It must just be me.
Why is EVERYONE focusing on ONE particular method and ignoring EVERY other possible use of an aircraft? Does it suit them to ignore that part of the debate?
MM Flynn wote that he disagrees with me on something or other when all I've said is that a debate around reasonable measures with the authorities is all that I agree with and that after that debate, if I'm convinced, then I would go along with what I was asked to do. I'm not all that sure what's unreasonable about that given he/she said virtually the same thing.
MM Flynn said;
Most people, after an incident, would find it surprising and bordering on negligent that an expensive, reasonably dangerous piece of kit was left parked up with not even minimal attempts at securing it
against operation.
I think I've said something similar to this as well - that is - after an event took place and the recriminations begin - the question will be asked: 'You knew there was a risk, what did you do about it?'
What's the answer folks? 'Yes there was a risk but we're all nice chaps don't you know and it's awfully rude to ask someone what they are up to when it's none of my business - anyway another pink gin anyone'?
If I'm coming across as flippant, I apologise. But I am repeatedly being attributed for comments I did not make in a context I have not alluded to.
The more I read here, the more out of touch somebody becomes. Whether it's me or the majority of you is debatable but while we debate, Rome burns and something will be forced upon GA that we had the chance to deal with and contribute to.
Astonishing guys.