An insignificant twiddle.
Did you ever, in all innocence, ask a question of 'experts' in an alien field? I did and it has led to some confounding questions. I was chatting with an old mate (a retired Judge), and introduced to two of his barrister mates and a couple of legal eagles recently - social thing. It was pure chance - on account of stopping to say Hi to my old friend. Anyway - 'airports' came up as an aside - one fellah had been messed about and was unhappy about it; so I was asked for the what and the why of it.
Second mistake; tried to get away with a quick, short, probably flippant answer. Not good enough; and so I ordered an Ale pulled up a chair and did my best - in short. The question of public safety came up - I cited the Essendon event and the DFO debacle. I could tell they all thought I was drawing a very long bow - but in my defence I had kept it short and to the 'facts'. So I then asked the question "say your wife and children had been in that building and the aircraft 20 feet lower - what then?"
This led us to large structures close in to operational surfaces and safety zones; this led to the ignored safety case of failed engines, building generated vortex and wind shear affecting the aircraft during critical periods etc. Took a half hour and used many napkins - but 'twas worth it. A rare chance to observe several sharp legal minds hard at work; the collective shaking of heads and disbelief was a rare threat.
"Can the dangers be mathematically defined?" - Oh yes said I. "Then someone is for the high jump".
The point questioned was why has there has not been a 'safety' case built to support the development in and around our airports. It can be argued (they opined) - probably successfully - that some of the development was the directly related or even causal in such an accident; one leading to death and injury. There appears to be a blatant disregard for aircraft performance, the effect of wind on buildings and the potential 'man made' hazards can create.
Will there be another tragedy? - Yes there will, so long as Murphy has a hand.
Now the legal crew could see years of gainful employment and school fees through to Uni for their kids and a 'interesting' case from the legal side. But, when I close my eyes, I can only see a wind shear affected light twin, in inexperienced hands loosing performance and ploughing into a building. It need not happen - the risk can be reduced to the travelling public by simply returning the aerodromes to their proper function - the safe arrival and departure of aircraft.
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. " — Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London; 1930's
Did you ever, in all innocence, ask a question of 'experts' in an alien field? I did and it has led to some confounding questions. I was chatting with an old mate (a retired Judge), and introduced to two of his barrister mates and a couple of legal eagles recently - social thing. It was pure chance - on account of stopping to say Hi to my old friend. Anyway - 'airports' came up as an aside - one fellah had been messed about and was unhappy about it; so I was asked for the what and the why of it.
Second mistake; tried to get away with a quick, short, probably flippant answer. Not good enough; and so I ordered an Ale pulled up a chair and did my best - in short. The question of public safety came up - I cited the Essendon event and the DFO debacle. I could tell they all thought I was drawing a very long bow - but in my defence I had kept it short and to the 'facts'. So I then asked the question "say your wife and children had been in that building and the aircraft 20 feet lower - what then?"
This led us to large structures close in to operational surfaces and safety zones; this led to the ignored safety case of failed engines, building generated vortex and wind shear affecting the aircraft during critical periods etc. Took a half hour and used many napkins - but 'twas worth it. A rare chance to observe several sharp legal minds hard at work; the collective shaking of heads and disbelief was a rare threat.
"Can the dangers be mathematically defined?" - Oh yes said I. "Then someone is for the high jump".
The point questioned was why has there has not been a 'safety' case built to support the development in and around our airports. It can be argued (they opined) - probably successfully - that some of the development was the directly related or even causal in such an accident; one leading to death and injury. There appears to be a blatant disregard for aircraft performance, the effect of wind on buildings and the potential 'man made' hazards can create.
Will there be another tragedy? - Yes there will, so long as Murphy has a hand.
Now the legal crew could see years of gainful employment and school fees through to Uni for their kids and a 'interesting' case from the legal side. But, when I close my eyes, I can only see a wind shear affected light twin, in inexperienced hands loosing performance and ploughing into a building. It need not happen - the risk can be reduced to the travelling public by simply returning the aerodromes to their proper function - the safe arrival and departure of aircraft.
![[Image: image-3.jpg]](https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image/52d7f884f3bd94dea2fa9b6903951770/image-3.jpg)