I don’t know why people would do that intentionally, unless as practice for herding sheep or landing on farm strips which have power lines across them.
But I gather that the Froggie formation just got caught by an unfortunate down-draft. There seems to be a lot of it about. 
When I don’t use my phone in the car I’m not thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might get nicked”, I’m thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might crash”. The idea of being prosecuted doesn’t even figure, the thought of the possibility of crashing on the other hand is extremely present.
I agree.
I think what actually tips the balance are the consequence campaigns we see. Realisation of the consequences your action can have is a big deterrent, but I suspect we all need to also realise we arent as good as we think. We think we will not be distracted by using a mobile, until we do, and then the severity of the consequence also dawn. For some the fact it is illegal is sufficient to never be tempted to try, for some they are always going to try, we can only hope they frighten themselves enough the first time, and are aware of the consequences from “advertising” campaigns.
Perhaps every new driver should sit in front of a simulator for 15 minutes and have a few scenarios presented to them inluding answering a mobile when it rings.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
When I don’t use my phone in the car I’m not thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might get nicked”, I’m thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might crash”. The idea of being prosecuted doesn’t even figure, the thought of the possibility of crashing on the other hand is extremely present.
Far too many people have become a slave of their mobiles and the expectations by people that one is reachable 24/7/365 doesn’t make this easier. I know several people who have had massive problems with their workplace because they have bad reception where they live. Equally, I know people who are on a very tight leech by family and business and are expected to pick their phone up really ALWAYS or else. Some of them have stopped driving and use public transport because of this and get totally shirty when they have to do without it for a few hours on the plane. I know at least two guys who won’t fly because they are not reachable, of which one because his superiors won’t allow him off the hook ever.
When I first got a mobile it meant a certain amount of freedom as I could inform people I am late or whatever, but in the mean time, people expect immediate answers to just about everything RIGHT NOW no matter what. Sometimes I wish I could put the thing in flight mode for good.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
When I don’t use my phone in the car I’m not thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might get nicked”, I’m thinking “Don’t pick up the phone, I might crash”.
I am sure that is excellent of you, but clearly all research says that you are the exception not the rule, which is why the penalty has just been doubled in the UK.
Timothy – sorry, just to be clear i was quoting alioth, i should have included the quotes.
And i am no angel, the reason i dont think of getting nicked is so many people use their mobiles and rarely do the police appear a concern i suspect because it is so difficult to effectively police.
I am sure that is excellent of you, but clearly all research says that you are the exception not the rule, which is why the penalty has just been doubled in the UK.
And rightly so. But as Alioth mentioned, deciding in cold blood to use a phone and then crashing (negligence), or simply crashing because we’re human, are very different scenarios. All of us would crash if we flew for long enough.
Timothy wrote:
I am sure that is excellent of you, but clearly all research says that you are the exception not the rule, which is why the penalty has just been doubled in the UK.
And you think that will have any effect? I very much doubt it.
It would/will have an effect if it were/is properly policed, and is seen to be. That is part of deterrence.
This phone business is probably getting a long way away from the Shoreham crash, whose legal situation is going to be awfully complicated, and highly country (UK) specific.
And after any criminal action there will be civil action(s) for death, injury and property damage.
I wonder what the pilot could use in his defence? Someone mentioned that the different authorisation levels for a flypast and for aerobatics are moot since he could claim that the maneuver started at the authorised flypast level (which is probably about right) and then there was a climb to the authorised aerobatic display level
Timothy wrote:
It would/will have an effect if it were/is properly policed, and is seen to be. That is part of deterrence.
If it was properly policed, the penalty level won’t matter much… Frequently politicians seem to regard harsher penalties as an alternative to proper policeing…
