Tiger Moth crashed @ Ashburton - 2 dead
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Not quite the arse end of the world, but you can smell it from here
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defo MDAC operators of the Partenavia. As remoak stated Massey operates Senecas. Looked good being lifted back to Fieldair the other day under a Helipro chopper. Guess that was more expensive than putting another few gallons in it to begin with. Doh!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least we get the aircraft type correct unlike the Sunday Herald reporter who kept calling it a "Navier"...you can just hear the conversation...
Reporter: ...so what kind of aircraft was it??
Pilot (in accent): Partenavia
Reporter thinks to him/herself: hmmm....part Navier...part what else? I won't ask 'coz I'll sound a bit silly
Reporter: ...so what kind of aircraft was it??
Pilot (in accent): Partenavia
Reporter thinks to him/herself: hmmm....part Navier...part what else? I won't ask 'coz I'll sound a bit silly
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would appear that MDAC are indeed the owners of the aircraft... but who was the operator at the time of the incident? Is it possible the aircraft was being operated under a lease?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, yup, that would appear to be a reasonable assumption. One could further assume from my post that I was unaware of that particular item of interest, hence the post.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kiwiblue
I wasn't having a go at you, it is also possible that the MDAC CFI could be subcontracting to another operator and therefore operating under their cover... there is more than one possibility.
You might consider lowering the sensitivity threshold a bit...
I wasn't having a go at you, it is also possible that the MDAC CFI could be subcontracting to another operator and therefore operating under their cover... there is more than one possibility.
You might consider lowering the sensitivity threshold a bit...
.......
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak
absolutely nothing wrong with my 'sensitivity level' as you put it. Like most reasonable human beings however, I do not appreciate an honest query being replied to with a dose of self serving, ego-driven sarcasm; rather I expect a reasonable query to be responded to in a reasonable manner. I prefer to believe that you (as with all others I meet whether on-line or in person) are a reasonable person, worthy of respect and I will continue to do so -at least until you prove otherwise.
You will not need to look far through these forae to see many examples of what I mean. Just because 'everyone else does it' does not mean everyone will always get away with it -or IMO should even try to. Show others the same respect you expect yourself. You won't go far wrong.
@pakehaboy: You have something you would like to add to this discussion?
You will not need to look far through these forae to see many examples of what I mean. Just because 'everyone else does it' does not mean everyone will always get away with it -or IMO should even try to. Show others the same respect you expect yourself. You won't go far wrong.
@pakehaboy: You have something you would like to add to this discussion?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not appreciate an honest query being replied to with a dose of self serving, ego-driven sarcasm; rather I expect a reasonable query to be responded to in a reasonable manner.
PB... right again, it seems...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grow Up. Your 'perfectly reasonable response' only became so after I gypped you for your previous use of sarcasm.
If you don't like being gypped for your use of sarcasm, then don't use sarcasm.
If you don't like being gypped for your use of sarcasm, then don't use sarcasm.
Last edited by kiwiblue; 10th Dec 2006 at 01:44.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This wee tiff
Interesting little exchange here, between Remoak and ?Kiwi Blue. I've seen this happen before, ironically on Pprune - there was a huge long thread on Rotorheads, in which one person posted asking about an accident, and suggesting there may have been more to the accident than the FAA had found. Everyone else nearly took his head off, over several pages, and then at the end of the exchange, he wrote something that completely changed the sense and context of his original post, and all the de-capitaters were most embarrassed. This seems to be another example of the phenomenon. Because email is devoid of body cues, it is a much "narrower" communication channel. Go back and read Remoak's original post - "because XXX, one would assume XXX". It is POSSIBLE that it was written sarcastically, but it's also quite possible that it wasn't. The statement makes perfect sense if you read it in either contexts. When I first read Remoak's comment, it didn't even occur to me that it could have been sarcastic, so I was quite surprised by the response. Looking at it again, one can see how it COULD have been sarcastic, although it doesn't seem to me that it was. Hence the flare-up. Some interesting lessons here, methinks, on the limitations of email...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first read Remoak's comment, it didn't even occur to me that it could have been sarcastic, so I was quite surprised by the response.
It helps if you simply read what is written, and not attempt to put your own spin on it. That prevents dummy spits like the one above.
