" 20 feet or 6 inches?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 20 feet or 6 inches?"
I've heard that today's Daily Telegraph (page 11) headlines "Hovering Helicopter Hurled Hotel Guest 20 Feet". How much downdraught is needed do hurl a 6 stone mass (42 Kgs) a distance of 20 feet?
Lu, would you like to comment?
Who measured it, the lady in question - who might have been told that two inches should always be called six - or the expert prosecutor?
"keeping an ear to the ground"
Lu, would you like to comment?
Who measured it, the lady in question - who might have been told that two inches should always be called six - or the expert prosecutor?
"keeping an ear to the ground"
I'm afraid that any time you operate a helicopter, you have to assume the responsibility for the downwash - it simply goes with the territory. The same responsibility extends to the appropriateness of a landing area.
To find yourself in that situation relies only one thing - your own decisions. If you're blowing away all the furniture, you're in entirely the WRONG place for a helicopter.
Don't have much sympathy for anyone who creates a situation like this, whether it be at an airport, or a landing area. Responsibility comes with priveleges of operation. Instances like this, are why it there are more restrictions all the time on landing areas.
Don't know that there is anything gained by a prosecution though?
I've seen a lot of stuff destroyed by helicopters, including being blown off my feet as well (bit bigger ship than a twin-star, bit more than 6 stone)!
I once had a 1000 pound main rotor blade in a box, blown over the side of a barge into the sea by downwash! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
To find yourself in that situation relies only one thing - your own decisions. If you're blowing away all the furniture, you're in entirely the WRONG place for a helicopter.
Don't have much sympathy for anyone who creates a situation like this, whether it be at an airport, or a landing area. Responsibility comes with priveleges of operation. Instances like this, are why it there are more restrictions all the time on landing areas.
Don't know that there is anything gained by a prosecution though?
I've seen a lot of stuff destroyed by helicopters, including being blown off my feet as well (bit bigger ship than a twin-star, bit more than 6 stone)!
I once had a 1000 pound main rotor blade in a box, blown over the side of a barge into the sea by downwash! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In typical press fashion it is very difficult to know what to believe in the reporting of this case. The BBC News report at BBC News | ENGLAND | Woman 'thrown in air' by helicopter states "The chair with her in it raised quite slowly to a height of about five feet."
Now that sounds like levitation to me. You'd have to have a very steady hover to manage that trick surely?
Now that sounds like levitation to me. You'd have to have a very steady hover to manage that trick surely?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UH HUH!!!
All sounds a little over-exaggerated to me.
There says nothing about the woman in question being injured after this. I think if I was thrown into the air 20 feet (as per the Telegraph report) I would have some kind of injury!!!
. .Agree totally with the responsability bit though. It sounds like he was at fault, but the woman story has been, how should I say, stretched slightly!!
. ."Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
All sounds a little over-exaggerated to me.
There says nothing about the woman in question being injured after this. I think if I was thrown into the air 20 feet (as per the Telegraph report) I would have some kind of injury!!!
. .Agree totally with the responsability bit though. It sounds like he was at fault, but the woman story has been, how should I say, stretched slightly!!
. ."Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about jumping to conclusions. Wait to the end of the case, guys. For one thing, this matter is sub judice and printed comment on the case is governed by UK contempt laws. By my count, there are six clear cases of contempt of court in this thread.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote] If you're blowing away all the furniture, you're in entirely the WRONG place for a helicopter. <hr></blockquote>
Is that like "If you see roots outside the cockpit, you might be too low to pull up?
Is that like "If you see roots outside the cockpit, you might be too low to pull up?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northampton
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The helicopter pilot collected a 22 year old lady that was waiting for him" ( Daily Mail). Do you think that the 64 year old lady that was alledgedly thrown 20 feet is, how should I put it, "showing some signs of jealousy or envy of a younger, no doubt, more attractive woman???"I guess that more invites are issued to ladies of a younger age!!!!!!
signed,. .Lonely helicopter pilot: . .(only young ladies need reply)
signed,. .Lonely helicopter pilot: . .(only young ladies need reply)
The BBC has a slightly different slant on that:
BBC News | ENGLAND | Pilot guilty in 'down draught' case
It would be nice if the Beeb could be relied on to report without sensationalising.
BBC News | ENGLAND | Pilot guilty in 'down draught' case
It would be nice if the Beeb could be relied on to report without sensationalising.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.. .The BBC report, especially the headline, certainly gives a misleading slant. . .Unless you read the full report, you don't find out that the CAA started off trying to prove he flew recklessly, and gave up.
As the Press/TV reports on Tuesday morning showed, the CAA prosecutor tried to make it sound like the worst piece of reckless flying in the history of aviation. . .They ended up with a pilot who made an honest mistake!
As the Press/TV reports on Tuesday morning showed, the CAA prosecutor tried to make it sound like the worst piece of reckless flying in the history of aviation. . .They ended up with a pilot who made an honest mistake!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going by the press - Torygraph and Mail- (haven't seen BBC bit yet), it is difficult to assess who was the victor this time. The bad news is that Gatwick had some success thus making it worth their while.
FL - now that it over can we have the proper version please?
FL - now that it over can we have the proper version please?
New evidence comes to light:
Following discovery of large quantities of Pork Beans amongst the overturned chairs and tables at an exclusive english country club today, there is speculation that a woman whom, according to a media quote of an eyewitness, allegedly flew 20 feet into the air on her chair before "disappering from view", may have been a test pilot of a revolutionary secret new aircraft.
"There is some evidence to suggest that Pork Beans are being used to fuel a revolutionary new experimental aircraft called a Cheap VTOL by its designer, Dave Jackson of Pprune" said investigative legend Lu the Zed.
Speculation continued today after unsubstantiated rumours surfaced that the woman was seen consuming the pork beans moments before her flight, and photographs appearing in reports (see posted link above) allegedly show how her hair was used to cleverly hide the helmet she wore during the flight.
The designer, Dave Jackson, later denied that there was any such secret test going on, although he was particularly interested in obtaining an accurate measure of the altitide achieved by the flight, and the ability of the propulsion system to transport the woman completely out of view of nearby witnesses. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
.....more "news" at nine......
Following discovery of large quantities of Pork Beans amongst the overturned chairs and tables at an exclusive english country club today, there is speculation that a woman whom, according to a media quote of an eyewitness, allegedly flew 20 feet into the air on her chair before "disappering from view", may have been a test pilot of a revolutionary secret new aircraft.
"There is some evidence to suggest that Pork Beans are being used to fuel a revolutionary new experimental aircraft called a Cheap VTOL by its designer, Dave Jackson of Pprune" said investigative legend Lu the Zed.
Speculation continued today after unsubstantiated rumours surfaced that the woman was seen consuming the pork beans moments before her flight, and photographs appearing in reports (see posted link above) allegedly show how her hair was used to cleverly hide the helmet she wore during the flight.
The designer, Dave Jackson, later denied that there was any such secret test going on, although he was particularly interested in obtaining an accurate measure of the altitide achieved by the flight, and the ability of the propulsion system to transport the woman completely out of view of nearby witnesses. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
.....more "news" at nine......
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lu the Zed
Seeing that this woman that propelled herself into the air was 64 there is an excellent possibility that she was not wearing conventional flameproof underwear but a special incontinence undergarment. If this is true there would be a decrease in hot gas flow so as to render the system into an under powered mode. If in fact she did propel herself to the stated altitude then she must have used thrust augmentation such as water injection or reheat. I strongly suggest the Mr. Jackson look into this matter and see if he can modify the design so that the system can in effect generate greater thrust. By doing so, it would remove the weight limit of the pilot and at the same time reduce the intake of the basic fuel. He should also try to solve the problem on non-stoichiometric combustion, which would reduce the amount of unburned methane into the atmosphere.
One other problem to work on is reducing the odor of the propellant just prior to ignition.
Seeing that this woman that propelled herself into the air was 64 there is an excellent possibility that she was not wearing conventional flameproof underwear but a special incontinence undergarment. If this is true there would be a decrease in hot gas flow so as to render the system into an under powered mode. If in fact she did propel herself to the stated altitude then she must have used thrust augmentation such as water injection or reheat. I strongly suggest the Mr. Jackson look into this matter and see if he can modify the design so that the system can in effect generate greater thrust. By doing so, it would remove the weight limit of the pilot and at the same time reduce the intake of the basic fuel. He should also try to solve the problem on non-stoichiometric combustion, which would reduce the amount of unburned methane into the atmosphere.
One other problem to work on is reducing the odor of the propellant just prior to ignition.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northampton
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£5000 fine and £40,000 costs!!!!!! Where do these figures come from?? When was the last time you heard of a £5000 fine imposed for any non aviation offence? Drugs or something perhaps. Are the figures higher because it was a twin squirrel.. . If I had done the same thing in the R22 would I get the same punishment? What size of fine would you get in the US? . . Think I had better change my hobby !!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the accurate version, see the posts by Hoverman and Heliport.
The offence of Endangering safety of any person or property under Article 64 of the ANO 2000 can be committed in two ways: either "recklessly" (serious) or "negligently" (less serious).
In a nutshell, if you take care to recce the site to ensure it is safe to land, but fail to a hazard, the law is that you are negligent - even if you've done your best to exercise great care. Taking care is not enough - genuine mistake is no defence. (eg A driver pulling out from a side road into a major road who looks before pulling out, and is convinced the road is clear, but fails to see a motorcyclist is, in law, negligent - even if he's done his best to take great care.)
The CAA set out to prove that the pilot was reckless. The alternative 'negligence' charge was there so that, if the jury was not satisfied the pilot was reckless, it would still be open to them to convict him of being negligent. This gives the prosecution 'two bites at the cherry' but it is allowed.
NB: The pilot never denied that what he did endangered people/property. [Whether the lady fell backwards in her chair, or was lifted up 5 feet and blown through the air for 20 feet (!!!) was completely irrelevant to the charges. Blowing tables/chairs around would have been enough for this element of the charges.]. .The only question for the jury to decide was whether he did so recklessly/negligently.
I repeat, the CAA's case was that the pilot flew recklessly. However, on the third day of the trial, after the versions given by the prosecution witnesses had been tested in cross-examination, the CAA agreed to drop the more serious 'reckless' charge, if the pilot pleaded guilty to the less serious 'negligent' charge.
Sadly, the CAA dropping the more serious charge didn't make a good story for the Press/TV.
Warning:. .Even if you do your best to fly safely, and follow the normal procedures to ensure your landing area is safe, you are still liable if you fail to see a hazard.. .That may seem very harsh in the context of criminal offences, but it is the law.
The offence of Endangering safety of any person or property under Article 64 of the ANO 2000 can be committed in two ways: either "recklessly" (serious) or "negligently" (less serious).
In a nutshell, if you take care to recce the site to ensure it is safe to land, but fail to a hazard, the law is that you are negligent - even if you've done your best to exercise great care. Taking care is not enough - genuine mistake is no defence. (eg A driver pulling out from a side road into a major road who looks before pulling out, and is convinced the road is clear, but fails to see a motorcyclist is, in law, negligent - even if he's done his best to take great care.)
The CAA set out to prove that the pilot was reckless. The alternative 'negligence' charge was there so that, if the jury was not satisfied the pilot was reckless, it would still be open to them to convict him of being negligent. This gives the prosecution 'two bites at the cherry' but it is allowed.
NB: The pilot never denied that what he did endangered people/property. [Whether the lady fell backwards in her chair, or was lifted up 5 feet and blown through the air for 20 feet (!!!) was completely irrelevant to the charges. Blowing tables/chairs around would have been enough for this element of the charges.]. .The only question for the jury to decide was whether he did so recklessly/negligently.
I repeat, the CAA's case was that the pilot flew recklessly. However, on the third day of the trial, after the versions given by the prosecution witnesses had been tested in cross-examination, the CAA agreed to drop the more serious 'reckless' charge, if the pilot pleaded guilty to the less serious 'negligent' charge.
Sadly, the CAA dropping the more serious charge didn't make a good story for the Press/TV.
Warning:. .Even if you do your best to fly safely, and follow the normal procedures to ensure your landing area is safe, you are still liable if you fail to see a hazard.. .That may seem very harsh in the context of criminal offences, but it is the law.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: North Sea
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the guy lands his helicopter close to a hotel where people are having lunch. He then proceeds to blow over tables and chairs (ignoring the 20 ft in the air bit).
Not exactly giving us pilots a good name is he? A little bit of common sense should have told him that even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch.
I have no sympathy for him at all. As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.
The CAA was right to prosecute him. Maybe they should introduce a penalty points system similar to that used by the police for driving offences. After so many points and you lose your licence! The speeding one might be difficult to prove though ;-) After all professional drivers have to adhere to the law of the road and suffer the consequences for breaking it why should we be any different with the Rules of the Air.
While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.
We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.
Not exactly giving us pilots a good name is he? A little bit of common sense should have told him that even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch.
I have no sympathy for him at all. As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.
The CAA was right to prosecute him. Maybe they should introduce a penalty points system similar to that used by the police for driving offences. After so many points and you lose your licence! The speeding one might be difficult to prove though ;-) After all professional drivers have to adhere to the law of the road and suffer the consequences for breaking it why should we be any different with the Rules of the Air.
While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.
We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I have no sympathy for him at all.". .If you knew all the facts, which you obviously don't, you might think differently. There again, going by the tone of your post, perhaps you wouldn't.
"As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.". .Shame the judge didn't fine him a million pounds, or £2 million. Rich git! The green-eyed monster rears its ugly head again. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .He was fined £5000 and ordered to pay the CAA's costs which they said were £40,000!!. .How many pilots have got £40,000 to risk fighting a case? I certainly haven't and would probably have to plead guilty rather than take the risk.
"The CAA was right to prosecute him.". .Who's suggested they were wrong?. .BUT. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and asked for it to be heard in the crown court. He was prepared to be dealt with in the magistrates court.. .* they claimed the woman was blown through the air for 20 feet. None of their so-called "experts" (all CAA employees) pointed out that had to be complete bollox. The because it suited them to go along with it.. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and tried to have him convicted for reckless flying which was completely over the top for a simple mistake. (He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.)
"While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .From what I've heard (from a reliable source). .* You can't blame the media this time, they aren't aviators. But the CAA are - and they still claimed the woman was lifted in the air and blown 20 feet - by a Twin Squirrel!! The CAA and their barrister were talking to the Press throughout the case.. .* Who's suggested the pilot wasn't in the wrong. He made a mistake, and paid a heavy (IMHO) price.. . "did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .Wrong! He pleaded guilty to one charge. The CAA spent three days trying to prove he was reckless and gave up. He pleaded guilty to negligent flying. i.e. making a mistake.. ."We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.". .I agree, as long as they do it fairly and don't go completely over the top. They weren't fair, and did go completely over the top.
PS. .Is that 'North Sea' full-time?. .Or CAA Ops Inspector with occasional North Sea trips?. .Just asking!
"As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.". .Shame the judge didn't fine him a million pounds, or £2 million. Rich git! The green-eyed monster rears its ugly head again. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .He was fined £5000 and ordered to pay the CAA's costs which they said were £40,000!!. .How many pilots have got £40,000 to risk fighting a case? I certainly haven't and would probably have to plead guilty rather than take the risk.
"The CAA was right to prosecute him.". .Who's suggested they were wrong?. .BUT. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and asked for it to be heard in the crown court. He was prepared to be dealt with in the magistrates court.. .* they claimed the woman was blown through the air for 20 feet. None of their so-called "experts" (all CAA employees) pointed out that had to be complete bollox. The because it suited them to go along with it.. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and tried to have him convicted for reckless flying which was completely over the top for a simple mistake. (He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.)
"While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .From what I've heard (from a reliable source). .* You can't blame the media this time, they aren't aviators. But the CAA are - and they still claimed the woman was lifted in the air and blown 20 feet - by a Twin Squirrel!! The CAA and their barrister were talking to the Press throughout the case.. .* Who's suggested the pilot wasn't in the wrong. He made a mistake, and paid a heavy (IMHO) price.. . "did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .Wrong! He pleaded guilty to one charge. The CAA spent three days trying to prove he was reckless and gave up. He pleaded guilty to negligent flying. i.e. making a mistake.. ."We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.". .I agree, as long as they do it fairly and don't go completely over the top. They weren't fair, and did go completely over the top.
PS. .Is that 'North Sea' full-time?. .Or CAA Ops Inspector with occasional North Sea trips?. .Just asking!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Hoverman.
" ......... even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
So, according to Inspector L, even if we don't blow anything over, we shouldn't land at hotels at lunchtime because that "sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>
" ......... even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
So, according to Inspector L, even if we don't blow anything over, we shouldn't land at hotels at lunchtime because that "sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: North Sea
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport, the point is that if you land so closely to a hotel that your downwash affects people sitting outside then YES you will annoy them. Perhaps, now call me old fashioned, you should land a little bit further away so that people don’t have to dive on the table to prevent their salad from getting airborne without clearance! If you participate in aviation then you should be aware of the hazards to other people. I’m surprised that you think that I’m wrong to criticise what was inconsiderate and unprofessional flying. How would you like it if you were eating your lunch minding your own business and some helicopter lands alongside filling the air with dust and fumes, come on….. have a bit of consideration for other people. Who knows, they may be your future clients. He landed his helicopter in an area which adversely affected people on the ground.
Hoverman, he admitted flying his helicopter negligently and so YES I still have no sympathy for him. Had he given a bit more thought and consideration to where he was landing then this discussion may never have happened. . .“He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.”. .So that makes it alright then does it? How about a little common sense here. They were landing at a hotel. Hotels have guests, maybe some of the guests might be outside – having lunch even. As you pointed out a twin squirrels downwash isn’t going to blow a women 20ft in the air but to do the damage they did they must have been pretty close. I’ve landed larger aircraft in hotel grounds. I know what downwash can do, so guess what - I chose to land in an area far enough away so as not affect third parties. I accept that there are hidden hazards in this but I don't accept hotel guests having lunch at a hotel are one of them. I know we all make mistakes and I have certainly have in my flying career but to call the incident 'a simple mistake' is very wrong. What next? I've run out of fuel - oh never mind it's a simple mistake! Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.. .Just out of interest..... and since you criticised me for not knowing all the facts so you're obviously an authority on this case - did they do a recce?
However, I do accept your point about the CAA going over the top with the prosecution with regards to the ‘flying lady’ <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .
Safe flying,. . <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Inspector Lestrade ]</p>
Hoverman, he admitted flying his helicopter negligently and so YES I still have no sympathy for him. Had he given a bit more thought and consideration to where he was landing then this discussion may never have happened. . .“He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.”. .So that makes it alright then does it? How about a little common sense here. They were landing at a hotel. Hotels have guests, maybe some of the guests might be outside – having lunch even. As you pointed out a twin squirrels downwash isn’t going to blow a women 20ft in the air but to do the damage they did they must have been pretty close. I’ve landed larger aircraft in hotel grounds. I know what downwash can do, so guess what - I chose to land in an area far enough away so as not affect third parties. I accept that there are hidden hazards in this but I don't accept hotel guests having lunch at a hotel are one of them. I know we all make mistakes and I have certainly have in my flying career but to call the incident 'a simple mistake' is very wrong. What next? I've run out of fuel - oh never mind it's a simple mistake! Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.. .Just out of interest..... and since you criticised me for not knowing all the facts so you're obviously an authority on this case - did they do a recce?
However, I do accept your point about the CAA going over the top with the prosecution with regards to the ‘flying lady’ <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .
Safe flying,. . <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Inspector Lestrade ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Chelmsford
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember to err is not allowed even though you have satisfied yourself that the landing site is clear. Or there is no riders on horses. Or traffic on the road passing under you on the approach. Or the gust locks are is place on the aircraft you are passing. Or the hangar doors are closed and so on!.. .Negligence is a big word for small mistakes. Is this the tip of an ice berg. Was this the case that the rest will be judged by?. or an over acting ex actress/journalist who is up for an oscar.Its time for underground aviation (ie. Mode C off, wrong callsign, three log books, N reg ect ect.)and thats for the good guys!.Well it is a thought!.