Originally Posted by
megan
Respectfully, don't agree. The poster, Spaz, in his post was quite specific it was "rumour", something that surrounds all accidents immediately after the event, always involves speculation and "what might have beens", a friend died in his jet in the '70's and to this day absolutely no one quite knows what happened, highly experienced instructor hit the water in CAVOK conditions with no ejection attempt. SAR crewman from my squadron went into the water and was winched out covered in blood, flesh and brains. Rumour and speculation abounds to this day.
Inexperienced? Maybe, even highly experienced folk coming to a new role have to learn the ropes.
Get a grip chaps, have a beer as wisely suggested by Beagle.
I'm sorry
megan but just because you prefix a statement with "I heard this rumour..."
when facts are available to you that you choose to ignore does not make it right, or acceptable to cast aspersions on a crew.
Afterall, what's the difference between me coming out and saying "
I heard a rumour the loadies were getting it on in the back and that distracted the pilots and thats
why they flew into the water!" True? Maybe. Possible?
Certainly! Likely? Not a snowballs chance, and a bloody disgusting slight on the professionalism of 4 Army aviators without a single shred of evidence to back it up- and I say that as someone who
has served in 1Avn back in the day...
What makes it worse, in
Spaz' case is the crews names were available to him and he
chose to ignore them and not fact-check his "rumour" because by his own admission, fact-checking is not something he does. As to the "why", well, that's up to him, but as someone who claims to be a former Defence aviator, I'd have thought he'd both show more professionalism and respect to a fellow crew who aren't here to defend themselves. I know
I would have, but then again, maybe that's what separates AAAvn from the Pussers...
Just because someone says "It's a rumour" does not make it right. Sorry.