Worried Man Blues
Well-known member
Fishermen must be chuffed with this over the water action!
How on earth are you supposed to "mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing"? Wherever it crashes it is going to make a bloody mess, both of the aircraft itself and of whatever it lands on.
All this stuff about risk assessments too - even if every reasonable risk assessment (and probably a few unreasonable ones too) had been carried out, there would be nothing to stop a pilot, once in the air, deciding to put in an extra flourish or two in his display, that wasn't included in the agreed list.
in short ....they ****ed up.....eastbourne airshow holds its displays over the open water , if something goes wrong the plane and pilot get wet.......pulling a stunt like that in such close proximity to a major motorway is all very good , unless something goes wrong , which it unfortunately did.......so we will now have a barely intelligible outflowing of lawyer speak in an attempt to avoid litigation .........surely the pilot and the show had some sort of insurance......time to cough up ....no...??
What does that mean?
So you're saying all airshows must be performed at coastal towns. Even if they are performed over fields, at some point the plane will fly over a road or a house or something.
The plane was traveling at 350 knots. Had the pilot started the loop about 30 metres later then the crash would have been after he crossed the carriageway. At that spead that is about 15 hundredths of a second!
Hindsight is a marvelous thing.
Just wondering, has anybody whose bad driving/driver error has caused a serious motorway crash successfully used this as a defence?
yes ....so is insurance ......seeing as you are not allowed to drive a car without insurance i'm pretty sure you're not supposed to fly a jet without it....
Where does it say that neither the airshow organizers, the pilot or the owners of the aircraft didn't have insurance?
Can't imagine the owner of that rare vintage Hunter jet didn't have insurance - that aircraft is irreplaceable ....
And third party cover for any accidental damage [planes do lots of damage when they crash as we've seen] and that would include personal injury / death too.
If the pilot has no insurance, he could maybe assume he won't survive and thus not around to be sued ...
Not a good situation for all concerned.
where does what say what.... what is the "it" you are referring to... my angle is that the insurers will be in for a massive pay out and will clearly try to avoid it.....in my opinion.
They won't try and avoid it as such. But various co insurers may argue over the proximate cause of the 'event'
where does what say what.... what is the "it" you are referring to... my angle is that the insurers will be in for a massive pay out and will clearly try to avoid it.....in my opinion.
has to be pilot error.....surely....!!??
Would suggest you read your post again. You quite clearly were suggesting he was flying with no insurance if not, why make the comment about not being able to drive if you haven't got any. The insurers of the aircraft have already paid out one claim.
As for your comment about avoiding paying, I very much doubt that. What they will do is try and establish exactly who is responsible and for what proportions, as there are likely to be several insurance policies involved. Not just a case of opening a cheque book and making a payment. Now the official report is out then things might move a bit quicker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-owners-admitted-liability-one-survivor.html
Well I haven't read the whole report yet but the summary is that the it was too low and too slow for the manoeuvre.
Some are going on that this was known along time ago but it may well have been pilot error or there may have been something wrong with the aircraft. The report suggests whilst it had a certificate, it wasn't up to the required level at the time of the flight. Is that the pilot's fault, the owner's fault, the fault of the engineers that maintained etc etc. It would be fantastic if the compensation could be paid out much quicker but no company is going to pay out millions until the cause was actually know.
I think this is the sentiment I most agree with - from solicitors Irwin Mitchell, representing many of the victims:
"The families and individuals who we represent have shown astonishing patience, dignity and grace in dealing with tragic loss and terrible injury. We call upon the CAA to acknowledge this and act upon all the recommendations of the AAIB as a matter of urgency."
There have been a lot of (some might argue unnecessary) delays in getting to this point, with still many questions unanswered and changes to safety measures still to be implemented.
And thinking of the victims what possible justification, medical or otherwise, can there be for AAIB investigators not being able to interview the pilot about his conduct during the flight?
the engineers would be engaged by the owner....as would the pilot , is it the owners responsibility to ensure the plane is up to spec or is the pilot supposed to check this before taking off...?? hope it's all settled for all affected......terrible accident...!