Pittsextra
Personally the law and its consequences as it may apply to anyone involved here are less interesting than understanding the thinking behind the wider process of what is and is not accepted and who or what takes precedence.
I agree.
It's taken a few years but I knew we'd agree about something eventually.
I'd have thought that when the Sept 2015 AAIB bulletin printed some numbers that got turned into headlines that someone from the CAA, BADA or individuals involved with delegated authority could have put those numbers into some sort of context.
I've not seen that done to date. Why?
Perhaps because while there is still an ongoing investigation it would be an irresponsible thing to do and it is better and wiser to let the official investigation take its course.
In accident investigation, accuracy is far more important than speed.
I find clarification is needed because it led to these headlines:-
Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals - Telegraph
The headline is misleading because it gives the impression that an official report found that the pilot was "too low". Closer examination of the article reveals that it did not.
Too low for what?
According to the journo: "lower than his licence allowed".
David Learmount, described in the article as "a leading aviation expert", saw fit to say that the AAIB Special Bulletin showed that the pilot had been “unwise” and made a “misjudgement”.
Such comments are, as he knows (being a journalist himself), good fodder for the press, but it is not what the Bulletin says.
I worked with experts extensively for decades. I didn't, and wouldn't, use anyone claiming to be an expert who was prepared to express conclusions before all the relevant evidence was available.
In my experience, those worthy of the description are never prepared to do that. They may comment in very general terms about procedures, the aircraft type etc but they will never comment upon causation - far less presume to attribute blame - until all the facts are known.
The media are in the business of publishing 'shock horror' stories. It's not difficult to work out why the same 'experts' appear regularly. Entirely understandably, the media are not interested in using experts who, sensibly, decline to comment because there is insufficient information.
How often do we read or hear:
Aviation expert refuses to comment!
"X Y, a leading aviation expert, said it was far too early to make an informed comment and he was not prepared to speculate."
That wouldn't make a a good story so, understandably, the media use experts whom they know will.
.