Some truth about the ML incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some truth about the ML incident
Dear CivilAir people et al.
I have to bugga a good story with facts, but I'm gonna anyway
The VFR Cessna 421, VH-AAI was 23 miles north of Canty (75 from ml) at 17,500'. Normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500'.
There were 2 IFR aircrat in the area, the Virgin and an RFDS.
The VFR called for a clearance into ML 7 minutes before the TCAS alert and was adviced that no ALT was seen. Transponder was recycled 7 minutes prior to the TCAS alert and ALT info was acknowledged!!!
ATC then advised "we have you at 17,500, but not VFR clearance available due Wx at ML" (or words to that effect).
Cessna is offered IFR as alternative and accepts. (That is not actually up to ATC but I accept is was done out of professionalism) This is 25 NW Canty.
Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
The turn was probably to get more lateral separation, however it placed the Cessna closer to the Virgin with only 500' vertical separation and thus the TCAS sounded.
My interpretation. This is not in my view a NAS failure. In I believe fact if correct NAS procedures in E had been followed the Virgin could have descended through the Cessna's level befoire the conflict.
It seems to me that this occured while the two aircraft were both being treated as IFR and separated. It seems to me then that this would have happened the same way pre NAS and that proves to me that the CivilAir campaign is a blow up.
But then, why spoil a good public scaring press release with any truth!!!!
AK
I have to bugga a good story with facts, but I'm gonna anyway
The VFR Cessna 421, VH-AAI was 23 miles north of Canty (75 from ml) at 17,500'. Normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500'.
There were 2 IFR aircrat in the area, the Virgin and an RFDS.
The VFR called for a clearance into ML 7 minutes before the TCAS alert and was adviced that no ALT was seen. Transponder was recycled 7 minutes prior to the TCAS alert and ALT info was acknowledged!!!
ATC then advised "we have you at 17,500, but not VFR clearance available due Wx at ML" (or words to that effect).
Cessna is offered IFR as alternative and accepts. (That is not actually up to ATC but I accept is was done out of professionalism) This is 25 NW Canty.
Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
The turn was probably to get more lateral separation, however it placed the Cessna closer to the Virgin with only 500' vertical separation and thus the TCAS sounded.
My interpretation. This is not in my view a NAS failure. In I believe fact if correct NAS procedures in E had been followed the Virgin could have descended through the Cessna's level befoire the conflict.
It seems to me that this occured while the two aircraft were both being treated as IFR and separated. It seems to me then that this would have happened the same way pre NAS and that proves to me that the CivilAir campaign is a blow up.
But then, why spoil a good public scaring press release with any truth!!!!
AK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least I posted my facts, all you did was make a batantly unsubstatiated comment that aint worth anything 
But it would be useful if you told us what they said. So????
AK
But it would be useful if you told us what they said. So????
AK
Last edited by snarek; 10th Dec 2003 at 09:49.
Snarek, you should go work for the ATSB. Your private pilot-expert investigative skills are obviously wasted here.
So the TCAS triggered an RA because the Virgin aeroplane levelled off 500ft above the cesspit instead of diving thru it's level with little or no laertal separation? Get a job where you learn what TCAS is and how it works before you come on here pontificating about something you know nothing about. You're an enthusiatic amateur.
This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup. Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service?
Speaking of the truth and a good story, why do you and your ilk continue to peddle the LIES that NAS will save in excess of $50m AND be safer, and that See and Avoid is like passing a semi?
It's actually good having you contiune to post this nonsense: it provides us with fresh evidence of the mentality and the qualifications of those who support the NAS. Keep it up, bloggs!
So the TCAS triggered an RA because the Virgin aeroplane levelled off 500ft above the cesspit instead of diving thru it's level with little or no laertal separation? Get a job where you learn what TCAS is and how it works before you come on here pontificating about something you know nothing about. You're an enthusiatic amateur.
This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup. Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service?
Speaking of the truth and a good story, why do you and your ilk continue to peddle the LIES that NAS will save in excess of $50m AND be safer, and that See and Avoid is like passing a semi?
It's actually good having you contiune to post this nonsense: it provides us with fresh evidence of the mentality and the qualifications of those who support the NAS. Keep it up, bloggs!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the post again Bloggsy, the spam can had levelled off at 18,000 under an ammended clearance. The spamcan drivers had the cessna visual and had requested a descent (which they should have been allowed if E procedures were followed).
However, because the VB Red-Can was holding, as directed, under positive control, all the TCAS did was liven things up.
Interesting thing, the Cessna pilot is sure there would have been no conflict without the 90 deg turn. So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C AND the transponder of the Cessna was giving Mode C for SEVEN MINUTES before the conflict.
You guys sure do get upset when reality stuff up your little scare campaign!!!
AK ... oh, and the pilot's perspective
Near-miss no big deal: Nippy's boss
By ALAN GALE in Melbourne
05dec03
THE Adelaide pilot of a Cessna involved in a near-miss with a Virgin passenger jet said yesterday that too much fuss was being made of the incident.
The aircraft, one carrying more than 100 passengers and the other four, came within 150m of each other about 100km northwest of Melbourne on Wednesday, triggering a collision warning alarm on the Virgin flight.
The incident has again raised concerns about the new National Airspace System which came into effect last week. It allows light planes into areas previously used by commercial airliners.
But John Knispel, a former air force transport pilot and now managing director of Knispel Fruit Juices which makes Nippy's drinks, said yesterday: "It's pretty much a non-event.
"There was no stress in the voice of the Virgin pilot or in the voice of the traffic controller. One of my passengers saw the Virgin flight and she certainly wasn't screaming in panic ... everyone was quite relaxed."
Mr Knispel was flying from Loxton to Melbourne at 17,500 feet on approach to Essendon airport when he was asked to turn right by traffic control.
"The Virgin flight was on the same path and descending at about twice my speed and halted at around 18,000 feet," he said.
"He continued his descent once we had moved and we resumed course, just the way it is supposed to happen. It was all very relaxed and there was no panic."
However, because the VB Red-Can was holding, as directed, under positive control, all the TCAS did was liven things up.
Interesting thing, the Cessna pilot is sure there would have been no conflict without the 90 deg turn. So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C AND the transponder of the Cessna was giving Mode C for SEVEN MINUTES before the conflict.
You guys sure do get upset when reality stuff up your little scare campaign!!!
AK ... oh, and the pilot's perspective
Near-miss no big deal: Nippy's boss
By ALAN GALE in Melbourne
05dec03
THE Adelaide pilot of a Cessna involved in a near-miss with a Virgin passenger jet said yesterday that too much fuss was being made of the incident.
The aircraft, one carrying more than 100 passengers and the other four, came within 150m of each other about 100km northwest of Melbourne on Wednesday, triggering a collision warning alarm on the Virgin flight.
The incident has again raised concerns about the new National Airspace System which came into effect last week. It allows light planes into areas previously used by commercial airliners.
But John Knispel, a former air force transport pilot and now managing director of Knispel Fruit Juices which makes Nippy's drinks, said yesterday: "It's pretty much a non-event.
"There was no stress in the voice of the Virgin pilot or in the voice of the traffic controller. One of my passengers saw the Virgin flight and she certainly wasn't screaming in panic ... everyone was quite relaxed."
Mr Knispel was flying from Loxton to Melbourne at 17,500 feet on approach to Essendon airport when he was asked to turn right by traffic control.
"The Virgin flight was on the same path and descending at about twice my speed and halted at around 18,000 feet," he said.
"He continued his descent once we had moved and we resumed course, just the way it is supposed to happen. It was all very relaxed and there was no panic."
Last edited by snarek; 10th Dec 2003 at 07:58.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service?
Once again Aussie controllers display a lack of aptitude and ability to provide efficient dynamic radar seperation vectoring services. If this controller had actually been doing something else (what, I can not imagine), the incident would not have occured. It is high time these CivilAir bludgers were sent to the States (in their own time and expense) to observe and learn what service and respect mean...irrespective of flight rules, aircraft size or speed..
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real sound of silence
Well well well
The anti-NAS brigade seem to be either clutching at straws, twisting the facts or being just plain insulting.
Sked
I don't believe you. I think you made that up. Post the comments and we can check the transcripts and thus your veracity.
Capt Bloggs
I don't think you are a Captain. If you were you would know that at over 100 nm ML there has been little change, in fact the aircraft was in contact well before the conflict and was under ATC control. So tell me exactly, how did NAS contribute.
Oh and your reference to 'paying the money', airspace is a public resource, it isn't there for the airlines. They like everyone else may be granted the priviledge of useing it.
This seems to me to be a simple ATC error from which the ATC Union has grown a bunch of really smelly conclusions. It is not the ATC service that should be criticised, it is the union and NAS detractors who have misused the incident to mislead the public. In outing the truth ATC have been harmed by the promulgated lies as has the reputation of those who cried wolf.
PT
The anti-NAS brigade seem to be either clutching at straws, twisting the facts or being just plain insulting.
Sked
Having spoken to the crew of the DJ flight that is not the way it happened. Get your facts right.
Capt Bloggs
This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup.
Oh and your reference to 'paying the money', airspace is a public resource, it isn't there for the airlines. They like everyone else may be granted the priviledge of useing it.
This seems to me to be a simple ATC error from which the ATC Union has grown a bunch of really smelly conclusions. It is not the ATC service that should be criticised, it is the union and NAS detractors who have misused the incident to mislead the public. In outing the truth ATC have been harmed by the promulgated lies as has the reputation of those who cried wolf.
PT
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well-said pesawat_terbang
The crap and lies that come out of some of these posts is unbelievable.
NAS is beginning to show one thing that is half the so-called professional are not really professionals after all. Bill Hamilton a man that has been flying before most of you come out of nappies has supported this from the beginning. Try telling him he knows nothing about airspace and how difficult it is to look out of the window whilst flying his 747 and if you were his F/O you would get a quick slap in the head.
As for Ted Lang in my view nothing but a liar scaring the public and distorting the truth, now that the facts have really come out in various forms most of you should be ashamed of yourself.
Go cry in someone else’s soup
The crap and lies that come out of some of these posts is unbelievable.
NAS is beginning to show one thing that is half the so-called professional are not really professionals after all. Bill Hamilton a man that has been flying before most of you come out of nappies has supported this from the beginning. Try telling him he knows nothing about airspace and how difficult it is to look out of the window whilst flying his 747 and if you were his F/O you would get a quick slap in the head.
As for Ted Lang in my view nothing but a liar scaring the public and distorting the truth, now that the facts have really come out in various forms most of you should be ashamed of yourself.
Go cry in someone else’s soup
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIES
Well, an amazing amount of vitriol.
Good work Snarek. You have either spoken to the pilot of the Cessna, or merely read the newspaper reports. So on that basis, you have tried and hung the controller. You wonder why the professionals have contempt for you people!
1. The people who know the facts would be unable to post them here.
2. This sort of scenario (the controllers being scapegoated) was envisioned by CivilAir.
3. Calling Ted a liar is a bit rich considering the orchestrated campaign of absolute and utter lies by the pro-NAS people. Simply name one thing he is said that is untrue, and PROVE it.
This is a despicable set of circumstances, Mr Kerans. I would hope that legal action commences against you quite soon. You need to be made aware of the consequences of getting on the "spin" bandwagon. The professional liars are adept at protecting themselves. You, it would seem, are not.
Good work Snarek. You have either spoken to the pilot of the Cessna, or merely read the newspaper reports. So on that basis, you have tried and hung the controller. You wonder why the professionals have contempt for you people!
1. The people who know the facts would be unable to post them here.
2. This sort of scenario (the controllers being scapegoated) was envisioned by CivilAir.
3. Calling Ted a liar is a bit rich considering the orchestrated campaign of absolute and utter lies by the pro-NAS people. Simply name one thing he is said that is untrue, and PROVE it.
This is a despicable set of circumstances, Mr Kerans. I would hope that legal action commences against you quite soon. You need to be made aware of the consequences of getting on the "spin" bandwagon. The professional liars are adept at protecting themselves. You, it would seem, are not.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
In your first post it appears that you are trying to piece together what happened in the incident using information only gleaned from the VFR pilot's point of view. You also, in your now edited second post, implied that you had a transcript obtained through FOI. You removed that reference. Do you have a transcript of the events or was that a misleading comment?
I'm more inclined to believe that you have the VFR pilot's account: You give his type, rego, altitude, exact position north of CANTY, and only approximate transmissions heard from ATC (eg: "or words to that effect", and "Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000" etc).
With respect to the other aircraft you have very sketchy details, again they were probably from what the VFR pilot could relate.
You do not give the flight number, rego, positive position or anything about the Virgin aircraft. Your comment "normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500' " is speculative. Also, an RFDS aircraft "was in the area" - again no rego or positive position or height. All of this shows that you don't have any information about the actual positions of the other aircraft.
The only new information that you seem to offer is that "7 minutes" took place between the recycling of the transponder and the TCAS alert. Interesting. If the information you have is only from the VFR pilot, then how do you know exactly when the TCAS went off?
The rest of your post is speculation ("the turn was probably to get more lateral separation") and what you admit to be your interpretation. In other posts you accuse others of beating up a story for union purposes. Your comments in recent posts show that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing, except it's for anti-union/pro-NAS purposes.
You still have not answered repeated genuine questions about where the savings are in NAS, or how it is safer, or how see and avoid is a valid first and last line of defence, or even how it is a union (both pilot and ATC) issue at all.
How about you rise above what you perceive to be unreasonable posts, not respond in kind, and contribute positively and responsibly to the debate as a publically visible member of AOPA? I can only ask.
In your first post it appears that you are trying to piece together what happened in the incident using information only gleaned from the VFR pilot's point of view. You also, in your now edited second post, implied that you had a transcript obtained through FOI. You removed that reference. Do you have a transcript of the events or was that a misleading comment?
I'm more inclined to believe that you have the VFR pilot's account: You give his type, rego, altitude, exact position north of CANTY, and only approximate transmissions heard from ATC (eg: "or words to that effect", and "Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000" etc).
With respect to the other aircraft you have very sketchy details, again they were probably from what the VFR pilot could relate.
You do not give the flight number, rego, positive position or anything about the Virgin aircraft. Your comment "normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500' " is speculative. Also, an RFDS aircraft "was in the area" - again no rego or positive position or height. All of this shows that you don't have any information about the actual positions of the other aircraft.
The only new information that you seem to offer is that "7 minutes" took place between the recycling of the transponder and the TCAS alert. Interesting. If the information you have is only from the VFR pilot, then how do you know exactly when the TCAS went off?
The rest of your post is speculation ("the turn was probably to get more lateral separation") and what you admit to be your interpretation. In other posts you accuse others of beating up a story for union purposes. Your comments in recent posts show that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing, except it's for anti-union/pro-NAS purposes.
You still have not answered repeated genuine questions about where the savings are in NAS, or how it is safer, or how see and avoid is a valid first and last line of defence, or even how it is a union (both pilot and ATC) issue at all.
How about you rise above what you perceive to be unreasonable posts, not respond in kind, and contribute positively and responsibly to the debate as a publically visible member of AOPA? I can only ask.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
????
Vitriole???
Show me where he posted 'vitriole'. I can show it after the posts under various pseudonyms, but not in that post.
Not once does he question the controller, or either pilot, he simply points out that NAS was not to blame. In a later post he just copies a news article.
I think you just don't like the truth being posted and have now sunk to legal threats
Max
Show me where he posted 'vitriole'. I can show it after the posts under various pseudonyms, but not in that post.
Not once does he question the controller, or either pilot, he simply points out that NAS was not to blame. In a later post he just copies a news article.
I think you just don't like the truth being posted and have now sunk to legal threats
Max
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A scary thing ...
Despite all the speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and b#%%#*@t, the fact remains that:
The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder, near a major air route used by RPT jets and wanting to enter C airspace in poor weather conditions without a flight plan.
After assessing the traffic disposition and passing traffic info, the controller couldn't sit back and do nothing more (which he could have done under our "safe" NAS procedures), especially when he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.
400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late!
The scariest thing I've ever seen … all because NAS allows it.
The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder, near a major air route used by RPT jets and wanting to enter C airspace in poor weather conditions without a flight plan.
After assessing the traffic disposition and passing traffic info, the controller couldn't sit back and do nothing more (which he could have done under our "safe" NAS procedures), especially when he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.
400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late!
The scariest thing I've ever seen … all because NAS allows it.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have some questions then.
Was the transponder faulkty, or was it the TAAATS stuff up that has happened a couple of times to me. No clarification in snarek's post.
Unless both snarek's information, the presss report and the Cessna pilots statements are complete fabrications, didn't the controller have both aircraft under control for more than 8 minutes??? How far away would the DJ have been then. I calculate about 40 nm from the Cessna (assuming direct tracks to the 'intercept' point). So that statement looks a little shaky unless backed with some facts.
Oh, and what about the VFR descent??? Obviously if this information is correct the DJ pilot had the Cessna in sight for quite a while before the RA. So this statement seems a tad over emotional.
Well unless you have some evidence to support that I am going to have to stick with the 'nothing to do with NAS' crowd.
As someone has said, there is a lot of vitriole here, mostly directed at snarek because he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay.
So come on people, put up or shut up.
The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder
he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.
400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late
all because NAS allows it
As someone has said, there is a lot of vitriole here, mostly directed at snarek because he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay.
So come on people, put up or shut up.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
I'll bite. Ted said to the media that the safest time to travel is at night because VFR aircraft can't fly at night.
I've been flying at night, VFR for years. In fact I intend doing it tonight if the weather stays fine.
I notice as well that Civilair have not retracted their earlier Press Release stating:
“We have been informed that in Canberra today, for example, a passenger aircraft’s collision warning system activated due to a light aircraft straying too close.” (Press Release Dated Sunday 30 November) Not a lie, however not too forthcoming in letting Joe Public know it was just a false alarm by the TCAS.
TBT
I'll bite. Ted said to the media that the safest time to travel is at night because VFR aircraft can't fly at night.
I've been flying at night, VFR for years. In fact I intend doing it tonight if the weather stays fine.
I notice as well that Civilair have not retracted their earlier Press Release stating:
“We have been informed that in Canberra today, for example, a passenger aircraft’s collision warning system activated due to a light aircraft straying too close.” (Press Release Dated Sunday 30 November) Not a lie, however not too forthcoming in letting Joe Public know it was just a false alarm by the TCAS.
TBT
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
1. I seriously doubt anyone outside the investigative process can get access to transcripts at this stage.
2. This would not have occurred pre. 27/11.
3. From your "probable" speculations, I reckon you're a frustrated controller wannabee.
No news of a recent NAS incident leading up to the CB airshow??
CG
1. I seriously doubt anyone outside the investigative process can get access to transcripts at this stage.
2. This would not have occurred pre. 27/11.
3. From your "probable" speculations, I reckon you're a frustrated controller wannabee.
No news of a recent NAS incident leading up to the CB airshow??
CG
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay.
When did the VFR get an IFR Clearance?
When was he under control?
Snarek, heresay is not evidence... All, jumping on the heresay as evidence is great for position but does little for your argument.
TBT, big deal re the CB TCAS event, JA said that the Virgin C421 incident wasn't a fault of NAS.
AS for the suggestion that this would have happened the same pre and post NAS, get real; only if it was a massive mistake.
The whole problem with Class E; if everyone does everything right a TCAS RA (or worse) can still happen, last Wednesday case in point. Under Class C, it would take a break in the safety chain for that to happen.
Bottle of Rum
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on the heresay as evidence is great for position but does little for your argument.
As I have said from the start, we should wait for the official investigation: anything else is speculation. All AK has done, quite rightly, has been to balance the anti-NAS hearsay with pro-NAS hearsay: but at least he's not unecessarily alarming the public, or putting off Singaporean tourists from spending their $$$ in our great country, like Mr Lang... (if you don't believe me, you can look that up on Mr Lang's website where he proudly repeats the press coverage attributed to his own sensationalist statements...).
Lets calm down and wait, eh?
Andy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have asked for the transcripts via the FOI process and have asked the Minister to assist.
My post was based on a conversation with the pilot of the Cessna. A conversation with a person who heard the events unfold and an analysis of both by two 15,000 hour plus pilots.
I might add, the Cessna pilot is an ex-RAAF trasport pilot and hardly a member of what you guys call the 'terry towling' brigade.
I too get a bit upset at the tone of these posts and try to tell myself that the insulting and basless ones come from kids with 155 hours, eight gold bars, wings and sunnies with a venturi rating for the PJE 206 they are njot paid to fly.
I hope so, because if much of this is from regionals and controllers, in a few years time when you need GA to give you a hand, the wounds may not have healed.
AK
My post was based on a conversation with the pilot of the Cessna. A conversation with a person who heard the events unfold and an analysis of both by two 15,000 hour plus pilots.
I might add, the Cessna pilot is an ex-RAAF trasport pilot and hardly a member of what you guys call the 'terry towling' brigade.
I too get a bit upset at the tone of these posts and try to tell myself that the insulting and basless ones come from kids with 155 hours, eight gold bars, wings and sunnies with a venturi rating for the PJE 206 they are njot paid to fly.
I hope so, because if much of this is from regionals and controllers, in a few years time when you need GA to give you a hand, the wounds may not have healed.
AK
