Air Ambulance rescue (Now incl post by the Paramedic - 9/11)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volrider
BTW I have been given free advice by FL, his advice and support was absolutely invaluable.
Perhaps you should bear in mind that one day you may find yourself in a similar position!
BTW I have been given free advice by FL, his advice and support was absolutely invaluable.
Perhaps you should bear in mind that one day you may find yourself in a similar position!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
Thank you for your reply. However....
I mostly conceed the above but I will question why you think I would be exempt from a certain line of questioning.
Imagine the worst case scenario and there are fatalities. Yes you are correct, the Captain of the aircraft is fully responsible for the aircraft. Yes a CRM decision may have been made involving all those on board- albeit we are not crew and passangers as you rightly state.
Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? Surely I would be quizzed on my prime role as a Police officer...The protection of life? Me saying "well its not my fault I`m not the captain" is hardly a solid arguement is it?
Are you saying a barister would not challenge my role as a Police officer? I`m not saying I`d end up in the jailhouse but I`d be cannon fodder to your mob wouldn`t I?
HH
Thank you for your reply. However....
I don’t prosecute aviation cases but that aside, I don’t know why you think you’d be prosecuted. You're not a pilot and observers are legally passengers. CRM means an observer/passenger can stop a pilot from doing something, but not make a pilot do anything he considers too risky or unlawful. If something goes wrong, then depending upon the circumstances, the commander of the aircraft might be prosecuted - but not a passenger.
Imagine the worst case scenario and there are fatalities. Yes you are correct, the Captain of the aircraft is fully responsible for the aircraft. Yes a CRM decision may have been made involving all those on board- albeit we are not crew and passangers as you rightly state.
Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? Surely I would be quizzed on my prime role as a Police officer...The protection of life? Me saying "well its not my fault I`m not the captain" is hardly a solid arguement is it?
Are you saying a barister would not challenge my role as a Police officer? I`m not saying I`d end up in the jailhouse but I`d be cannon fodder to your mob wouldn`t I?
HH
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
I would like to think that IF there was no alternative, I would still put my own neck on the block if I thought it reasonable so to do. In truth, I have been in that situation a number of times (ex SAR and ex police). Only once did I refuse a request, a similar situation involving (inebrated) persons in the river by night, because there WAS a possible alternative, which subsequently worked without fault. The Fire Chief's proposed use of the helicopter in those particular circumstances would have endangered both the aircraft and the survivors. I took criticism for my decision afterwards but I KNOW I was correct.
However, is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?
I certainly hope not. If someone were prosecuted for the above it would surely cause an outcry from both within the emergency services and from the general public. (This compensation culture mentality has gone way too far IMHO).
"The expression of damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes strongly to mind.
However, is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?
I certainly hope not. If someone were prosecuted for the above it would surely cause an outcry from both within the emergency services and from the general public. (This compensation culture mentality has gone way too far IMHO).
"The expression of damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes strongly to mind.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque's post has prompted me to raise another question closely linked to this thread, that I have been chewing over.
As a matter of public policy, is the CAA's stance over this topic justifiable, logical and reasonable? My feeling is that it is none of these. We should not just accept this, and hope that I, as an individual, am not the poor sod that gets caught and used as an example.
Most will agree that if any operator requests/requires a crew to go out and do SAR work, as part of their planned and regular tasking, then they should be proviided with an appropriate helicopter/equipment/training/currency. But that is not what we are talking about.
We are considering the unusual, exceptional case. Where people are employed to look after public safety they can end up facing choices like these occasionally.
One or two analogies may help. Emergency services vehicles are routinely allowed to exceed the speed limit when on emergency calls - this decision accepts that the extra risk from going in excess of the limit is justified, because an earlier arrival at the scene may help save a life (or even catch a criminal). They are still liable to be prosecuted for dangerous/ careless driving, but that is proven on the facts of the case.
If a police officer attends a house fire, and is told there is someone trapped and the fire service will take some time, he may decide to enter the house and try and save the person. He is not required to by his employer, but he does. If the fire service could attend in time they would obviously be better equipped and trained to do this, but they are not there in time. No one is suggesting that he would be prosecuted by the HSE (the UK body that enforces work health and safety legislation) for putting his life at risk in order to try to save a life. If any action were taken, it would be to applaud him for his bravery (whether the rescue was successful or not).
So why do the CAA treat police aviation differently?
The situation we are considering:
Puts only the public employees at risk and not third party members of the public;
Only occurs where those put at risk agree to take part;
Is only done after a risk assessment using the available information and taking account of what is known.
I understand that the CAA routinely give exemptions to HEMS to allow them to carry out landings to sites where Cat A cannot be complied with, in order to attend a seriously injured casualty. This must put members of the public and the helicopter crew at some extra risk in the event of an untimely engine failure.
So they accept the case for exposing others to some extra risk to attempt to save a life in this situation. Why do they then make such a deliberate attempt to warn-off police pilots from doing the same sort of thing in the few exceptional cases we are considering?
Can anyone explain the difference to me?
As a matter of public policy, is the CAA's stance over this topic justifiable, logical and reasonable? My feeling is that it is none of these. We should not just accept this, and hope that I, as an individual, am not the poor sod that gets caught and used as an example.
Most will agree that if any operator requests/requires a crew to go out and do SAR work, as part of their planned and regular tasking, then they should be proviided with an appropriate helicopter/equipment/training/currency. But that is not what we are talking about.
We are considering the unusual, exceptional case. Where people are employed to look after public safety they can end up facing choices like these occasionally.
One or two analogies may help. Emergency services vehicles are routinely allowed to exceed the speed limit when on emergency calls - this decision accepts that the extra risk from going in excess of the limit is justified, because an earlier arrival at the scene may help save a life (or even catch a criminal). They are still liable to be prosecuted for dangerous/ careless driving, but that is proven on the facts of the case.
If a police officer attends a house fire, and is told there is someone trapped and the fire service will take some time, he may decide to enter the house and try and save the person. He is not required to by his employer, but he does. If the fire service could attend in time they would obviously be better equipped and trained to do this, but they are not there in time. No one is suggesting that he would be prosecuted by the HSE (the UK body that enforces work health and safety legislation) for putting his life at risk in order to try to save a life. If any action were taken, it would be to applaud him for his bravery (whether the rescue was successful or not).
So why do the CAA treat police aviation differently?
The situation we are considering:
Puts only the public employees at risk and not third party members of the public;
Only occurs where those put at risk agree to take part;
Is only done after a risk assessment using the available information and taking account of what is known.
I understand that the CAA routinely give exemptions to HEMS to allow them to carry out landings to sites where Cat A cannot be complied with, in order to attend a seriously injured casualty. This must put members of the public and the helicopter crew at some extra risk in the event of an untimely engine failure.
So they accept the case for exposing others to some extra risk to attempt to save a life in this situation. Why do they then make such a deliberate attempt to warn-off police pilots from doing the same sort of thing in the few exceptional cases we are considering?
Can anyone explain the difference to me?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Middle bit
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly hope not. If someone were prosecuted for the above it would surely cause an outcry from both within the emergency services and from the general public. (This compensation culture mentality has gone way too far IMHO).
Helinut...
Very well put and some excellent analogies. I think your view goes a long way to explain the angle I have been trying to come from. Thank you
HH
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
If you “mostly concede”; you’re almost there.
You say: ”I will question why you think I would be exempt from a certain line of questioning.”
I didn’t say anything about questioning. I responded to your suggestion that you might be prosecuted. You’ve shifted your ground.
"Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? "
It leaves you as a witness, no more. You'd be asked about the incident, and about any conversation with the pilot before, during and after the rescue.
No competent member of my 'mob' would suggest the ‘protection of life’ aspect of your job was relevant in this context. If an inexperienced barrister did so, then “I’m not the captain” would be quite a good answer but, to achieve full effect, you should add “I’m not even a pilot.” Then watch the barrister move swiftly on to another line of questioning.
I agree Helinut made very good points. How you can claim his view “goes a long way to explain the angle I have been trying to come from. is beyond me. Until the end of last week, the angle you’ve been coming from has been criticism of the Teesside crew for doing something which you perceived to be unsafe.
Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.
Helinut
Rule 5 (3) exempts aircraft from Rule 5 if it's necessary "for the purpose of saving life." However, the CAA distinguishes between saving a life in the aircraft and saving someone else's life. eg By rescuing them.
Although aviation laws are theoretically made by Parliament, in practice aviation law is made by the CAA and passed by Parliament 'on the nod' without any debate or consideration of the issues.
If you “mostly concede”; you’re almost there.
You say: ”I will question why you think I would be exempt from a certain line of questioning.”
I didn’t say anything about questioning. I responded to your suggestion that you might be prosecuted. You’ve shifted your ground.
"Where does that leave the Police officer in either the coroners court or criminal court? "
It leaves you as a witness, no more. You'd be asked about the incident, and about any conversation with the pilot before, during and after the rescue.
No competent member of my 'mob' would suggest the ‘protection of life’ aspect of your job was relevant in this context. If an inexperienced barrister did so, then “I’m not the captain” would be quite a good answer but, to achieve full effect, you should add “I’m not even a pilot.” Then watch the barrister move swiftly on to another line of questioning.
I agree Helinut made very good points. How you can claim his view “goes a long way to explain the angle I have been trying to come from. is beyond me. Until the end of last week, the angle you’ve been coming from has been criticism of the Teesside crew for doing something which you perceived to be unsafe.
Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.
Helinut
Rule 5 (3) exempts aircraft from Rule 5 if it's necessary "for the purpose of saving life." However, the CAA distinguishes between saving a life in the aircraft and saving someone else's life. eg By rescuing them.
Although aviation laws are theoretically made by Parliament, in practice aviation law is made by the CAA and passed by Parliament 'on the nod' without any debate or consideration of the issues.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
My reference to the exemption was to a specific exemption that I understand is given to HEMS operators by the CAA, rather than those within the articles of the ANO/Rules of the Air.
(This is only secondhand, cos it is not one of those areas I have yet worked in). Talking to HEMS pilots they go into a tight site with crew (sorry PAX but you know what I mean) in order to save the life of the casualty (on the basis of the info they have) and NOT Cat A. If they do not need to take the casualty out by HEMS, then in some types they then have to leave the site without any pax at all to get them below Cat A weights. As I understand this, it does hinge on whether or not a life external to the aircraft is (or is likely to be) saved. No doubt a PPRUNing HEMS pilot can advise?
I thought that your comment about the reality of law-making in aviation was rather telling. That was why I started my contribution with the question about public policy. The CAA normally get away with their regulation attempts not being put under any significant scrutiny at all. As with any similar situation, this can lead to poor quality decisions. They can hide behind the public support for aviation safety being thought of as purely in connection with airlines.
From time to time on PPRUNE, people talk about police work being done under military rules. I personally think this unlikely to be acceptable politically and not necessary. However, I would like to see the concept of the state helicopter introduced as a special type - the connection between what police (and other public service) ops do and public transport is a bit tenuous, especially if the regulator is less than risk numerate, and unwilling to look at the wider context.
A couple of other minor points:
In all this, I have been very disappointed in the activity (i.e. none detectable) by police forces and the apparent agreement or acquiescence to this approach by the Home Office. Or maybe this is just another example of UK law enforcement policy, where those trying to keep people safe have their hands tied?
TC summarised my understanding of the CAA's position and how it was transmitted very accurately (i.e. informally and largely verbally). As I understand it, there is no generally available document that records this position so that those of us under threat from it can consult it. The PAOM itself has certainly had some changes concerning rescues, but it remains an ambiguous document. The least a regulator shoud do is write down its policy clearly and equivocally.
And surely what the CAA means to say in its regulations is not really the point. It is what the words say in the regulation that matters legally (isn't it?)
My reference to the exemption was to a specific exemption that I understand is given to HEMS operators by the CAA, rather than those within the articles of the ANO/Rules of the Air.
(This is only secondhand, cos it is not one of those areas I have yet worked in). Talking to HEMS pilots they go into a tight site with crew (sorry PAX but you know what I mean) in order to save the life of the casualty (on the basis of the info they have) and NOT Cat A. If they do not need to take the casualty out by HEMS, then in some types they then have to leave the site without any pax at all to get them below Cat A weights. As I understand this, it does hinge on whether or not a life external to the aircraft is (or is likely to be) saved. No doubt a PPRUNing HEMS pilot can advise?
I thought that your comment about the reality of law-making in aviation was rather telling. That was why I started my contribution with the question about public policy. The CAA normally get away with their regulation attempts not being put under any significant scrutiny at all. As with any similar situation, this can lead to poor quality decisions. They can hide behind the public support for aviation safety being thought of as purely in connection with airlines.
From time to time on PPRUNE, people talk about police work being done under military rules. I personally think this unlikely to be acceptable politically and not necessary. However, I would like to see the concept of the state helicopter introduced as a special type - the connection between what police (and other public service) ops do and public transport is a bit tenuous, especially if the regulator is less than risk numerate, and unwilling to look at the wider context.
A couple of other minor points:
In all this, I have been very disappointed in the activity (i.e. none detectable) by police forces and the apparent agreement or acquiescence to this approach by the Home Office. Or maybe this is just another example of UK law enforcement policy, where those trying to keep people safe have their hands tied?
TC summarised my understanding of the CAA's position and how it was transmitted very accurately (i.e. informally and largely verbally). As I understand it, there is no generally available document that records this position so that those of us under threat from it can consult it. The PAOM itself has certainly had some changes concerning rescues, but it remains an ambiguous document. The least a regulator shoud do is write down its policy clearly and equivocally.
And surely what the CAA means to say in its regulations is not really the point. It is what the words say in the regulation that matters legally (isn't it?)
Last edited by Helinut; 15th Nov 2004 at 21:56.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
FL,
<Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.>
It was a rhetorical question - I would have fallen in the river if you had said "yes"...
<Shy Torque
”Is it a criminal offence for a reasonable person acting for the emergency services to attempt to save life but to fail because an aircraft suffered a mechanical failure?”
No.>
It was a rhetorical question - I would have fallen in the river if you had said "yes"...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque,
It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want. If FL is reassuring us that it is NOT, then we are safe to assume that the CAA are bluffing. They haven't taken a case yet............... yet alone won it! But do you want to risk your licence and livelihood?
It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want. If FL is reassuring us that it is NOT, then we are safe to assume that the CAA are bluffing. They haven't taken a case yet............... yet alone won it! But do you want to risk your licence and livelihood?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case there's any misunderstanding -
I assumed Shy Torque meant the rescue attempt was legal and failed because the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure. In those circumstances, there would be no criminal offence.
If an attempt itself is illegal for some reason, then there's a risk of the pilot being prosecuted regardless of whether it is successful, or there's a mechanical failure, or a crash.
So far, the CAA has taken a sensible line over 'rescue' cases but, as you say, there's a lot of talk about that changing.
Given sufficient facts, I can say whether something is or is not an offence and, in a 'borderline' case, express an opinion upon whether it might be. However, if an offence is committed, I can't give any reassurance that the CAA won't prosecute. I hope the new 'tough' approach won't extend to pilots in 'rescue' cases being prosecuted simply for infringing the regs, but only time will tell. The CAA has a very strange attitude towards prosecution, often prosecuting pilots for minor infringements (easy targets) while apparently doing little or nothing to catch and prosecute operators who are well-known in the industry to be cowboys.
Helinut
You're right that it's the words of the regulation that matter in law, not what the CAA intended it to mean.
The exemption "for the purpose of saving life" in Rule 5 is a good example. Not surprisingly, most people read that to mean 'saving life', but the CAA claimed it was meant to refer to a life-threatening emergency involving the aircraft, not to 'rescue' cases.
The CAA must have realised the wording of the exemption was ambiguous because I'm almost certain (no time to check at the moment) they've removed the exemption from the new Rule 5, leaving the law as set out currently in Article 84 of the ANO under which a pilot may depart from the Rules of the Air "for avoiding immediate danger". ie Rescuing someone whose life was in immediate danger woud be no defence to a breach of the regs.
I agree that treating HEMS work as a branch of public transport creates difficulties but, if I recall correctly, it was the Home Office which wanted it run to full public transport requirements, with some exemptions from the normal rules for operational necessity.
Tudor Owen
I assumed Shy Torque meant the rescue attempt was legal and failed because the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure. In those circumstances, there would be no criminal offence.
If an attempt itself is illegal for some reason, then there's a risk of the pilot being prosecuted regardless of whether it is successful, or there's a mechanical failure, or a crash.
So far, the CAA has taken a sensible line over 'rescue' cases but, as you say, there's a lot of talk about that changing.
Given sufficient facts, I can say whether something is or is not an offence and, in a 'borderline' case, express an opinion upon whether it might be. However, if an offence is committed, I can't give any reassurance that the CAA won't prosecute. I hope the new 'tough' approach won't extend to pilots in 'rescue' cases being prosecuted simply for infringing the regs, but only time will tell. The CAA has a very strange attitude towards prosecution, often prosecuting pilots for minor infringements (easy targets) while apparently doing little or nothing to catch and prosecute operators who are well-known in the industry to be cowboys.
Helinut
You're right that it's the words of the regulation that matter in law, not what the CAA intended it to mean.
The exemption "for the purpose of saving life" in Rule 5 is a good example. Not surprisingly, most people read that to mean 'saving life', but the CAA claimed it was meant to refer to a life-threatening emergency involving the aircraft, not to 'rescue' cases.
The CAA must have realised the wording of the exemption was ambiguous because I'm almost certain (no time to check at the moment) they've removed the exemption from the new Rule 5, leaving the law as set out currently in Article 84 of the ANO under which a pilot may depart from the Rules of the Air "for avoiding immediate danger". ie Rescuing someone whose life was in immediate danger woud be no defence to a breach of the regs.
I agree that treating HEMS work as a branch of public transport creates difficulties but, if I recall correctly, it was the Home Office which wanted it run to full public transport requirements, with some exemptions from the normal rules for operational necessity.
Tudor Owen
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
Helinut asked:
"It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want".
Yes, that's what I have a major gripe about and that's what I meant when I said: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't".
I would say that this is one case where the law (at least as far as the CAA see it) is definitely an ass, both morally and logically wrong. However, there might well be a test case one day and then we'll see.
What is the difference between this and a situation where DVLA prosecuted an ambulance driver for using his ambulance to rescue someone? Not a lot, IMHO. Many of us will remember the ridiculous situation a year ago when a professional ambulance driver was caught exceeding the speed limit in Lincolnshire and the police decided to prosecute him. The adverse publicity and public outcry eventually resulted in the case being dropped, and quite rightly so. Presumably someone in the CPS saw common sense and decided it was not in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
This silliness is a perverse product of the compensation culture - the CAA seemingly want to to "fall in line " with so called political correctness, even if it means that someone may actually lose their life because of it. Are the CAA really worried that we might suddenly have the air full of "have-a-go-heroes" in R-22s at every RTA? I sincerely doubt that would happen.
Bring back the days of the brave and the free
- perhaps it's time I gave it all up and went collecting trolleys at Tescos.
"It may have been intended as a rhetorical question but isn't the point that the CAA are trying to tell us that such actions ARE a criminal offence, whch they can prosecute one of us for, when they want".
Yes, that's what I have a major gripe about and that's what I meant when I said: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't".
I would say that this is one case where the law (at least as far as the CAA see it) is definitely an ass, both morally and logically wrong. However, there might well be a test case one day and then we'll see.
What is the difference between this and a situation where DVLA prosecuted an ambulance driver for using his ambulance to rescue someone? Not a lot, IMHO. Many of us will remember the ridiculous situation a year ago when a professional ambulance driver was caught exceeding the speed limit in Lincolnshire and the police decided to prosecute him. The adverse publicity and public outcry eventually resulted in the case being dropped, and quite rightly so. Presumably someone in the CPS saw common sense and decided it was not in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
This silliness is a perverse product of the compensation culture - the CAA seemingly want to to "fall in line " with so called political correctness, even if it means that someone may actually lose their life because of it. Are the CAA really worried that we might suddenly have the air full of "have-a-go-heroes" in R-22s at every RTA? I sincerely doubt that would happen.
Bring back the days of the brave and the free
- perhaps it's time I gave it all up and went collecting trolleys at Tescos.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unit's Flight Ops Inspector visited a few days after the rescue, spoke to the crew, investigated the circumstances etc.
As I understand it (unconfirmed), that seems to be the end of that matter.
If the CAA did find some breach of the regs and decided to prosecute, I hope the public outrage would be the same as when that policeman decided to book the speeding ambulance driver.
The CAA has always taken a sensible approach to rescue cases in the past. Let's hope that isn't lost entirely under the forecast new tougher regime. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
As I understand it (unconfirmed), that seems to be the end of that matter.
If the CAA did find some breach of the regs and decided to prosecute, I hope the public outrage would be the same as when that policeman decided to book the speeding ambulance driver.
The CAA has always taken a sensible approach to rescue cases in the past. Let's hope that isn't lost entirely under the forecast new tougher regime. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA has always taken a sensible approach to rescue cases in the past. Let's hope that isn't lost entirely under the forecast new tougher regime. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I'm sure you've all seen it but here it is anyway.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...96#post1617896
I wonder if FL will offer his services to the Audi driver in this case.
Nobody has yet told us about 'our' Audi and how long it was before it was washed away, if indeed it ever did.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...96#post1617896
I wonder if FL will offer his services to the Audi driver in this case.
Nobody has yet told us about 'our' Audi and how long it was before it was washed away, if indeed it ever did.
Siloe, you still worried about the Audi? Got your eye on the big issues? Did it wash away? Surely there are some witty pics for us? Or more interesting (though undefended) statistics for us?
I am wondering where all the debaters have gone given the Spanish accident here:
Winch accident
Volrider. TC. Ous es tu?
Interesting that this well thought out flood rescue can produce so many pages of arguement, yet an accident that we can all learn from gathers silence. Is it our need to thrash one another for no apparent gain? Or to personify arguement rather than gain knowledge from our disagreements? Bueller?
I am wondering where all the debaters have gone given the Spanish accident here:
Winch accident
Volrider. TC. Ous es tu?
Interesting that this well thought out flood rescue can produce so many pages of arguement, yet an accident that we can all learn from gathers silence. Is it our need to thrash one another for no apparent gain? Or to personify arguement rather than gain knowledge from our disagreements? Bueller?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pelmetfire I will raise to your bait as I am trying to sit at home bored...another story you don't wanna hear
Anyway nice to see your back with the living the article you mentioned, yes seen that and it just goes along way to prove some interesting points made on this thread....
Still watchin the John Wayne movies? funny thing is you know mate thats all make believe the real world doesn't have a director with a clapper board shouting "cut do that one again" You get one chance in this life and thats why you train, train and then train again just in case it don't work out.....
As shown in that video it is awful to watch and something that "witty pics" as you ask for are not required.
I am unsure of your motives by trying to use that to cause a debate??
odd man... try some family movies over the festive period and keep away from Playstation2
Anyway nice to see your back with the living the article you mentioned, yes seen that and it just goes along way to prove some interesting points made on this thread....
Still watchin the John Wayne movies? funny thing is you know mate thats all make believe the real world doesn't have a director with a clapper board shouting "cut do that one again" You get one chance in this life and thats why you train, train and then train again just in case it don't work out.....
As shown in that video it is awful to watch and something that "witty pics" as you ask for are not required.
I am unsure of your motives by trying to use that to cause a debate??
odd man... try some family movies over the festive period and keep away from Playstation2
Is it our need to thrash one another for no apparent gain? Or to personify arguement rather than gain knowledge from our disagreements?
