Just a quick bump…how many definites for tomorrow ??
Propstrikes plan seems very reasonable 🙂

Since the only reply has been someone having to pull out, I’ll assume that this event isn’t going to happen.

To some degree, our forum has been ‘living on borrowed time” in terms of potential legal entanglements. How often do we read postings alleging that, for example:

Organisation Y is incompetent and/or hopelessly biased

Journalist X is incompetent, hopelessly biased, or being bribed

Company Z is covering up performance deficiencies in its aircraft

The Ruritanian Air Force is covering up safety problems that are killing pilots

Such claims may sound very fine when written at the keyboard, but would hardly survive a hostile cross-examination in London’s High Court. Aggrieved parties can and sometimes do take action against even relatively small publishers. A google search for Korean Airlines and Defence Attache magazine will document one instance of this.

I can’t hep but recall the following exchange and wonder how it might have gone down should it have been used on this occasion.

It might be instructive to consider the number of libel cases that the Dear Old “Eye” has lost over the years at the result of such attitudes, and the damages that it has had to pay up.

Various charity events have been held over the years to help the ‘Eye’ pay its damages. But it was a magazine in the public eye, so to speak. Defence Attache was not so lucky. If my memory is correct, it did long survive the Korean Airlines affair.

I would have pointed out it takes a lot of money to litigate without a very strong case and an uncertain result, thanks for calling.

I don’t always agree with what is said on forums but unless the “others” who wielded a big stick can “prove” they are guilty surely they [the banned 3] are innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, these views do not reflect the reality of current UK libel law, an area in which the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ does not exist. The phenomenon of ‘libel tourism’ shows just how far from “it takes a lot of money to litigate without a very strong case and an uncertain result” current reality has moved.

In a libel case, the presumption is made that the defendant whose publication is being complained about is assumed to be guilty, and his only effective defence is to demonstrate that the published statements are 100% true or constitute fair comment. If the complainant’s lawyers can find the tiniest error in the words being complained about, the ‘100% true’ defence collapses.

To quote from a 2008 article in The Guardian:

“’True as to fact or fair as to comment’ are the classic defences, but fair comment is subjective, and any attempt to justify or prove truth can be held to aggravate the gravity of the libel. And a defendant is at the mercy of the caprice of juries and the malice of judges.”

With a weekend looming, their best tactic for Keys was to take direct action independent of the moderators to remove the thread and to take direct action to prevent any further comments on the forum by the three persons who had posted the material being complained of.

We may not like it, but this is an area where the concept of “freedom of speech” simply does not apply, and where attempts to prove your innocence can be interpreted as further evidence of your guilt.

Is it really becoming more litigious?…

The reality is that very few cases of Libel or Slander get much traction beyond the ‘hissy-fit’ stage.

No, the reality is that most UK publishing houses are afraid of possible libel accusations, put their journalists through training courses on libel law, and even tell their journalists that some topics or individuals are ‘out of bounds’ for future news stories.

The best thing we can all do collectively right now is ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ until Keys has had a chance to take legal advice once the weekend is over.

But you can’t denied it maybe the real star of FIA 2010..

I will leave the question of whether an aircraft that did not take part in the flying display could claim to be the star of the show to braver (or more argumentative) souls. But to judge by the commotion in the beer tent queue on Monday lunchtime, the arrival of the Vulcan might have been the high point of that day.

I was there on Saturday, and it really was swarmed with people.

I did say that I couldn’t speak for the public days. Having been through the trade days, wild horses couldn’t drag me back to the show for a public day. I suspect that the entire show was swarming with people…

But the JF-17 was certainly not drawing crowds on the trade days. I didn’t have to struggle to get a glimpse of it, but had the fence almost all to myself.

But what it *was* drawing on trade days was the media. There always seemed to be at least one gentlemen of the press talking to the aircrew.

My question was if airborne radars are X-band and Phalcon is L-band, then what exactly is the use of I-J band jammer?

~Ashish

There are two different conventions for naming radar bands. I/J band in the newer scheme corresponds to X-band in the older scheme.

Mock Missle labelled SD-10A on 7th picture by Rookh, Its lying of grass beside aircraft.

The aircraft is being shown with what look like PL-9 missiles on the wingtip rails. The SD-10A are positioned close to the aircraft and are mounted on what look like wooden display stands.