Safeway
M0DERAT0R
Looks to me as if people are deliberately choosing to misunderstand Martyn. It's fairly obvious he meant there will be friends and family of those involved, looking for answers, who will be viewing this forum.
Shoreham Air show crash
- Thread starter The Wookiee
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
**** You!
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Indeed. Sensitive subject, but my view is that we certainly can't go making insinuations about the critically injured pilot until the inquest takes his course.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,079
The Arsegas did its fair share of speculating, pontificating and assuming in the days following the crash. I'm not going near the rag after it ran with the 'fireball' image and tagline of 'The day it rained fire' on the Monday – the first issue of the paper after 22/8.
To think Naylor gets stick for reporting the news, as opposed to rumour, and gossip, and yet the front end of the paper does it and few people notice!
Withdean11
Well-known member
Pilot started his manoeuvre 200 metres above ground level when his licence stipulated 500 metres minimum according to initial report.
No faults with the aircraft seemingly.
One hesitates to pre-empt decisions still some way off but the pilot would seem to be, potentially at least, criminally culpable.
Can't see anything wrong with that post myself. He's not speculating he's just stating what the initial report says.
Withdean11
Well-known member
That however, is what is certainly NOT wanted on this thread. Shame on you.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The issue is in stating someone is seemingly criminally culpable. That is the speculation, and you will not see that in the initial report.
You've done yourself no favours whatsoever there.
martyn20
Unwell but still smiling
I apologise totally, I just don't understand how people want to argue it's ok to start talking about legally blaming someone for 11 deaths without all the facts. The last thing I want to do is cause extra distress. All the best everyone and very sorry again.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Please let's not turn this lovely thread (you know what I mean) into a binfest people... 
Personally don't think it really matters who's 'fault' it may be - nothing was done deliberately, it was a tragic accident whether things were done correctly or not, the result is still the same now. Let the experts work out what they have to do to avoid such tragedies in the future shall we...?
Personally don't think it really matters who's 'fault' it may be - nothing was done deliberately, it was a tragic accident whether things were done correctly or not, the result is still the same now. Let the experts work out what they have to do to avoid such tragedies in the future shall we...?
The Upper Library
New member
- May 23, 2013
- 675
Please let's not turn this lovely thread (you know what I mean) into a binfest people...
Personally don't think it really matters who's 'fault' it may be - nothing was done deliberately, it was a tragic accident whether things were done correctly or not, the result is still the same now. Let the experts work out what they have to do to avoid such tragedies in the future shall we...?
Thank you. A voice of calm - I really appreciate it.
Extracts may be published without specific permission providing that the source is duly acknowledged, the material
is reproduced accurately and is not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.
From the Preliminary (my term; their term Interim) Report.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55e993f5ed915d06a100002c/S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
I think the Coroner's Inquest (with jury) will have an expert testimony (when the facts are known) and I think the jury is even allowed to ask for clarification of technical aspects?
is reproduced accurately and is not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.
From the Preliminary (my term; their term Interim) Report.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55e993f5ed915d06a100002c/S3-2015_G-BXFI.pdf
I think the Coroner's Inquest (with jury) will have an expert testimony (when the facts are known) and I think the jury is even allowed to ask for clarification of technical aspects?
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Word Sheebo
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Reported on South Today that two Sussex police officers suspended subject to investigations over gross misconduct using Social Media during the crash recovery operation
They did clarify that it was a private message sent by one officer to another who immediately reported it. Not sure where the second suspended officer comes in or if he/she was the recipient!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
[tweet]640957782213160960[/tweet]
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It's also potentially libellous. Not something that is appreciated on NSC.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
I am sure noone has said anything .with any malice they just made a comment albeit it unfounded
Last edited:
Please let's not turn this lovely thread (you know what I mean) into a binfest people...
Personally don't think it really matters who's 'fault' it may be - nothing was done deliberately, it was a tragic accident whether things were done correctly or not, the result is still the same now. Let the experts work out what they have to do to avoid such tragedies in the future shall we...?
Yes, yes and yes. Thanks.
Pilot started his manoeuvre 200 metres above ground level when his licence stipulated 500 metres minimum according to initial report.
No faults with the aircraft seemingly.
One hesitates to pre-empt decisions still some way off but the pilot would seem to be, potentially at least, criminally culpable.
Not sure if it's been clarified, but you should be referring to feet, not metres. Also, the pilot, as the report confirms, has a licence to fly as low as 100ft. You are making assumptions that the start of the manoeuvre was outside his remit. Part of a loop is obviously the climb and that has to start somewhere, If he is in level flight then at some point he is going to start to climb so the question is at what point does the 500 ft limit actually apply. I don't claim to know that and I very much suspect you don't.
This crash may be down to pilot error or it may be down to mechanical failure or even something else. Neither can be gleaned from the initial report and it is certainly premature to speculate on his culpability let alone describe it as criminal!t
I'm not against discussing the possible causes on this thread but you need to be careful in what you say and how you phrase it.