Geordie_Expat

I'm going to start with you and spell it out so you go away very clear.

1st I have not said, implied or inferred that the Hillsborough shenanigans or the BLiar scandal had anything to do with Shoreham, did I ? You've implied something that clearly wasn't there in a sad and failed attempt at being clever.

2nd ALL my points are valid Geordie. Do you understand? It's ALL political, whether that be the Govenmint direct or any associated offshoot spending money that derived from the taxpayer.

The point being made is that instead of further wasting any more money looking for scapegoat/s arriving around a ACCIDENT. Use the money to better goods for prosecution elsewhere where IT IS warranted.



The Old Fat Deaf One,

Is there any part of that you still don't understand?




Cows getting bigger,

No, it doesn't make it right. Some things in life just isn't right, is it, but as I said **** happens. If we're not careful all air displays will be in the desert and we'll be subscribing to watch them by TV from our homes at this rate.

It is not a political issue. Don't try and make it so. The pathetic political references are totally out of place in this thread. If you can't see that then there isn't much else I can say.

Anyone else spotted the timing of post #1252?

Enlighten us.

BTW how's the ticker?

Correct, that is the one thing that is different, attending an air show and purchasing a ticket you are in effect signing up to an agreement that you attend at your own risk and are aware of the dangers and possibility you could be harmed. The difference here was those involved did not sign up to those terms and conditions and were not attending the show, but were going about their daily business.



As an example from Cosfords Airshow site.

http://www.cosfordairshow.co.uk/tickets.php


Terms and Conditions

Matter of interest, where does it stand for something like Bournemouth, where there are no tickets?

If you're not purchasing something or registering for it, then you cannot enter such a contract.

Does your mere presence at the beach count, or is no contract/agreement in place, implied or otherwise.

Jetblu, I admit I am hard of hearing and now it seems I am hard of understanding too.

If I do understand what you wrote at 1252 , then it is drivel. If I don't, what are you trying to say?

PN ... you are probably wasting your time ... his hangover will still be his main concern.

It's a shame that keyboards don't have a built in intoximeter that you have to pass before pressing "enter", would save a lot of embarrassing posts.

If my assumption that this was an alcohol fuelled rant is incorrect, then the guy needs some serious help IMHO

:(

Does Cosford really include a clause that absolves themselves from negligence?

Such a clause would be unlawful.

:confused:

Terms and Conditions for this year's Silverstone Grand Prix state: -

16. MOTOR RACING IS DANGEROUS AND NOISY AND TICKET HOLDERS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY MAY BE EXPOSED TO POSSIBLE RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE EVENT. SCL, THE SANCTIONING BODIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FOWC, FORMULA ONE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FIA, FORMULA ONE MARKETING LIMITED, FORMULA ONE HOSPITALITY AND EVENT SERVICES LIMITED, FORMULA ONE ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FORMULA ONE LICENSING BV, THE ORGANISERS OF THE EVENT (INCLUDING OFFICIALS, MARSHALS, RESCUE MEDICAL STAFF), COMPETITORS AND DRIVERS, ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE HOWSOEVER CAUSED TO TICKET HOLDERS, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. - See more at: 2016 British Grand Prix Terms and Conditions | Silverstone

My surprise was specific to the unlawful clause quoted, as you cannot evade or exclude negligence under any contract - be it scribbled on the back of a ticket or embellished on parchment in blood, countersigned by the Secretary Of State (preferably using his blood).

Thats why it say "to the maximum extent permitted by law". Obviously unlawful acts and negligence could not be covered by the conditions,

Llamafarmer,

I checked the Bournemouth show site and there isn't any conditions, I assume it's because the display is over the water. I presume the council cover it through their insurers.

Terms and conditions for Glastonbury.... Seems to be a common theme

It seems to me that there is more sense in this post than in whole pages that preceed or follow it.

I do disagree with Ac's statement that "this is all about a pilot" merely as being a tiny bit too definite - infitessimally too definite; one seemingly has to add disclaimers to statements of the obvious posted here that just might under the most extremes of chance have another cause against all normal judgement and experience.And this is one of them.

There is a persistent hypocrisy on this forum that while it is OK to admit that while members of our elite brotherhood are theoretically capable of screwing up it is beyond the pale to suggest that one actually has done so even when all the signs are that is exactly what happened. That is neither honest nor very helpful in recognising what may have occurred.

Our society is appallingly bad at assessing risk and proportion and pilots are no exception though one might hope they should be. While I don't decry the proper investigative process we delude ourselves by slagging off the free thinkers who see a duck, hear a duck, recognise a duck's flight and reach an unpopular logical conclusion.
As Ac said this happens repeatedly, vide the suicide in the Alps last year when even after all the circumstantial evidence had been stacked up the febrile debate over the most unlikely mechanical causes continued to the exclusion of the obvious answer as it was felt one of out brethren could not possibly have done such an unthinkable thing. This simply isn't a rational, mature or very professional approach to reality.

We'll never know what made that Chinook hit the Mull of Kintyre but we can be as certain as we can be that it was just another cumulo granitus and not with a mechanical cause just as we know that the Clutha Bar accident was caused by running out of fuel in flight and failing to establish autorotation. Why? How? We'll never know, but it was, ultimately, down to one of our colleagues getting it wrong. Sure, there may have been some million to one chance of something quite unexpected, unseen and unrecorded happened and though statistically the extremists and zealots can rely on this to claim "no proof" ir simply isn't a very rational practical position to take. There may well have been - doubtless were - extraneous events that led them into it, but they apparently didn't make them do it, thus get it wrong they did.

Let's show a bit of humility and be a bit more open minded about our so well proven frailty shall we? We'd probably learn more faster if we did...


I'll get my coat. :|

Therein lies the problem with this and all the similar threads: people that read posts and see what they want to see without understanding what has been said.

I'm not about to re-read this whole thread nor any of the related ones right now, but I will tell you this. I do not recall anyone ever saying that this accident was not caused by the pilot, be it pilot error or other human factors. I suspect I have been one of the most vocal (in the written sense) on this subject so I shall explain.

What a number of pilots here have been saying is that it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that it was the pilot's fault (frequently based on just some photographs and a couple of videos) without knowing that there are no other possible causes. Especially as those opinions are being published on a public forum.

It is perfectly proper for the AAIB or any other qualified body to state that the pilot has "screwed up", to use your terms, when "all the signs are that is exactly what happened." What I and some others are saying is that we have not yet seen "all the signs" and we do not, therefore know what did or did not happen to cause the crash.

What is to be gained by jumping to uninformed conclusions, based on an incomplete picture, instead of waiting for the complete picture? It is neither professional nor just and it is libellous.

So, to be clear, contrary to your position, I haven't seen anyone here say it was not pilot error. I have seen plenty express their conclusion that it was. I and some others have said that until the results of the full examination are known, no one can say what the cause was. To use your words, no one has said that "it is beyond the pale to suggest that one actually has done so even when all the signs are that is exactly what happened". We have said that it is inappropriate to suggest that as a known cause, when the cause has not yet been determined.

But armchair experts will always want their say - for whatever reason.

Thanks, CM, you just saved me about 7 paragraphs!

Wageslave,

If I may give you an example of why 'blame without the full picture' is a bad idea;

About 2 years ago I slammed my knackered old GM truck, (well when I say slammed I was doing about 10mph) into my neighbours tree, fence and then their daughters Jeep. Everyone assumed, despite my protestations, that I was going too fast (I wasn't). It turned out that the ignition switch had failed and put the steering lock on, cut the servo to the brakes and left the engine in drive!! (Google GM ignition switch scandal)

I was lucky, several people died due to the switch failure. My point is that many people were blamed for accidents caused by "Driver error" when the car had actually failed them.

Until all the facts are known, I will withhold my judgement on the Shoreham accident. A wise man would do the same.

PS. I have screwed up in jets many times!!!

In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle;

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

In this depressing world of instant, but meaningless, news and immediate gratification, it is inconvenient to think that a professional inquiry may take some time to "eliminate the impossible". As we are on the Military forum, I can only suggest that those demanding cable TV's version of instant justice should perhaps serve on a Board of Inquiry or two (or SI now I believe) before professing to know what needs to be investigated or not.

tucumseh

I'd like to see the evidence you have that leads you to make such disparaging remarks about the engineering member of a BoI or SI. In my experience, admittedly at least 20 years out of date, the convening authority is very careful about the experience and qualifications of those it appoints to a board. Furthermore, while the president is clearly in charge of proceedings, every board member is of equal status as far as the findings are concerned. This is evidenced by the fact that all of them sign as agreeing the findings and recommendations. To imply that anyone on a board is directed as to the findings is calumny.