Air Clues : Summer 2015 : Issue 16
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Hangarshuffle,
Sadly not a piss take. It was one of the initiatives introduced around 2005 after consultation between the MoD and the riding community following the inquest into the death of Mrs Heather Bell, a 38 year old mother of two who was killed when her horse reacted and bolted to a low flying Chinook. Are they effective? The horse riders I know who wear them seem to think so.
Sadly not a piss take. It was one of the initiatives introduced around 2005 after consultation between the MoD and the riding community following the inquest into the death of Mrs Heather Bell, a 38 year old mother of two who was killed when her horse reacted and bolted to a low flying Chinook. Are they effective? The horse riders I know who wear them seem to think so.
Met a woman yesterday, riding bare-back, no helmet, and leading a pony, again wearing hiviz camo to blend in with the hedge row.
Hangarshuffle,
Sometimes you come across as having a slightly single-service bias. I'm sure Air Clues will never be as good as the FAA version, but it is what it is.
The horse riding issue is one that the MOD takes seriously and what you read there was a report back to readers from a well founded initiative between the riding community and the flying community, to mutual benefit. The result over probably ten years has been constructive and MAY well have saved lives. No reason why it shouldn't continue to do so.
Just in case your post really was serious, I'll explain. The hi viz is so that the helo guys can see the riders and avoid them.
Scoff all you like.
Originally Posted by Hangarshuffle
Head to head I always thought it was boring compared to the FAA's Cockpit.
That article about horse drivers wearing high viz vests to avoid helicopters, (make it the other way around) is a piss take worthy of monty python.
That article about horse drivers wearing high viz vests to avoid helicopters, (make it the other way around) is a piss take worthy of monty python.
The horse riding issue is one that the MOD takes seriously and what you read there was a report back to readers from a well founded initiative between the riding community and the flying community, to mutual benefit. The result over probably ten years has been constructive and MAY well have saved lives. No reason why it shouldn't continue to do so.
Just in case your post really was serious, I'll explain. The hi viz is so that the helo guys can see the riders and avoid them.
Scoff all you like.
This from ODH interview.
Quote:
legally responsible and accountable for every air safety decision I made during my tenure, now and for the rest of my life.
Who does this apply to now? IIRC it came up on the nimrod case when MoD said they couldn't force people to give evidence if they had left post or were retired. Someone posted to say the "rest of life" had always been the case.
Quote:
legally responsible and accountable for every air safety decision I made during my tenure, now and for the rest of my life.
Who does this apply to now? IIRC it came up on the nimrod case when MoD said they couldn't force people to give evidence if they had left post or were retired. Someone posted to say the "rest of life" had always been the case.
Yes, this was policy for all of my time in MoD. I was taught on Day 1, keep a copy of everything you sign. This was especially hammered into us when handed letters of delegation; and then again when the Crown Proceedings Act was amended in the late 80s. When I retired, I was told to retain all these papers, as I was still required to justify decisions. (And have been a number of times, when MoD "lost" their copies). That this conflicts with the OSA is one of those things MoD has never got to grips with. Not entirely their fault. It is why people could submit evidence to the likes of Lord Philip without fear of censure. (Although MoD tried).
The ODH interviewed seems to imply this principle came as a shock to him. If it did, then where did he gain his experience as he would have known this from being a sprog?
Bizarrely, your memory is also correct in that this very point (it was expressed as "enduring duty of care") was asked by a Minister, to Secy of State, when the prosecution of those named by Haddon-Cave was being considered. When the correct names (!) were put to the Provost Marshal, Thames Valley Plod and CPS, MoD's formal response was "They've either retired or left post, so no action can be taken, or even questions asked of them". And so the matter was dropped. It also cropped up in other cases - Sea King ASaC and Tornado ZG710 spring to mind. There are numerous examples of Inquests being tainted by MoD staffs, serving and retired, refusing to give evidence. (And also by those willing to give evidence being rejected). If you can reconcile these facts, please tell me how!
This edition of Air Clues comes across as more of a comic. One or two good articles, but let down by a failure to understand some basic principles. A bit like the Spry thread here.
