Read the forum code of contact
By: 17th April 2010 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-''Private aircraft owners are strongly advised by the Civil Aviation Authority not to fly due to volcanic ash, however no legal restrictions are in force''
BBC website 17/4/10
I take issue with this statement, since no such recomendation has been made on any formal basis, and many flying schools /clubs are operating as normal, whilst keeping a cautious eye out for any significant changes in circumstances.
The implication of the BBC statement is that the flight was maybe conducted in a reckless manner, unheeding of official advice, and that volcanic ash could be material to the fatal outcome.
This is far from certain. Only the AIIB will establish the cause.
By: 17th April 2010 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Within the last twelve months. With reports being issued, they may have seemed more recent.;)
By: 17th April 2010 at 23:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Standards of BBc reporting have dropped a lot in the last 12 months, they are heading into tabloid style.
By: 18th April 2010 at 00:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hang on, they have reported the facts, nothing more nothing less.
Paul
By: 18th April 2010 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hang on, they have reported the facts, nothing more nothing less.Paul
Not so.
The actual advice from the NOTAM is
'VFR OPERATORS SHOULD OPERATE EXTREME CAUTION AND MUST ASSURE THEMSELVES THAT THEIR FLIGHT CAN BE CONDUCTED IN A SAFE MANNER BEFORE FLYING'
That does not equate to advise not to fly, or indeeed any implication that it is unsafe to fly.
By: 18th April 2010 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not so.That does not equate to advise not to fly, or indeeed any implication that it is unsafe to fly.
Nor does the BBC?
Private aircraft owners are being advised by the Civil Aviation Authority to take extra care because of the ash, but no legal restrictions are in force.
By: 18th April 2010 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The BBC have revised their report, following a number of complaints about their wording in the original bulletin.
My quote of yesterday was obviously from that report.
By: 18th April 2010 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Isn't the fact that two people have died of more importance than the wording of a BBC report?
Regards,
kev35
By: 18th April 2010 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yes, without any doubt. But that does not take away the necessity for factual reporting without speculation as to the cause. The BBC has a great responsibility in this respect and is often found wanting.
By: 18th April 2010 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Then there is this disgraceful sensationalism from the Mail. Totaly taking the emphasis away from the human tragedy of the loss of life.
Rod.
By: 18th April 2010 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So far impossible to determine the type of plane only that it took off from Hurn.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/8105772.Latest_on_fatal_Hampshire_aircraft_crash/
By: 18th April 2010 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Standards of BBc reporting have dropped a lot in the last 12 months, they are heading into tabloid style.Even the tabloids are not as bad as the BBC seems to have lowered itself to.
By: 18th April 2010 at 22:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The BBC have revised their report, following a number of complaints about their wording in the original bulletin.Revising the wording will have the same effect as a jury being told by a judge to ignore some of the evidence given at a trial as it is inadmissible. Can you honestly tell me that the evidence to be ignored would not have coloured your judgement? I know it would mine, it's basic human nature.My quote of yesterday was obviously from that report.
By: 25th April 2010 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Local paper has confirmed the names of those involved...:(
This would make the aircraft involved G-TOOT, a Dyn Aero MCR-01 Banbi.
Condolences to all those affected.
John
Posts: 8,847
By: Newforest - 17th April 2010 at 21:20
A sad start to the weekend.:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8627661.stm