NZ CAA prosecuting 'rescue' pilot
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So this policewoman's husband went into the rip current to save two people, then the policewoman left her own two children to also go into the rip current.
Very fine line between heroism and tragedy.
Blackpool police officers' drowning tragedy recalled - BBC News
Very fine line between heroism and tragedy.
Blackpool police officers' drowning tragedy recalled - BBC News
That's about right Sid - I've often been told that NZ is about 30 years behind the UK. Sadly it might take a tragic event such as that to change people's attitudes.
Yes, very true Crab. And may it take all of that 30 years and more for us to progress to the state where we are that constrained by policy or paralysed by fear that our population won't risk a calculated attempt at saving someone from drowning...or burning to death....or warm English beer.
On a warmer note if any of you from the motherland find yourselves in our backward little paradise these holidays then drop me a line, a cold beer always awaits. Even you Crab, if the thought of someone helping if you were seriously in the crap doesn't terrify you.
Come on, you know you want to....
On a warmer note if any of you from the motherland find yourselves in our backward little paradise these holidays then drop me a line, a cold beer always awaits. Even you Crab, if the thought of someone helping if you were seriously in the crap doesn't terrify you.
Come on, you know you want to....
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Just my opinion, but it doesn't sit right with me that a mother would leave her own two children on a beach and knowingly enter the water, putting her life in danger alongside the father of her children.
What seems even more wrong to me, is that a nation appears to be happy for those children to be put in that situation. You must have some pretty good orphanages down there to have that kind of mindset.
What seems even more wrong to me, is that a nation appears to be happy for those children to be put in that situation. You must have some pretty good orphanages down there to have that kind of mindset.
I've often been told that NZ is about 30 years behind the UK
That same nanny state that is dealing - safely - with horrific urban flooding using properly trained people with decent equipment.
Sid, I hear what you are saying but as I said....it's all about calculated risk, something you and Crab should supposedly know about.
And we don't have orphanages down here....you might be showing your age.
And Crab, this is fantastic news that despite the reported economic peril of motherland.....this disaster has been completely sorted by fantastic resourcing of properly trained people and decent equipment. Obviously not a spontaneous volunteer utilised anywhere by the nanny state, because they couldn't possibly be fully trained, the pool of fully trained experts on standby must be enormous. I'm slightly bemused because by the accounts of some of your own bobbies their stunning training budgets must have been siphoned off to the fully trained flood expert funding.
As most readers here would have guessed my comments are somewhat tongue in cheek but with an undertone of real world experience. Let's just agree that it requires different strokes for different folks/demographics and if any good can be achieved without harm to others it's a happy day.
What does give me a giggle is that between 2 posters here there are about 10,000 posts, I'm surprised that anyone(s) with that much spare keyboard time actually has the time to consider burning some fuel....or saving anyone.
Understand that in little old NZ ability does not always come on the form of a flash flight suit, a uniform or a cheesecutter and creavet.
And we don't have orphanages down here....you might be showing your age.
And Crab, this is fantastic news that despite the reported economic peril of motherland.....this disaster has been completely sorted by fantastic resourcing of properly trained people and decent equipment. Obviously not a spontaneous volunteer utilised anywhere by the nanny state, because they couldn't possibly be fully trained, the pool of fully trained experts on standby must be enormous. I'm slightly bemused because by the accounts of some of your own bobbies their stunning training budgets must have been siphoned off to the fully trained flood expert funding.
As most readers here would have guessed my comments are somewhat tongue in cheek but with an undertone of real world experience. Let's just agree that it requires different strokes for different folks/demographics and if any good can be achieved without harm to others it's a happy day.
What does give me a giggle is that between 2 posters here there are about 10,000 posts, I'm surprised that anyone(s) with that much spare keyboard time actually has the time to consider burning some fuel....or saving anyone.
Understand that in little old NZ ability does not always come on the form of a flash flight suit, a uniform or a cheesecutter and creavet.
Is that creavet a Kiwi version of a cravat??
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the floods have thrown up plenty of ordinary Joes and Josephines who have saved lives without proper training - no-one in the UK ever wants to stop that happening, perhaps you have rather a skewed view of our 'nanny state'.
As to calculated risk management - yes Sid and I have plenty of experience in that field given our occupations but in order to calculate risk you must have some more accurate basis than 'it'll be right mate'.
I don't doubt there is plenty of ability in NZ and I'm sure it doesn't always come in the bare-chested, testosterone-fuelled, shorts-wearing, authority-hating form that has appeared from time to time on this thread
Looking forward to the beer
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the floods have thrown up plenty of ordinary Joes and Josephines who have saved lives without proper training - no-one in the UK ever wants to stop that happening, perhaps you have rather a skewed view of our 'nanny state'.
As to calculated risk management - yes Sid and I have plenty of experience in that field given our occupations but in order to calculate risk you must have some more accurate basis than 'it'll be right mate'.
I don't doubt there is plenty of ability in NZ and I'm sure it doesn't always come in the bare-chested, testosterone-fuelled, shorts-wearing, authority-hating form that has appeared from time to time on this thread
Looking forward to the beer
Dear me - I've come across a few barrack-room lawyers and smart-alecs in my time but you take the biscuit Crab. I've watched this thread for some time and cannot quite get to grips with what your argument is. Professional rescue services need to be properly trained and make decisions about how to carry out rescue missions. Sometimes even professionals get it wrong. Sometimes however the 'rules' can be used as an excuse for one's own indifference:
In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys
who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job.
The police or PCSOs who wouldn't go into a pond to rescue a drowning person fall into the same category - the rules seemed to overcome what I hope was their better instincts to jump in and rescue someone. The doomed Channel rescue of a man overboard was a good opportunity to have another sneer and submit us to more excuses about how 'training' and 'professionalism' should have mitigated against it. Yes - people do make mistakes at times and lose their lives in the pursuit of saving another's but it would take a very particular sort of person to turn away if he thought there was a good chance of rescue wouldn't it?
The pilot who is the subject of this thread broke the rules and has paid dearly for it, but it provides another excuse to argue the toss and also take the mickey doesn't it? There simply isn't the money in New Zealand to provide the sort of rescue set-up that Crab boasts of and with lots of remote areas that people (who Crab would no doubt sneer at for enjoying adventurous activities, sometimes without sensible planning
) - then other people are tempted to take risks to try and rescue them. It's human nature isn't it? Many people go to New Zealand to get away from the nanny state, where everyone can quote an appropriate rule or regulation why something isn't possible, and there is certainly a 'she'll be right' attitude at times but it's usually for the right motives isn't it?
My better nature told me that I shouldn't descend to an ad hominem post but sometimes it just seems necessary to put the case for the rest of us who aren't so amazingly superior.
In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys
who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job. The police or PCSOs who wouldn't go into a pond to rescue a drowning person fall into the same category - the rules seemed to overcome what I hope was their better instincts to jump in and rescue someone. The doomed Channel rescue of a man overboard was a good opportunity to have another sneer and submit us to more excuses about how 'training' and 'professionalism' should have mitigated against it. Yes - people do make mistakes at times and lose their lives in the pursuit of saving another's but it would take a very particular sort of person to turn away if he thought there was a good chance of rescue wouldn't it?
The pilot who is the subject of this thread broke the rules and has paid dearly for it, but it provides another excuse to argue the toss and also take the mickey doesn't it? There simply isn't the money in New Zealand to provide the sort of rescue set-up that Crab boasts of and with lots of remote areas that people (who Crab would no doubt sneer at for enjoying adventurous activities, sometimes without sensible planning
) - then other people are tempted to take risks to try and rescue them. It's human nature isn't it? Many people go to New Zealand to get away from the nanny state, where everyone can quote an appropriate rule or regulation why something isn't possible, and there is certainly a 'she'll be right' attitude at times but it's usually for the right motives isn't it?My better nature told me that I shouldn't descend to an ad hominem post but sometimes it just seems necessary to put the case for the rest of us who aren't so amazingly superior.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job.
FD2, ref Aden; are you referring to the 3 PARA/X Coy 45 Cdo RM incidents at either Al Naqil on 5 May '64, or Bakri Ridge on 24 May '64, or perhaps some other 'contact'?
If it's either of those two, I'd like to hear your version of events a bit more if you'd be so kind ... it's close to home should we say.
Or would truth be getting in the way of your good story.
"Or would truth be getting in the way of your good story".
My 'version' of the events is exactly as it was related to me at the time by several of the squadron aircrew. As you were obviously closely involved at the time would you be so kind as to let us know what 'really' happened - it's something that's stuck in my mind for many years. I do not know what Army unit was involved.
My 'version' of the events is exactly as it was related to me at the time by several of the squadron aircrew. As you were obviously closely involved at the time would you be so kind as to let us know what 'really' happened - it's something that's stuck in my mind for many years. I do not know what Army unit was involved.
FD2 - thanks for a cheery start to 2016 - Happy New Year to you.
Your ad hominem post shows exactly what they always do - that you don't really have a constructive argument but you just dislike what I have to say - rather sad really.
I think my viewpoint has been fairly consistent - I don't agree with what Mr Armstrong did - despite perhaps his best intentions - you and others just can't get past that criticism and look at what you would have thought and said if he had crashed and killed the medics and himself, still leaving the casualty on the hill.
If it had just been a single episode of clear bravery then few, even me, would have condemned him - but he has broken the rules more than once and the perceived danger for the casualty seems to have been just one more excuse to fly when he knew he shouldn't.
One of the most important lessons a professional rescuer has to learn is when to say no.
Unfortunately, most of the counter arguments have degenerated into name-calling and dragging in situations that were not relevant or pertinent to Mr Armstrong's case - just an excuse to have a go at those of us who think he did wrong - your latest excursion into what happened in Aden many years ago is a case in point and equally irrelevant.
Have a chilled New Year
Your ad hominem post shows exactly what they always do - that you don't really have a constructive argument but you just dislike what I have to say - rather sad really.
I think my viewpoint has been fairly consistent - I don't agree with what Mr Armstrong did - despite perhaps his best intentions - you and others just can't get past that criticism and look at what you would have thought and said if he had crashed and killed the medics and himself, still leaving the casualty on the hill.
If it had just been a single episode of clear bravery then few, even me, would have condemned him - but he has broken the rules more than once and the perceived danger for the casualty seems to have been just one more excuse to fly when he knew he shouldn't.
One of the most important lessons a professional rescuer has to learn is when to say no.
Unfortunately, most of the counter arguments have degenerated into name-calling and dragging in situations that were not relevant or pertinent to Mr Armstrong's case - just an excuse to have a go at those of us who think he did wrong - your latest excursion into what happened in Aden many years ago is a case in point and equally irrelevant.
Have a chilled New Year
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Way way too young to be involved FD.
Without a particular date or more references to your example, we have little definite to go on. The closest storyline to your example would be Bakri Ridge on 24/25 May.
In a nutshell;
At last light X Coy 45 RM & 3 PARA advanced to clear the Wadi of enemy positions. X Coy came under heavy fire from dug in tribesmen.
Because of radio problems a Scout (653 Sqn piloted by Maj Jackson, XR600 or 601) was sent in to get a clearer picture of what was going on. Before it could get any information it was brought down by automatic fire. (no casualties, ac recovered next day after REME field repair) A fierce battle then ensued.
Hunters from 43 Sqn laid fire into the enemy positions allowing 3 PARA to manoeuvre into better positions.
The next morning the troops moved back to Bakri Ridge and were flown back to Thumier by 845 Sqn Wessex from the commando carrier Bulwark stationed off the coast.
So we have the light blue, dark blue and powder puffs all playing their part, and if you were wondering about the 4/6 Belvederes (26 Sqn) in country, perhaps there was a very good reason such as ferrying artillery pieces around the area and ls size why Wessex were tasked that morning.
But still, we can see why RN crews may well see it differently from the comfort of their hammock, post beach bbq
Have a good 2016 everyone
Without a particular date or more references to your example, we have little definite to go on. The closest storyline to your example would be Bakri Ridge on 24/25 May.
In a nutshell;
At last light X Coy 45 RM & 3 PARA advanced to clear the Wadi of enemy positions. X Coy came under heavy fire from dug in tribesmen.
Because of radio problems a Scout (653 Sqn piloted by Maj Jackson, XR600 or 601) was sent in to get a clearer picture of what was going on. Before it could get any information it was brought down by automatic fire. (no casualties, ac recovered next day after REME field repair) A fierce battle then ensued.
Hunters from 43 Sqn laid fire into the enemy positions allowing 3 PARA to manoeuvre into better positions.
The next morning the troops moved back to Bakri Ridge and were flown back to Thumier by 845 Sqn Wessex from the commando carrier Bulwark stationed off the coast.
So we have the light blue, dark blue and powder puffs all playing their part, and if you were wondering about the 4/6 Belvederes (26 Sqn) in country, perhaps there was a very good reason such as ferrying artillery pieces around the area and ls size why Wessex were tasked that morning.
But still, we can see why RN crews may well see it differently from the comfort of their hammock, post beach bbq
Have a good 2016 everyone
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Anyway, removing history and facts from the discussion re Aden, am I reading this right FD?
Not only does FD et al find it acceptable for someone to fly with a suspended licence on medical grounds, FD appears to be condoning flying while under the influence.
Would it have been ok if Mr A had been bbq'ing the day he got the call?
Where do people draw the line here, simply getting away with it?
Lady Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Roger Regulate and Colin Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.
(Too keep it PC;
Laurence Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Ruth Regulate and Cynthia Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.)
They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job.
Would it have been ok if Mr A had been bbq'ing the day he got the call?
Where do people draw the line here, simply getting away with it?
Lady Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Roger Regulate and Colin Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.
(Too keep it PC;
Laurence Luck isn't the best co-pilot on any day.
Maybe Ruth Regulate and Cynthia Commonsense aren't the best, but they'll do their best to keep you from harms way.)
Crab:
I don't think anyone could argue that what he did was 'wrong' and 'broke the rules' and he has been punished for it. I think that a lot of annoyance has been caused by your black and white interpretation of a situation where Mr Armstrong was widely thought of as being a 'good bloke' for 'having a go', which generally people approve of in New Zealand.
As a serial offender he was smacked by the CAA but I don't think you will find many people who would condemn him outright even for that - sometimes it is necessary to improvise when facilities that are enjoyed by European countries are not available and there is a tremendous desire to help others in distress - remember the 'community spirit' that used to exist in the UK? Sometimes 'rules' may be broken to achieve that.
You are correct in stating that there are times when it becomes impossible to complete a task because all the odds are stacked against succeeding, but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if.....
The rescue services must be trained to the highest degree possible and of course there are times when a rescue attempt is not possible. Perhaps a little less strident condemnation in hindsight of those who have not made what you consider the 'right' decisions would cause a little less annoyance to others and fewer personal attacks in 2016?
I don't think anyone could argue that what he did was 'wrong' and 'broke the rules' and he has been punished for it. I think that a lot of annoyance has been caused by your black and white interpretation of a situation where Mr Armstrong was widely thought of as being a 'good bloke' for 'having a go', which generally people approve of in New Zealand.
As a serial offender he was smacked by the CAA but I don't think you will find many people who would condemn him outright even for that - sometimes it is necessary to improvise when facilities that are enjoyed by European countries are not available and there is a tremendous desire to help others in distress - remember the 'community spirit' that used to exist in the UK? Sometimes 'rules' may be broken to achieve that.
You are correct in stating that there are times when it becomes impossible to complete a task because all the odds are stacked against succeeding, but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if.....
The rescue services must be trained to the highest degree possible and of course there are times when a rescue attempt is not possible. Perhaps a little less strident condemnation in hindsight of those who have not made what you consider the 'right' decisions would cause a little less annoyance to others and fewer personal attacks in 2016?
Sid:
I never claimed to have been 'involved' in a flying sense but I was present at the time, albeit as a junior officer under training (before my flying training). Even so I was still allowed to talk to the aircrew who were personally involved and have retold their version of events that took place and were related to me personally then and later - I dare say when we were boozing in our hammocks. I have no reason to believe those people were telling lies or making it up. Your remarkably precise memory of one particular incident is very interesting though I have no idea if this was the incident I was informed about but I can't argue against what must be the complete and undisputable version of those particular events.
As I'm sure you'd agree, attitudes were quite different 50 years ago but even so I think that if I was pinned down by enemy fire I wouldn't give a rat's *rs* if the bloke who saved my life was several sheets to the wind. Your assumption that I condone flying in that state is a bit peculiar to say the least. If any of those people who were told to get airborne that day had turned round and refused they would have been held in the sort of contempt that was, sadly, often reserved for the RAF by the other two services because of what was seen as a blind obedience to their rules and regulations. No doubt they could have felt proud of having stuck to the rules though.
I say 'sadly' because I never found any RAF aircrew I worked with later when I was a pilot (at a squadron level) anything other than great company and extremely capable.
I'm also sure that the Belvederes you mention were very busy with other tasks during the incident you relate but your assumption that I approve of flying after drinking alcohol would be like me assuming that the Belvederes were not up to the task but the Wessex were! In other words a little over the top? I can see that you and Crab are 'fellow travellers' on this thread and it's good to have chums but it's also good to keep things in proportion isn't it?
I never claimed to have been 'involved' in a flying sense but I was present at the time, albeit as a junior officer under training (before my flying training). Even so I was still allowed to talk to the aircrew who were personally involved and have retold their version of events that took place and were related to me personally then and later - I dare say when we were boozing in our hammocks. I have no reason to believe those people were telling lies or making it up. Your remarkably precise memory of one particular incident is very interesting though I have no idea if this was the incident I was informed about but I can't argue against what must be the complete and undisputable version of those particular events.
As I'm sure you'd agree, attitudes were quite different 50 years ago but even so I think that if I was pinned down by enemy fire I wouldn't give a rat's *rs* if the bloke who saved my life was several sheets to the wind. Your assumption that I condone flying in that state is a bit peculiar to say the least. If any of those people who were told to get airborne that day had turned round and refused they would have been held in the sort of contempt that was, sadly, often reserved for the RAF by the other two services because of what was seen as a blind obedience to their rules and regulations. No doubt they could have felt proud of having stuck to the rules though.
I say 'sadly' because I never found any RAF aircrew I worked with later when I was a pilot (at a squadron level) anything other than great company and extremely capable.I'm also sure that the Belvederes you mention were very busy with other tasks during the incident you relate but your assumption that I approve of flying after drinking alcohol would be like me assuming that the Belvederes were not up to the task but the Wessex were! In other words a little over the top? I can see that you and Crab are 'fellow travellers' on this thread and it's good to have chums but it's also good to keep things in proportion isn't it?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Well, as the 25th May 1964 was a Sunday, and the 5th May was a Tuesday, it couldn't have been either of those incidents anyway.
Weekday Calculator ? What Day is this Date?
Still, one service being 'unavailable' on a Friday afternoon while another does a job for them, makes for a good story wherever the action takes place. Can you remember which ship you were on or even which squadron you were in at the time? It wasn't HMS Centaur and 815 was it?
I'm so glad the Argentinians didn't know about the Friday afternoon shenanigans at both Murray Heights and later at MPA for example .... there wouldn't have been any service available, including any ship based assets offshore
Reading your second paragraph, you do appear to condone a pilot flying "several sheets to the wind", rather than obeying the rules and being held in contempt, just as long as they saved your life. Would your family say the same if they didn't? Would they say, 'at least they gave it a go' and tell the lawyers to go away?
Weekday Calculator ? What Day is this Date?
Still, one service being 'unavailable' on a Friday afternoon while another does a job for them, makes for a good story wherever the action takes place. Can you remember which ship you were on or even which squadron you were in at the time? It wasn't HMS Centaur and 815 was it?
I'm so glad the Argentinians didn't know about the Friday afternoon shenanigans at both Murray Heights and later at MPA for example .... there wouldn't have been any service available, including any ship based assets offshore
Reading your second paragraph, you do appear to condone a pilot flying "several sheets to the wind", rather than obeying the rules and being held in contempt, just as long as they saved your life. Would your family say the same if they didn't? Would they say, 'at least they gave it a go' and tell the lawyers to go away?
but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if.....
I am all for 'good blokes' and 'having a go' but the notion that because he was a 'good bloke having a go' therefore makes him a local hero rather than an irresponsible risk-taker seems to be viewed through the rose-tinted specs of national pride and manly stereotyping.
Please be assured that community spirit very much still exists in the Motherland and the rough diamond who sometimes bends or breaks the rules to get the right outcome still finds admirers here.
The trouble is - how far do you bend or break those rules and which ones do you fracture? That is a very long debate and context becomes vital when assessing the right or wrong in such cases.
In Mr Armstrong's case, the law in your country said he was wrong and punished him accordingly, the press coverage and public opinion (or some of it at least) romanticised the reason for him breaking the law and taking liberties with other peoples safety.
If it had just been him, flying the aircraft to pick up a casualty and recover him to hospital - a one-flight, mission of mercy when no-one else could do it - I would be more inclined to your point of view but that isn't what happened.
An analogy might be the off-duty policewoman persuading several onlookers who were not as capable in the water, of joining her in the rescue of the swimmers. She only risked her own life (although she was following her partner who was ahead of her), not that of others and that is what, in my mind, differentiates the hero/heroine from the foolhardy.
Sid:
You're trying very hard to dissemble this but perhaps you 'protest too much'. I never said that I condoned flying after drinking, merely that there was a different take on these things 50 years ago and like so much of today's revisionist nonsense, one cannot necessarily judge those events by today's standards, when lawyers and other clever people govern what we must think and say. How you infer that I condone drinking and flying is beyond me! Also, because I mentioned Mr A on this thread does not mean that I necessarily agree with what he did but we can all be smart with hindsight.
You may come up with all sorts of hypothetical 'what ifs' but nothing is ever an 'absolute' and human nature often gets in the way of those who try and make it so. None of us is 'holier than thou' if we look back with anything other than rose tinted glasses. If I was a soldier pinned down under fire and a helicopter turned up to rescue me I wouldn't turn it away and I'm sure you wouldn't either. On the other hand, if it was carefully explained to me that I wasn't going to be picked up until the next day because of various rules and regulations I'm sure I would understand - my family would too.
Perhaps to follow your moral absolutism stance Mr A should also have been subject to some public humiliation like the stocks - but then I mustn't infer more than you are implying must I?
By the way I never served in Centaur - I was in a frigate at the time - and strangely enough I can remember lots about it - as I said, it was before I started flying training.
You're trying very hard to dissemble this but perhaps you 'protest too much'. I never said that I condoned flying after drinking, merely that there was a different take on these things 50 years ago and like so much of today's revisionist nonsense, one cannot necessarily judge those events by today's standards, when lawyers and other clever people govern what we must think and say. How you infer that I condone drinking and flying is beyond me! Also, because I mentioned Mr A on this thread does not mean that I necessarily agree with what he did but we can all be smart with hindsight.
You may come up with all sorts of hypothetical 'what ifs' but nothing is ever an 'absolute' and human nature often gets in the way of those who try and make it so. None of us is 'holier than thou' if we look back with anything other than rose tinted glasses. If I was a soldier pinned down under fire and a helicopter turned up to rescue me I wouldn't turn it away and I'm sure you wouldn't either. On the other hand, if it was carefully explained to me that I wasn't going to be picked up until the next day because of various rules and regulations I'm sure I would understand - my family would too.
Perhaps to follow your moral absolutism stance Mr A should also have been subject to some public humiliation like the stocks - but then I mustn't infer more than you are implying must I?
By the way I never served in Centaur - I was in a frigate at the time - and strangely enough I can remember lots about it - as I said, it was before I started flying training.
Crab:
I'm not condoning someone breaking the law several times. Hypothetical 'what ifs' don't wash I'm afraid - we can all dream up various weird circumstances to support our arguments but human nature has a way of interfering doesn't it? Our instinct to help those in distress can sometimes over-ride common sense can't it? You say yourself that someone bending the rules can still be applauded occasionally, so sometimes it is excusable isn't it? With human beings these things are never completely black or white and I think we should not be too swift to publicly condemn people for their humanity to those in distress, even if some of us might think their actions 'foolhardy'. There but for the grace of God etc. eh?
I'm not condoning someone breaking the law several times. Hypothetical 'what ifs' don't wash I'm afraid - we can all dream up various weird circumstances to support our arguments but human nature has a way of interfering doesn't it? Our instinct to help those in distress can sometimes over-ride common sense can't it? You say yourself that someone bending the rules can still be applauded occasionally, so sometimes it is excusable isn't it? With human beings these things are never completely black or white and I think we should not be too swift to publicly condemn people for their humanity to those in distress, even if some of us might think their actions 'foolhardy'. There but for the grace of God etc. eh?
Last edited by FD2; 2nd Jan 2016 at 00:25. Reason: to change something wot I wrote