Fatal accident at Andover today.

Local paper has confirmed the names of those involved…:(

Andover Advertiser

This would make the aircraft involved G-TOOT, a Dyn Aero MCR-01 Banbi.

Condolences to all those affected.

John

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.

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.

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.

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/

Then there is this disgraceful sensationalism from the Mail. Totaly taking the emphasis away from the human tragedy of the loss of life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266793/Two-people-killed-aircraft-crash-Police-investigate-volcanic-ash-blame.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

Rod.

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.

Isn’t the fact that two people have died of more importance than the wording of a BBC report?

Regards,

kev35

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.

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.

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.

Hang on, they have reported the facts, nothing more nothing less.

Paul

Standards of BBc reporting have dropped a lot in the last 12 months, they are heading into tabloid style.

Within the last twelve months. With reports being issued, they may have seemed more recent.;)

RIP 🙁

Weren’t there 2 other crashes in Hampshire recently?

”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.