NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Wow, I never knew we were in the presence of so many heroes here 
If you're going to do something like this, save your heartbeats for the day when it happens and you really do have to make such a critical descision; make your decision there and then and stop all this chest beating armchair, port sipping, playground heroics from the luxury of your conveniently comfy chair ffs.
If you're going to do something like this, save your heartbeats for the day when it happens and you really do have to make such a critical descision; make your decision there and then and stop all this chest beating armchair, port sipping, playground heroics from the luxury of your conveniently comfy chair ffs.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Well, that's a bit of a wild comparison you bring into this thread. As much of a contemptible comparison that I think it is, while you probably don't, let me explain why I think it is well off the mark.
Hughes, don't you think there's a huge difference between nigelh from the comfort of his comfy armchair, glass of port in hand, predetermining that he would go flying even if he wasn't legally allowed to and then expecting to be treated as a hero as long as nothing went wrong; and a soldier's actions while under effective enemy fire in a theatre of war, twice, the second time sustaining life threatening injuries?
As he (H500) brings this comparison to the thread, let us compare the two and see if Hughes500 et al still believe that Mr Andrews' actions really do make him the hero they all believe him to be, comparable remember in Hughes500's eyes, to Johnson Beharry VC;
Mr Armstrong;
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) suspends him from flying. The neurologist tells the CAA the pilot's medical risk remains "unacceptably high" and Armstrong is grounded for for 2 years from June, 2012. Armstrong gets a review of the decision, but the CAA stands by it. Armstrong completes two more flights and omits his role from the logbook. The CAA later runs out of time to prepare its prosecution. Armstrong is called in to airlift an injured hunter. Armstrong flies again after kayakers are reported missing. The CAA interviews Armstrong, who initially downplays his role. Eventually he admits flying three other times, saying he felt the missions needed an experienced pilot. Armstrong pleads guilty to three flying breach charges. Armstrong had not recorded the flights in his logbook.
Johnson Beharry VC;
"On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He was cited on this occasion for "valour of the highest order".
While back on duty on 11 June 2004, Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior of his platoon through Al Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket propelled grenade hit the vehicle six inches from Beharry's head, and he received serious shrapnel injuries to his face and brain. Other rockets then hit the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Beharry retained control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries, and he was still recovering in March 2005 when he was awarded the Victoria Cross."
Here's a couple for you;
They both had the lives of others in their hands, but which one put the lives of others at risk and which one put the lives of others above their own?
I would have absolutely no problem in giving nigelh a medal if his actions were similar to Johnson Beharry VC, but would you really give nigelh a medal when he does those actions similar to Mr Armstrong?
Hughes500;
SS
I take it then you wouldn't have condoned Johnson Beharry's action that ended in him saving people and getting a rather rare medal ?
SS
I take it then you wouldn't have condoned Johnson Beharry's action that ended in him saving people and getting a rather rare medal ?
Hughes, don't you think there's a huge difference between nigelh from the comfort of his comfy armchair, glass of port in hand, predetermining that he would go flying even if he wasn't legally allowed to and then expecting to be treated as a hero as long as nothing went wrong; and a soldier's actions while under effective enemy fire in a theatre of war, twice, the second time sustaining life threatening injuries?
As he (H500) brings this comparison to the thread, let us compare the two and see if Hughes500 et al still believe that Mr Andrews' actions really do make him the hero they all believe him to be, comparable remember in Hughes500's eyes, to Johnson Beharry VC;
Mr Armstrong;
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) suspends him from flying. The neurologist tells the CAA the pilot's medical risk remains "unacceptably high" and Armstrong is grounded for for 2 years from June, 2012. Armstrong gets a review of the decision, but the CAA stands by it. Armstrong completes two more flights and omits his role from the logbook. The CAA later runs out of time to prepare its prosecution. Armstrong is called in to airlift an injured hunter. Armstrong flies again after kayakers are reported missing. The CAA interviews Armstrong, who initially downplays his role. Eventually he admits flying three other times, saying he felt the missions needed an experienced pilot. Armstrong pleads guilty to three flying breach charges. Armstrong had not recorded the flights in his logbook.
Johnson Beharry VC;
"On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He was cited on this occasion for "valour of the highest order".
While back on duty on 11 June 2004, Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior of his platoon through Al Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket propelled grenade hit the vehicle six inches from Beharry's head, and he received serious shrapnel injuries to his face and brain. Other rockets then hit the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Beharry retained control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries, and he was still recovering in March 2005 when he was awarded the Victoria Cross."
Here's a couple for you;
They both had the lives of others in their hands, but which one put the lives of others at risk and which one put the lives of others above their own?
I would have absolutely no problem in giving nigelh a medal if his actions were similar to Johnson Beharry VC, but would you really give nigelh a medal when he does those actions similar to Mr Armstrong?
SS
You could argue that they both people potentially put others lives at risk, while the comparison is not ideal it goes to show that each one of us is different in perceived risk and who would do what in a given circumstance.
Mr A was told by a doctor that someone might die so he took the risk
Mr B ( who I take my hat off to and thank you sir ) despite being injured accepted the risk of rescuing his comrades in a selfless act
Both had great outcomes, but as one had said if Mr A had ,had a heart attack while flying then the lawyers would have been involved and a different outcome in everyones eyes
Suppose Mr B had not been successful and others had died trying to retrieve him as well as his comrades, what would some people be saying then, if it ever got to the press that is ???
It would seem that there are too many people around the world that pontificate from on high but I suppose this is what what makes us human some will and some won't. I am sure that Mr A hadn't even thought about a Dick Dastedly medal or come to that anyone else who puts their lives on the line to perhaps save others. So do away with the crass comparison, it does you no favours. Before you say it my comparison is not crass it serves as an example on the way the human mind works and how risk adverse some are and how some are not.
Basically there is not a correct answer to this
You could argue that they both people potentially put others lives at risk, while the comparison is not ideal it goes to show that each one of us is different in perceived risk and who would do what in a given circumstance.
Mr A was told by a doctor that someone might die so he took the risk
Mr B ( who I take my hat off to and thank you sir ) despite being injured accepted the risk of rescuing his comrades in a selfless act
Both had great outcomes, but as one had said if Mr A had ,had a heart attack while flying then the lawyers would have been involved and a different outcome in everyones eyes
Suppose Mr B had not been successful and others had died trying to retrieve him as well as his comrades, what would some people be saying then, if it ever got to the press that is ???
It would seem that there are too many people around the world that pontificate from on high but I suppose this is what what makes us human some will and some won't. I am sure that Mr A hadn't even thought about a Dick Dastedly medal or come to that anyone else who puts their lives on the line to perhaps save others. So do away with the crass comparison, it does you no favours. Before you say it my comparison is not crass it serves as an example on the way the human mind works and how risk adverse some are and how some are not.
Basically there is not a correct answer to this
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pilot was proven to be a serial rule-breaker, making the decision to fly numerous times even though he was well aware that he wasn't allowed to do so. He knew it, he took the chance and he got caught. I fail to see how anyone (including the pilot) could expect that he wouldn't be prosecuted, even with playing the "lifesaving" card.
A one-off occurrence he might have got away with, but his constant disregard of the regulations was always going to end in tears.
A one-off occurrence he might have got away with, but his constant disregard of the regulations was always going to end in tears.
I wonder what his motive for taking on the flight was ? I can only assume that if it wasn't for someone else's good then it was to wave 2 fingers at the regulatory body. Anyone else think of another reason ? As it would be obvious with doctor, police etc etc he would be found out.
For those who know the guy, if any on this forum, would they like to comment ?
Or we can break it down to
a. was for someone's good
b. wave 2 fingers
c. Too thick to realise
For those who know the guy, if any on this forum, would they like to comment ?
Or we can break it down to
a. was for someone's good
b. wave 2 fingers
c. Too thick to realise
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Is that the saying found on the same page as, 'don't defend the indefensible'?
Hughes500 - you're a dope for bringing that other example to the table and now that SS has shown it for what it was, you realise what a faux pas you made. Never mind.
This NZ guy would still be flying today if the scenario hadn't been brought to the attention of the press, probably.
I wonder if there is a psychological association between pilots flouting the rules like this NZ guy and those other stories we talk about where pilots fly their client come hell or high water, or fly in dodgy weather to accept the next job?
In other words, Press on itis - being the main driver.
This NZ guy would still be flying today if the scenario hadn't been brought to the attention of the press, probably.
I wonder if there is a psychological association between pilots flouting the rules like this NZ guy and those other stories we talk about where pilots fly their client come hell or high water, or fly in dodgy weather to accept the next job?
In other words, Press on itis - being the main driver.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A better comparison for Mr. Armstrong would be Harry Clarke, Glasgow bin lorry driver, who shouldn't have been driving due to an existing medical condition but chose to do it anyway.
For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.
For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.
Been trying to stay away from this thread...
Worked with DA in PNG and consider him a pro from my engineers arm chair.
I'm confident he did the right thing after weighing up the pros and cons.
Worked with DA in PNG and consider him a pro from my engineers arm chair.
I'm confident he did the right thing after weighing up the pros and cons.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Seems to me that the only risk considered that day by Mr. A was getting caught.
You are looking at everything with rose tinted hindsight, so it is easy to be critical.
Flaxton Flyer makes an excellent comparison with the Glasgow bin-lorry driver - known medical condition, keeps driving and tries to cover it up, kills 6 people doing their Christmas shopping.
If you advocates of Mr Armstrong want your aviation industry populated by serial risk-takers and rule-breakers then carry on the way you are going but don't blame the rest of us when it bites you in the future.
Yeah Flaxton and Crab, because people would have died if he didn't collect the bins eh?
The proper comparison was the UK emergency service that let someone drown in a puddle.
The proper comparison was the UK emergency service that let someone drown in a puddle.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A better comparison for Mr. Armstrong would be Harry Clarke, Glasgow bin lorry driver, who shouldn't have been driving due to an existing medical condition but chose to do it anyway.
For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.
For our foreign readers who may not be aware of the incident, a blackout at the wheel lead to six fatalities.
different with the pilot, who wasn't flying every day
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
How do you know he wasn't flying every day ranty, it has been shown in court that Mr A hadn't been logging his flights.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, I have been a SillySid as well!
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?
So what is the overal risk when flying on very rare occasions with a perhaps just slightly higher risk of an heart attack compared to flying on regular schedule with a normal risk? Or with a higher risk as well, just the doctor has not found out yet.
Of course the bin lorry driver wasn't driving his lorry every day either.
But he drove on a regular weekly schedule. Same with the prosecuted pilot?
So what is the overal risk when flying on very rare occasions with a perhaps just slightly higher risk of an heart attack compared to flying on regular schedule with a normal risk? Or with a higher risk as well, just the doctor has not found out yet.