Islander down at Melaleuca?
I have read, most of your posts Clare, when ever you have responded, to various topics, you are always level headed and people take notice, of your comments.
I knew quite well, someone, will pull me up, sooner or later, because, I have left my comments open for interpretation.
To be honest with everyone, i was so upset to hear and read, about the accident, that i really, had to ask the question, what happened?
I knew quite well, someone, will pull me up, sooner or later, because, I have left my comments open for interpretation.
To be honest with everyone, i was so upset to hear and read, about the accident, that i really, had to ask the question, what happened?
I do not know what caused this accident, and I think it is fair to say that nobody else on this electronic peanut gallery does either. Even if they did once have a scary training flight in a tonka toy twin over relatively benign terrain with an experienced pilot there to hold their hand.
I can say three things with a fair degree of confidence though;
1) The terrain and weather conditions in the south west of Tasmania demand respect, regardless of whether the pilot has 300 hours, or 30,000.
2) Unless things have changed dramatically since I was there last, I highly doubt that this particular company would let a CPL candidate through, or put a new pilot on the line, without making damn sure they had a decent amount of exposure to the terrain and weather conditions that are an everyday fact of life down there.
3) The pilot's gender had stuff all to do with it.
Those who knew or worked with the pilot concerned, or who were working or flying down there at the time, may know a bit more. But as far as I can see, pretty much everything else offered in this thread is just another load of verbal diarrhea.
As for the previous poster who asked if the pilot involved in the previous crash (PFT) had the correct low-level training- According to the ATSB report, yes he did. But based on my own experience-if you decide to screw around while in the low-level environment, then all the training in the world will not save you.
I can say three things with a fair degree of confidence though;
1) The terrain and weather conditions in the south west of Tasmania demand respect, regardless of whether the pilot has 300 hours, or 30,000.
2) Unless things have changed dramatically since I was there last, I highly doubt that this particular company would let a CPL candidate through, or put a new pilot on the line, without making damn sure they had a decent amount of exposure to the terrain and weather conditions that are an everyday fact of life down there.
3) The pilot's gender had stuff all to do with it.
Those who knew or worked with the pilot concerned, or who were working or flying down there at the time, may know a bit more. But as far as I can see, pretty much everything else offered in this thread is just another load of verbal diarrhea.
As for the previous poster who asked if the pilot involved in the previous crash (PFT) had the correct low-level training- According to the ATSB report, yes he did. But based on my own experience-if you decide to screw around while in the low-level environment, then all the training in the world will not save you.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep thinking about this, young pilot ( this instance female ) following her dreams . Taking on some of the most challenging terrain and weather in Australia . We all had holy **** moments , especially in early days with old aircraft . Nothing but respect . RIP .
The most effective way to deal with a troll is to ignore IT (because trolls are neither male nor female).
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 14th Dec 2018 at 09:41. Reason: it knows who it is
What is particularly annoying is the preponderance of people obsessed by the sound of their own voices and what they believe is their freedom to broadcast an opinion on any subject they think they have the right to so do, knowing not, caring not, a jot about their ignorance, gormlessness or blind self-promotion.
"Measure not with words the measureless,
Sink not the string of thought into the fathomless.
Who asks does err.
Who answers errs.
Say nought."
Anon.
"Measure not with words the measureless,
Sink not the string of thought into the fathomless.
Who asks does err.
Who answers errs.
Say nought."
Anon.
Last edited by Fantome; 14th Dec 2018 at 22:24.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is anything about this accident humourous? It is a tragedy for the pilot and her family, friends and workmates. It would have been just as much of a tragedy if the pilot had had a different anatomy. That is called equality.
What's next, it happened because the sky wasn't pink?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie Dean What possible relevant physiological difference is present in one half of the population not the other?
Eddie Dean ..............surely you must see the physiological differences between males/females .............
Last edited by zanzibar; 15th Dec 2018 at 04:29. Reason: typo
Just to get back on track, Area forecast anyone?
#BOMfundingcuts #chickens #roost #hashtagsdontworkonpprune
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 15th Dec 2018 at 06:03.
I'm not one to be "butthurt" but I do think the use of "humour" on this thread is lacking in taste
Collins English Dictionary -
So by this definition, which may well be the more usual interpretation than those that allude to ridiculing or criticising, satire may be taken in the sense of a touch of the gentle rapier barb. Satire as employed by the late John Clarke and by Clive James, both over many years of writing and public utterances, was never malicious. Clarke and James have both been great exemplars of good manners. Which of course does not mean, when resorting to satire, that the subject of that satire does not warrant a good sledging. ("It's not so much what you say, as how you say it.")
So by this definition, which may well be the more usual interpretation than those that allude to ridiculing or criticising, satire may be taken in the sense of a touch of the gentle rapier barb. Satire as employed by the late John Clarke and by Clive James, both over many years of writing and public utterances, was never malicious. Clarke and James have both been great exemplars of good manners. Which of course does not mean, when resorting to satire, that the subject of that satire does not warrant a good sledging. ("It's not so much what you say, as how you say it.")
