Voyager Plummets (Merged)
So it's not AitTanker's fault nor is it Avis's fault. Come on the jury has obviously returned, is the verdict secret, or is there insufficient evidence? Not proven, but still guilty?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not proven, but still guilty?
The outcomes are...
1). Proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
2). If there is any doubt they are acquitted.
Try Scottish law for 'not proven':
the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"
the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"
All I am seeing is the opposition using deception and obfuscation so that the truth is not discovered. Why this is taking place is not yet clear apart from protecting peoples livelihoods and pensions.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try Scottish law for 'not proven'
During the 2007 consultation, the Law Society of Scotland questioned the need to reform [their] three verdict system.
But it said if the third verdict were to be abolished, the two remaining would be "proven" and "not proven" since it was up to the Crown to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
BBC News - Verdict on 'not proven' sought from Scottish public
Gr4techie your quote is quite correct, interestingly before the union with England there was no 'guilty' verdict, it was proven or not proven. Not proven does not mean 'not guilty', under current law (although there being no conviction there is no sentence); hence my interrogative concerning guilt.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The position of the "anti's" has become pretty unreasonable; either they have grounds to believe there is a safety fault with this aircraft or they don't. If they do, how can they in all conscience leave their quite specific and repeated assertions hanging in the air? If this is the case (note use of conditional), I fully agree with them that it shouldn't be flying!
On the other hand, if a toxic trickle of innuendo is allowed to create a general belief that there is a serious problem with the type, then there IS a serious problem. As has been stated, our forces are relying heavily on Voyager for the Afgan drawdown. A needless grounding would throw this into disarray and cause serious damage to our wider defence capability. Some people here need to have a serious think about what they are saying.
On the other hand, if a toxic trickle of innuendo is allowed to create a general belief that there is a serious problem with the type, then there IS a serious problem. As has been stated, our forces are relying heavily on Voyager for the Afgan drawdown. A needless grounding would throw this into disarray and cause serious damage to our wider defence capability. Some people here need to have a serious think about what they are saying.
We live in a more open society than we did 20 or 30 years ago, with such things as FOI requests giving the public far more access to information than in the past.
The "grounding" to use the BBC phrase, and the basic reason why, was given widespread coverage:
BBC News - RAF planes 'grounded' after 'in-flight issue'
The closest the public has to an information regarding resumption of flights is the following article:
Britain lifts flying suspension on Airbus-made Voyager fleet | Reuters
In it we have such comments as:
"An AirTanker spokesman, who told Reuters that the suspension had been lifted, said an investigation was ongoing and he was unable to comment on the cause of the incident."
The use of the word "ongoing" implies the investigation is not yet complete.
"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was inappropriate to speculate on the cause of the incident but, following critical safety advice, the RAF chain of command had been reassured that the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."
What exactly does this mean? Critical safety advice from who? If it is inappropriate to speculate on the cause, and the MOD knows what it is, why doesn't it say simply say what the cause was?
If I had a 20 year old son or daughter about to fly out on such an aircraft I would be concerned for their safety, and why shouldn't any other concerned parent feel the same.
I'm afraid MOD saying something to the effect of "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" doesn't wash these days - they have previous form in this area!!
.....and I did think seriously about what I wrote above, and if you want me stopped from writing it, what sort of society are we becoming?
The "grounding" to use the BBC phrase, and the basic reason why, was given widespread coverage:
BBC News - RAF planes 'grounded' after 'in-flight issue'
The closest the public has to an information regarding resumption of flights is the following article:
Britain lifts flying suspension on Airbus-made Voyager fleet | Reuters
In it we have such comments as:
"An AirTanker spokesman, who told Reuters that the suspension had been lifted, said an investigation was ongoing and he was unable to comment on the cause of the incident."
The use of the word "ongoing" implies the investigation is not yet complete.
"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was inappropriate to speculate on the cause of the incident but, following critical safety advice, the RAF chain of command had been reassured that the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."
What exactly does this mean? Critical safety advice from who? If it is inappropriate to speculate on the cause, and the MOD knows what it is, why doesn't it say simply say what the cause was?
If I had a 20 year old son or daughter about to fly out on such an aircraft I would be concerned for their safety, and why shouldn't any other concerned parent feel the same.
I'm afraid MOD saying something to the effect of "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" doesn't wash these days - they have previous form in this area!!
.....and I did think seriously about what I wrote above, and if you want me stopped from writing it, what sort of society are we becoming?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
A needless grounding would throw this into disarray and cause serious damage to our wider defence capability. Some people here need to have a serious think about what they are saying.
..... and some people have lost good friends and colleagues in previous examples of MOD "form" on airworthiness issues.....
Personally I never find attending funerals "good" for me!
It's not a difficult concept, all that is required is for MOD to say "why" the aircraft has been cleared to resume operations!
Personally I never find attending funerals "good" for me!
It's not a difficult concept, all that is required is for MOD to say "why" the aircraft has been cleared to resume operations!
Biggus,
You are not alone in having lost friends and colleagues in the RAF.
Wailing and moaning here does nothing to improve anything. Some people seem to enjoy that sort of thing as though they are doing some good. They are not.
Airbus have a very good reputation for investigating incidents and circulating the results and advice. They have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining safe aircraft that operate to specification. But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to.
You are not alone in having lost friends and colleagues in the RAF.
Wailing and moaning here does nothing to improve anything. Some people seem to enjoy that sort of thing as though they are doing some good. They are not.
Airbus have a very good reputation for investigating incidents and circulating the results and advice. They have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining safe aircraft that operate to specification. But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to.
You seem to have ignored the last sentence.
Air France 296 performed exactly how it should when operated as it was. It worked to specification and did nothing that should have surprised a well briefed crew. What more do you expect Airbus to say other than tested satis? Oh and by the way if you want to display the aircraft to the public talk to our display pilots first.
Unless, of course you subscribe to conspiracy theories, in which case I would advise you to line your colander with turkey strength tin foil when you wear it to use your mobile phone.
But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to.
Air France 296 performed exactly how it should when operated as it was. It worked to specification and did nothing that should have surprised a well briefed crew. What more do you expect Airbus to say other than tested satis? Oh and by the way if you want to display the aircraft to the public talk to our display pilots first.
Unless, of course you subscribe to conspiracy theories, in which case I would advise you to line your colander with turkey strength tin foil when you wear it to use your mobile phone.
Biggus, that is an excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly.
Roly, AF296 was an utter goat. The crew made a complete pigs' of a simple manoeuvre and bought the farm as a result. Unfortunately the subsequent inquiry hardly covered itself in glory.
AF seem to have something of a reputation nowadays....
Back to the recent RAF Voyager serious incident, I gather that rumours* are now circulating about injured passengers taking legal action. Perhaps* that's why the Ministry of Truth is keeping schtum?
*nothing more, nothing less.
Roly, AF296 was an utter goat. The crew made a complete pigs' of a simple manoeuvre and bought the farm as a result. Unfortunately the subsequent inquiry hardly covered itself in glory.
AF seem to have something of a reputation nowadays....
Back to the recent RAF Voyager serious incident, I gather that rumours* are now circulating about injured passengers taking legal action. Perhaps* that's why the Ministry of Truth is keeping schtum?
*nothing more, nothing less.
beardy,
You say..
But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to
I have no problem with that, indeed I would expect a thorough investigation to take a considerable amount of time. However, such a statement implies you believe that the investigation into the cause of the incident is quite probably not yet complete, in which case why are the aircraft flying again?
I have no issue with Airbus.
I have no issue with the basic A330 aircraft.
As I have already stated, I have issue with the (my words not theirs) "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" attitude of MOD. Simply because, as has been proved time and again, MOD can't be trusted in this area.
You say..
But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to
I have no problem with that, indeed I would expect a thorough investigation to take a considerable amount of time. However, such a statement implies you believe that the investigation into the cause of the incident is quite probably not yet complete, in which case why are the aircraft flying again?
I have no issue with Airbus.
I have no issue with the basic A330 aircraft.
As I have already stated, I have issue with the (my words not theirs) "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" attitude of MOD. Simply because, as has been proved time and again, MOD can't be trusted in this area.
Back to the recent RAF Voyager serious incident, I gather that rumours* are now circulating about injured passengers taking legal action. Perhaps* that's why the Ministry of Truth is keeping schtum?
in which case why are the aircraft flying again?
" the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."
From the statement that the "likelihood of a repeat is negligible" I infer that technical fault had been ruled out. A single occurrence of a "negligible" technical fault causing the reported injuries would surely undermine the safety case to an extent which even DE&S couldn't miss. So, human factors? But if no proof, it suggests the crew aren't talking....
Doesn't say much for Spry's much-vaunted Just Culture if so....
Doesn't say much for Spry's much-vaunted Just Culture if so....
Air France 296 performed exactly how it should when operated as it was.
What more do you expect Airbus to say other than tested satis?
But then this is way off topic, so back to the Voyager.