Sorry Mark it wasn't personal. Your statement came across as someone who seemed not to understand the reality of what responsibility of checking can mean. You can read all about it here
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200100348/ He was a mate and I was the instructor who did his initial twin rating after he had issues at another school, I did the rating in a B58 and gave him the most thorough twin endorsement I have ever done. I passed him and wrote "to std" on his logbook. It was a few years later that he had his accident and ultimately it was a system issue, fatigue and other factors that got him. Unfortunately I still think about it every now and then as Western Australia lost four excellent policeman and four families still miss their fathers and sons. I can't help but wonder if I had missed something or passed him when I shouldn't have. The other one is here https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2486613/ao2010023.pdf So let me reiterate my passionate feelings, every time you check someone you are standing up and saying you are willing to let that person operate to a set of standards in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. It doesn't matter what the rules say or what a court says, if there is an incident you have to be able to live with yourself. If you are lazy or not on the ball and someone dies you are morally responsible. As much as the GFA, CASA and others are criticised they are there to stop some poor bugger knocking on a door late at night to tell them that their loved ones are not coming home. The fact that their remains are nothing more than blood and guts wrapped in fibreglass and metal should not be forgotten and someone has to clean that up as well. So Mark it wasn't personal however perhaps you might see how someone who takes safety very seriously wants to minimise the risk. I have to share the airspace as well as a slow glider pilots in my ancient Nimbus 2, I get very tired of sailplane pilots not wanting to man up and get their stuff together. If you had of heard the lack of calls in CTAFS during the pre-worlds you would have been horrified. As a holder of a PPL you know that every two years you front up to an examiner with up to date logbook, current charts and free of alcohol and drugs. You do that to ensure that you will get to keep the privileges of your licence. The examiner is essentially putting his future mental health and possible lively hood on the line and entrusting you to act within the risk mitigators as laid out by the regs. So next time someone signs you out say thankful for the trust they are putting in you. Sent from my iPad > On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:00 AM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote: > > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:36, Optusnet <jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> Mark, would you mind letting me know when you are flying next, I just don't >> want to be in the same airspace as you and expose myself to the increased >> risk. > > Personal attack, JJ? > C'mon, that's just weak. > > >> As to your statement >> >> Incidentally: People die in aircraft all the time, and what you just wrote >> never happens. It’s 24 carat rolled-gold bullshit. >> >> It's happened to me twice in 30 years > > I don't want to downplay your experience of how traumatic it'd be to > participate in a coronial inquest for someone you knew who died in an > aircraft. > > But: you were questioned, not held responsible. > >> Incidentally both pilots had a history of poor check performances. > > So the check/review system didn't work? > > - mark > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
