Hard Landing...
Guest
Posts: n/a
From CNW.
Skyservice class action commenced on behalf of victims of Punta Cana landing accident
TORONTO, June 3 /CNW/ - A class action lawsuit has been commenced on
behalf of passengers who were on Skyservice Flight 560 from Toronto to Punta
Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005. The class action also includes the
claims of the passengers' family members.
The lawsuit arises out of a landing accident involving Flight 560, which
was carrying 318 passengers. As the Boeing 767 approached the landing strip in
Punta Cana, it descended suddenly and crashed into the runway. The landing was
so forceful that the airplane's fuselage sustained significant structural
damage and resulted in the airplane bouncing off the runway three times before
finally coming to a stop.
The class action was commenced by Linda Maggisano, a passenger on
Flight 560, who was travelling with her 2 month-old and 2 year-old sons, as
well as seven other family members.
For the passengers of Flight 560, the ordeal was terrifying. "I thought
my life was over," stated Ms. Maggisano. "I was especially frightened for my
infant son, who was nearly thrown from my arms."
Another passenger, Patricia McLean said: "This was the most traumatic
event in my life. I am very concerned about my injured back and the crack to
my neck found on an x-ray."
To Mukesh Mehta the accident was "a near death experience. We were thrown
around the plane like rag dolls." Mr. Mehta was also critical of Skyservice's
handling of the incident: "Skyservice failed to even apologize - this is no
way to treat airline passengers." Michelle Armstrong also directed
disappointment at the charter carrier: "I am terribly upset that no one
appears to be taking this seriously - especially since so many of us have been
injured."
Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers retained by Ms. Maggisano, commented:
"The passengers are very upset and are looking for answers from Skyservice as
to how such a serious accident and near disaster happened."
Skyservice class action commenced on behalf of victims of Punta Cana landing accident
TORONTO, June 3 /CNW/ - A class action lawsuit has been commenced on
behalf of passengers who were on Skyservice Flight 560 from Toronto to Punta
Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005. The class action also includes the
claims of the passengers' family members.
The lawsuit arises out of a landing accident involving Flight 560, which
was carrying 318 passengers. As the Boeing 767 approached the landing strip in
Punta Cana, it descended suddenly and crashed into the runway. The landing was
so forceful that the airplane's fuselage sustained significant structural
damage and resulted in the airplane bouncing off the runway three times before
finally coming to a stop.
The class action was commenced by Linda Maggisano, a passenger on
Flight 560, who was travelling with her 2 month-old and 2 year-old sons, as
well as seven other family members.
For the passengers of Flight 560, the ordeal was terrifying. "I thought
my life was over," stated Ms. Maggisano. "I was especially frightened for my
infant son, who was nearly thrown from my arms."
Another passenger, Patricia McLean said: "This was the most traumatic
event in my life. I am very concerned about my injured back and the crack to
my neck found on an x-ray."
To Mukesh Mehta the accident was "a near death experience. We were thrown
around the plane like rag dolls." Mr. Mehta was also critical of Skyservice's
handling of the incident: "Skyservice failed to even apologize - this is no
way to treat airline passengers." Michelle Armstrong also directed
disappointment at the charter carrier: "I am terribly upset that no one
appears to be taking this seriously - especially since so many of us have been
injured."
Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers retained by Ms. Maggisano, commented:
"The passengers are very upset and are looking for answers from Skyservice as
to how such a serious accident and near disaster happened."
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.
I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.
I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oh, Canada. Eh ?
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had passengers ask me if we had landed too fast - when in fact the aircraft touched down at the correct speed - and the approach was flown on the correct speed also.
Sometimes, passengers look out of the window with incorrect visual reference and actually, if you look out of the window, at an angle, it gives the impression of much higher approach and landing speeds than in reality.
It could well be the speeds were high - but let's wait for the incident report - that'll reveal all.
I am still baffled with Rob at the helm why this is turning into a PR circus, not helped by the passengers on the flight with rolling dollar signs in their eyes.
C'mon Skyservice - head it off, before it hurts more...
Sometimes, passengers look out of the window with incorrect visual reference and actually, if you look out of the window, at an angle, it gives the impression of much higher approach and landing speeds than in reality.
It could well be the speeds were high - but let's wait for the incident report - that'll reveal all.
I am still baffled with Rob at the helm why this is turning into a PR circus, not helped by the passengers on the flight with rolling dollar signs in their eyes.
C'mon Skyservice - head it off, before it hurts more...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: YYZ
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well....I am a first time poster, so NO FLAMING THE ROOKIE!!! hahaa
Anyways, I was on the flight, and I posted to that "other site" set up by rsavage last night. This morning...my post was gone, and I was banned from the forums!!! Wanna know why??? I ripped into the other poor poor passengers about being opportunists who want to sue the company for a hard landing. It was a pretty long, detailed email, and I guess they couldn't handle it. I kind of wish I had of saved it, because I would have cut and pasted it here for you all to see.
Anyways, I just wanted to let you all know that the site administrators are deleting any posts that they don't like, even though I was a passenger. I guess only negative posts will be left on there.
Oh well....welcome to the land of biased webmasters.
Hey Richard Savage.....I know you are reading this.....thanks for deleting my post on that other site. I guess calling out the opportunists who want to sue for "having bad dreams" and "never being able to fly again" was too much for you. I guess I also wasn't well liked for sticking up for the flight attendants who handled the situation just as they are trained to.
I am not an expert on planes, nor do I profess to be. I just wanted you guys on this site to know they are crying a river on that other site, but not letting anyone else post who disagrees with the lawsuit.
Lawyers and opportunistic money grubbing whiners...a match made in heaven.
Thanks in advance for letting me post on here, even though I am not a pilot. Let hope Skyservice clears this all up so that people won't lose their livelihood due to another airline shutting down from not being able to handle a 10 million dollar lawsuit. Actually, I think I read someone post a reply to me telling me to stop playing big brother for Skyservice, and they would be alright in the end. *sigh* I hate whiners.
Good day.
Anyways, I was on the flight, and I posted to that "other site" set up by rsavage last night. This morning...my post was gone, and I was banned from the forums!!! Wanna know why??? I ripped into the other poor poor passengers about being opportunists who want to sue the company for a hard landing. It was a pretty long, detailed email, and I guess they couldn't handle it. I kind of wish I had of saved it, because I would have cut and pasted it here for you all to see.
Anyways, I just wanted to let you all know that the site administrators are deleting any posts that they don't like, even though I was a passenger. I guess only negative posts will be left on there.
Oh well....welcome to the land of biased webmasters.
Hey Richard Savage.....I know you are reading this.....thanks for deleting my post on that other site. I guess calling out the opportunists who want to sue for "having bad dreams" and "never being able to fly again" was too much for you. I guess I also wasn't well liked for sticking up for the flight attendants who handled the situation just as they are trained to.
I am not an expert on planes, nor do I profess to be. I just wanted you guys on this site to know they are crying a river on that other site, but not letting anyone else post who disagrees with the lawsuit.
Lawyers and opportunistic money grubbing whiners...a match made in heaven.
Thanks in advance for letting me post on here, even though I am not a pilot. Let hope Skyservice clears this all up so that people won't lose their livelihood due to another airline shutting down from not being able to handle a 10 million dollar lawsuit. Actually, I think I read someone post a reply to me telling me to stop playing big brother for Skyservice, and they would be alright in the end. *sigh* I hate whiners.
Good day.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Left Seat
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YYZ Wrote:
Passengers were not too aware of the issue, just thought it was a heavy landing?
Wow,
for pax that were unaware, they seem to have come up with quite a list for their class action lawsuit:
The action accuses Skyservice of failing to properly maintain the aircraft and failing to hire sufficient staff to do so, failing to perform adequate safety checks before take-off, failing to hire competently trained pilots and failing to train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort passengers in the face of crisis.
Give me a break. One pax in question came up with this great idea that this was an excellent opportunity to gang up in a class action lawsuit and is simply using victim numbers by getting everyone involved to create a firm foundation for the case.
Passengers were not too aware of the issue, just thought it was a heavy landing?
Wow,
for pax that were unaware, they seem to have come up with quite a list for their class action lawsuit:
The action accuses Skyservice of failing to properly maintain the aircraft and failing to hire sufficient staff to do so, failing to perform adequate safety checks before take-off, failing to hire competently trained pilots and failing to train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort passengers in the face of crisis.
Give me a break. One pax in question came up with this great idea that this was an excellent opportunity to gang up in a class action lawsuit and is simply using victim numbers by getting everyone involved to create a firm foundation for the case.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If allowed to proceed, the action would seek $10 million in general damages and $1 million in punitive damages, as well unidentified amounts for special damages and the costs of the lawsuit.
CTV News:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...17820732802_79
What crap! I'm willing to bet that this will be settled for an undisclosed amount - substantially less than the amount claimed. Ontario is still a relatively conservative jurisdiction when it comes to high damage awards.
CTV News:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...17820732802_79
What crap! I'm willing to bet that this will be settled for an undisclosed amount - substantially less than the amount claimed. Ontario is still a relatively conservative jurisdiction when it comes to high damage awards.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Danger - Deep Excavation
Posts: 338
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting out of control.
20driver should be in management:
"The fault for this lies with Skyservice - they needed to be 100% proactive here. The VP operations should have being on the next plane down and personally, with a team addressed every passenger."
It's our whole industry getting tarred when an incident like this gets out of control.
"The fault for this lies with Skyservice - they needed to be 100% proactive here. The VP operations should have being on the next plane down and personally, with a team addressed every passenger."
It's our whole industry getting tarred when an incident like this gets out of control.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great message - Dick_Fitzwell
Perhaps others like you should contact Skyservice to provide your feedback on the experience. I bet the folks there would like to hear a different point of view or comments on the actions/antics of the savage cronies.
Skyservice Airlines
Statement to Media
June 3, 2005
Skyservice Airline’s top priority is the safety of our passengers. We regret that those aboard flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, on May 22 experienced what is known in the industry as a hard landing. Our dedicated professionals strive to ensure that all our flights are as smooth and comfortable as possible, and we apologize to flight 560 passengers for not meeting that standard. On June 2, we sent a letter of apology and a travel voucher for $500 to all those whose addresses we have on file.
Skyservice is taking this matter very seriously and is fully cooperating with the authorities that are investigating the incident to determine the cause. The results of the investigation will be made public in due course. We are aware that the flight-data recorder has been sent to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board on behalf of the Dominican authorities who are conducting the investigation.
The facts indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft conducted a normal approach, but, for reasons presently unknown, the landing resulted in damage to the fuselage. The aircraft was taxied to the designated parking area where passengers deplaned in a normal manner. No injuries were reported at that time.
Skyservice has always maintained a strong safety record. Transport Canada’s most recent safety audit, conducted in 2003, resulted in no major findings.
We pride ourselves on the highest customer care and sincerely hope that these valued customers will allow us to welcome them onboard future Skyservice flights where they will experience the level of service we are proud to offer.
Perhaps others like you should contact Skyservice to provide your feedback on the experience. I bet the folks there would like to hear a different point of view or comments on the actions/antics of the savage cronies.
Skyservice Airlines
Statement to Media
June 3, 2005
Skyservice Airline’s top priority is the safety of our passengers. We regret that those aboard flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, on May 22 experienced what is known in the industry as a hard landing. Our dedicated professionals strive to ensure that all our flights are as smooth and comfortable as possible, and we apologize to flight 560 passengers for not meeting that standard. On June 2, we sent a letter of apology and a travel voucher for $500 to all those whose addresses we have on file.
Skyservice is taking this matter very seriously and is fully cooperating with the authorities that are investigating the incident to determine the cause. The results of the investigation will be made public in due course. We are aware that the flight-data recorder has been sent to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board on behalf of the Dominican authorities who are conducting the investigation.
The facts indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft conducted a normal approach, but, for reasons presently unknown, the landing resulted in damage to the fuselage. The aircraft was taxied to the designated parking area where passengers deplaned in a normal manner. No injuries were reported at that time.
Skyservice has always maintained a strong safety record. Transport Canada’s most recent safety audit, conducted in 2003, resulted in no major findings.
We pride ourselves on the highest customer care and sincerely hope that these valued customers will allow us to welcome them onboard future Skyservice flights where they will experience the level of service we are proud to offer.
Last edited by airbuff; 5th Jun 2005 at 16:07.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a copy and paste from another web forum however in this instance I know of the poster who is a very straight arrow;
b767jetmec
Rank 0
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Location: North of Nowhere
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my co-workers happened to be on that flight with his wife. He is an AME with another Canadian Airline. By his accounts, yes the landing was harsh, some overhead bins and O2 masks did open and deploy. The mood was generally calm, until one of the passengers thought, hey wait a minute, we can sue and get large coin. This was done in the terminal area . Everyone walked out by themselves, and no one complained about pain or injury until one dumbass decided lets all get together and sue Skyservice. Now my co-worker claims that he has been getting nothing but calls from Skyservice and their lawyers along with the group action lawyers. He was originally offered $500 to forgive and forget, along with the reimbursement of the cost of the trip. He has now heard, though unofficially, that the offer now stands at 5 Grand. He has yet to confirm this with company lawyers.
b767jetmec
Rank 0
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Location: North of Nowhere
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my co-workers happened to be on that flight with his wife. He is an AME with another Canadian Airline. By his accounts, yes the landing was harsh, some overhead bins and O2 masks did open and deploy. The mood was generally calm, until one of the passengers thought, hey wait a minute, we can sue and get large coin. This was done in the terminal area . Everyone walked out by themselves, and no one complained about pain or injury until one dumbass decided lets all get together and sue Skyservice. Now my co-worker claims that he has been getting nothing but calls from Skyservice and their lawyers along with the group action lawyers. He was originally offered $500 to forgive and forget, along with the reimbursement of the cost of the trip. He has now heard, though unofficially, that the offer now stands at 5 Grand. He has yet to confirm this with company lawyers.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The action accuses Skyservice of failing to properly maintain the aircraft and failing to hire sufficient staff to do so, failing to perform adequate safety checks before take-off, failing to hire competently trained pilots and failing to train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort passengers in the face of crisis.
There is always the possibility that a particular pre-existing condition may be aggravated by a hard landing or some minor injuries can occur. However, its quite telling when I read that many passengers didn’t feel the pain until they saw the damage to the fuselage.
Furthermore, many are upset about the airline’s handling of the situation thus far. Some are just looking for an apology.
In matters such as this where litigation is always a possibility, it would be quite inappropriate and foolish to issue a formal apology until all the facts are in. Lawyers love formal apologies. They miss the touchy feely sentiment and see the obvious declaration of liability.
Anyone who is in a similar situation, would be wise to never say “sorry” with a lawyer around until all the facts are in.
Overall, travelling in Canadian registered airplanes is safe. The industry must defend against unsubstantiated, unfounded, and uninformed claims based on such preliminary data.
One poster on Mr. Savage’s site states:
Also, please contact your local papers and news stations. We are all trying to keep this in the media. If it is out of sight, it is out of mind!
Perhaps this story should stay alive in the media with information from the aviation community at large. Perhaps Skyservice has a good case considering the slanderous defamatory information being presented on that website.....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Barrie, ON Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lawsuit is a bone of contention right now with the passengers. There are a lot of passengers attacking the rationale for it. I think most feel this is too premature.
I started a poll on our discussion board to see what the passengers think. You can feel free to follow along. It's in the early stages.
We've always wanted pilot input. Some of you have been quite helpful. For example, I had been concerned about whether we had too many passengers. They really pack them in on the planes, and someone was able to show me that it was within spec. I find I'm learning a lot.
There is the downside of this communication. I had no idea I had cronies. I'm sure there's a shot for it.
Thank you to those of you who have taken my requests at face value.
A few additional points:
- It is not my web site.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.
- I am not interested in a lawsuit against Skyservice.
- My only complaint is in the service we received after the landing.
Please consider those points when you discuss slander on this site.
I started a poll on our discussion board to see what the passengers think. You can feel free to follow along. It's in the early stages.
We've always wanted pilot input. Some of you have been quite helpful. For example, I had been concerned about whether we had too many passengers. They really pack them in on the planes, and someone was able to show me that it was within spec. I find I'm learning a lot.
There is the downside of this communication. I had no idea I had cronies. I'm sure there's a shot for it.
Thank you to those of you who have taken my requests at face value.
A few additional points:
- It is not my web site.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.
- I am not interested in a lawsuit against Skyservice.
- My only complaint is in the service we received after the landing.
Please consider those points when you discuss slander on this site.
Last edited by rsavage; 6th Jun 2005 at 03:01.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right here inside my head
Age: 65
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wouldn't know slander from dander, but I know censorship when I see it. As one who's also had relatively benign posts zapped there, I'm happy to be seeing some of you reading here.
Crys, darlin'.... You experienced a mighty jolt when your airplane "landed"... that's right m'dear, "landed" is the correct term. Sorry to hear your previous back injury was aggravated by that jolt, but maybe with such a condition you ought to avoid situations that could result in more injury? Clear air turbulence could even subject you to similar results. (as for boats, don't try small one's, they can play hell on sore backs)
No one denies that landing was an unfortunately hard one, but those on that web site who insist on calling it a "crash" have their heads all muddled up with thoughts of a lottery win! And for those who've been unfortunate enough to experience a real "crash", your gang is looking rather despicable in trying to make this little event into such a big deal.
As for your crying, ...well, I admire sensitive folks, but my experience is they'll cry at the drop of a pin anyway... Not to minimize your emotions, but it's hardly relevant. Folks who cry easily will usually find something to cry about.
The biggest loser here was the airplane (unless there will be repercussions of a serious sort for the crew?). Sad to see a good machine in that state. But didn't she do her job? Yessiree, she did! She brought you all to where you were going, even with her genuinely serious injuries!
Wish I could be there to help with her recovery.
Crys, darlin'.... You experienced a mighty jolt when your airplane "landed"... that's right m'dear, "landed" is the correct term. Sorry to hear your previous back injury was aggravated by that jolt, but maybe with such a condition you ought to avoid situations that could result in more injury? Clear air turbulence could even subject you to similar results. (as for boats, don't try small one's, they can play hell on sore backs)
No one denies that landing was an unfortunately hard one, but those on that web site who insist on calling it a "crash" have their heads all muddled up with thoughts of a lottery win! And for those who've been unfortunate enough to experience a real "crash", your gang is looking rather despicable in trying to make this little event into such a big deal.
As for your crying, ...well, I admire sensitive folks, but my experience is they'll cry at the drop of a pin anyway... Not to minimize your emotions, but it's hardly relevant. Folks who cry easily will usually find something to cry about.
The biggest loser here was the airplane (unless there will be repercussions of a serious sort for the crew?). Sad to see a good machine in that state. But didn't she do her job? Yessiree, she did! She brought you all to where you were going, even with her genuinely serious injuries!
Wish I could be there to help with her recovery.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad to see, just looking at my log book and i have lots of flying and very fond memories of G-SJMC, first flown in 97 and last in 03 and did'nt bent in once!
"She was a great ship"
"She was a great ship"
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
puff:
You make it sound like she's been written off. I don't believe that's been decided yet. Most others have been repaired, many with worse damage than this one apparently suffered. I'd say there's a good chance she'll be back in the air in a few months. From what I remember of the Airtours 757 that was damaged at POP, the Boeing AOG team did yoeman's work in getting it airworthy again. Yes, that was a much newer aircraft but "MC" must have several good years in it yet!
Oh, and for what it's worth, the previous accident reports all stated "there were no injuries to the passengers and crew on board". And as I said, some of those aircraft were much worse off than the SSV machine. I hope the SSV lawyers do a good job of separating the wheat from the chaff before they sign any cheques.
You make it sound like she's been written off. I don't believe that's been decided yet. Most others have been repaired, many with worse damage than this one apparently suffered. I'd say there's a good chance she'll be back in the air in a few months. From what I remember of the Airtours 757 that was damaged at POP, the Boeing AOG team did yoeman's work in getting it airworthy again. Yes, that was a much newer aircraft but "MC" must have several good years in it yet!
Oh, and for what it's worth, the previous accident reports all stated "there were no injuries to the passengers and crew on board". And as I said, some of those aircraft were much worse off than the SSV machine. I hope the SSV lawyers do a good job of separating the wheat from the chaff before they sign any cheques.
Last edited by Safety Guy; 9th Jun 2005 at 20:20.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard, I have been watching this with some interest over the past week or so, as well as periodically checking in on the Flight560 site. As somebody who has worked closely with Skyservice, I find the whole situation unfortunate.
There does seem to be some major censorship going on over there from passengers who were on the flight, yet disagree with what is going on.
You mention:
Not having a go mate, but I am very curious as to who the Flight560Admin actually are? They are doing a great job of keeping things very one sided. I have read some of the posts you have made, especially in the thread regarding is a law suit premature and where you postulate the situation of perhaps and "air current". Some of the responses have been interesting.
There does seem to be some major censorship going on over there from passengers who were on the flight, yet disagree with what is going on.
You mention:
- It is not my web site.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard.
I have to agree with Jerricho on this completely.
I too have been lurking on the site with interest but have held back on posting because we were asked not to, even though we as pilots were invited to post on the pilot discussion thread.
Very disappointing to say the least. Good luck with everything.
I have to agree with Jerricho on this completely.
I too have been lurking on the site with interest but have held back on posting because we were asked not to, even though we as pilots were invited to post on the pilot discussion thread.
Very disappointing to say the least. Good luck with everything.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: toronto
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been watching both sites as well and find it very funny, not the situation but the bickering back and forth between the parties. From what I can see it's the same 6-10 people....there were 318 on that plane from what they claim. Where is everyone else?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have been banned from the site as well. I never said a thing to piss anyone off so I imagine anyone who was invited to join and was not a passanger is booted.
Well this is a slap in the face Richard.
First you invite pilots to offer their point of view, ask us to refrain from posting anywhere but the pilot discussion thread then your admin bans us from reading the site?
I did as I was asked and still get treated this way?
Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys don't like what was stated and your soccer mom experts seem to have a grip on reality :roll: .
Good luck with your censor ship deal here.
You guys are really going to need it.
Well this is a slap in the face Richard.
First you invite pilots to offer their point of view, ask us to refrain from posting anywhere but the pilot discussion thread then your admin bans us from reading the site?
I did as I was asked and still get treated this way?
Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys don't like what was stated and your soccer mom experts seem to have a grip on reality :roll: .
Good luck with your censor ship deal here.
You guys are really going to need it.