Mea culpa, I failed to acknowledge your apology earlier: thank you for recognising that I had neither said nor inferred that of which you accused me.
Originally Posted by
DOUBLE BOGEY
John Eacott - let's get at least one thing crystal clear. The Newfoundland S92 comments I made are based on the intimation that the P1 was continuing flight under the misunderstanding that his MGB had a run- dry capability.
This discussion was, and has been in the public forum since that event.
Someone, somewhere released that erroneous information.
If this is incorrect challenge it.
I can only assume that you are disregarding the Canadian TSB Accident Report? I have emphasised the pertinent part which refutes your assertion about the P1s understanding of the S92 and my subsequent concern over your inflammatory comment about (I assume) Nick Lappos.
1.18.6 Social Media
The internet has greatly increased opportunities for individuals to interact and exchange information and viewpoints. Internet forums, a form of social media,139 have become a widely popular source of information exchange. On one such internet forum, the S-92A generated an enormous amount of discussion. Starting in March 2000, before the S-92A went into commercial use, website visitors engaged in discussions about the introduction of the S-92A. Many of the individuals who posted on this website chose to remain anonymous. However, others such as one of Sikorsky's senior managers for the S-92A program, who was a regular contributor to the online discussion, chose to identify themselves. Over the course of several years, the subject of the S-92A's compliance with Part 29 was discussed at length among members of this internet forum. From these online discussions, it was evident that those involved understood that the S-92A did not have a run dry capability.
It was determined during the TSB investigation that at least one senior manager, and several other pilots at Cougar Helicopters periodically reviewed the material posted on the above mentioned internet forum.