|
|
Post by jonesy on Dec 5, 2011 19:10:45 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 6, 2011 14:02:29 GMT 12
Interesting stuff. Mr Funnell's name seems to crop up every time there is an accident.
|
|
|
|
Post by agile on Dec 6, 2011 16:28:11 GMT 12
Is Frank Sharp the former Ohakea Base Commander?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 6, 2011 19:04:17 GMT 12
Yes, that is him. He is head of Massey Flying School these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 6, 2011 19:25:45 GMT 12
There is a certain amount of "feathering ones nest" going on in this inquest. I cant divulge any more, but from discussions with someone in very high places, there is some vested interest at play here, and this is driving much of the criticism of overhead rejoins. this is an indication of those forces at work....
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Dec 6, 2011 20:25:54 GMT 12
I don't feel comfortable trying to do an overhead rejoin at certain airfields. They just seem so risky.
Sure at a true unattended field where there is unlikely to be any other traffic maybe... and for non-radio aircraft.
The radio seems to work fine normally, and I have never done an overhead like we do in the States or Aussie.
I reckon the longer you spend in the airfield vicinity, and operating amongst the novices, then the chances of running into someone has to be increased.
I believe the situation could easily be reviewed.. what do others think ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 6, 2011 20:50:06 GMT 12
The overhead rejoin is just a procedure - in itself it doesnt protect you or relieve you of your obligation to maintain situational awareness. This is where the vast majority of problems occur - including an example in controlled airspace at New Plymouth, when everyone knew what was going on, but no-one was actually watching. Adding other special procedures into the mix will only make matters worse - its non - standard procedures with conflicting circuit patterns and mixed traffic that has created the series of mid-air collisions and near collisions. I'm still not a fan of overhead rejoins, but the alternatives are much worse....
|
|
dodgy
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 89
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 16, 2011 13:26:04 GMT 12
Apparently, the person that forged that email is an employee of the CAA and it is currently before the court. It gave many in the CAA a hell of shock to find out who the protagonist was...
|
|
|
|
Post by aileronroll on Dec 18, 2011 17:05:48 GMT 12
Has this person been named in public by the courts as yet?
|
|
dodgy
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 89
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 19, 2011 9:50:31 GMT 12
Not yet, it was meant to be last week but may be released early this week.
|
|
dodgy
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 89
|
Post by dodgy on Dec 20, 2011 10:36:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Dec 20, 2011 10:45:59 GMT 12
I, for one, am very surprised.
Peter comes across as one of the most honest guys about. There may be a little more to this.
I knew of one particular act of the early 80's, we all shook our heads and said 'who could be that honest ?' and it was career changing stuff.
Many of us here will remember Peter from his service days, I also had contact with him afterwards while he was working as a surveyor. Never an issue.
I would be very keen to hear the whole story.
Unfortunately the media cannot be trusted in that respect and I am afraid I have seen far too many court cases to believe much of them also.
Then again, you have to imagine the truth lays somewhere in between the two sides.
I hope some good comes out of it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Dec 20, 2011 14:30:12 GMT 12
Yes I too am very surprised to see Peter's name associated with this. He was my OC at Ohakea Avionics and I had/have a huge amount of time and respect for him.
|
|
