jock001 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 That's the first thing you did. Give it a rest already Looks like you are another person who can't grasp the concept that you can make a mistake and have an accident without actually being to blame for it. That attitude kills people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philpy Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You are the one with the bad attitude. You sound like the kind of fuckwit that gets talked over in the pub because no c**t wants to listen to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Yet again, P&B full of it's 'experts' proves that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Thankfully this thread hasn't hit Global Warming proportions yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 So I'll just say this: Pretty much every human being on the planet is less likely to report something to official channels if they think they might be blamed for it. Do you think the pilot thought if he didn't report it, the officials wouldn't notice that one of their helicopters had crashed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You are the one with the bad attitude. You sound like the kind of fuckwit that gets talked over in the pub because no c**t wants to listen to you. Did you just call yourself a c**t? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Now, clearly you are just trying to get me to say more about the pilot because your technical claims weren't going very well and you thought you'd try another tack. So I'll just say this: Pretty much every human being on the planet is less likely to report something to official channels if they think they might be blamed for it. I'm not trying to get back at anything - as I've repeated over and over I have tried to speculate as to how this nose over tail might have occurred, I've also stated a few times that it seems unlikely. You however made the point that whether people liked it or not pilot error is by far the most likely cause because there was no mayday - a statement that is perhaps the most ridiculous in the entire thread yet you continue to back it up ! Let's take the 'nose over tail' witness statement that you've chosen to ignore out of the equation - how would you explain the 'tumbling' motion that has been described ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 People on this thread - Perhaps the way forward is if we all just stop responding to this Jock001 c**t on this subject from now. Na, better we keep letting him make a complete c**t of himself, imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Maybe we are being a wee bit hard on Jock. He does have experience of flying choppers as can be seen here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrBihTT3p0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Maybe we are being a wee bit hard on Jock. He does have experience of flying choppers as can be seen here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrBihTT3p0 Why my dad spent 6 months on a PC simulator before taking his RC chopper out for a flight. Expensive as hell if you f**k up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Why my dad spent 6 months on a PC simulator before taking his RC chopper out for a flight. Expensive as hell if you f**k up. I didn't even know you could get Catholic helicopters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 So I'll just say this: Pretty much every human being on the planet is less likely to report something to official channels if they think they might be blamed for it. Aye, I'd imagine the top thing on his mind would have been to save his Christmas bonus by pretending nothing was happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I'm not trying to get back at anything - as I've repeated over and over I have tried to speculate as to how this nose over tail might have occurred, I've also stated a few times that it seems unlikely. You however made the point that whether people liked it or not pilot error is by far the most likely cause because there was no mayday - a statement that is perhaps the most ridiculous in the entire thread yet you continue to back it up ! Let's take the 'nose over tail' witness statement that you've chosen to ignore out of the equation - how would you explain the 'tumbling' motion that has been described ? The 'end over end' and 'tumbling' versions are both from the same witness statement. PS I notice you ran away from your claim that the aircraft tumbled because it was top heavy. Can you use your aeronautical engineering qualifications to explain how that matters in the slightest to an object which is falling? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 People on this thread - Perhaps the way forward is if we all just stop responding to this Jock001 c**t on this subject from now. Another stunningly well thought out post which displays your grace and intelligence for all to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Na, better we keep letting him make a complete c**t of himself, imo. In a thread about a helicopter crash, I talked about a helicopter crash. You on the other hand didn't make a single post which wasn't abuse. Did you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 In a thread about a helicopter crash, I talked about a helicopter crash. You on the other hand didn't make a single post which wasn't abuse. Did you? That's as may be Jock but the bottom line here is that you've doggedly steered the same course that has been universally comdemned by every other contributor. Not the best course of action on an Internet forum where the right to reply is likely to bite you on the bum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Dufresne Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I have had just about enough of jock001,he has made a rip roaring c**t of himself but is now just annoying the arse out of me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I have had just about enough of jock001,he has made a rip roaring c**t of himself but is now just annoying the arse out of me. That was the impolite version of my post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 (edited) PS I notice you ran away from your claim that the aircraft tumbled because it was top heavy. Can you use your aeronautical engineering qualifications to explain how that matters in the slightest to an object which is falling? You actually make me laugh now - it didn't just 'fall' there was forward momentum to start with so we could surmise at drag from the underslung surveillance equipment, mibeez fuel issues resulted in the aircraft being unbalanced - who knows - it's just speculation and I've repeatedly stated that nose-over-tail was unlikely. The 'end over end' and 'tumbling' versions are both from the same witness statement. A witness you've chosen to ignore because he works for News International You're just trolling now - ignoring a witness is moronic - claiming that it was pilot error because there was no mayday is utterly moronic. Edited December 15, 2013 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 You actually make me laugh now - it didn't just 'fall' there was forward momentum to start with so we could surmise at drag from the underslung surveillance equipment, mibeez fuel issues resulted in the aircraft being unbalanced - who knows - it's just speculation and I've repeatedly stated that nose-over-tail was unlikely. A witness you've chosen to ignore because he works for News International You're just trolling now - ignoring a witness is moronic - claiming that it was pilot error because there was no mayday is utterly moronic. Why not just admit you don't have qualifications in aeronautical engineering since you keep making standard grade physics style mistakes? Apparently the fact that falling objects are essentially weightless has escaped you. You said a falling aircraft could be made to go end over end by being top heavy, then even after having it pointed out that doesn't work, you then tried the exact same thing with the aircraft being unbalanced by fuel. It doesn't matter how unbalanced the aircraft is or along which axis, it needs weight to make it topple. If it is weightless, it won't fall over, will it? Standard grade physics tell us this. Now you are suggesting that more drag on the lower half of the aircraft compared to the upper would cause it to go end over end. Here are some objects which are designed to have lots of drag on one side: A dart, a parachute, a bullet. All things specifically designed to have way more drag in one area than another because this STOPS then from spinning. Playing with things at primary school tells us this. Now you are apparently trying to imply I was wrong to trust a news international employee less than the other witnesses who all gave similar accounts to each other. Even after you've had it explained that the Ni employee gave numerous differing witness statements which couldn't possibly all be true as they conflicted with each other and one of which placed him 200m away from the aircraft which was flying at 500m altitude, thereby putting Mr news international a minimum of 300m in the air himself. He wasn't telling the truth. Common sense tells us this but apparently you think it is 'moronic' not to believe him utterly and you instead choose to ignore every other witness statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Playing with things at primary school tells us this. I wondered where you'd been all day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.