The CAA haven't said the regulations are inadequate. They have said regulations will be reviewed, which makes complete sense. At least the CAA SRG know about aviation and can make informed judgements, unlike most people clamouring for kneejerk responses in this thread.
Well, it all depends on whether you believe the CAA regulates in the public good, or are parochial in everything they do, and completely subservient to vested interests.
He asks the same question over and over because people evade or refuse to answer a straight question over and over again.
An alternative interpretation is that he asks the same question because he doesn't get the answer he wants. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Fair game when he's going after politicians who receive training in this kind of interview, but I don't know whether John Turner (or "that Taylor man" as he's been referred to in this thread) has had that kind of training.
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
without waiting for the report of the accident, then its only fair to have the other opinion put forward.
Is it ok to be calling the pilot a hero, without knowing all the facts?
I haven't heard anyone publically call the pilot a hero. We don't know the full facts yet anyway. He may have had no control at all at the point for all we know. but it's senseless to counter such a claim by suggesting he steered the plane onto the road, as you did.
An alternative interpretation is that he asks the same question because he doesn't get the answer he wants. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Fair game when he's going after politicians who receive training in this kind of interview, but I don't know whether John Turner (or "that Taylor man" as he's been referred to in this thread) has had that kind of training.
I beg your pardon.
Turner it is.
I did look him up, as I wrote to him this morning expressing my extreme distaste for his attitude.
It's nothing to do with training, and everything to do with refusing to answer a highly pertinent but extremely discomforting question.
The CAA haven't said the regulations are inadequate. They have said regulations will be reviewed, which makes complete sense. At least the CAA SRG know about aviation and can make informed judgements, unlike most people clamouring for kneejerk responses in this thread.
I didn't say they have, I said that some of us (and to be fair, now many other people) have said the regulations are inadequate. I even referred to the CAA statement, posted a few posts above.
This (the matter of the regulations) will, however, be addressed by the CAA in its review and it will undertake "additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced."
But in fact, temporary additional restrictions have already been introduced pending their full review and I am quite certain that the regulations will be tightened permanently, at least for some airfields/air displays, and one such will IMO be Shoreham.
I haven't heard anyone publically call the pilot a hero. We don't know the full facts yet anyway. He may have had no control at all at the point for all we know. but it's senseless to counter such a claim by suggesting he steered the plane onto the road, as you did.
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
This is a statement from a forum member, clearly indicating the bravery and hero status of the pilot.
How do we know this is true, when a fact is that he didnt put it down safely, he put it down killing 20 people.
Well, it all depends on whether you believe the CAA regulates in the public good, or are parochial in everything they do, and completely subservient to vested interests.
;-)
The CAA are completely independent. They are not in the pocket of vested interests.
Adding a smilie doesn't make such a suggestion any more acceptable.
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
This is a statement from a forum member, clearly indicating the bravery and hero status of the pilot.
How do we know this is true, when a fact is that he didnt put it down safely, he put it down killing 20 people.
I wasn't talking about uninformed speculation by an FM. That isn't a public statement in my opinion. There's far too much uninformed comment in this thread already.
Your suggestion is even worse, that he was aiming at the road. It certainly is not a fact that he crashed on the road deliberately. Your remark is even less welcome than a premature claim the pilot was a hero.
and you could also argue that he steered it onto a busy road instead of ditching in trees
"ditching" in trees?
He wouldn't have had much choice over where it crashed. Nobody is going to try to land on a busy road deliberately - the usual place to aim for would be fields. Also, he was too low to bail out.
You keep mentioning 20, where are your figures from?
I think police have mentioned there are twenty people reported missing by their families. Whether they are all dead remains to be seen but I'd say the chances of finding anyone alive diminishes with every hour, especially given the weather conditions.
An alternative interpretation is that he asks the same question because he doesn't get the answer he wants. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Fair game when he's going after politicians who receive training in this kind of interview, but I don't know whether John Turner (or "that Taylor man" as he's been referred to in this thread) has had that kind of training.
My apologies to Mr Turner as I didn't catch his name and followed suit when the name Taylor was used by trevgo. An egregious error on my part. I should have stuck with my cop-out term of "interviewee."
Comments
If you wanted to argue something that was complete and utter nonsense, then yes, I suppose you could argue that.
Well, it all depends on whether you believe the CAA regulates in the public good, or are parochial in everything they do, and completely subservient to vested interests.
;-)
An alternative interpretation is that he asks the same question because he doesn't get the answer he wants. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Fair game when he's going after politicians who receive training in this kind of interview, but I don't know whether John Turner (or "that Taylor man" as he's been referred to in this thread) has had that kind of training.
That is a question that needs answering.
Also, why was this show not out to sea, people could have watched from the beach?
I beg your pardon.
Turner it is.
I did look him up, as I wrote to him this morning expressing my extreme distaste for his attitude.
It's nothing to do with training, and everything to do with refusing to answer a highly pertinent but extremely discomforting question.
I didn't say they have, I said that some of us (and to be fair, now many other people) have said the regulations are inadequate. I even referred to the CAA statement, posted a few posts above.
This (the matter of the regulations) will, however, be addressed by the CAA in its review and it will undertake "additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced."
But in fact, temporary additional restrictions have already been introduced pending their full review and I am quite certain that the regulations will be tightened permanently, at least for some airfields/air displays, and one such will IMO be Shoreham.
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
This is a statement from a forum member, clearly indicating the bravery and hero status of the pilot.
How do we know this is true, when a fact is that he didnt put it down safely, he put it down killing 20 people.
Actually, both of these are sheer speculation. Although the second one has the additional benefit of being grossly and gratuitously offensive.
Adding a smilie doesn't make such a suggestion any more acceptable.
this pilot was very low to start with
You keep mentioning 20, where are your figures from?
Both are views speculating on what might have happened.
The poster you quote has some sense of logic and sense behind their statement, whereas yours is completely lacking in either.
I was using it to illustrate that we do not know one way or the other, not that it was true.
Pilots are trained to ditch their plane in an area without casualties. This has happened at many air shows, and the pilots are heroes for doing so.
However we have no evidence to back up this statement
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
Your suggestion is even worse, that he was aiming at the road. It certainly is not a fact that he crashed on the road deliberately. Your remark is even less welcome than a premature claim the pilot was a hero.
what is the logic, when the plane came down killing 20 people?
No one is claiming that as a fact, and yet people are claiming the opposite is true with absolutely no reason to.
I'll ask again (you seem to be ignoring my question) "You keep mentioning 20, where are your figures from? "
"ditching" in trees?
He wouldn't have had much choice over where it crashed. Nobody is going to try to land on a busy road deliberately - the usual place to aim for would be fields. Also, he was too low to bail out.
"police warn death toll could rise to 20"
I think police have mentioned there are twenty people reported missing by their families. Whether they are all dead remains to be seen but I'd say the chances of finding anyone alive diminishes with every hour, especially given the weather conditions.
My apologies to Mr Turner as I didn't catch his name and followed suit when the name Taylor was used by trevgo. An egregious error on my part. I should have stuck with my cop-out term of "interviewee."