A two bob twiddle.
Cheers P2 – I went and had a peek at the UP thread, you seem to have scooped up the relevant comments. “Reckless” is certainly heavy ordinance to be lobbing at this fellah. Leadsled, Sunny and CP as usual, the voices of sanity. Did a bit of digging about, can’t guarantee the ‘facts’ but it seems that the pilot went to Melbourne – commercial – and admitted to purchasing one drink with lunch on the journey; which was just plain silly. Well it was – if you are ‘dead-heading’ to duty the notion of a beer with lunch hardly ever enters your head, in fact having a beer when returning after a tour is, for me at least a rare event. Too many stories of crew being accused by passengers of boozing – in uniform; technically off flight duty, but still on PR duty and too much hassle to get changed into civvies. I digress.
There seems to be some confusion about ‘certificate’ validity; was the BFR (or whatever) time expired? If so, then was it an oversight or a deliberate act? Does it really matter? Just as you won’t die when a medical expires at midnight the out of date BFR as it relates to ‘ability’ is moot – unless there was intent to flout the system. No doubt the legal eagles will have argument along those lines. Does ‘strict liability’ apply to the association rules?
There is also an argument that the aircraft was always maintained within the prescribed ’25 nm' radius of action allowed; that life jackets were provided and worn although not a ‘legal’ requirement, which, if true, may go some way towards defending against ‘reckless’.
So, reckless or adventurous? Sailing around the world in a small boat; climbing big mountains; riding a push bike too fast; all the silly things young men have done, do and will continue to do, hopefully loosing their sense of immortality before their lives.
It all comes down to ‘perspective’; but being criminally reckless weighed against being young, dumb and full of it seems to me (without all the facts) a little OTT. It’s not as though you can legislate against the foolhardy doing their thing, no more than you can prevent crime with law. That only eases prosecution, after the fact.
Toot toot.
Cheers P2 – I went and had a peek at the UP thread, you seem to have scooped up the relevant comments. “Reckless” is certainly heavy ordinance to be lobbing at this fellah. Leadsled, Sunny and CP as usual, the voices of sanity. Did a bit of digging about, can’t guarantee the ‘facts’ but it seems that the pilot went to Melbourne – commercial – and admitted to purchasing one drink with lunch on the journey; which was just plain silly. Well it was – if you are ‘dead-heading’ to duty the notion of a beer with lunch hardly ever enters your head, in fact having a beer when returning after a tour is, for me at least a rare event. Too many stories of crew being accused by passengers of boozing – in uniform; technically off flight duty, but still on PR duty and too much hassle to get changed into civvies. I digress.
There seems to be some confusion about ‘certificate’ validity; was the BFR (or whatever) time expired? If so, then was it an oversight or a deliberate act? Does it really matter? Just as you won’t die when a medical expires at midnight the out of date BFR as it relates to ‘ability’ is moot – unless there was intent to flout the system. No doubt the legal eagles will have argument along those lines. Does ‘strict liability’ apply to the association rules?
There is also an argument that the aircraft was always maintained within the prescribed ’25 nm' radius of action allowed; that life jackets were provided and worn although not a ‘legal’ requirement, which, if true, may go some way towards defending against ‘reckless’.
So, reckless or adventurous? Sailing around the world in a small boat; climbing big mountains; riding a push bike too fast; all the silly things young men have done, do and will continue to do, hopefully loosing their sense of immortality before their lives.
It all comes down to ‘perspective’; but being criminally reckless weighed against being young, dumb and full of it seems to me (without all the facts) a little OTT. It’s not as though you can legislate against the foolhardy doing their thing, no more than you can prevent crime with law. That only eases prosecution, after the fact.
Toot toot.