Gertrude, in the very first response to this post, wisely pointed out:
"Well, that's a report of the prosecution case, it looks like the other side of the story hasn't been put yet. So we'll have to wait and see."
A few posts later, after some had seen fit to condemn the pilot on the basis of nothing more than newspaper reports of the prosecution's allegations
,
Flyin 'Dutch' made a reasonable and sensible appeal:
"Once this case has come to an end it may be useful to discuss fuel calcs on here but I think that it would be unhelpful at the moment to go into detail."
A few posts later, FD tried again:
"Should we not hold back until we have seen what the defence is?"
Still no luck, so FD tried yet again, this time spelling out the very real dangers in simple terms:
"However since this case is still in court it seemed prudent not to add comments which could influence people involved in the current case."
Then, not surprisingly, he gave up.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a juror read this thread, or was told by a friend who does, that the majority of posters on the pilots website think the pilot is guilty. Just the sort of thing the pilot on trial needs.
I only hope the jury will approach this case with more sense, and more fairly, than those who've condemned him here.
Unwell_Raptor asks who's defending the pilot? Some barrister called Tudor Owen.
Whirlybird: I agree with you 100%. Prosecutions are not an effective means of achieving flight safety.
Got to go now. I've got a lot of work to do for a trial at Chichester Crown Court.
My client says the allegations against him aren't true.
FL