Urgent Help!!

[Fearless_Soldier]

Feel so stupid at the moment its unbelievable!!! Anyway this is how the story goes...(by the way, I did create a similar post a while ago, but I didn't think it protrayed the full picture, so here it is)......

.........I was travelling down south a few weeks back with a group of friends who hired out a vehicle. As my friend was tired halfway through the journey, I decided to take control of the car. However, I got caught speeding at 115mph by a police officer with a Gatso gun. The officer immediately pulled us over and I gave my details and was told that I would have to attend court.

At the time, we hired out 2 cars, on one car we decided to have additional drivers added to the agreement (my car) and on the other only the named driver was allowed to drive (my friend's car). Now unfortunately due to the rush, our documents got mixed up and therefore, we had the agreement that did not possess additional drivers. Therefore this led to further problems……

In the panic, due to assuming that I was not insured, I jumped to the conclusion that as a result of being uninsured together with the speeding offence I would not be able to become a pilot. Therefore, I first falsified my details to the officer by giving the details of the named driver, however before I got out of the police car or should we say half-way through the discussion, I came to my senses and told the police officer that I was lying to him and confessed by giving my real details.

Would the above be classed as dishonesty or evasive of liability, as before I got out of the car, I confessed to my real details?? (Bear in mind I have never been in trouble with the law before, and have only now realised the seriousness of my actions after researching - never thought I'd ever get into trouble with the police! How wrong was I!!).

If it is not the case, can anyone shed any light as to what I can do in regards to the driving offence?

If however, this is regarded as dishonesty or evasive of liability, then I have 2 problems:

1. Speeding at 115mph, and
2. Dishonesty.

Can anyone help me on this matter please and any implications that it could cause?

I’ve heard that the RAF and Navy accept a zero tolerance policy for any convictions or offences held, would this include the above? I am asking this because I am intending to apply to the RAF and Navy as a fighter pilot this summer and would like to know if this scenario would jeopardise on my future ambition........and finally if there is any advice you could offer.

Thanks to all those that reply.

Fearless Soldier

[timex]

What did the Police say to you at the time, are they taking it any further, or are you "just" being done for speeding.
Bear in mind you could lose your license for going at those speeds anyway. Wether or not the Mil accept you after that is anyone's guess. Suggest you find out just what charges you are up for.

[Fearless_Soldier]

That's the problem, its been approximately 3 weeks since my offence, and I haven't even been sent a summons through yet. Would you suggest me call the police branch up or wait until I get my summons?

[Gary Lager]

Perhaps what you mean is (in your first post): will I be able to get away with it? (in the eyes of OASC, I mean).

Driving at 115mph, In an car for which you were not insured, and then deciding that lying to a police officer was a good idea, probably suggests that you will have more than those 2 problems at Cranwell/Dartmouth ...such as lack of maturity, disregard for rules, fairly poor decision-making ability and (surprise surprise) a slight lack of integrity.

As to what you can do - I am sure those more qualified than me to answer wrt the response of selection officers will do so, but I would suggest that all you can do is to be UTTERLY truthful and explictly honest when asked about said incident at selection.

If you don't feel you can manage that, and convince the chaps there that this attitude will in no way manifest itself during flying training, I sadly hope you don't pass; otherwise you may end up in the same airspace as me or even the same aircraft as one of my mates - not an appealing prospect based on the evidence so far.

Sorry mate, there are plenty of good candidates out there with integrity. If you are successful, think carefully about your approach to rules (how they DO apply to you), honesty (you WON'T always get away with it) and your responsibility to your crew/aircraft/taxpayers, some of whom may not survive next time you can't be bothered to do things properly.

Good luck :yuk:

[Fearless_Soldier]

As to being insured....I was insured on the car.....just that the documents were mixed up

[whiz]

posted by Gary Lager ...such as lack of maturity, disregard for rules, fairly poor decision-making ability and (surprise surprise) a slight lack of integrity.

A glittering career awaits :rolleyes:

[Green Meat]

Why did you assume you'd never be in trouble with the Police driving at 115mph?

Frankly it's a bit late to start fretting about how this will affect your future - you needed to think and plan ahead. In full agreement with Gary Lager I'm afraid.

[BEagle]

115 mph - presumably in a 70 mph limit? That is inexcusable and would, to me, indicate that you have no respect for the law. As for lying to the police......

If, as you assert, your documents were 'mixed up' and you knew that you did have insurance cover for the vehicle in which you were caught breaking the law, why did you not just tell the police and check the VINs on the rental doc.s?

2 hire cars, you say? Try proving that your speed was not the result of 'racing on the public highway' with your friend.

Even if your licence was previously clean, I'd say that you're looking at a substantial fine and being banned from driving.

Not an auspicious background for someone wishing to become a commissioned officer.

[Tigs2]

BEagle
115 mph - presumably in a 70 mph limit? That is inexcusable and would, to me, indicate that you have no respect for the law
Come on BEags firstly i am in know way trying to defend Fearless, he has got quite a few problems with this one (Fearless look up a thing called the rehabilitation of offenders act, i think it still applies to the military, but it takes time), however your statement, whilst true is very harsh. What is excusable? travelling at 75mph in a 70 mile an hour zone indicates no respect for the law, or 80 or 90. Have you ever travelled at these speeds. The battle of Britain was not won by Angels.

[Fearless_Soldier]

I generally stay at 70mph and don't really travel much out of my home town because I'm constantly working 7 days a week. (gotta support the family as well as help fund my brother at uni which now he has finished).

As for the cars both cars were the new mondeo's and I didn't personally hire the car, the responsibility was given to my friends to book car.

The problem was that both main drivers have the exact same name and also their surname is more or less identical in that only one letter differentiates them from each other.

[Bob Viking]

Nothing wrong with the odd excursion over the speed limit but it sounds to me like your look-out scan needs a little work!
BV

[joe2812]

If you believed you were insured on the car but weren't due to a mix up with the info and docs, and the Police charge you for driving without insurance or for lying to them, explore to possibility of using mistake as a 'defence' to your predicament.

As I understand it a mistake of fact is allowed, where as ignorance of the law is not, so while you wont have an excuse for 115mph, you might have one for the insurance part of it. I'm sure someone better informed will be able to correct me however.

Have you considered a career as a cab driver perhaps?

[Fearless_Soldier]

I was insured on the vehicle I was driving, just that the documents were mixed up which led to the stupidity

[rivetjoint]

Sounds like you need to spend an hour with a lawyer who knows about this sort of thing.

[BEagle]

Tigs2, I have certainly driven at well over 115 mph.

In Germany.

[Training Risky]

If the conditions were right, and the time of day was right.... I have no problem whatsoever with Fearless doing 115 mph on the motorway. Speed limits are mere guidelines put there by the nanny state.

And the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should detail what offenses are 'spent' and do not have to be declared, provided a suitable time has passed.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Tigs,
whilst I agree that we live in a Nanny state, this fools utter disregard of the law, without an even remotely valid excuse, is frankly unacceptable. Of course we have all driven in excess of 70, but well over a ton is stupid, foolish and a gross disregard of the law, and I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

And blatantly lying to a police officer just beggars belief. Lets face it, we very much need young up-and-coming officers, and I am all for a bit of 'spirit' but this is too much on this occasion, and would suggest that we do not want (or need) the likes of him in the RAF today, let alone as a pilot. (do you think he would have equal disregard for the likes of Vne or Vr??)

Sorry Soldier, you are a complete fool:
a. For speeding that much
b. For lying to a Police Officer
c. For getting caught!

Kind regards
TSM

[Vox Populi]

Hello FS

My understanding of this area is that you could be charged with Perverting the Course of Justice (legal speak for lying to the police).

However - have you been read your rights? Have you been arrested? Have you had to give a statement about lying? If the answer to those questions is no, then you cannot and will not be charged with anything other than the speeding offence.

That is not to say that you will not be questioned and charged at a later date but I would strongly suggest if it hasn't happened by now it never will.

Speak to a lawyer anyway - although I'm sure they will advise you to keep your head down on the issue unless the police raise it.

Oh and ignore the pious do gooders in this thread, who have all at some stage in their lives done something utterly reprehensible and regretted it the next day!

Just don't do it again.

VP.

[zedder]

FS,
Write a letter to the Chief Constable of the county in which the offence occurred. Provide a detailed chronolgy of how you got to the point at which you (stupidly!) decided to lie to a Police Officer. Talk about a "moment of madness" induced by "the panic of having to deal with a Police Officer for the first time", etc etc. Be very very apologetic. Hopefully as others have said, you may end up only having to account for the speeding offence. If the Police do pursue the lying element, a second letter to the Chief Constable referring to first letter you sent him/her, may offer you the possibility of this aspect not being taken to court.

If nothing else, and assuming you have not completely blown your chances of joining the military, it will be very good practice for when you have to write a similar letter to the Station Commander when you end up doing something stupid in the future. Most of us have done it!!

[SASless]

WHOA! HOLD ON!

Hire the lawyer....find out exactly what charges are being filed/have been filed.

No sense making a bad situation worse.

I would suggest we all have at some time done something very silly....and not got caught.

Deal with the situation that exists now....writing letters....confessing to sins that are not a matter of record yet....that is not being very wise.

No sense compounding the misconduct by more stupid acts.

The young man is beginning to see the error of his ways and hopefully has learned a very good lesson from his experience he describes.

If speeding tickets alone kept us out of flying...I would have been an infantry man.....and as the man said before....Angels did not win the BofB....or any other war.

Knowing how to focus that kind of spirit is the key....maybe this event has sharpened this young lad's focus a bit.

I see no sense in ruining a life over something like this....after all he did fess up to the cop....for whatever reason.

Telling the truth is the key....there is however no requirement to tell the entire truth unless asked for it directly.....in these matters.

[UberPilot]

Looks like this guy is a wind-up.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179740

Has asked the same question using different aliases before. Why

[Soddit]

Beagle I do so hope that was not on the long downhill straight by Montabaur on the A3.

Alas things have changed.Even in Germany.:cool:

[Legalapproach]

Speeding offence is likely to get you a hefty fine and a ban unless you can argue special reasons which is unlikely - you need to speak to a solicitor once you receive a summons.

As you were stopped at the time I expect that the officer warned you that you would be reported for summons in which case the police have up to 6 months to issue the summons.

The porkie to the officer could get you charged with obstruction or the more serious charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The latter could well end up in a short prison sentence as courts take a very dim view of people not playing the game.

That being said, if you came clean fairly quickly and weren't arrested at the time it's unlikely that they will charge you with perverting. Even if they do, on the facts you have stated your solicitor might get the prosecution to accept a plea to obstruction.

From my experience the forces are not particularly interested in motoring offences. Other convictions they will consider on their merits. Convictions for dishonesty etc might indicate that you are not officer material and could tell against you.

Reference has been made by some to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The applicable periods will depend upon the penalty you receive. For example the rehabilitation period for an offence dealt with by way of a fine is 5 years. Prison or YOI up to 6 months is 7 years and over 6 months but under 30 months 10 years

[Fearless_Soldier]

Yes, I have posted the incident to a different forum as I am trying for to apply both Military Aviation and Commercial Aviation. There's no harm trying to obtain advice from both fields. Like I mentioned at the start of the thread:

"(by the way, I did create a similar post a while ago, but I didn't think it protrayed the full picture, so here it is)"

You have to understand....I am very concerned here and I am trying to obtain as much help and advice as I can get. I've never been in trouble before and this will be my first and last occasion.

I've learnt from mistake especially when you consider, I've been trying really hard for the last 5 years to get my qualifications and funding as well as supporting my family at the same time and don't want to blow my chances when I'm so close to applying for both Military and Commercial.

But please let advice come.....I've been checking this thread nearly 5 times a day....so I'll let you imagine how concerned I actually am.

BTW Thank you to all the people who gave me advice. Much appreciated

[Tigs2]

The Swinging Monkey
I agree entirely chap!

BEagle, it was just so much fun to drive over there wasnt it! Just so wish we could do it here.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Make your own assumptions!

POLICE helicopter pilot David banned from driving

POLICE helicopter pilot David Crisall has been banned from driving - after he was caught driving at nearly 120mph on the A1.

His driving was slammed as "appalling" by the national road safety charity Brake which said he had put lives at risk and that there was no excuse for travelling at such a high speed.

Crisall, 38, of Great Whyte, Ramsey, was clocked travelling at 118mph in his Alfa Romeo 166 on the A1M at Alconbury by colleagues from the Cambridgeshire force.

Magistrates at Huntingdon heard that the incident happened at about 2.30am on January 21.

Crisall said losing his licence would cause problems in getting to his job, which involved life or death operations. He admitted speeding and was banned from driving for 21 days, fined £400 and ordered to pay £35 costs.

Magistrates told him: "Speeding at 118mph is 48mph over the speed limit which is not acceptable. At the end of the day the law is the law."

Tracey Bellingham, prosecuting, said police at Alconbury saw the Alfa Romeo which they thought was speeding and recorded it at 118mph in the 70mph limit.

Crisall, a civilian who flies for the police, told the court: "It was excessive speed and was unacceptable."

He said he had just finished a flying shift at 2.15am and had been going to the 24-hour Tesco at Hampton Hargate.

He was alert from his shift and the road conditions were good, despite it being January.

Crisall said he worked shifts and had routine call-outs to deal with "life and death situations" which meant it would be difficult to get to RAF Wyton where the helicopter was based without a licence. It would also affect the flying rota.

He said a short ban would mean he could continue with the job.

A spokesman for Brake said: "It is obviously absolutely appalling that anybody associated with the police should be driving at this speed.

"There is absolutely no justification for it.

"This is a person who is likely to be dealing with serious road accidents and he ought to know better."

The spokesman said Crisall deserved to be made an example of because of his position.

She said: "Quite simply, he put lives at risk by doing that."

The spokesman said that driving at such a speed at night was wrong, even though the road may have been quiet and well lit, because other drivers could not anticipate what was happening and an error could lead to devastating results.

A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said: "If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings.

This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary's Professional Standards department."

After the court hearing, Crisall declined to comment.




Campaigner Criticises 'Inadequate' Punishment of Speeding Police Pilot

By Brian Farmer, PA


A road safety campaigner today condemned magistrates who imposed a three-week motoring ban on a police helicopter pilot caught driving his car at 118 mph in a 70mph zone.

Brigitte Chaudhry, founder of the charity RoadPeace, said David Crisall’s punishment was “totally inadequate“.


Ms Chaudhry said 38-year-old Crisall, a civilian who flies the Cambridgeshire Police helicopter, should have been banned from driving for “at least six months“.

And she said Cambridgeshire Police should “immediately” stop employing him as a pilot.

“The sentence is totally inadequate,” she said. “The magistrates are clearly unaware of the dangers by speeding or don’t care about it.

“I would have thought he should have got a six-month ban at least. They have the power to ban for three years.”

She added: “The fact that he is employed by the police as a pilot makes it even more serious. The police should immediately dismiss him. He is certainly no credit to them.

“If he had hit anyone at that speed they would have been smashed to smithereens. These kind of sentences send out the wrong message and it is so frustrating for organisations like ours.”

Police said Crisall’s position was being assessed and a spokeswoman added: “If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings. This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary’s Professional Standards department.”

Magistrates in Huntingdon, Cambs, heard on Friday how police clocked Crisall driving an Alfa Romeo 166 at 118 mph on the A1M at Alconbury, Cambs, in the early hours of January 21.

Crisall, of Ramsey, Cambs, admitted speeding. He was banned for 21 days and fined £400.

He told the court that losing his driving licence would make it hard for him to get to work.

[Oggin Aviator]

Typical reaction from the do gooders.

Ok he was breaking the law and therefore should be punished however he's probably more capable of driving safely at 120 mph than these tree huggers are at 60 mph. Thats my assumption.

[The Gorilla]

And would that arrogant assumption be because he is:

a) A pilot and therefore incapable of fault

Or

b) Because he is a policeman??


mmmm


:mad:

[Oggin Aviator]

a) because he is a pilot. In his line of work he will be used to flying low level at relatively high speed and I would assume (here's the assumption) have the skills and reflexes to cope with this. These skills have a direct read across to driving. Thats why there are only a certain percentage of people who can physically become pilots, just like there is only a certain percentage of people who can physically become racing drivers. And I dont think that was arrogant (cos I'm not a pilot) but objective. :mad: to yourself.

[BEagle]

As he is a pilot, he should respect limits.....

Unfortunately we are never likely to see more realistic limits on UK roads whilst so many people disrespect exisiting limits. I'd be very happy to see higher limits on motorways (90 mph) BUT with substantially increased penalties for those who don't observe them.

Wasn't that what the Dutch did when they raised their limits?

[ZH875]

These skills have a direct read across to driving I would like to see anyone bank right by 90 Deg and pull a 6g turn to avoid a head-on collision on any road.
edited to switch myself on

[The Rocket]

ZH875

And I dont think that was arrogant (cos I'm not a pilot) but objective.

Switch on:rolleyes:

[Darth Nigel]

I would like to see anyone bank right by 90 Deg ... on any road

I've done that part, in one of Aunt Betty's SWB Landrovers back in the early 70s.

We did turn a bit, as I recall. Not sure if it was 6g though, I was too busy listening to the YoS dangling in the other seat, who seemed to be a bit upset about something. :p He must have spilled his coffee

[SASless]

I would think if I was flying for the Plod....and got myself dinged for that kind of offense....I would have lowered me chin...rounded my shoulders, shuffled my feet, paid the fine....mumbled something along the lines of "what was I thinking....." , offered my most humble apologies to the senior Plod extant and made myself as nearly invisible as possible.

Pay the fine, hire a car for three weeks....and pray you don't get fired! I sure would not have been an embarrassment to the Plod....knowing they do not like to be embarrassed.

[A2QFI]

My slim knowledge of the law in this area is:-

1. GATSO are fixed cameras and not operated by the police. They are fixed, on the roadside and automatic.

2. Did the officer say, at the time, that the facts would be reported with a view to considering prosecution? If he did then they have 6 months to issue a summons.

3. If he did not they have 14 days plus postage time to serve you with a NIP. In fact, as a hire car is involved, they have 14 days to get it to the hire car people and they can take as long as they like forwarding it to you. The NIP has to be served on the "Registered Keeper" within 14 days.

[Pontius Navigator]

1. Prat.

2. Prat squared for airing it here.

3. Still a prat.

4. Be honest for a change.

5. Plan a career elsewhere after your interview.

Now the good news.

We had a Nav Stude who was several £k in debt at IOT, and before, whom they theoretically sorted out. He then pranged a new car with mandatory comprehensive insurance. The car cost £9k when most of us could only afford £8k. He only had 3rd party insurance.

He lied, he was irresponsible, immature etc yet Cranditz still passed him. Took us ages to get rid of him.

Moral? Give it a go, be honest, if you have all the other attribiutes then you might get an offer.

[The mother alligator]

Just don't be too surprised if they don't consider you - like what has been said, there are many other candidates that they can chose from who are completely honest.

It's that kind of mentality that kills other people as well as you - especially if you're in something a little more powerful and expensive.

You need to grow up before you should be considered in my opinion.

What has been said is correct, as long as the sentence/ban has been served that is fine.

God help us.

[Unmissable]

I have to agree with Pontious Nav

BE HONEST. Admit your crimes, take your punishment and then do not hide your CONVICTIONS (ie those done for). There are plenty of people who go through Cranwell with huge amounts of 'baggage' and a history of Police 'liaisons', so why not you?

Again be honest with yourself, 115 mph is grossly over the speed limit and probably extremely dangerous on our roads even at 0500 hrs on a Sunday. Would you recruit someone who disregards rules and endangers their pals' lives so easily?

If you fail, try again until age overtakes you, the more years of repentance you can show, the better.

Finally , cut the story about confusion with insurance documents, it makes your situation worse. You knew whether you were insured, and that fact remains wherever the documents were stored. In this country we have 7 days grace to prove we were driving legally. All this lying and bull**** storytelling will have only incensed the police to pursue you with a greater vigour.

If you were honest and convince me this was a momentary lapse, I might recruit you if all other things were equal. If I thought you were a liability who will do anything for an easy life or to impress your mates, you wouldn't get your bus fare home, never mind a responsible job. Your action of posting an honest pea for help on this forum suggests you might be genuinely remorseful.

Good Luck.

[C130 Techie]

Skills and reflexes to drive at those sorts of speeds??

What about the rest of the non superhuman common road users, myself included, who perhaps don't have those sort of "skills" and may chance to encounter him driving at 120 mph.

It's got nothing to do with being a pilot or a policeman.

It's got everything to do with consideration for other road users.

[Training Risky]

So on a lightly used bit of motorway on a Sunday night, you can't handle a fast car zooming past you? How about if there was a whole lane's separation between you? Still quick to judge?

[C130 Techie]

Training Risky

Never mentioned quiet motorways but it's a nice easy example for you to jump on. A typical response from someone trying to justify the indefensible.

The general point was that there seemed to be a general impression that the "skills" and reactions of a pilot justified their ability to drive fast What about country lanes etc etc with blind bends (lots of examples). The principal is the same not everyone has the same driving capabilities or reations.

It only takes one moment of loss of concentration!

[Training Risky]

What?

It is a totally defensible point.

He was 'caught' on the A1M! How on earth can you assume that he would try 120 mph on a 'country lanes etc etc with blind bends'?

I assess that he would drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions if he were on one of these country roads you speak of..... but we can't assume that can we?.... because that's not the issue here..... the fact that it was on the motorway at 0200L is the point!

[Gary Lager]

All this about pilots/reactions/driving fast etc etc is embarrassing :yuk:

My reactions are awesome - but welsh people use motorways as well, you know ;)

And besides, wasn't the whole point of the thread actually that the young chap in question hasn't yet completed the human-to-skygod conversion course which endows such superhuman abilities?

To resurrect a favourite cliche: 'the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which require his superior skill'. eg. driving at 115mph.

[DP Harvey]

The original post is a wind-up.

Why not put both cars on multi-driver terms?

2 drivers with the same first name and one letter different surnames, leading to a cock-up with the paperwork. Yeh, right.

No details about what the police actually charged him with.

[C130 Techie]

Training Risky

Defensible? Apart from the fact that it's currently against the law to drive at above 70mph anywhere in this country. Just because you think the law is wrong does't give you the automatic right to break it just because you think the conditions are right. I don't agree with the present 70 limit but I value my licence so until it's changed....

My main point however is the that assertion that because the guy is a pilot and has special skills and reactions and therefore is better able than most to drive at those speeds is an arrogant and selfish one. Many standards of driver use our roads, some good some bad. It may be on this occasion that it was "safe" to drive at that speed on that particular road however you set a dangerous precedent if you allow individuals to make up their own rules out on the road as they see fit.

[Training Risky]

71 mph on a lightly-used motorway = illegal

69 mph in poor vis at rush hour = legal

:rolleyes: I wouldn't want to drive with you:rolleyes:

I'd rather be illegal, and I'm prepared to conduct a campaign of civil disobedience until these absurd limits and speed/revenue traps are abolished.

Guess I'll be waiting a long time then.

[C130 Techie]

Training Risky

I did say that I didn't agree with the 70 mph limit however you seem intent on twisting the meaning of every point.

My record of almost 30 years, accident free and with clean licence is a result of driving appropriately for the traffic conditions and within the law. Currently doing around 20k a year

If thats wrong I can live with it and hopefully so can my passengers and other road users.

[Fearless_Soldier]

On the actual producer, it just mentions I was driving at 115mph. other than that it didn't say anything with regards to the dishonesty part it doesn't mention anything on there.

By the way I am NOT lying. Would I really want to waste my time on Pprune to put up a fake post and review it every day! Come on give me a break!

[Gary Lager]

So when you go to court, if I were you, I'd take the hit and then get the train/bus to OASC. When there, don't volunteer anything but be completely frank in response to any direct questions you are asked regarding the incident/current status of driving licence.

Try reading a few books on 'human factors in aviation' - see if you can identify those factors which caused you to make such a bad error of judgement:

Press-on-itis: an unfinished task (or lateness) can cause stress and sometimes an irrational desire to 'press on', when really the correct the decision is to do the opposite,

Risky Shift: where a decision made as part of a group often errs on the side of increased risk compared to an individual one,

Machismo: "it won't happen to me" syndrome - belief that one's abilities are such that rules can be disregarded and activities undertaken that are only dangerous for 'normal' people, (read TR's posts for an example ;))

etc etc.

All those factors are well known to anyone in professional aviation, and may be recognisable to those outside the flying community as well.

So when/if asked about this incident in interview, my advice would be to turn the conversation into a discussion about recognising those factors, and their relevance to safe, professional aviation and you may give yourself the best chance you have. You will have also demonstrated a degree of maturity and ability to learn rapidly from your mistakes that may go some way to impressing those of us who have criticised your actions on this forum to date.

:ok:

[BillHicksRules]

Training Risky,

All I would say to you is that if you are unable to control a vehicle within the limits set down what makes you think you are capable above them?

As for FS's piloting skills at best he is a PPL as he is attempting to go further.

It is my experience that in general pilots do not make good drivers.

My best man has the dubious honour of being the only man I know to whilst attempting to leave a carpark hit the only other car in there. It was actually easier to miss this car than not. To this day I still do not know how or why he did it.

Cheers

BHR

[Fg Off Kite]

"The Sun
MON 27 JUN 2005
Ed: 4GMD
Pg: 12
Word Count: 106 119mph ban cut

AN RAF officer has had a driving ban reduced -after claiming it endangered national security. Squadron Leader Philip Witcombe, 35, was nabbed at 119mp... "

Perhaps he has a few tips for you!