flying lawyer - would comment on here come under here say and be ignored?

what would it take to become subjudacy?

Air sound, thank you, deleted.

I know I was slung in the deep end. The only written advice had been that by Mike Retallick based on his running the St Mawgan air show. Our second attempt was fortunately aborted thanks to Saddam Hussein.

One hopes you are not questioning the integrity or motives of 'Flying Lawyer', as you would be far off the mark.

," no, most jurors don't have time to read up on a case in advance"

My God - if the judge finds out you know anything about the case before it starts you won't be on the jury at all - and if you read about it during the trial you'll be jailed - it's happened a few times in 2015 when people have gone home at night and Googled the case and then spouted off in the Jury room......

Post Southport Debrief
 

I would be interested to learn of what was indeed said or actioned by the DD after that JP display - as soon as I saw no 'nose up' I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach - and I have not flown JPs since the late 80s!

Is a summary of 'excursions' displayed on a Pigs Board at the end-of-season wash-up or is it quietly brushed under the table?

Who monitors the DD who is monitoring/authorising the airshow routine on the day?
From my airshow experience, the DD/CAA relationship has been a 'cosy' arrangement which I think is also being reviewed.

Experts and fairness seem to be common themes here and all in the context of whom?

There are very many here who express derision upon those pilots who might hold a different view because they dare to post in a particular part of the forum. Yet we know that accidents are no respecters of either the time or type of flying a pilot has done in the past, in fact this accident is a case in point.

Specifically regarding this forum/thread blame the person Above the Clouds for starting it, blame the owners or administrators of the site for allowing the "wrong" person to subsequently post, register or view particular elements - but of course that isn't going to stop some else, somewhere else.

Back to experts and fairness. Sometimes these experts wish to confuse the non-experts of what they are seeing. Wish to suggest that things that look dodgy are actually normal, if only you really knew what you were looking at....

In the fullness of time things will be as clear as they are going to be, even if that is a "we don't really know". I hope the pilot in this particular case is left alone to get on with his life in peace because his burden is already more than it should be. No doubt that is equally so for the victims.

Yet for the victims I don't know how you square these two recent posts:

So at what point do the expert elements within PPRuNe speak up or speak out against dodgy practice? Do they never speak up? Only speak up to other they consider also to be as expert? Isn't this perhaps why this type of event happens?

As for anonymity isn't that exactly what is afforded to those "experts" who have perhaps failed not only the victims, included in that is the pilot himself.

What about if these conclusions that might turn out to be right aren't dealt with in the official AAIB report? Does that mean they are less right??

Of course there is also the review of aircraft display rules and regulation, should that wait for fear of allowing any conclusions to be drawn on current gaps?

Probably the latter and in private.

Indeed, PN.

When they know all the facts that facilitate a balanced judgement. Are you addressing your question to PPRuNe members in general or members of the Mil AV forum? The difference between the two is something I've been considering at length today.

The vast majority of military and ex-mil aircrew here understand that it takes time to uncover and understand the facts pertaining to any accident or incident. They understand that jumping to conclusions before being in possession of all the facts either leads to incorrect conclusions or leads to missing vital facts that could have contributed to future safe operations. They also understand the importance of not apportioning blame to individuals unless that can be done without reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, we see here a number of civilian pilots, many involved in the recreational flying world that want answer now and, lacking that, feel they are capable of providing their own. Now, just who wears the recreational flyer's hat cannot be determined due to a massive reluctance of PPRuNe members to declare their credentials. That, of course, is their choice.

When the facts are known, you can rest assured that the "expert elements" as you call them, will speak out without restraint - maybe not just here, maybe not even here; this, after all, is not where the improvement of flight safety is achieved and they owe no explanations to the chattering masses in that respect - that is the role of others. They will voice their considered opinions in a professional way.

"More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum."

Call me old fashioned, but personally I wouldn't attach any weight to anything posted anonymously on any internet forum.

Dave U, far too categorical. Here yes maybe, but there are many instances where the internet can be the definitive source - anti-government spin for instance.

I could not agree with you more, Dave. Sadly, not everyone is as sensible or discerning about their sources of knowledge.

Just shows you have a functioning braincell .. unlike many of those who firmly believe that "if its on the Internet it must be true" :(

I've learnt a great deal from some of the PPRuNe forums over the years.

If you read a forum regularly, as I do this one, it isn't difficult to separate the wheat from the Walts, nor to spot people with a chip.

".....but there are many instances where the internet can be the definitive source..."
Good luck with that PN. I can never remember if it was Albert Einstein or Abraham Lincoln who is often quoted as saying "never believe anything you read on the internet." And that holds doubly true for anonymous posts in forums.

But then you presume on anonymous.

Gainsey, RIP, pegged me by name based on booth content and style. We never npmet but we knew each other. BEagle and I have never met but we also know each other. This forum is not really populated by anonymous regulars.

..........and then there are those who didn't measure up, but are just genuinely interested in what you gents got up to.

MD

Good point, well made PN. The point I was trying to make was that I wouldn't attach any weight to any comment made anonymously (in the true sense) on an internet forum. Of course I can work out who FL is, for example, and would treat a post by him with all due respect. But a truly anonymous one? I don't think so.
(BTW, Was the 'chip' comment aimed at me FL?)

MD, then there are intelligent observers.

You make good point, Dave. We see plenty of people here that do use their anonymity to get away with all sorts of crap. Whilst I fully agree with PN's point, to the casual observer the real identity of regulars here is not always immediately obvious to the casual visitor and many people reinforce their mystique by keeping their profile blank.

When I read posts here by people I don't know I always glance at their profile to see who I'm reading - more often than not, nothing. So I assume they have no relevant credentials and weigh my opinion of their post accordingly.

Some members here are right to remain anonymous; serving military especially. I certainly used a less well known user name before I retired and did not include my real name as I do now. I remain suspicious of those here that I do not know if they disguise themselves for no apparent good reason other being able to post anything they want whilst hiding behind anonymity.

Sadly, of the thousands of people that visit this forum for various reasons, not all of them are that discerning or do not understand enough about the subject matter to make an informed judgement.

DU, quite, your location alone lends you some credibility.