Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
NS
It may also be necessary to give ATC the power to refuse clearance if the data available to them indicates that those minima cannot be met.
It may also be necessary to give ATC the power to refuse clearance if the data available to them indicates that those minima cannot be met.
No, the responsibility for adhering to flight rules, absolute minima and aerodrome operating minima is, and should be the Pilots. ATC don't have the specific knowledge of aircraft performance/ avionics specifications and fit and crew qualifications to make that determination, or the time to ask for them.
If you looked at a remote weather station, (ignoring who pays for it and its upkeep), as being a wx feed as has been suggested, what do you do if the kit is unservicable, close the airspace?
If a controller is aware of a event that likely contravenes legislation/safety they still have a duty to report it, but not 'police it' at the time of the event.
Quote: stuckgear
"i wouldn't consider the very object projecting into the air, adjacent to a heli route, that the craft impacted with, a red herring."
But even so, if you could see the building clearly would you go anywhere near it (the crane) and therefore being aware of the building (which is more visible) should have been enough. Sure it's better to see the crane as well.
Someone mentioned the original NOTAM was Lat/Long not centered on actual crane - is that a fact or a conversion error between decimal and ye old DMS?
Also, staying 1000' above something;
a) requires you to know it's there IF you cant see it
b) is impractical for landing - by it's very nature you need to get close to the ground!
If you can get an IFR transit just by asking (and you are qualified and have a SPIFR aircraft) then it's not obvious why you would fly VFR/SVFR as that appears not to be an option. Is it "practical" to descend through cloud on an IFR clearance (in London specifically) then land at Battersea?? Thats a genuine not rhetorical question!
BUT the real question underlying is .... you are on top with good/ok viz and you elect to land (for whatever reason) - obviously there were breaks in the cloud to report sighting the bridge, but would you get a clearance to come into Battersea IFR ? Is that supported ?
If so, then in my mind the most important factor is knowing where you are in relation to obstructions and therefore the charts and maps and stuff kick into play, if you MUST be VFR (clear of cloud and in sight of the surface) then I don't see how it's going to work if you must descend through cloud/fog.
Anyone that's ever come into Battersea IFR ?
I don't remember any IFR approach information on the AIP.
EDIT - I don't see how ATC can be the eyes of the pilot and make flight by flight judgements but I do see that there can be a minima that gets enforced over London and it's X criteria for this type of transit (for example you won't get a LHR crossing in bad weather/poor viz or high controller workload).
"i wouldn't consider the very object projecting into the air, adjacent to a heli route, that the craft impacted with, a red herring."
But even so, if you could see the building clearly would you go anywhere near it (the crane) and therefore being aware of the building (which is more visible) should have been enough. Sure it's better to see the crane as well.
Someone mentioned the original NOTAM was Lat/Long not centered on actual crane - is that a fact or a conversion error between decimal and ye old DMS?
Also, staying 1000' above something;
a) requires you to know it's there IF you cant see it
b) is impractical for landing - by it's very nature you need to get close to the ground!
If you can get an IFR transit just by asking (and you are qualified and have a SPIFR aircraft) then it's not obvious why you would fly VFR/SVFR as that appears not to be an option. Is it "practical" to descend through cloud on an IFR clearance (in London specifically) then land at Battersea?? Thats a genuine not rhetorical question!
BUT the real question underlying is .... you are on top with good/ok viz and you elect to land (for whatever reason) - obviously there were breaks in the cloud to report sighting the bridge, but would you get a clearance to come into Battersea IFR ? Is that supported ?
If so, then in my mind the most important factor is knowing where you are in relation to obstructions and therefore the charts and maps and stuff kick into play, if you MUST be VFR (clear of cloud and in sight of the surface) then I don't see how it's going to work if you must descend through cloud/fog.
Anyone that's ever come into Battersea IFR ?
I don't remember any IFR approach information on the AIP.
EDIT - I don't see how ATC can be the eyes of the pilot and make flight by flight judgements but I do see that there can be a minima that gets enforced over London and it's X criteria for this type of transit (for example you won't get a LHR crossing in bad weather/poor viz or high controller workload).
Last edited by chopperchappie; 25th Jan 2013 at 16:17.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
From EGLW AIP:
You can't get into Battersea IFR. It's also notable that
I agree with all those who have pointed out the practical difficulties of supplying additional weather data to ATC to permit them to make weather decisions for the airspace. But if, as crab has said, the issue here is some pilots pushing the 'clear of cloud/in sight of the surface' rule, in an environment where an error endangers many people on the ground as well as the aircraft occupants, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to reinforce the rule by giving ATC a role. They already do for aircraft landing at or departing from airports in CAS, and for aircraft transiting the London CTR through the Heathrow overhead. These days, it's surely not beyond the capabilities of computer whizz kids to devise a system that uses a number of different weather data sources to power a graphic at the ATCO's desk that lights up each of the heli routes through the CTR in red or green.
NS
Type of Traffic permitted: SVFR
For inbound and departing helicopters, the weather minima for the London Heliport are a reported Heliport meteorological visibility of 1000 m or greater and a cloud ceiling of 600 ft agl or greater.
NS
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the timing of the release of this Safety Notice is just coincidence.
No more new, more restrictive rules please.
There are a few people suggesting even tighter restrictions when flying around London.
The rules are tight enough already. If Clear of Cloud and Surface in Sight had been maintained, (barring any as yet unpublished technical failure) this accident wouldn't have happened. If the 500ft rule had been adhered to, it wouldn't have happened.
Let's not knee jerk into even more restrictions please.
JJ
The rules are tight enough already. If Clear of Cloud and Surface in Sight had been maintained, (barring any as yet unpublished technical failure) this accident wouldn't have happened. If the 500ft rule had been adhered to, it wouldn't have happened.
Let's not knee jerk into even more restrictions please.
JJ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When abeam the Eye pilot stated Vauxhall bridge in sight and requested H4.
ATC responded to hold between Vauxhall and Westminster bridges.
He descended and turned away from the river (mistaken glimpse of Battersea rail bridge? Avoid Millbank tower?) and continued past Vauxhall bridge all the way to the Battersea rail bridge where he turned around.
Question for you London rotor drivers: Are river hold boundaries strict?
ATC responded to hold between Vauxhall and Westminster bridges.
He descended and turned away from the river (mistaken glimpse of Battersea rail bridge? Avoid Millbank tower?) and continued past Vauxhall bridge all the way to the Battersea rail bridge where he turned around.
Question for you London rotor drivers: Are river hold boundaries strict?
JC
I agree that the airspace over London is already highly regulated and well controlled and I have never experienced "crowding" as such - one or two reciprocal aircraft is typical with many flights not coming into visual contact with another heli.
Nevertheless the existing rules do put a lot of competent pilots (even high hour instructors) off.
But joe public is going to want to be re-assured and there will be changes I'm sure.
Weather seems to be a significant contributory factor and there absolutely should not be a knee-jerk ban everything attitude but it went off plan in this case.
The response to this tragedy needs to be considered and appropriate to reduce risks but not political, which I think is the real danger.
I agree that the airspace over London is already highly regulated and well controlled and I have never experienced "crowding" as such - one or two reciprocal aircraft is typical with many flights not coming into visual contact with another heli.
Nevertheless the existing rules do put a lot of competent pilots (even high hour instructors) off.
But joe public is going to want to be re-assured and there will be changes I'm sure.
Weather seems to be a significant contributory factor and there absolutely should not be a knee-jerk ban everything attitude but it went off plan in this case.
The response to this tragedy needs to be considered and appropriate to reduce risks but not political, which I think is the real danger.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Sorry but no. The Thames. 40 mile tidal estuary. Sunrise on a calm winter's day after a cold night. As the sun's rays go almost horizontal through the atmosphere, and as London "wakes up" with energy producing lots of heat - you get the most incredible fast-forming mists. I live by the Thames in London - and I've seen the mist grow in seconds from a clear morning.
London airspace is a cage. Once you're in there, you have to cope because there are few escape routes once the mists start moving around. So - don't go there when the wx seems likely to become your enemy.
There ARE minimum alts.
London airspace is a cage. Once you're in there, you have to cope because there are few escape routes once the mists start moving around. So - don't go there when the wx seems likely to become your enemy.
There ARE minimum alts.
I am a regular user of the heli-routes, including the part where this accident took place. I'm aware of the rules regarding altitudes and the restricted area.
The point is, as you say, that pilots are responsible for making the decision regarding prevailing met conditions and how they fit the requirements for SVFR/VFR.
Without a minimum altitude being given, the natural instinct of a helicopter pilot on his way to land at Battersea, encountering increasing cloud at his level, is to descend to maintain compliance with SVFR/VFR rules and VMC. In extremis, a pilot may tend to disregard the 500 foot rule too soon, hoping to "get away with it", in both senses of the expression.
The alternative to a descent is a retreat along a reciprocal track (may not be possible!) or a request for an immediate escape IFR clearance, which of course may well involve a further climb into solid IMC. Not all pilots are qualified to fly in IMC and not all helicopters using these the routes are so equipped.
A minimum altitude along that particular stretch of H4, i.e. between London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge could take into account the 500 foot rule and give a safe(r) clearance from the ever increasing number of tall obstructions.
The publication of a mandatory minimum altitude would be a strong reminder to pilots to think more carefully about what they are asking for and to keep an idea of what they are actually doing.
If a pilot encounters met conditions that would require descent below the minimum published altitude for the route, he would then have to inform ATC and go from there. If this means aborting the flight or diverting, then so be it, nothing new there. This should already happen, but we know it sometimes doesn't, because the limits for SVFR/VFR get "stretched" too far.
There is also a real need for increased levels of conspicuity for the taller obstructions close to the river. From my own fairly widespread practical experience of using the routes over many years, I know very well that the standard mandatory "ANO" red lights are often totally ineffective against the background of multi-coloured cultural lighting even at the best of times. In a dark countryside, these lights stand out well, e.g. where fitted to something like an isolated mast. Over London, they do not.
NS it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to reinforce the rule by giving ATC a role. They already do for aircraft landing at or departing from airports in CAS, and for aircraft transiting the London CTR through the Heathrow overhead.
Whilst that specifically covers aerodrome operating minima the same applies for flight rules, they are in simple terms the aircraft commanders/pilots responsibility to adhere to them. If ATC are to 'police' as you say then your perfect storm is three or four aircraft on approach travelling at three miles a minute, all non native language speakers, being questioned as to their operating procedures and capabilities. A very quick way to an accident or incident, due to misunderstanding/overload which is part of why absolute minima procedures within MAts Pt1 changed significantly in 2012, to those outlined above.
The crew know what they and the aircraft are capable of, its up to them to ensure they stay within the rules, or operate outside them for very good reasons.
SS: I think someone mentioned the ac being fitted with Garmin 430 - If the next frequency isn't selected, it takes approx 6 secs to change the frequency and flip it across.
"Just a pilot"
I can think of about a million reasonable circumstances that could result in an incident like this, proof that with sufficient risk exposure, an incident of some sort is inevitable. All one can do is try to make small mistakes. Other than preventing helicopter flight in that area, further regulation wouldn't affect this outcome.
It's conceivable that the rules actually contributed to this event, limiting options and providing distractions that don't contribute to safety of flight.
Here's one scenario: flying a low level route, deciding on a right turn, visual check to the right, obstacle behind pilot visual field (and/or obscured in clutter), right turn commenced, roof now obscures obstacle, visual field in direction of turn mostly down or up thru windscreen or forward thru skylight- one might never see a mast.
My experience with TAWS in the 400 series is that the alert screen either distracts or is late. Our setup includes a console button to deactivate the system that's a potential issue. It's useful for planning,but not effective in avoidance.
It's conceivable that the rules actually contributed to this event, limiting options and providing distractions that don't contribute to safety of flight.
Here's one scenario: flying a low level route, deciding on a right turn, visual check to the right, obstacle behind pilot visual field (and/or obscured in clutter), right turn commenced, roof now obscures obstacle, visual field in direction of turn mostly down or up thru windscreen or forward thru skylight- one might never see a mast.
My experience with TAWS in the 400 series is that the alert screen either distracts or is late. Our setup includes a console button to deactivate the system that's a potential issue. It's useful for planning,but not effective in avoidance.
Last edited by Devil 49; 25th Jan 2013 at 19:11.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 51
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question about whether anyone reviews flights that have taken place in known poor conditions to see if pilots are sticking to the rules or is it just the AAIB that does this when a tragic accident like this occurs.
Mr Barnes routing, in particular once over central London as well as his radio calls clearly show rules being broken. This can't have been the only time he or other commercial heli pilots have pushed the rules and routes/heights in tricky conditions.
If no one is ever checking this then the temptation to push the rules is that much greater surely. If a pilot knows its being checked or there is a good chance it will be checked then maybe different decisions will be made and rules will be stuck to?
What use is a law that is not enforced?
And sorry if that sounds like a slippery slope....
Mr Barnes routing, in particular once over central London as well as his radio calls clearly show rules being broken. This can't have been the only time he or other commercial heli pilots have pushed the rules and routes/heights in tricky conditions.
If no one is ever checking this then the temptation to push the rules is that much greater surely. If a pilot knows its being checked or there is a good chance it will be checked then maybe different decisions will be made and rules will be stuck to?
What use is a law that is not enforced?
And sorry if that sounds like a slippery slope....
As the lead pilot who'd observed what I considered to be an unsafe act I had a responsibility to report the matter to the Company at the time. And if I had done so maybe the Company would have counselled the pilot and he'd still be alive today. But in all likelihood, knowing the people involved, nothing would have been done and reporting the incident would have only resulted in certain grief for myself.
So I chose to say nothing. Reason being: firstly, I got fired from my previous job for reporting a pilot doing a very unsafe act, as reporting such things was seen as "not being a team player." So this time I was not inclined to risk a repeat episode (the culture in the Company was much the same as the other Company from where I was fired). Secondly, the pilot involved was very experienced, even more-so than me, so I took some comfort in that "he must know what he's doing because he's been doing it for a long time".
With this sort of culture in the workspace, where very experienced pilots are blatantly busting the rules to get a job done, with the tacit knowledge and approval of their employer, despite safety management reporting systems being in place, then as an Industry we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past time and time again. Only at some point some people don't get to repeat them anymore because they become the victim of their own behavior. It's particularly regrettable when the innocent become victims as well.
Last edited by gulliBell; 25th Jan 2013 at 20:42.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The response to this tragedy needs to be considered and appropriate to reduce risks but not political, which I think is the real danger.
it would be a tragic loss to see operations curtailed for an agenda or political reason.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with readgeoff's comments
One accident how many previous close shaves usually factor by x times
Mr Barnes might have been a heli hero to some but now he will be remembered for his last tragic flight and the final report doesn't look like good reading
Some people say it takes an accident to change the rules, this might be the one
How many rules were broken in this short flight, quite a few I think
No-one commenting much on the release of safety notice post number 509 by TRC
If I was caught using PED by present company it would be instant dismissal I am sure, but then I don't work in the UK right now
One accident how many previous close shaves usually factor by x times
Mr Barnes might have been a heli hero to some but now he will be remembered for his last tragic flight and the final report doesn't look like good reading
Some people say it takes an accident to change the rules, this might be the one
How many rules were broken in this short flight, quite a few I think
No-one commenting much on the release of safety notice post number 509 by TRC
If I was caught using PED by present company it would be instant dismissal I am sure, but then I don't work in the UK right now
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mark one eyeball
No-one commenting much on the release of safety notice post number 509 by TRC
No-one commenting much on the release of safety notice post number 509 by TRC
Last edited by Grenville Fortescue; 25th Jan 2013 at 21:04. Reason: Add link to CAA Safety Notice
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
SS: I think someone mentioned the ac being fitted with Garmin 430 - If the next frequency isn't selected, it takes approx 6 secs to change the frequency and flip it across.
Ttb: Even if the a/c was fitted with one radio (unlikely) and he had been listening to EGTR on 122.4, then LHR special on 125.625, it would have taken 1 second to change to 122.9 and QSY to Batt
Ttb: Even if the a/c was fitted with one radio (unlikely) and he had been listening to EGTR on 122.4, then LHR special on 125.625, it would have taken 1 second to change to 122.9 and QSY to Batt
Was Elstree open at that time to call up and are you assuming that a blind call was made on 122.9?
There's no mention in the SB of informing anyone of a freq change en route and perhaps Northolt ATIS was dialled up instead.
Sorry, you'll have to give some of us not familiar with that part of the country a bit of lee way.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
Well reasoned post.
and thanks for the kind comment.
As you know, I can't post as freely as I used to.
I agree about the PPRuNe ethos, I've learnt an enormous amount from the professional pilots here over the years, but there are some PPRuNe habits that I've never liked. Whenever there's an incident or accident, there are always posters (including some pilots) who spend a great deal of effort trying to prove that the pilot was at fault/broke some rule(s) in some way or other and, quite often, gratuitously make very unpleasant comments which add nothing whatsoever to the store of knowledge. They aren't trying to learn (they know it all
) and I don't believe for a moment their motive is to try to help others learn. The other irritation, which hasn't been nearly as bad here as on the thread in R&N where everyone and his dog has an opinion, is people who clearly know little or nothing about about flying (or the relevant flying) distracting from sensible discussion/learning with their constant inane witterings. Thankfully, both threads have been cleaned up a bit now.
You are not afraid to be punchy (one of the reasons I enjoy reading your posts
) but you realise there's a time and place and, unlike some others, your suggestions, whether correct or not, were not only measured but showed compassion for someone who lost his life.
jellycopter
I entirely agree that no more flying restrictions are necessary.
However, I agree with ShyTorque and others that the conspicuity of the taller obstructions close to the River needs to be improved.
Posters not familiar with London may not fully appreciate the height of the raised jib of this crane. To put it into perspective, when the crane was in raised/parked position, as it was when the accident occurred, the jib was almost as high as the tallest tower at Canary Wharf - which was the tallest building in the UK for 19 years until 2010.
The lighting may well have complied with current legislation, but the effect of that legislation is that such cranes are barely lit during the night and not lit at all during daylight - regardless of weather/visibility. That IMHO is inadequate in an area of known helicopter activity, and particularly so close to a heliport.
I held that view even before this accident. I've flown the heli routes many times and driven along the River morning and night virtually every working day for almost 40 years. (I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge about 15 minutes after the accident.) I've become increasingly concerned as the number of high rise buildings, and tall cranes in particular, has increased.
We'll probably never know if more effective lighting would have prevented this accident. However, if the jib had been better lit, the pilot might have seen it in time to avoid it. At that life or death moment, whether he should or should not have been there is irrelevant.
A30yoyo
I wouldn't presume to answer for professional pilots in twins but FWIW, as a PPL in a single, I wouldn't hover.
Grenville
Really?
The FAA issued this 'Notice of proposed rulemaking' the day before the crash? Link: NPRM
The fact is that a number of aviation authorities have been looking into this issue for some time, the FAA since at least 2010. The CAA make it clear in Paras 1.1 and 2.1 of the Safety Notice that it was issued as a result of several incidents.
In the context of this thread it's also important to bear in mind:
that there is no evidence the pilot was using his mobile at the time of the crash;
that the last text was 4 minutes before the crash; and
that the available evidence (AAIB SB) points strongly towards the pilot not using his mobile in the intervening period.
mark one eyeball
He'll remain a 'heli hero' to people grateful to him for helping to save their lives.
No-one who knew him will forget how he died, but those who respected his ability as a pilot are unlikely to change their minds just because of one tragic incident and those who knew Barnesy personally will remember him as one of the friendliest, kindest people they could hope to meet, always happy to help anyone and a guaranteed laugh. He was a thoroughly decent man, devoted to his partner and two young children. To use one of his favourite expressions, a 'top bloke'.
I knew him, and flew with him several times, and I'd be very happy to fly with him again if he'd survived. I can also say with total confidence that if this had been someone else, any comment he made (if pressed to do so) would have been restrained and caring.
The general consensus seems to be that the accident happened because he didn't keep to the rules.
Which rules are you suggesting should be changed?
.
Well reasoned post.
and thanks for the kind comment. As you know, I can't post as freely as I used to.
I agree about the PPRuNe ethos, I've learnt an enormous amount from the professional pilots here over the years, but there are some PPRuNe habits that I've never liked. Whenever there's an incident or accident, there are always posters (including some pilots) who spend a great deal of effort trying to prove that the pilot was at fault/broke some rule(s) in some way or other and, quite often, gratuitously make very unpleasant comments which add nothing whatsoever to the store of knowledge. They aren't trying to learn (they know it all
) and I don't believe for a moment their motive is to try to help others learn. The other irritation, which hasn't been nearly as bad here as on the thread in R&N where everyone and his dog has an opinion, is people who clearly know little or nothing about about flying (or the relevant flying) distracting from sensible discussion/learning with their constant inane witterings. Thankfully, both threads have been cleaned up a bit now. You are not afraid to be punchy (one of the reasons I enjoy reading your posts
) but you realise there's a time and place and, unlike some others, your suggestions, whether correct or not, were not only measured but showed compassion for someone who lost his life. jellycopter
Let's not knee jerk into even more restrictions please.
However, I agree with ShyTorque and others that the conspicuity of the taller obstructions close to the River needs to be improved.
Posters not familiar with London may not fully appreciate the height of the raised jib of this crane. To put it into perspective, when the crane was in raised/parked position, as it was when the accident occurred, the jib was almost as high as the tallest tower at Canary Wharf - which was the tallest building in the UK for 19 years until 2010.
The lighting may well have complied with current legislation, but the effect of that legislation is that such cranes are barely lit during the night and not lit at all during daylight - regardless of weather/visibility. That IMHO is inadequate in an area of known helicopter activity, and particularly so close to a heliport.
I held that view even before this accident. I've flown the heli routes many times and driven along the River morning and night virtually every working day for almost 40 years. (I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge about 15 minutes after the accident.) I've become increasingly concerned as the number of high rise buildings, and tall cranes in particular, has increased.
We'll probably never know if more effective lighting would have prevented this accident. However, if the jib had been better lit, the pilot might have seen it in time to avoid it. At that life or death moment, whether he should or should not have been there is irrelevant.
A30yoyo
do helicopter pilots prefer fixed wing style holds .......... to 'hover holds'
Grenville
Perhaps because its just so obvious that this was released in response to last Wednesday's crash.
The FAA issued this 'Notice of proposed rulemaking' the day before the crash? Link: NPRM
The fact is that a number of aviation authorities have been looking into this issue for some time, the FAA since at least 2010. The CAA make it clear in Paras 1.1 and 2.1 of the Safety Notice that it was issued as a result of several incidents.
In the context of this thread it's also important to bear in mind:
that there is no evidence the pilot was using his mobile at the time of the crash;
that the last text was 4 minutes before the crash; and
that the available evidence (AAIB SB) points strongly towards the pilot not using his mobile in the intervening period.
mark one eyeball
Mr Barnes might have been a heli hero to some but now he will be remembered for his last tragic flight and the final report doesn't look like good reading
No-one who knew him will forget how he died, but those who respected his ability as a pilot are unlikely to change their minds just because of one tragic incident and those who knew Barnesy personally will remember him as one of the friendliest, kindest people they could hope to meet, always happy to help anyone and a guaranteed laugh. He was a thoroughly decent man, devoted to his partner and two young children. To use one of his favourite expressions, a 'top bloke'.
I knew him, and flew with him several times, and I'd be very happy to fly with him again if he'd survived. I can also say with total confidence that if this had been someone else, any comment he made (if pressed to do so) would have been restrained and caring.
Some people say it takes an accident to change the rules, this might be the one
Which rules are you suggesting should be changed?
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th Jan 2013 at 00:08.