Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
I saw Beaker with my own eyes in Manly this morning, and he made a couple of asides about having been distracted by a long discussion in Canberra last night.
One interesting and valid comment he made was that they don't investigate GA accidents so much any more because it's the same accident over and over again. Valid in many cases, but again in the Hempel accident there might have been some CASA-stink mightn't there?
Very interesting that recent rail accident investigations have held up organisational & regulatory factors as significant factors, and these investigations are heralded as exemplary by expert associations.
One interesting and valid comment he made was that they don't investigate GA accidents so much any more because it's the same accident over and over again. Valid in many cases, but again in the Hempel accident there might have been some CASA-stink mightn't there?
Very interesting that recent rail accident investigations have held up organisational & regulatory factors as significant factors, and these investigations are heralded as exemplary by expert associations.
Good to see you back gobbles!
Must admit the place was a bit dull without you, although Creamy gave me a good laugh over on the Senate thread today might have to get him to repost it over here...see ya
Must admit the place was a bit dull without you, although Creamy gave me a good laugh over on the Senate thread today might have to get him to repost it over here...see ya
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see you back gobbles! Must admit the place was a bit dull without you, although Creamy gave me a good laugh over on the Senate thread today might have to get him to repost it over here...see ya
And yes, Creampuff is certainly on fire. He is providing some robust commentary, even the odd smattering of tautological banter is thrown in. Good work indeed
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF
Besides all this innuendo, does anyone know who the IIC (Investigator-in-Charge) was and why he/she hasn't fronted the Committee? Why the hell are the Committee arguing with Beaker and other ignorant individuals and not the IIC? Maybe he/she could add some value?
Last edited by Jinglie; 22nd Nov 2012 at 12:27. Reason: Martin syndrome
When there was a FSU, the FIR boundary I recall was in the vicinity of the island. I believe the FIR boundary was moved west to where it is now quite some years ago.
I can't remember whether Sydney Ops (old B60 at KSA) exercised operational control over Norfolk? Anyone?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhand
I think Plumbum wants to have Sen. Fawcetts baby.
. he does go on and on.
I haven't met the good Senator so it is difficult to tell, but I suspect your experience may be the same as mine in regard to pilots generally.
They are like the Curates egg.
I am of the view with Inquiries of this sort that the less "pilot experience" brought to the process the higher the probability of getting a sound result.
The non "highly experienced pilots" on the commitee don't seem to be having any problem whatsoever coming to grips with the issues or asking the right questions.
It wont be a popular view but they will get there with or without "pilots" or PPRuners even guiding them.
The arrant nonsense that's bruited around here by some, that the level, higher or lower of your "experience" (rated of course by the proponent) makes your view more or less relevant is not supported by our experience. It's quite sad really.
There are 30,000 hr pilots with 30,000 hrs of cumulative learning and experience and those who have accumulated the same amount repeating the same hour 30,000 times and all the stops in between.
I think Plumbum wants to have Sen. Fawcetts baby.
. he does go on and on.I haven't met the good Senator so it is difficult to tell, but I suspect your experience may be the same as mine in regard to pilots generally.
They are like the Curates egg.
I am of the view with Inquiries of this sort that the less "pilot experience" brought to the process the higher the probability of getting a sound result.
The non "highly experienced pilots" on the commitee don't seem to be having any problem whatsoever coming to grips with the issues or asking the right questions.
It wont be a popular view but they will get there with or without "pilots" or PPRuners even guiding them.
The arrant nonsense that's bruited around here by some, that the level, higher or lower of your "experience" (rated of course by the proponent) makes your view more or less relevant is not supported by our experience. It's quite sad really.
There are 30,000 hr pilots with 30,000 hrs of cumulative learning and experience and those who have accumulated the same amount repeating the same hour 30,000 times and all the stops in between.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rock and a hard place.
HLB # 615 - One interesting and valid comment he made was that they don't investigate GA accidents so much any more because it's the same accident over and over again. Valid in many cases, but again in the Hempel accident there might have been some CASA-stink mightn't there?
Mr. Dolan appears to be a competent administrator and as a career public servant does a good job watching the pennies (thankyou) by meeting the minister's budgets and directives. I would not like to see him take the Pratt fall for the Norfolk debacle. Perhaps he was just 'young and naive' or somehow persuaded that the CASA dictated script would lead to a satisfactory outcome.
Either way, the ATSB report shows a gross error of judgement, a breach of faith and an insult to industry. Remember; this is no longer about some dopey pilot running out of noise: it's a story of cover up, misdirection, selective application of regulation, blatant manipulation of facts, where corruption raises it's ugly head and the systemic failure of the regulator, once again is now in public view.
To give the ATSB credibility, Dolan must now either abandon his minister and CASA and tell the truth, or take one for the company. No: although a possible scenario is that Dolan will take a 'soft fall' and be rewarded with a promotion in later days. His problem then is the ticking election clock and there are no guarantees that a new minister will appreciate his efforts; but, no doubt the full time bureaucrats will. It now becomes a matter of conscience, though thankfully, not mine.
PS – Jinglie – they wouldn't dare.
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Nov 2012 at 19:40. Reason: Have word with GD about his new taste in shirts - Yech
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The non "highly experienced pilots" on the commitee don't seem to be having any problem whatsoever coming to grips with the issues or asking the right questions.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sunnySA:
You are correct the FIR boundary between the Auckland and Australian FIRs has always been (well certainly since '75 anyway), and still is, at 163 deg East.
My recollection is that Ops had the power to close any Australian non controlled airport due weather (including Australian territorial airports), but the NF FSU had the responsibility for providing a directed FIS to all aircraft (IFR and VFR) intending to operate at NF.
With respect to the issue of determining who holds FIS delivery responsibility for NF, if I was the ATSB investigator on this accident, I would have investigated the following scenarios and, if required, presented a SR to the relevant aviation agency(ies) concerned:
1. On the assumption the NZ AIP is correct in implying that FIS delivery responsibility still lies with Australia, where is the associated MoU/LoA between Airservices and Airways NZ that CaptainMidnight has correctly stated should be in place and, if such an MoU/LoA exists, why is it that Airservices is not complying with its provisions?
2. On the assumption that Airservices is correct that FIS delivery responsibility lies with Airways NZ because there is no longer an Australian ATS presence at NF and the airport is located within the Auckland Oceanic FIR , why hasn't the NZ AIP been updated accordingly and why didn't Auckland ATC direct the amended TAF to the Pel-Air aircraft?
There is no doubt in my mind that a level of confusion may exist between Airservices and Airways as to which agency actually holds responsibility for FIS delivery at NF, and that such confusion may have been a contributing factor to the Pel Air accident. Furthermore if confusion exists then this has resulted due to a failure in process and coordination between the Australian and NZ aviation agencies.
In my view, the issue of FIS delivery responsibility for NF needs to be assessed as a priority and, if necessary, clarified between the Australian and NZ agencies for future safety considerations.
Hopefully, somebody in either the ATSB, CASA, Airservices, Airways NZ or the CAA of NZ is reading this and acting accordingly.
For at least the last 30 years the boundary between Australia and New Zealand (and for that matter Nandi) was 163deg East...
I can't remember whether Sydney Ops (old B60 at KSA) exercised operational control over Norfolk?
With respect to the issue of determining who holds FIS delivery responsibility for NF, if I was the ATSB investigator on this accident, I would have investigated the following scenarios and, if required, presented a SR to the relevant aviation agency(ies) concerned:
1. On the assumption the NZ AIP is correct in implying that FIS delivery responsibility still lies with Australia, where is the associated MoU/LoA between Airservices and Airways NZ that CaptainMidnight has correctly stated should be in place and, if such an MoU/LoA exists, why is it that Airservices is not complying with its provisions?
2. On the assumption that Airservices is correct that FIS delivery responsibility lies with Airways NZ because there is no longer an Australian ATS presence at NF and the airport is located within the Auckland Oceanic FIR , why hasn't the NZ AIP been updated accordingly and why didn't Auckland ATC direct the amended TAF to the Pel-Air aircraft?
There is no doubt in my mind that a level of confusion may exist between Airservices and Airways as to which agency actually holds responsibility for FIS delivery at NF, and that such confusion may have been a contributing factor to the Pel Air accident. Furthermore if confusion exists then this has resulted due to a failure in process and coordination between the Australian and NZ aviation agencies.
In my view, the issue of FIS delivery responsibility for NF needs to be assessed as a priority and, if necessary, clarified between the Australian and NZ agencies for future safety considerations.
Hopefully, somebody in either the ATSB, CASA, Airservices, Airways NZ or the CAA of NZ is reading this and acting accordingly.
Last edited by QSK?; 22nd Nov 2012 at 23:33.
On the assumption the NZ AIP is correct in implying that FIS delivery responsibility still lies with Australia
2 AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
The AIP service provider and the NOTAM service provider are responsible for the collection and dissemination of information necessary for the safety and efficiency of air navigation throughout New Zealand’s area of Norfolk Island
2.2.13 Norfolk Island is located within the Auckland Oceanic FIR and is administered by Australia.
2.2.14 Information regarding services and operations at Norfolk Island is contained in the AIP Australia.
Last edited by sunnySA; 23rd Nov 2012 at 04:04.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from the NZ AIP
and,
Doesn't seem like this happened? AKL were advised by UNICOM NFA at 0833 of the actual conditions (3 octas at 300, 4 at 600, 8 at 1,100) and AKL did nothing about it! Well done bro!
3.1 Services Provided
3.1.1 The ATS provided are:
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC) services, to prevent collisions and maintain
an orderly flow of traffic, to:
(i) IFR flights in Class A, C, and D airspace;
(ii) VFR flights in Class C and D airspace;
(iii) aerodrome traffic at controlled aerodromes.
(b) Area Flight Information Services (FIS), to give advice and
information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
3.1.1 The ATS provided are:
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC) services, to prevent collisions and maintain
an orderly flow of traffic, to:
(i) IFR flights in Class A, C, and D airspace;
(ii) VFR flights in Class C and D airspace;
(iii) aerodrome traffic at controlled aerodromes.
(b) Area Flight Information Services (FIS), to give advice and
information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
and,
3.3.7 FIS will include the provision of available and relevant information
concerning:
(a) SIGMET;
(b) weather conditions reported or forecast, at departure, destination,
and alternative aerodromes;
concerning:
(a) SIGMET;
(b) weather conditions reported or forecast, at departure, destination,
and alternative aerodromes;
I don't have ICAO docs handy, but I recall something in there saying that when a State accepts allocation of an FIR, they accept responsibility for the provision of ATS in it.
The MoU/LOA if there is one is the key. If there is one, and there is no mention of NF, then one assumes that by default NZ would be responsible for the provision of ATS in the AK FIR.
However ...... Creampuff's post in another thread is interesting re the Air Services Act 1995 saying Airservices is responsible for the airspace above Australian territory.
The MoU/LOA if there is one is the key. If there is one, and there is no mention of NF, then one assumes that by default NZ would be responsible for the provision of ATS in the AK FIR.
However ...... Creampuff's post in another thread is interesting re the Air Services Act 1995 saying Airservices is responsible for the airspace above Australian territory.
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 23rd Nov 2012 at 08:06.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody say ICAO? Oink oink
Perhaps the issue is that too much time is spent by some at Fort Fumble travelling the globe at the taxpayer expense rather than fixing things in our own backyard?
Below is one sample of one executives activities (only some are listed) in a 12 month period. Each trip is business class international seating, 5 star accomodation plus allowances and other perks. Below is around 100k worth of taxpayer funded bollocks.
http://airlawconference.pl/speakers/jonathan-aleck/
http://avcongroup.net/iadsummit2011/index.php/agenda
http://www.slideshare.net/copacp/jonathan-aleck-associate-director-of-aviation-safety-casa
http://www.alaanz.org/pdf/ALAANZ-2012-Preliminary-Program.pdf
Below is one sample of one executives activities (only some are listed) in a 12 month period. Each trip is business class international seating, 5 star accomodation plus allowances and other perks. Below is around 100k worth of taxpayer funded bollocks.
http://airlawconference.pl/speakers/jonathan-aleck/
http://avcongroup.net/iadsummit2011/index.php/agenda
http://www.slideshare.net/copacp/jonathan-aleck-associate-director-of-aviation-safety-casa
http://www.alaanz.org/pdf/ALAANZ-2012-Preliminary-Program.pdf
Last edited by gobbledock; 23rd Nov 2012 at 09:09.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Theatre Production - THE SENATE OF OZ!
The Senate Of OZ (2012)
A charming tautological tale based on the popular shenanigans of CASA, ATSB and ASA. The Skull and his new friend Beaker are caught in an “aviation tornado's” path and somehow end up in the land of the Senate. Here they meet some memorable friends and foes on their journey to meet the Senate of Oz who everyone says can help return Australian aviation back into a safe and robust environment and possibly grant the industry their goals of a safe, fair, compliant and transparent industry.
Skull lives in an ecological ‘green’ building in the city of Brisbane until a political tornado arrives, and picks up him, his upper echelon, and Beaker and deposits them in the Senate of Oz. Things in Oz are strange, men in dark suits called Senators ask many questions, they delve beneath the pony pooh. At times they are angry, other times they are humorous, but they want truthful answers to their robust questions. But Skull just wants to get back home. He's helped by the Voodoo Witch Doctor of the South, but he's also in trouble with the former Wicked Deputy CEO of the West, who seeks revenge for being pineappled from his position not long after the Skull commenced his tenure. The blame game is immense with many former colleagues who have been used as pawns over a number of years fighting for revenge.
When a nasty Senator tries to have Beaker put to pasture, Skull takes his pal Beaker and attempts to run away from the Senators, feigning memory loss and taking things on ‘notice’. The tornado appears and carries them to the magical Senate of Oz. But they are not impressed. There are no troughs, business class seats, bonuses or lobster and truffles. No, all they receive is a desk, jug of water and multiple pineapples. Wishing to return, Skull begins to travel to Norfolk City where a great wizard called Flyingfiend lives. On his way he meets a Deputy Director who needs a brain, a Regional Field Office Manager who wants a heart, and a Cowardly Minister who desperately needs courage. They all hope the Senate of Oz won’t notice them, before the forces of ICAO and FAA catches up with them.
Writtenby W. Elephant
A charming tautological tale based on the popular shenanigans of CASA, ATSB and ASA. The Skull and his new friend Beaker are caught in an “aviation tornado's” path and somehow end up in the land of the Senate. Here they meet some memorable friends and foes on their journey to meet the Senate of Oz who everyone says can help return Australian aviation back into a safe and robust environment and possibly grant the industry their goals of a safe, fair, compliant and transparent industry.
Skull lives in an ecological ‘green’ building in the city of Brisbane until a political tornado arrives, and picks up him, his upper echelon, and Beaker and deposits them in the Senate of Oz. Things in Oz are strange, men in dark suits called Senators ask many questions, they delve beneath the pony pooh. At times they are angry, other times they are humorous, but they want truthful answers to their robust questions. But Skull just wants to get back home. He's helped by the Voodoo Witch Doctor of the South, but he's also in trouble with the former Wicked Deputy CEO of the West, who seeks revenge for being pineappled from his position not long after the Skull commenced his tenure. The blame game is immense with many former colleagues who have been used as pawns over a number of years fighting for revenge.
When a nasty Senator tries to have Beaker put to pasture, Skull takes his pal Beaker and attempts to run away from the Senators, feigning memory loss and taking things on ‘notice’. The tornado appears and carries them to the magical Senate of Oz. But they are not impressed. There are no troughs, business class seats, bonuses or lobster and truffles. No, all they receive is a desk, jug of water and multiple pineapples. Wishing to return, Skull begins to travel to Norfolk City where a great wizard called Flyingfiend lives. On his way he meets a Deputy Director who needs a brain, a Regional Field Office Manager who wants a heart, and a Cowardly Minister who desperately needs courage. They all hope the Senate of Oz won’t notice them, before the forces of ICAO and FAA catches up with them.
Writtenby W. Elephant
Last edited by gobbledock; 23rd Nov 2012 at 09:27.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sunnySA:
Not quite:
Under the NZ CARs, an Air Traffic Service (ATS) is defined as:
and in NZ AIP Gen 3.3-5 para 3.1.1
The above references clearly establish that FIS is a component of the overall definition for ATS.
Now for the references that requires clarification and which have been the subject of my posts; NZ AIP Gen 3.3-4 para 2.2.1 states (my emphases)
and
Given the wording above, particularly that under the provisions of NZ AIP Gen 3.3-4 para 2.2.1 which could be interpreted a number of ways, I believe it may not be unreasonable for the Airways Auckland Oceanic controller or FIC operator to assume that they DID NOT HAVE a responsibility to pass the amended TAF on NF to the Pel Air aircraft as the FIS delivery responsibility for NF was allocated to Australia.
So if NZ believes FIS delivery responsibility for NF rests with Airservices, and Airservices believes FIS responsibility belongs to Airways NZ, then clearly this issue needs to be sorted out urgently by the respective Australian and NZ aviation agencies.
CaptainMidnight:
Yes, that is correct but as you can see from the AIP references above, NF appears to be excluded as a NZ ATS responsibility. However, I accept your previous comment that the NZ AIP may be wrong as the required coordination may not have occurred between the Australian and NZ agencies to facilitate the updating of the NZ AIP when either the FSU was decommissioned, or due to the subsequent changes to the ATC/FS structures and the abolition of the directed FIS service in favour of Flightwatch.
Is this the section that the NZ are relying on?
Under the NZ CARs, an Air Traffic Service (ATS) is defined as:
A generic term meaning variously, flight information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic control service (area control service, approach control service or aerodrome control service)
the ATS provided are:
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC) services, to prevent collisions and maintain
an orderly flow of traffic....
(b) Area Flight Information Services (FIS), to give advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC) services, to prevent collisions and maintain
an orderly flow of traffic....
(b) Area Flight Information Services (FIS), to give advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
Now for the references that requires clarification and which have been the subject of my posts; NZ AIP Gen 3.3-4 para 2.2.1 states (my emphases)
Airways provides ATS throughout the Auckland Oceanic FIR (NZZO),
EXCEPT in the Cook, McMurdo, Samoa, and Tonga sectors and at Norfolk Island
EXCEPT in the Cook, McMurdo, Samoa, and Tonga sectors and at Norfolk Island
Norfolk Island
2.2.9 Norfolk Island is contained within the Auckland Oceanic FIR and
administered by Australia.
2.2.10 For Norfolk Island MBZ procedures refer to the Australian AIP and
use Norfolk Island aerodrome QNH
2.2.9 Norfolk Island is contained within the Auckland Oceanic FIR and
administered by Australia.
2.2.10 For Norfolk Island MBZ procedures refer to the Australian AIP and
use Norfolk Island aerodrome QNH
So if NZ believes FIS delivery responsibility for NF rests with Airservices, and Airservices believes FIS responsibility belongs to Airways NZ, then clearly this issue needs to be sorted out urgently by the respective Australian and NZ aviation agencies.
CaptainMidnight:
....I recall something in there saying that when a State accepts allocation of an FIR, they accept responsibility for the provision of ATS in it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it Beaker???
I have been looking at the information from asa since yesterday and ersa is instructive.
A flight into NFI must lodge it's plan with asa.
NFI, is FIA in all paperwork [DAP's and ersa], with a release on descent NFI from the overlying oceanic airspace [FIR - NZL and FIJI] and the ersa says:
I believe the AIP - ENR also is instructive at ENR 1.10.1.1 - This makes it an ASA responsibility even as it is octa below the FIR and the PROC would be "On leaving 13000 [1013 HPA], descent octa NFI" the control then passes to the pilot and advice by HF and VHF to BN centre and NFI unicom.
An asa responsibility, not NZ and part of the submitted flight plan which would be Samoa - NFI - YMMB
A flight into NFI must lodge it's plan with asa.
NFI, is FIA in all paperwork [DAP's and ersa], with a release on descent NFI from the overlying oceanic airspace [FIR - NZL and FIJI] and the ersa says:
I believe the AIP - ENR also is instructive at ENR 1.10.1.1 - This makes it an ASA responsibility even as it is octa below the FIR and the PROC would be "On leaving 13000 [1013 HPA], descent octa NFI" the control then passes to the pilot and advice by HF and VHF to BN centre and NFI unicom.
An asa responsibility, not NZ and part of the submitted flight plan which would be Samoa - NFI - YMMB
So if NZ believes FIS delivery responsibility for NF rests with Airservices, and Airservices believes FIS responsibility belongs to Airways NZ, then clearly this issue needs to be sorted out urgently by the respective Australian and NZ aviation agencies.
That’s precisely the source of the Chair’s frustration with the witnesses from Airservices.
It’s up to a Senate Committee and ppruners to work through and identify these issues, because the air service provider, the air safety regulator and the transport safety investigatory agency no longer have the critical mass of knowledge, skills and attitude to identify and resolve them on their own initiative.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Gets my vote. last para absolutely spot on.
For PPRuners to be taken seriously though, they really do need to clean up their act to be relevant
It is possible to be acerbic without being scatological and vindictive otherwise the discussion descends into the mob mentality, refer Monty Python stoning sketch.
Let's face it a disinterested viewer of these halls would call for the men in white coats. An interested viewer would have their prejudices reinforced as a bunch of bitter malcontents.
In days past here as a mod I recall the phrase that went something like "you catch more bees with honey than vinegar".
So I guess the circus clowns around here will now require a resume of flight hours and ratings to rate the relevant efficacy of your comments and the relative sizr of your penis. Rational reasoned and calm debate has by their view nothing to do with it.
.
Might I suggest we close this thread and start another focused on the future rather than and endless rehashing of the past. It IMHO should be moderated on the basis of deleting all gratuitous insults or personalization.
I had the privilege of modding during the same events over the same process we see here, it's Groundhog day, as well as the bitter 89 debates, the Ansett failure, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla and so on.
Coming back here after a break of 5 years I am shocked that we are having the same discussion about CASA and dismayed, and can understand why, the viciousness of the posting.
PPRune then did have some real impact. From what I am seeing here I'm not sure it would now.
Gets my vote.
last para absolutely spot on. For PPRuners to be taken seriously though, they really do need to clean up their act to be relevant
It is possible to be acerbic without being scatological and vindictive otherwise the discussion descends into the mob mentality, refer Monty Python stoning sketch.
Let's face it a disinterested viewer of these halls would call for the men in white coats. An interested viewer would have their prejudices reinforced as a bunch of bitter malcontents.
In days past here as a mod I recall the phrase that went something like "you catch more bees with honey than vinegar".
So I guess the circus clowns around here will now require a resume of flight hours and ratings to rate the relevant efficacy of your comments and the relative sizr of your penis. Rational reasoned and calm debate has by their view nothing to do with it.
. Might I suggest we close this thread and start another focused on the future rather than and endless rehashing of the past. It IMHO should be moderated on the basis of deleting all gratuitous insults or personalization.
I had the privilege of modding during the same events over the same process we see here, it's Groundhog day, as well as the bitter 89 debates, the Ansett failure, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla and so on.
Coming back here after a break of 5 years I am shocked that we are having the same discussion about CASA and dismayed, and can understand why, the viciousness of the posting.
PPRune then did have some real impact. From what I am seeing here I'm not sure it would now.
Last edited by gaunty; 24th Nov 2012 at 02:34.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For PPRuners to be taken seriously though, they really do need to clean up their act to be relevant
Might I suggest we close this thread