Airborne_Again wrote:
If it was properly policed, the penalty level won’t matter much
Really though?! You think that losing your licence (which is the penalty for a new driver, even with no previous convictions) has only the same weight as, say, a £5 fine.
Interesting.
Peter wrote:
This phone business is probably getting a long way away from the Shoreham crash
Personally, I am much more comfortable discussing the general principles than the specific case. Apart from anything else, I wouldn’t be surprised if the principals were reading this, and I empathise with them seeing such decisions being discussed in a peer group.
The decisions in this case should be entirely in the hands of the Police and prosecuting authorities.
Yes but then you are basically saying, AIUI, that the thread should become a discussion about people taking responsibility for their actions, etc. That’s a different discussion; feel free to start something so long as it is at least aviation related.
I think any discussion about mobile phone usage while driving is many miles away from the legal or personal responsibility issues in the Hunter crash or even any airshow crash. Also most of the legal points are meaningless to most people here because they are highly country specific. For example Germany has two levels of negligence…
Yes I am sure “everybody” reads this thread. We have some 1200 people a day reading EuroGA and they are mostly pilots.
Timothy wrote:
You think that losing your licence (which is the penalty for a new driver, even with no previous convictions) has only the same weight as, say, a £5 fine.I said “much”. Obviously if you go to extremes…Interesting.
Peter wrote:
Also most of the legal points are meaningless to most people here because they are highly country specific
What is the situation for the pilot? Has he been, or will he be prosecuted, and for doing what?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-39332409
From a legal view point this has some relevant points I think.
The pilot is being prosecuted – BBC.
This is not surprising but equally I am sure the CAA won’t be too happy to have its dirty laundry washed in the open because – regardless of merit – the defence is sure to make the best of the holes in the system whereby very low currency pilots could fly this type of aircraft in a display.
What hasn’t emerged in the AAIB is whether from an energy management point of view, a high speed, swept wing jet had sufficient airspace from the display floor to Class A at 5,500 feet above Shoreham to carry out the proposed manoeuvres safely. This must have been relatively easy to establish from previous practice in the type.
A great point, although my recollection is that the prohibited area around the Seaford airshow went to 7000ft which is well into the LTMA, so maybe the same was done at Shoreham. Can someone dig out old notams?
Seaford?
