Sentenced for endangering helicopter - UK
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAFO, Living where I do I am very well aware of the low-level mil helicopter activity - and the reasons for it.
I asked a straightforward question that crab kindly answered.
If I had land suitable for that kind of training, and that low-level training didn't affect anything that took place on that land, I'd have no objections at all.
I take exception to your statement that a. I'm not a pilot and shouldn't dare post here, and b. That I am pouring scorn on anybody. I don't agree with the opinions of those that you have lumped me in with.
I asked a straightforward question that crab kindly answered.
If I had land suitable for that kind of training, and that low-level training didn't affect anything that took place on that land, I'd have no objections at all.
I take exception to your statement that a. I'm not a pilot and shouldn't dare post here, and b. That I am pouring scorn on anybody. I don't agree with the opinions of those that you have lumped me in with.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hands_on123
The gamekeeper was convicted by 12 members of the public selected at random.
Which particular law(s) do you have in mind? 
So they shouldn't complain if civilians endanger them while they are training? 
FL
State power will always win.
The trouble is the military think they are above the law.
"these people are risking their lives daily for people like you"
True, but that is what they signed up for the military to do. They were not conscripted.
True, but that is what they signed up for the military to do. They were not conscripted.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Sep 2011 at 13:00.
TRC
I didn't say that you should not post here if you weren't a pilot, perhaps I explained myself very poorly.
I clearly misinterpreted your original post and had assumed that you felt the same as the others I mentioned, seeing malice where there clearly was none; for that I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise.
I didn't say that you should not post here if you weren't a pilot, perhaps I explained myself very poorly.
I clearly misinterpreted your original post and had assumed that you felt the same as the others I mentioned, seeing malice where there clearly was none; for that I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise.
The only joke, simondlh, is that these people are risking their lives daily for people like you, TRC, 206 jock et al in order to be scorned on what is supposedly a professional pilot's forum.
You can come down off your high horse now. The air is a bit too thin up there, obviously.
206 Jock.
To quote you original post:
<<<Err, no. He would have got a very nice, long but clearly de-personalised letter that essentially says "we appreciate that you don't like us doing low level military flying, but tough ****. We're going to carry on anyway.">>>
If that is your idea of fact rather than opinion then i think we must have rather different dictionaries!
OH
To quote you original post:
<<<Err, no. He would have got a very nice, long but clearly de-personalised letter that essentially says "we appreciate that you don't like us doing low level military flying, but tough ****. We're going to carry on anyway.">>>
If that is your idea of fact rather than opinion then i think we must have rather different dictionaries!
OH
My dictionary agrees with OvertHawk's so I'll stay up here on my horse for a little longer.
My point about it being a professional pilot's forum was that I felt it likely that the people here would understand the demands placed on the crew of the helicopter; not that anyone who didn't earn their money that way wasn't worthy to post. Rather along the lines of Flying Lawyers:
I'm sorry if I failed to make that sufficiently clear in my initial post.
My point about it being a professional pilot's forum was that I felt it likely that the people here would understand the demands placed on the crew of the helicopter; not that anyone who didn't earn their money that way wasn't worthy to post. Rather along the lines of Flying Lawyers:
I realise some posters may not be helicopter pilots but, given that this is a helicopter pilots forum, some of the comments in this thread are extraordinary.
Low flying may need to be practiced [sic], but FIVE feet???? Is it not just a ittle [little?] surprising this highly trained military pilot could not see said gamekeeper in his vehicle. [?] Can a Squirrel not out manoeuvre a [sic] eatern [sic] european [sic] car? If not, they do indeed need more training.
I thought there were places such as Salisbury Plain where the public were excluded specifically to make these exercises safe. Why do they need to do this on someone's land. [?]
If indeed the gamekeeper were [sic] trying to rear birds is it any surprise he lost his rag? What he did was inexcusable, but if I were in charge of PR and the MOD I would not be happy.
I thought there were places such as Salisbury Plain where the public were excluded specifically to make these exercises safe. Why do they need to do this on someone's land. [?]
If indeed the gamekeeper were [sic] trying to rear birds is it any surprise he lost his rag? What he did was inexcusable, but if I were in charge of PR and the MOD I would not be happy.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: no where
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAFO, you have my unreserved support 
Back to the point, a driver of a vehicle deliberately drives at an airborne helicopter. What part of this scenario is the pilots fault? Addressed to any of the bigoted anti military here....if there are any of course.
Back to the point, a driver of a vehicle deliberately drives at an airborne helicopter. What part of this scenario is the pilots fault? Addressed to any of the bigoted anti military here....if there are any of course.
DFD, for one so young in years you seem so wise. Thank you.
I have been having great difficulty seeing how two people legally carrying out their duty were in some way more to blame for an incident than a person who acted dangerously and illegally and was found guilty of the same by 12 of his peers. So, I too, am looking forward to the answers to your post.
I have been having great difficulty seeing how two people legally carrying out their duty were in some way more to blame for an incident than a person who acted dangerously and illegally and was found guilty of the same by 12 of his peers. So, I too, am looking forward to the answers to your post.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to second-guess the UK court is rather pointless.
Gamekeeper was charged with a specific offence of endangering
Gamekeeper was convicted of said offence
Whether an individual (pilot, owner, armchair games enthusiast) considers this to be "right" is not relevant; it is right, see the above.
If you don't accept this line of logic to hold true, then there is always the risk that in some circumstances you may put your judgement of "what ought to be right" into practice and not what the law says - just like this gamekeeper, who no doubt felt completely in the in-the-right about his actions right up until the time a couple of PCs knocked on the door.
Gamekeeper was charged with a specific offence of endangering
Gamekeeper was convicted of said offence
Whether an individual (pilot, owner, armchair games enthusiast) considers this to be "right" is not relevant; it is right, see the above.
If you don't accept this line of logic to hold true, then there is always the risk that in some circumstances you may put your judgement of "what ought to be right" into practice and not what the law says - just like this gamekeeper, who no doubt felt completely in the in-the-right about his actions right up until the time a couple of PCs knocked on the door.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
