Cranwell Hawk Thread
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Thanks for that, as I say strange things happen in accidents.
For interest ( ? ) my father was in charge of fitting the 'Arrows smoke pods - later for export customers we had many adventures, some surprisingly serious, trying to generate smoke 'on the cheap' by their request with the relatively cool running Adour.
As for the Cranwell accident - I am NOT a journo BTW, though would rather like to be, not least so I might present a sensible view of such things or not present at all, have done similar things in a past life.
The blatantly obvious question here is not even why did the crew get out - and I hope they are well - but rather why did the aircraft end up where it did - there, I who cannot be militarily b----d have said it.
There could be many perfectly good reasons of course, completely beyond the pilot's control.
I happened to know someone who ejected from a Hunter in trouble, thinking it was over wide clear fields - the thing managed to find a building to crash into, killing 3 people.
He never spoke of it ( I was briefed so did not mention it ) and as far as I know, though exonerated he never flew again, though did / does ( I should think retired now, and I hope happily ) perform a vital training support & much more.
Thanks for that, as I say strange things happen in accidents.
For interest ( ? ) my father was in charge of fitting the 'Arrows smoke pods - later for export customers we had many adventures, some surprisingly serious, trying to generate smoke 'on the cheap' by their request with the relatively cool running Adour.
As for the Cranwell accident - I am NOT a journo BTW, though would rather like to be, not least so I might present a sensible view of such things or not present at all, have done similar things in a past life.
The blatantly obvious question here is not even why did the crew get out - and I hope they are well - but rather why did the aircraft end up where it did - there, I who cannot be militarily b----d have said it.
There could be many perfectly good reasons of course, completely beyond the pilot's control.
I happened to know someone who ejected from a Hunter in trouble, thinking it was over wide clear fields - the thing managed to find a building to crash into, killing 3 people.
He never spoke of it ( I was briefed so did not mention it ) and as far as I know, though exonerated he never flew again, though did / does ( I should think retired now, and I hope happily ) perform a vital training support & much more.
Last edited by Double Zero; 8th Sep 2008 at 07:45.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ?
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, I'll bin my pitot theory and go for......
Biggles turns final without gear. Caravan controller too busy reading Heat/Cosmopolitan/porn magazine and Biggles lands wheels up having not got a red flare. Pi$$ed off with ATC for not doing their job, Biggles dabs in a bit of left rudder, takes aim and then jumps out.
Of course, I could be very wrong.
(All comments completely tongue in cheek)
Biggles turns final without gear. Caravan controller too busy reading Heat/Cosmopolitan/porn magazine and Biggles lands wheels up having not got a red flare. Pi$$ed off with ATC for not doing their job, Biggles dabs in a bit of left rudder, takes aim and then jumps out.
Of course, I could be very wrong.
(All comments completely tongue in cheek)
Al R
While you were leaping to more shotgun-coverage journo bashing (oft but not always deserved) did it occur to you that those who've seen the CCTV footage of Osbaston might have seen the murderer "in a 'frenzied' state" and "'splashing' accelarant" as he made preparations to set the out-buildings ablaze?
Remembering the Mull of Kintyre and some other recent BoI's I'd personally be cautious as to the inevitable reliability of 'process'.
As a general point, however, I would share your distaste for "character assasination by spineless, anonymous wankers on the internet" - though I'd say that speculation that avoids identification or direct criticism of the crew is entirely legitimate on a rumours network.
Expecting everyone to observe purdah until the BoI reports is probably unnecessary and not necessarily desirable.
While you were leaping to more shotgun-coverage journo bashing (oft but not always deserved) did it occur to you that those who've seen the CCTV footage of Osbaston might have seen the murderer "in a 'frenzied' state" and "'splashing' accelarant" as he made preparations to set the out-buildings ablaze?
Remembering the Mull of Kintyre and some other recent BoI's I'd personally be cautious as to the inevitable reliability of 'process'.
As a general point, however, I would share your distaste for "character assasination by spineless, anonymous wankers on the internet" - though I'd say that speculation that avoids identification or direct criticism of the crew is entirely legitimate on a rumours network.
Expecting everyone to observe purdah until the BoI reports is probably unnecessary and not necessarily desirable.
Hi Double Zero
Yes I used to work at a rather pretty aerodrome nr cranleigh as well,we probably know each other ! in fact I would guess that we live within 7 miles of each other.
cheers LR
Yes I used to work at a rather pretty aerodrome nr cranleigh as well,we probably know each other ! in fact I would guess that we live within 7 miles of each other.
cheers LR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jcko said;
Al R
While you were leaping to more shotgun-coverage journo bashing (oft but not always deserved) did it occur to you that those who've seen the CCTV footage of Osbaston might have seen the murderer "in a 'frenzied' state" and "'splashing' accelarant" as he made preparations to set the out-buildings ablaze?
Remembering the Mull of Kintyre and some other recent BoI's I'd personally be cautious as to the inevitable reliability of 'process'.
As a general point, however, I would share your distaste for "character assasination by spineless, anonymous wankers on the internet" - though I'd say that speculation that avoids identification or direct criticism of the crew is entirely legitimate on a rumours network.
Expecting everyone to observe purdah until the BoI reports is probably unnecessary and not necessarily desirable.
Al R
While you were leaping to more shotgun-coverage journo bashing (oft but not always deserved) did it occur to you that those who've seen the CCTV footage of Osbaston might have seen the murderer "in a 'frenzied' state" and "'splashing' accelarant" as he made preparations to set the out-buildings ablaze?
Remembering the Mull of Kintyre and some other recent BoI's I'd personally be cautious as to the inevitable reliability of 'process'.
As a general point, however, I would share your distaste for "character assasination by spineless, anonymous wankers on the internet" - though I'd say that speculation that avoids identification or direct criticism of the crew is entirely legitimate on a rumours network.
Expecting everyone to observe purdah until the BoI reports is probably unnecessary and not necessarily desirable.
Those who excuse the rumours because 'thats what it says on the MB Header' need perhaps to remind themselves that '.. statutory rights are not affected'. Yes, we would all tittle tattle about this with people face to face, but in the real world, we'd do it with people we knew and who had a similar sphere of influence and contact. Here, ANYONE can see what is being written and claimed. Would those who excuse rumour mongering go into a restaurant full of strangers and go from table to table potentially, slandering people they didn't know?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Interestingly enough there are pictures of it departing on Britmodeller, one of the young lads was on ATC camp and was taking pictures when it departed
In his own words and the pictures are his copyrights, just hope he does not mind me sharing them with you.
"The Hawk was on delivery from storage at Shawbury ,where by chance I was on camp with the cadets and taking pics when it took off so here are the last photos of the aircraft before it crashed."
In his own words and the pictures are his copyrights, just hope he does not mind me sharing them with you.
"The Hawk was on delivery from storage at Shawbury ,where by chance I was on camp with the cadets and taking pics when it took off so here are the last photos of the aircraft before it crashed."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ulster
Age: 64
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nterestingly enough there are pictures of it departing on Britmodeller, one of the young lads was on ATC camp and was taking pictures when it departed
In his own words and the pictures are his copyrights, just hope he does not mind me sharing them with you.
"The Hawk was on delivery from storage at Shawbury ,where by chance I was on camp with the cadets and taking pics when it took off so here are the last photos of the aircraft before it crashed."
In his own words and the pictures are his copyrights, just hope he does not mind me sharing them with you.
"The Hawk was on delivery from storage at Shawbury ,where by chance I was on camp with the cadets and taking pics when it took off so here are the last photos of the aircraft before it crashed."
I was staff on the camp and taking pics of the cadets getting flown in Squirrels when the Hawk left ,the same pics are posted here a couple of pages back.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
No wonder it crashed as judging by the picture posted previously, the fuselage burst open revealing it was stuffed full of bricks. How would you miss that on the AF/BF?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Elgin
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wanted to respond to those assuming a wheels-up landing. You can retract the undercarriage on the ground in the event of a serious emergency. It is an emergency system on the jet. I'm not saying this course of action was taken by the pilot but lets not jump to conclusions. S*** happens and they both got out. Posted as just something to consider.
Copyright?
Nutloose wrote "the pictures are his copyrights"
Is that correct?
The pictures were of a Crown assett, taken on Crown property, are they not then Crown Copyright?
I'm not saying that is so, I am just wondering.
Is that correct?
The pictures were of a Crown assett, taken on Crown property, are they not then Crown Copyright?
I'm not saying that is so, I am just wondering.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Newcastle, UK & Cyprus
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some legalese (sic) for you to consider :
The general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner.
If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in the case of any photographs you take you are the first owner. However, an example where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressed the camera button and someone else who decided things like the camera angle, exposure and so on.
This general rule about first ownership of copyright resting with the 'author' is, however, overridden in the case of photographs which are made by an employee in the course of employment; in this case, the employer is the first owner of copyright subject to any agreement to the contrary.
Hope this helps.
TAC
The general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner.
If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in the case of any photographs you take you are the first owner. However, an example where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressed the camera button and someone else who decided things like the camera angle, exposure and so on.
This general rule about first ownership of copyright resting with the 'author' is, however, overridden in the case of photographs which are made by an employee in the course of employment; in this case, the employer is the first owner of copyright subject to any agreement to the contrary.
Hope this helps.
TAC
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general rule as I understand it is this. If you are a serving member of Her Majestys Armed Forces and you take an image while in Uniform (on or off duty) then its Crown Copyright. So yes technically if you get home from work and take a quick snap of the kids when youy get home before getting changed its CC (not sure they'd enfore that one though )
Think about it, if what HQ2 said is true then ALL the pictures taken at airshows would be Crown Copyright.
)Think about it, if what HQ2 said is true then ALL the pictures taken at airshows would be Crown Copyright.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copyright
As an ex-photographer for BAe and others, I think we're getting a little confused here.
As I understand it, anything I took for the company, in the company's time, is their copyright.
If a flying saucer lands on the bonnet of my car on the way home and I photograph it, that's my business.
Seriously, the issue must be the timing of getting out, and heading / other people involved, which is presumably why this has 'gone political' so quickly...
There is the issue of forces personnel being paid every hour, all week - after a very unpleasant accident the aircraft in question was photographed by an American serviceman, who tried to claim copyright to his photo's !
As I was photographer on the BoI I quickly convinced the RAF officer leading the inquiry - who despite his rank didn't know where he stood on this - that as a serviceman this chap had no rights ( or for that matter morals ) whatsoever.
As I understand it, anything I took for the company, in the company's time, is their copyright.
If a flying saucer lands on the bonnet of my car on the way home and I photograph it, that's my business.
Seriously, the issue must be the timing of getting out, and heading / other people involved, which is presumably why this has 'gone political' so quickly...
There is the issue of forces personnel being paid every hour, all week - after a very unpleasant accident the aircraft in question was photographed by an American serviceman, who tried to claim copyright to his photo's !
As I was photographer on the BoI I quickly convinced the RAF officer leading the inquiry - who despite his rank didn't know where he stood on this - that as a serviceman this chap had no rights ( or for that matter morals ) whatsoever.
Last edited by Double Zero; 11th Sep 2008 at 14:32.
Did the photographer have a photographic permit issued by the RAFP flight at Shawbury ? Even then permission is required for publication in any magazine or electronic means. 
It must be true...
It's in the Daily Mail...
More pics, including one of the alleged driver...
And no, I don't read it...
Often...
Much...
N
It's in the Daily Mail...
More pics, including one of the alleged driver...
And no, I don't read it...
Often...
Much...
N
Last edited by Nige321; 11th Sep 2008 at 21:32. Reason: Spilling...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a giveaway, copyrighting a photo. Alistair Grant (whoever he is) should be expecting a call from the men in black at any mo,,,,,,,,,,Providing P and SS have been let into the Cranners secret.
I note there's a photo of what was left of the Hawk in the carpark in today's Sun with some headline along the line of You can't park that jet here.
Well, there were no Telegraphs in the Mess at breakfast...
Well, there were no Telegraphs in the Mess at breakfast...