which he may be damned in the public eye, and hopefully from which any lessons have been learned. He must live with the consequences of his actions. Justice is done, but I suspect the families actually seek retribution. Rog I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with the decision to prosecute, but will point out that harm does not need to be intended for workplace prosecutions to be brought. www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/sentencing-for-signalman-who-raised-barriers-in-level-crossing-crash-deathThis brings up a whole area of safety culture. If we start with the premis that in general, people don’t set out to kill or injure other people through their professional actions, nor expect it to happen “on their watch”, it follows that a punitive legal system/prosecutions/harsh sentences don’t reduce the likelihood of it happening again. And that, surely, is the important thing - to learn from previous accidents and try not to repeat them, rather than punishing a hapless otherwise good person who made a mistake in order to give blood to the baying public. In aviation the importance of the safety triangle aka Heinrich pyramid, has long been recognised. In other words, for every fatal accident (at the top of the triangle) there are underneath numerous “near misses” and a massive pile of other incidents where safety margins have been eroded. In order to prevent the top one, the ones underneath have to be analysed and lessons learnt. In order for that to happen, they need to be reported. So a good reporting culture is vital for flight safety. If anyone making a minor mistake knows they are going to get into trouble, of course they are not going to fess up and report it, they are going to try to hide it. This is why punitive culture in aviation has long been discredited. Unfortunately the railways lag far behind (about 30 years behind!) in this respect. www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Heinrich_Pyramid
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 10:41:46 GMT
The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions .................... usually defined as 'negligence', particularly in the case of a skilled professional whose decisions and actions fall below those that the public should expect of him
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 10:44:42 GMT
The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions .................... usually defined as 'negligence', particularly in the case of a skilled professional whose decisions and actions fall below those that the public should expect of him You have a punitive culture. Long discredited in aviation if you actually want to improve safety. This was in the news a few months ago - medicine also has a punitive culture and doctors are so scared of making a mistake and being prosecuted that they choose not to treat seriously ill patients. In what respect can that be a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 10:44:54 GMT
then the whole concept is wasted. It is essential that a pre-work briefing is undertaken ("toolbox talk") based on the generic assessment and all members of the work crew are invited to contribute. The airport management should learn how to do it properly. If you are working in a group, a “toolbox talk” can make some sense. If you are working alone, who are you going to talk to?the guy at the airport who gave you a copy of the risk assessment. when you visit his airport you become part of his team. proper risk management using the techniques I have described is intended to establish a line of command and responsibility, as well as minimising risk.
|
|