Beijing Panam Mid Air Collision
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beijing Panam Mid Air Collision
A couple of days ago at Beijing Panam in China there was a mid air collision between a DA40 and a DA42 while doing circuit training.
For who work for the company this comes as no surprise. Their attitude to flight safety is almost non existant and a fatal accident is just a matter of time. By some miracle this mid air collision only resulted in one student getting a broken arm. Both Aircraft made it back down in controlled flight but are both written off. Chinese ATC is shocking and one cannot count the amount of near misses there has been. If there is an accident on the air field dont expect immediate medical attention. The first accident that happened there resulted in moderate injuries to instructor and student. The tower did not nofity the emergency services but just paniced. The instructor and student managed to get out of the plane, which was upside down, and had to walk back to the flight school and called for the ambulance. The hospital where the ambulance came from was 3 minutes walk away but took over 1/2 hour to get there. About 20 minutes after it arrived the airport fire truck arrived at the scene. It was stationed in a building about 200 meters from where the accident occured.
If you are thinking of taking a postion with this company I would strongly suggest that you don't.
This company has made up its own "VFR" met minima that is below the CCARs. Dual cross country VFR flights are authorised down to 2000meters visibility in aircraft that are not IFR certified. Due to ATC restriction these flights are flown at up to 3000meters (10,000ft). ITs begs the question .... "How can you see the ground if viz is 2000m and you are at 3000m?". Answer is you cant so you just use a GPS and hope you dont get disorientated spacially.
Instructors in this company are put under extreme pressure to fly illegally due to the Chinese CAAC delaying the issue of Chinese licenses. One instructor was fired for refusing to fly for safety reasons after receiving a moderate arm injury in a fall. Others who had tried to leave when they realised what the place was really like had a lot of trouble getting their passports back. Some even had to pay money to the company to get theirs back. Some instructors have been fired for no apparent reason. One direct hire instructor was told to leave and only given two days to sort out his stuff. He was then taken to the local train station and told to make his own way home back to the United States. He had to pay for his own air ticket.
If you are an instructor looking for a job then stay well clear of this company.
Beijing Panam has been flying now for about 1-1/2 years. In that time 3 daimond aircraft have been written off. 2 DA40's and a DA42.
For who work for the company this comes as no surprise. Their attitude to flight safety is almost non existant and a fatal accident is just a matter of time. By some miracle this mid air collision only resulted in one student getting a broken arm. Both Aircraft made it back down in controlled flight but are both written off. Chinese ATC is shocking and one cannot count the amount of near misses there has been. If there is an accident on the air field dont expect immediate medical attention. The first accident that happened there resulted in moderate injuries to instructor and student. The tower did not nofity the emergency services but just paniced. The instructor and student managed to get out of the plane, which was upside down, and had to walk back to the flight school and called for the ambulance. The hospital where the ambulance came from was 3 minutes walk away but took over 1/2 hour to get there. About 20 minutes after it arrived the airport fire truck arrived at the scene. It was stationed in a building about 200 meters from where the accident occured.
If you are thinking of taking a postion with this company I would strongly suggest that you don't.
This company has made up its own "VFR" met minima that is below the CCARs. Dual cross country VFR flights are authorised down to 2000meters visibility in aircraft that are not IFR certified. Due to ATC restriction these flights are flown at up to 3000meters (10,000ft). ITs begs the question .... "How can you see the ground if viz is 2000m and you are at 3000m?". Answer is you cant so you just use a GPS and hope you dont get disorientated spacially.
Instructors in this company are put under extreme pressure to fly illegally due to the Chinese CAAC delaying the issue of Chinese licenses. One instructor was fired for refusing to fly for safety reasons after receiving a moderate arm injury in a fall. Others who had tried to leave when they realised what the place was really like had a lot of trouble getting their passports back. Some even had to pay money to the company to get theirs back. Some instructors have been fired for no apparent reason. One direct hire instructor was told to leave and only given two days to sort out his stuff. He was then taken to the local train station and told to make his own way home back to the United States. He had to pay for his own air ticket.
If you are an instructor looking for a job then stay well clear of this company.
Beijing Panam has been flying now for about 1-1/2 years. In that time 3 daimond aircraft have been written off. 2 DA40's and a DA42.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info... Great to know.. A friend of mine was seriously thinking of heading east to work for that outfit.
Not surprised they have "issues" based on the location. No doubt the directors are making a neat pile of money from this operation.
Not surprised they have "issues" based on the location. No doubt the directors are making a neat pile of money from this operation.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Western Bay
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with the above. Maitainence/Weather/Visibilty/Engine troubles/Communtication errors/Complete lack of saftey were just a few of the problems to be put up with.
An accident like that was inevidable when flying in the circuit downwind in viz less than 5 km, guessing where the other a/c were in the circuit.(without actually sighting it)
Completeley relying on the g1000, i too would think again before accepting such an offer.
An accident like that was inevidable when flying in the circuit downwind in viz less than 5 km, guessing where the other a/c were in the circuit.(without actually sighting it)
Completeley relying on the g1000, i too would think again before accepting such an offer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: prague
Age: 56
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wild west flying? or east
hello,
it seems scary
but of course they have to learn first what it means to do some flying and they are under the pressure of producing pilots like a factory.
I heard that ther is another school operating in China, called IATA, anybody with informations about that one. Hopefully, the conditions are better.
Flytoo
it seems scary
but of course they have to learn first what it means to do some flying and they are under the pressure of producing pilots like a factory.I heard that ther is another school operating in China, called IATA, anybody with informations about that one. Hopefully, the conditions are better.
Flytoo
JETA1 ADDICTED
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk-greece
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shocking
This is just unacceptable!
tommorow we will have to face these people up in the air!! critisism like that is good to be made.
Hopefuly others will learn from this example.
tommorow we will have to face these people up in the air!! critisism like that is good to be made.
Hopefuly others will learn from this example.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I dont know anymore
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mexican Jack,
I would suggest you make sure your facts are straight before slagging companies off.
You obviously know very little about the mid-air collision, the instructor who was fired for "refusing to fly after moderate arm injuries" (total BS), or the basics of spelling.
I would suggest you make sure your facts are straight before slagging companies off.
You obviously know very little about the mid-air collision, the instructor who was fired for "refusing to fly after moderate arm injuries" (total BS), or the basics of spelling.
JETA1 ADDICTED
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk-greece
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF please mate calm down!! if u think that mexican jack was wrong why dont u tell us the truth and description of what really happened?
people start shouting only when they are not right and they are trying to cover situations
people start shouting only when they are not right and they are trying to cover situations
JETA1 ADDICTED
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk-greece
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend i had and still have no intentions of creating an argument. i would just liketo learn the truth. If u think smth is not right or never happened write down what exactly happened than calling someones opinios B...IT
Dont take me wrongly!! and to be honest i know nothing about the whole story but im doing my research to see what happened!
THANK YOU!!
VIC
Dont take me wrongly!! and to be honest i know nothing about the whole story but im doing my research to see what happened!
THANK YOU!!
VIC
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panam
I know the istructor who was fired with the arm injury. I was there. He did have an arm injury however I'm not sure his refusal to fly with the injury was the reason for him being fired. This individual was pretty outspoken about issues regarding safety. Not only in the air, but for us foreigners living there. I can't be sure of his motivations, but he seemed to feel it his duty to point out all the screw ups of the company. He made a lot of good points whether he was right or wrong in his motives. Over a period of time certain directors started getting uncomfortable with this.
In China, saving face is more important than doing things right.
I can't be sure. But I beleive this was the reason for his termination.
Unfortunatly the attitude of some of the management there is hazardous. I can say from experience there that the only reason why there hasnt been more accidents is because the aircraft spend most of the time sitting on the ground.
Lets spend loads of money buying a sate of the art fleet and then ignore safety considerations like first aid kits in the aircraft. I'm not sure if they have them now. But they'v been "in the mail" for the last 2 years. From what I understand its not a regulation in China. This is likely because the regs are copied from the FAA. In the USA, if you have an acident in 90% of the country, you can at least be sure someone knows where you are and some sort of help is on the way. This is not the case in China. If you crash on a x- country and sustain injuries that require treatment....you are dead. Not that a first aid kit will make much difference, but its the thought that counts.
This guy who got fired along with many others have continuosly reminded management of serious safety issues that need to be fixed. By the way they have responded time and time again, it is obvious that safety is very low on their priority list.
This is tragically funny as Pan Am's motto is Safety, Quality, Efficiency and Harmony.
I'm not just some disgruntled employee. I genuinly hope they can get their act together. I still have some great friends over there and the last thing I want is to hear about one of them getting killed.
In China, saving face is more important than doing things right.
I can't be sure. But I beleive this was the reason for his termination.
Unfortunatly the attitude of some of the management there is hazardous. I can say from experience there that the only reason why there hasnt been more accidents is because the aircraft spend most of the time sitting on the ground.
Lets spend loads of money buying a sate of the art fleet and then ignore safety considerations like first aid kits in the aircraft. I'm not sure if they have them now. But they'v been "in the mail" for the last 2 years. From what I understand its not a regulation in China. This is likely because the regs are copied from the FAA. In the USA, if you have an acident in 90% of the country, you can at least be sure someone knows where you are and some sort of help is on the way. This is not the case in China. If you crash on a x- country and sustain injuries that require treatment....you are dead. Not that a first aid kit will make much difference, but its the thought that counts.
This guy who got fired along with many others have continuosly reminded management of serious safety issues that need to be fixed. By the way they have responded time and time again, it is obvious that safety is very low on their priority list.
This is tragically funny as Pan Am's motto is Safety, Quality, Efficiency and Harmony.
I'm not just some disgruntled employee. I genuinly hope they can get their act together. I still have some great friends over there and the last thing I want is to hear about one of them getting killed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: somewhere east of nowhere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a current employee of Beijing Panam i take offense to the comments made by mexicanjack. Beijing Panam IS a safe operation. Lets put things into perspective here; I have worked extensively flying charters in the canadian north and the pressures i encountered there to fly at all costs were far greater than anything i have experienced in china, ie, flying with the ASI inop, VFR flights through the mountains with 500' ceilings, i was even told by the chief pilot when the engine stopped 3 times during the idle check, "well youre not going to be flying around at idle power are you?!" the bottom line is, be it in china or anywhere else in the world, as the pilot, the final descision on wether or no to fly rests solely on YOUR shoulders.
I have never encountered a situation where i was pressured to fly an unsafe aircraft. our fleet is MASSIVE, if something is wrong with an aircraft, we simply take another one and send maintenance to work (slowly i will admit, but work none the less). i dont know a single pilot in this outfit who would knowingly take an unsafe aircraft up for flight training, it simply does not happen.
General aviation is just getting spooled up in china, Beijing Panam is forging the way for this expansion. our general manager, Howard Davenport, a wily texan with a logbook as thick as my...well....its pretty thick, is commited to the safe operation of this company, i have not worked with a finer man in aviation. we do experience pressures from management (none of whom are pilots) to get things done, we are a business after all, but howard would not stand for any unsafe practices and streeses that to all of the employees. the chinese are learning what can and cannot be done, but it is a process, and neither of the two accidents so far were a result of any pressure to fly by chinese management.
although i cannot comment on the first accident as i was not employed when it happened, apparently the midair collision was a result of the student pilot in the DA40 flying a very tight circuit with 2 DA42s in the pattern at night. the DA42 not involved with the collision apparently requested that ATC ask the DA40 to fly a wider circuit, ATC complied but recieved no reply from the student after 3 attempts. ATC then contacted the other DA42 who was infront of both aircraft and just about to turn base of the situation, that is when the collision happened. the 2 aircraft collided at approximately a 45 degree angle, the prop of the da40 taking out the 42s rudder and one of the main gear, in the process wrecking its own prop and causing the engine to cease functioning. the instructor in the 42, a great guy and friend of mine, showed exceptional skill in landing a near uncontrollable aircraft on the grass next to the runway, thus allowing the other aircraft in the pattern and training areas the ability to land as this base only has one runway. it is because of his abilities that both he and his student were able to walk away without a scratch, even though the aircraft was written off. the student in the 40, a newly minted commercial pilot, broke his arm in the impact, yet still managed to land a heavily damaged aircraft on a road at night, a feat that demands respect even from seasoned pilots, and is a testament to the level of training the students recieve within this company. true, this aircraft was written off as well, but the student walked away wich is all that matters. both pilots should be commended for the skill that they demonstarted in this situation and it is a result of this skill that this accident did not have a far more trajic outcome. this is not the official story, but what has been filtered down to us from the other pilots at this particular training base.
no matter where you are in the world there will be accidents when doing flight training, one only has to log onto the NTSB or TC website to find a long list of them, to insinuate that beijing panam and the pilots who work there are unsafe is insulting both to me and all the other employees of this company as we all strive to make our operation the safest it can be. although i will agree with mexicanjacks assesment of chinese ATC and accident response, i feel that his acusations towards myself and the company i work for are tottaly unwarrented.
I have never encountered a situation where i was pressured to fly an unsafe aircraft. our fleet is MASSIVE, if something is wrong with an aircraft, we simply take another one and send maintenance to work (slowly i will admit, but work none the less). i dont know a single pilot in this outfit who would knowingly take an unsafe aircraft up for flight training, it simply does not happen.
General aviation is just getting spooled up in china, Beijing Panam is forging the way for this expansion. our general manager, Howard Davenport, a wily texan with a logbook as thick as my...well....its pretty thick, is commited to the safe operation of this company, i have not worked with a finer man in aviation. we do experience pressures from management (none of whom are pilots) to get things done, we are a business after all, but howard would not stand for any unsafe practices and streeses that to all of the employees. the chinese are learning what can and cannot be done, but it is a process, and neither of the two accidents so far were a result of any pressure to fly by chinese management.
although i cannot comment on the first accident as i was not employed when it happened, apparently the midair collision was a result of the student pilot in the DA40 flying a very tight circuit with 2 DA42s in the pattern at night. the DA42 not involved with the collision apparently requested that ATC ask the DA40 to fly a wider circuit, ATC complied but recieved no reply from the student after 3 attempts. ATC then contacted the other DA42 who was infront of both aircraft and just about to turn base of the situation, that is when the collision happened. the 2 aircraft collided at approximately a 45 degree angle, the prop of the da40 taking out the 42s rudder and one of the main gear, in the process wrecking its own prop and causing the engine to cease functioning. the instructor in the 42, a great guy and friend of mine, showed exceptional skill in landing a near uncontrollable aircraft on the grass next to the runway, thus allowing the other aircraft in the pattern and training areas the ability to land as this base only has one runway. it is because of his abilities that both he and his student were able to walk away without a scratch, even though the aircraft was written off. the student in the 40, a newly minted commercial pilot, broke his arm in the impact, yet still managed to land a heavily damaged aircraft on a road at night, a feat that demands respect even from seasoned pilots, and is a testament to the level of training the students recieve within this company. true, this aircraft was written off as well, but the student walked away wich is all that matters. both pilots should be commended for the skill that they demonstarted in this situation and it is a result of this skill that this accident did not have a far more trajic outcome. this is not the official story, but what has been filtered down to us from the other pilots at this particular training base.
no matter where you are in the world there will be accidents when doing flight training, one only has to log onto the NTSB or TC website to find a long list of them, to insinuate that beijing panam and the pilots who work there are unsafe is insulting both to me and all the other employees of this company as we all strive to make our operation the safest it can be. although i will agree with mexicanjacks assesment of chinese ATC and accident response, i feel that his acusations towards myself and the company i work for are tottaly unwarrented.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts as straight as an arrow!!
[quote=JSF1;2895012]Mexican Jack,
I would suggest you make sure your facts are straight before slagging companies off.
You obviously know very little about the mid-air collision, the instructor who was fired for "refusing to fly after moderate arm injuries" (total BS), or the basics of spelling.[/quote
I will reply to what you say.
My facts are straight. Everything mentioned in my statement I made I witnessed first hand. I was in dispatch the morning the instructor was fired. The instructor is still recieving medical treatment for the arm injury that happened in February.
I was at the school the morning of the first accident and was with the injured instructor while waiting for the ambulance to turn up.
As far as not knowing anything about the mid air collision......
It happened in Binzhou. The student in the DA40 was from class two doing night solo. He was on final and the DA42 was on base. The DA40 did not respond to calls from the Fijian controller ............ So? I know nothing huh.
Like I said my facts are straight!
I would suggest you make sure your facts are straight before slagging companies off.
You obviously know very little about the mid-air collision, the instructor who was fired for "refusing to fly after moderate arm injuries" (total BS), or the basics of spelling.[/quote
I will reply to what you say.
My facts are straight. Everything mentioned in my statement I made I witnessed first hand. I was in dispatch the morning the instructor was fired. The instructor is still recieving medical treatment for the arm injury that happened in February.
I was at the school the morning of the first accident and was with the injured instructor while waiting for the ambulance to turn up.
As far as not knowing anything about the mid air collision......
It happened in Binzhou. The student in the DA40 was from class two doing night solo. He was on final and the DA42 was on base. The DA40 did not respond to calls from the Fijian controller ............ So? I know nothing huh.
Like I said my facts are straight!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: somewhere east of nowhere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mexicanjack your facts are NOT straight, the collision happened in Baotou, not binzhou, maybe if you try a little harder you can stick your other foot in your mouth.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I dont know anymore
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, you are completely WRONG, about everything. THere is no point in commenting about the instructor ,as it is obviously you, rockspider.
And mate, please...you really dont know anything about the mid-air. Your account of the injuries are wrong, the location (binzhou - sorry mate, wrong again), and the circuit position where it occured. all wrong.
Nice one champ.
And mate, please...you really dont know anything about the mid-air. Your account of the injuries are wrong, the location (binzhou - sorry mate, wrong again), and the circuit position where it occured. all wrong.
Nice one champ.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an impartial observer, with no knowledge of the company or its procedures, and no particular interest, I have to say that JSF's rebuttal of Mexican Jack's "facts" would be far more convincing if he were able to correct the "facts" rather than simply state that they are wrong.
FFF
----------------
FFF
----------------
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I dont know anymore
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the investigation hasn't even begun, I am not able to comment on the details of the accident. All I am saying is don't talk crap about something you know nothing about? Easy - right?!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pan Am
Hi Spaceman
I should clarify a little. First off when I mentioned that I though that SOME management have hazardous attitudes I was refering to the non pilot Chinese management along with Mr. Ding. "you fly today???" Um no Mr. Ding the visibility is 500M. hehe
I agree with you about Howard. He is great. Unfortunatly he is a foreigner and from my experience there it doesnt matter what your position is, the Chinese management will do things without consultation with ANY foreigner.
As far as your story about flying in the Canadian north goes. Yes your are right, there are a lot more dangerous operation to fly for. The difference here is that its a training environment. I truly beleive that there are countless holes in the training at PanAm. This is not the instructors fault or the students. Its difficult to really motivate students when they are given 3rd 4th and 5th chances. Has any student been washed out yet? In a company with 300+ students, theres bound to be some duds. I'm glad i'm not the instructor having management saying "oh just send him solo to Taiyuan. no problem" This actually happened by the way. with a students whos idea of action after a simulated engine failure after takeoff was to go around.
When I was doing basic instruction with my first students, we flew in visibility so bad you couldnt see the ground at 4000 feet. and this was wtih the visibility reported at 5k at ZBSJ. Do you really think they saw the point to doing a lookout before turning or maintaining a constant lookout when in the circuit? No. Because they were thinking, whats the point, i cant see anything anyway. and so they got used to staring at the G1000. But of course they were all allowed to continue. No that same class of students is partially in Batou a place that from what I understand so far has had good weather.
So yes weather was not a factor in the accident. But honestly, I've instructed in REALLY busy environments before. You know like 10 in the circuit. If a student cant see other airplanes at night when the strobes are going and can't respond when ATC asks them to do something other then the standard extend donwind or turn base now.....this is the problem. Very difficult to over come in Pan Am's case I know. But there is a reason for every incident. to call it just an accident and everyone did their job great is not being honest. It will happen again.
Hey spaceman
How long have you been at PanAm. Just wondering. I'm not trying to argue or anything. I just don't want to see people dead. It can be prevented. But if the Pan Am I know is still the way it is, I'm afraid nothing meaningful will be done.
I should clarify a little. First off when I mentioned that I though that SOME management have hazardous attitudes I was refering to the non pilot Chinese management along with Mr. Ding. "you fly today???" Um no Mr. Ding the visibility is 500M. hehe
I agree with you about Howard. He is great. Unfortunatly he is a foreigner and from my experience there it doesnt matter what your position is, the Chinese management will do things without consultation with ANY foreigner.
As far as your story about flying in the Canadian north goes. Yes your are right, there are a lot more dangerous operation to fly for. The difference here is that its a training environment. I truly beleive that there are countless holes in the training at PanAm. This is not the instructors fault or the students. Its difficult to really motivate students when they are given 3rd 4th and 5th chances. Has any student been washed out yet? In a company with 300+ students, theres bound to be some duds. I'm glad i'm not the instructor having management saying "oh just send him solo to Taiyuan. no problem" This actually happened by the way. with a students whos idea of action after a simulated engine failure after takeoff was to go around.
When I was doing basic instruction with my first students, we flew in visibility so bad you couldnt see the ground at 4000 feet. and this was wtih the visibility reported at 5k at ZBSJ. Do you really think they saw the point to doing a lookout before turning or maintaining a constant lookout when in the circuit? No. Because they were thinking, whats the point, i cant see anything anyway. and so they got used to staring at the G1000. But of course they were all allowed to continue. No that same class of students is partially in Batou a place that from what I understand so far has had good weather.
So yes weather was not a factor in the accident. But honestly, I've instructed in REALLY busy environments before. You know like 10 in the circuit. If a student cant see other airplanes at night when the strobes are going and can't respond when ATC asks them to do something other then the standard extend donwind or turn base now.....this is the problem. Very difficult to over come in Pan Am's case I know. But there is a reason for every incident. to call it just an accident and everyone did their job great is not being honest. It will happen again.
Hey spaceman
How long have you been at PanAm. Just wondering. I'm not trying to argue or anything. I just don't want to see people dead. It can be prevented. But if the Pan Am I know is still the way it is, I'm afraid nothing meaningful will be done.
JETA1 ADDICTED
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk-greece
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF why are u so frustrated? tell us what had really happened!! its not good though disclosing someone's identity as many times u might be wrong! and even if he is the injured instructor he has every right to express his opinions!
please calm down as the only thing u are doing is destroying this thread!
I truly believe that as u can disclose someone elses data u should tell us who u are and then us the readers will make our decisions of who is right.
ACCIDENTS HAPPEN EVERYDAY!! minor though... this was major during training and doesnt mean that it has something to do with the quality of the school! it could have been an atc problem or a pilot's mistake!
dont take me wrongly im not a moderator or something ! i just want to know what happened !!
please calm down as the only thing u are doing is destroying this thread!
I truly believe that as u can disclose someone elses data u should tell us who u are and then us the readers will make our decisions of who is right.
ACCIDENTS HAPPEN EVERYDAY!! minor though... this was major during training and doesnt mean that it has something to do with the quality of the school! it could have been an atc problem or a pilot's mistake!
dont take me wrongly im not a moderator or something ! i just want to know what happened !!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I dont know anymore
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever dude, Im too lazy to continue arguing on the net like harry potter. everything you want to know is on this thread. Believe the current employee's or a disgruntled ex-employee. I dont care
Last edited by JSF1; 8th Oct 2006 at 18:28.