Quote:
Originally Posted by Starovich
TBH I don't care which three letter acronym do the investigation it makes no difference. i still am not privy to the findings.
|
That's precisely my point. So the answers to the hypothetical questions from the coroner would be (1) No. (2) No. (3) Because display manouvres contain an inherent level of risk, and a crash into the crowd would have large numbers of casualties (4) Emmm... [or if you want to be flippant - we didn't worry about the risk to the general public]
Quote:
... I merely did some research and formed an opinion based on that.
No where did i say i had more/better data than the person making the decision, or that i was the font of all knowledge on the subject.
|
Then why are you so upset that someone has a different opinion?
For the avoidance of doubt the particular phrase you used that raised my eyebrows was:
"i think this indicates that airshows on the whole are safe enough."
I think there are 11 bodies in the morgue which suggest otherwise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pikey Dave
At what point does one mans debate become another mans "nit pick"
|
if I had bothered to point out the AAIB is not 3 letters!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by starovich
when the point of the reply is around the acronym used (one that came from the original post anyway)
|
If you thought that was the point of the reply, then you probably want to go back and read it again. Is it inappropriate to correct misinformation? I'd assume that in the research you did you'd have discovered that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) are responsible for (amongst other things) regulating Air Shows, and developing the rules used to define where/when/how pilots fly at them. The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) are responsible for investigating civilian air crashes and making recommendations to prevent future ones. It would be inappropriate for the CAA to investigate - because one of the things that will be considered is whether the CAA rules were adequate and sufficiently managed/enforced.
