My beautiful wife gets rather annoyed with me when we watch TV shows together because I am pretty good at working out how the plots will run so I try not to spoil it for her by sharing my expectations of the resolutions of the drama. None the less it does take a lot to surprise me when it comes to drama. The same thing goes for real life drama like the story of the boat being capsized by bad weather in the Whitsundays yesterday. When I saw the news stories about the accident on the News that included vision of the upturned boat towed to the jetty I could not help but think that the most obvious place to look for the missing woman’s body was IN the boat, sadly my suspicion was correct:
click for source
Its one of those things that I wish that I could have been wrong about(with the missing woman found alive) but an unpleasant resolution is nearly always better than no resolution at all in my experience.
Cheers Comrades
Iain – and I’m going to be frank with you here, so please put aside all of our previous disputes – I find your attitude and dare I say “pride” in “sorting out plots” damn near unspeakable in this instance.
Rescue workers have limited resources and limited time to help. So they help those who can be helped, ie. they look for people in the water.
By definition, anybody trapped inside a capsized vessel is dead by the time they get there. So they look elsewhere in the hope they might have got out. Minutes count in this type of situation. (And that’s without considering the extreme dangers they would expose themselves to by entering a sinking boat in the absence of any indication of life.)
Why should they look inside the boat for a body when there may be a live survivor outside?
Try walking a mile in someone else’s shoes before criticising, however lightly, their actions and decisions.
I’d take down this post if I were you.
I dunno, JM. Maybe, just maybe, there was a chance she was still alive inside the capsized boat when they reached it. These things DO happen. In a very similar incident, I heard on the news that a woman spent 3 days trapped under her car after it ran off the road on Christmas Day near Canberra. Police drove past the scene several times and, despite the fact it was obvious that a vehicle had run off the road and into a gully (the crash barrier was newly busted open), they didn’t bother going down to check. A school kid walking by eventually found her after 75 hours. She was saved but her leg had to be amputated. My guess is she had less than 24 hours to live when finally rescued. It certainly looks like an unbelievablely inept performance by the cops.
JM
I write my posts as I feel them and as Ray suggests in his comment sometime the obvious is ignored when looking for someone. Further people have survived for days trapped inside capsized boats if there has been sufficient air and the fact that the vessel remains afloat suggests that there must be some be some air inside it. My post is not any sort of criticism of the rescue services rather it is a wry observation of the tragic accident.
Thankfully for the Sandpit’s many readers you are NOT me because good bad or indifferent people come here to read what I write and I am not going to let my frankness or honesty be compromised by faux “sensitivity” and politically correct undue deference to anyone one or any instrumentality even ones I admire like the rescue services.
Ray, your points are good. However I find Iain’s insouciance – as per the title of this post and its premise – offensive and insensitive.
WTF do I care if Iain has a talent for picking the plot of fictional TV shows? What does that have to do with running a rescue operation?
Someone is dead and it is not the fault of the rescuers. That is unless Iain somehow feels his dramatic criticism skills could have produced a better outcome.
Perhaps he should be the head of “International Rescue”
Oh and Iain this supposition of yours is complete b*****t
the vessel remains afloat suggests that there must be some be some air inside it.
Modern boats are “unsinkable” by design using various devices ranging from general design principles all the way down to foam pockets do not sink unless their structure is seriously compromised.
To the point where they cannot be towed but simply break up. The fact that this vessel could be towed is only an indication that it was structurally intact. Not that there was any air in it, no-one had any reason to suppose that.
It says nothing about whether or not there were air pockets or not. Or whether anyone was alive in those supposed air pockets – at least in the absence of other indications like banging from the survivor from inside the hull.
Bottom line:- Iain’s dramatic criticism skills are not a substitute for the judgement of co-ordinated and skilled rescuers.
Sorry, but this post is really beyond the pale.
JM
The only boats that are mandated to have serious amounts of “foam pockets” are things like “tinnies” or other open boats. There is no reason to believe that a boat of the size in question would be in any real sense “unsinkable” Besides which they said that about the Titanic and it now sits at the bottom of the sea.
Further given the conditions (stormy seas) the chance of anyone being audible from inside the upturned boat would have been just about Zip
As for the your nonsense about how tow-able a capsized boat is and its structural integrity you are, as usual, talking through your bum
Have you done any sort of BASIC accident training JM ?
What is the first thing they teach you ?
It is applicable not only for basic pleasure craft, but also really any accident scene.
Don’t know what happened there, but to continue ? ……..
YOU STAY BLOODY PUT !
Also, we have all done basic courses in S&R, perhaps first aide and the like.
When confronted with an upturned boat, the first thing you would check, is under the bloody thing ! That is where you are taught to swim to. The upturned boat has bouyancy, and most of all protection from the elements, until help arrives. You guys ever seen the Poseiden Adventure ?
When the rescuers eventually arrive, the first thing they are trained to do, is when they see an upturned boat, is to bang like hell on the hull, to see if there is anyone alive underneath ?
The first obvious question here it, why didn’t that happen ?
Sax: YOU STAY BLOODY PUT !
Sage advice Sax. I’ll remember it next time the captain yells “Abandon Ship!”
“No, no, that’s wrong. Sax says we should stay put”
Iain: Further given the conditions (stormy seas) the chance of anyone being audible from inside the upturned boat would have been just about Zip
What’s your point? That they should have sent a diver into the boat? Into a vessel of unknown condition, ie. one that may break up with the diver inside? In stormy seas?
You know what Iain, the Coroner will look at this case and I think it’s unlikely the Coroner is a drama specialist so I doubt he/she will agree with your criticisms.
Well Mr Know-it-ALL what should they have done ?
You are quick to criticise everyone else for their theories, what’s yours ?
btw ?
Ever heard of Navy Clearance Divers ?
Might that be what they do for a living by any chance, i.e. dive into dangerous situations ?
As usual, people don’t think before they act, and this is a very sad situation, as to what happens, when people don’t think. No winners here, but I guarantee from now on, in a similar situation, that the underneath of an upturned boat, is the bloody first thing that gets checked perhaps ?
Sax, you really are a twit.
Ever heard of Navy Clearance Divers ?
Yes I have, but I doubt they’re available on short notice for emergency work or that they could get there in any reasonable time, and I also doubt that they work in the (necessarily) unplanned conditions of a sea rescue. I would bet that they work where there has been a survey of the site done and a plan developed.
BTW – I quote from what appears to be an updated version of the original article:
Mackay district police Inspector Andy Graham said the divers arrived in the Whitsundays about noon yesterday [ie. Wednesday after a Tuesday "sinking"] ready to check the overturned vessel.
So the divers got there 24 hours later. But of course in your view the rescue of the other 11 people should have been held up until they could arrive.
Brilliant logic there Sax. It’s difficult to argue with someone who has such an astute grasp of a situation when they’re hundred’s of kilometers away. A steel-trap mind you might say. You should be a General (or an Air Marshall).
BTW Sax, which of the 3 Australian Lear Jet operators do you fly for?
Raytheon, Pelair or Air Affairs?
I tend to think that were I write about the joys of a sunny day JM then you would find some reason to denounce me for for that opinion.
Frankly I know that I am on the right path when loons like yourself tell me that I am wrong.
Four five hours notice apparently smart ar*e. Your rebuttal is pretty feeble. Just like the rest of your arguments the last month or two. Long on rhetoric, short on common sense and fact !
Depends on how long the authorities stalled, before calling them in ? That is where I would be lookiing to lay the blame here. BTW, to further put pay to your feeble argument ?
Hell, the news choppers found the site in pretty quick time didn’t they ?
There is ALWAYS an SAR team on standby somewhere in Australia, and considering the maximum flight time, for such a crew would be five hours, from one side of the country to the other, you do the math, or is that too tough for you ?
God, the yanks can have a deep sea diving rig anywhere in the world in 24 hours.
“Lear” is both a brand, as well as a generic term Einstein.
I don’t fly lears.
I fly another brand, which has been mentioned on these pages before.
Lears have two engines, ours have three. So will leave you to google that, and think about it for a while, but don’t rush now. I wouldn’t want to tax that genius brain of yours too much ?
Don’t even have to do that, it is on a previous thread !
Your touch of sarcasm is not bad, would have hit the target a little better if you had perhaps mentioned ?
Air America ?
Perhaps more training for you ?
Isn’t it strange Sax that someone who is so secret squirrel about his own life, work and identity should be so keen to find out the details about you?
JM how about you try to give Sax the same courtesy that you so want offered to yourself?
Sax: Air America?
No: Air Affairs (Australia)
Perhaps more training for you ?
You should read what I actually wrote. Either that or remedial reading lessons for you.
Sax: and considering the maximum flight time, for such a crew would be five hours,
Meanwhile 11 other people are in the water waiting.
Sax, neither you nor I were there. Nor are we at all familiar with the circumstances or resources available.
But only you and Iain see fit to second guess the people who were. Criticism like that by people in our position – ie. not there at the time is indefensible, yet you both insist on doing so having no more facts to hand than a few sketchy words in a newspaper report.
I’d just keep my mouth shut if I were you. Wait for the Coroner’s Report.
The wonderful thing about writing in public Iain, is eventually, you out yourself
As for me, I don’t give a rats. I’m not in a phone book, and neither is the business. So happy hunting.
People, especially when their arguments fail, in a vain attempt to re establish credibility, begin to attack the person, who shot down their arguments. How many times have we seen that on these pages, never mind fantasyland ?
Back to the topic, my blame would be aimed towards the person(s) responsible, for the final determination to call in the pros. That’s where the error lies, would bet on it. These pros sit around, day after day, their planes loaded and fueled, and ready to go. What was the delay ? The cost perhaps ? Pretty poor excuse, if that is the one that the eventual inquiry into all this, perhaps comes up with ?
You organisation provides products, and training, not services mentioned ffs.
C’mon man, you will have to do better than that ? rofl
Your research skills haven’t improved much, have they ?
Perhaps try ?
http://www.amsa.gov.au/search_and_rescue/
The above people are the ones I would be asking the questions ?
I just wrote a response for you JM, but it got lost in the ether somewhere, so to shorten it.
Btw, the people responsible for SAR in Australia are :
http://www.amsa.gov.au/search_and_rescue/
Have a read. Found the link in about three seconds.
Your Air Affairs is a training provider, not an SAR provider.
C’mon, check your supposed facts will ya, ffs !
Hmmmm, Sax would you be referring to this comment from March 2011 regarding the GG Quentin Bryce
I remember my old RAAF days, she actually had her own RAAF Falcon lear jet, along with the PM, and Opposition Leader.
which I presume refers to a Dassault Falcon 900, which was operated by the RAAF until 2003 and is also the only 3 engined business jet in production.
If so, then I’d question the accuracy of that old comment, or at least your memory. Quentin Bryce was only appointed Governor of Queensland in 2003, the same year the Falcon’s went out of service. And I wasn’t aware that State Governors were accorded the same privileges as the PM and Opposition Leader.
She didn’t become Governor General until 2008 which I think would be the first time she’d have been accorded that sort of access. Unfortunately, the Falcon’s had been out of service for 5 years by then.
Memory getting faulty in your old age Mr Walter Mitty?
Sax: my blame would be aimed towards the person(s) responsible, for the final determination to call in the pros.
Read the article Sax, they were police divers not Search and Rescue, the RAAF or the military.
As for whether there has been any error, misjudgement or negligence that’s for the Coroner to determine. But I would bet the Coroner will focus on the Captain who is responsible come hell or high water, and not the rescue workers.
I can’t see many questions being raised about a rescue that successfully saved 11 lives, with the unfortunate loss of one woman’s life who couldn’t get out of the boat in time. I can see quite a few about the decisions and actions of the Captain who is legally responsible for the safety of the ship, crew and passengers.
But you know what? I think this will all go down to misadventure as it probably should. Accidents happen at sea all the time, and no-one who goes to sea is ever in any way careless (or only very rarely so).
Nice attempt at sidetracking your failure.
Its a training organisation, ffs, read the bloody article you quoted will you ?
I never mentioned the GG by name, (you’re the only one who did that), all I did, was mention that in my time, there were three falcon 900′s. One for the PM, one for the Opposition Leader, and one available for the GG.
Perhaps in your time absorbed by Google, try the words 34 Squadron perhaps, and get back to us ?
You really are fishing, to disguise your failed argument again aren’t you JM ?
Speaking of Walter Mitty’s ? It failed again, like all b/s does.
To use your tactics, I see Iain’s questions regarding your Walter Mitty qualifications still remain unswered ?
You have the cheek and tamarity to question mine, you tool ! Really, no one is buying it anymore JM.
Sax: I never mentioned the GG by name
Yes you did Sax. The comment comes from a thread that is all about Quentin Bryce and her expenses.
One for the PM, one for the Opposition Leader, and one available for the GG.
She wasn’t GG until 2008 Sax. The Falcon’s were retired (or their lease ended) at the end of 2002. She did not become Governor of Queensland until 2003.
She could never have “had her own RAAF Falcon lear jet”. By the time she held any position were she could have had access to them they had been retired.
Sax. Your veracity is zero. Zero.
I don’t believe a single word of your fly-boy stories. Not one, Mr Mitty.
(And Sax, unlike you I actually read up on Squadron 34 before commenting, that’s were I got my information from. Unlike you I don’t go off into fantasies and then madly scramble around for some sliver of “evidence” in a futile attempt to back them up.)
Btw, did you bother to look at http://www.amsa.gov.au/search_and_rescue/ or do you want to continue that argument ?
Again, you’re wrong.
aren’t we allowed to put links in anymore Iain ?
I mentioned “she”. So, who cares ?
JM, in an attempt to divert from another failed argument picks gnits.
The article, that you yourself quoted, mentioned the aircraft, the failure regarding who was responsible for SAR work in Australia. Gonna walk that entire premise back, or are going to continue to attempt to deflect away from it ?
As for the rest of your dribble, please research it will you ?
Again, we are awaiting those qualifications of yours JM ?
Might pay to put up, or perhaps think about it for five minutes, before criticising someone elses in your continual failures ?
Sax: The article, that you yourself quoted … [etc]
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What article? The only article I quoted from is the one Iain used at the head of this post.
If that’s what you mean, how does it:
mentioned the aircraft, the failure regarding who was responsible for SAR work in Australia
The article says nothing of the sort. All it mentions is “an extensive search of the waters” and “emergency service personnel”
That doesn’t rise to identifying who conducted this search let alone make any statement about responsibility or failure.
Alright
I think both Iain and Sax should read a more extensive report from the Courier Mail
This puts the entire vile premise of this thread to rest and hits every argument raised by Sax and Iain out of the park.
Let me quote from it:
“You can hardly imagine the moments of horror,” Mackay Police District Inspector Andy Graham told The Courier-Mail.
“Some were trapped underwater in air pockets.
“They were in pitch-black darkness, in the water, tossed about by huge waves, disoriented, inside an upturned boat. It’d be horrific. Most of the passengers and two crew are badly traumatised.”
Police hailed the heroic efforts of rescuers who braved heavy seas to save those trapped in the cabin.
Inspector Graham said men from the nearby fishing charter boat Renegade came to the rescue by “duck-diving” underneath the stricken vessel.
“They told us they found a couple of people and pulled them to safety. They said they kept looking but could not find anyone else.”
He said the rescuers would likely be honoured after preventing what could have been a much larger tragedy.
So yes there were air pockets.
BUT PEOPLE DID LOOK. REPEATEDLY.
And those people were not “the professionals” – they were crew (and presumably passengers) from a boat nearby.
And they are likely to be honored rather than pilloried by jerks like you two.
So all this “why didn’t they look” stuff is just pure b*****t from a couple of know-it-all clowns who weren’t there.
And this great fantasy that Sax has of some sort of officially organized rescue, that could have been properly planned and co-ordinated with the vast resources of the Australian Military on call … and why weren’t they called?
Pure unadulaterated, childish fantasy.
Go back to Thunderbirds guys, it’s more your speed.
This one perhaps ?
http://www.airaffairs.com.au/index.htm
and further ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_35#Civilian_operators
Hell, you were the one who said there was a failure of rescue to get there on time ?
So, you are now doing a complete 180 on your entire argument ?
Geez, man, get a grip ffs.
Now what the hell you on about ?
Sax: I mentioned “she”. So, who cares ?
Because it goes to your veracity.
Your words were:
I remember my old RAAF days, she actually had her own RAAF Falcon lear jet, along with the PM, and Opposition Leader.
Do you remember that Sax? Quentin Bryce flying around in an RAAF Falcon lear jet? Do you really? Because the only “old days” where Quentin Bryce, GG could have flown around the country in “her own RAAF Falcon lear jet” …….
….. NEVER HAPPENED. The Falcons were retired before she got within cooeee of the VIP fleet run by 34 Squadron.
Who since 2003 – ie when Bryce became Governor of Queensland – 34 Squadron have operated two Boeing 737 Business Jets and three Bombardier Challenger 604s. Neither of which are 3 engined.
Only the Bombardier’s are business jets. But they only have 2 engines Sax. Not 3. Only the Falcon’s – that’s what you claim to fly right? – have 3.
This whole “I remember my old RAAF days” schtick of yours is just made up. Isn’t it?
And this whole “tossing a 3 engine lear jet around” is equally made up. Isn’t it?
You’re a fraud.
And not a very good one.
Look up falcon 900 you dill. I believe there are pictures available, for those who can’t read ?
Oops, looky here, they have 3, yes 3 engines ?
Wanna try that again perhaps ?
Again folks, he attempts to get people’s attention away from his own Walter Mitty qualifications.
And Sax: Hell, you were the one who said there was a failure of rescue to get there on time ?
That’s slander. I never said anything about the timeliness of the rescue attempt. Not one jot. How could I, I knew nothing about it? (Before reading the Courier Mail at least, and that makes it plain that there is utterly nothing questionable about the rescue attempt at all.)
All I did was make a commonplace observation that the unfortunate woman had – obviously – not been able to get out in time.
Tell you what. Before you disappear off into the wild blue yonder never to be heard from again like your mate David Davidson and the twerp before him (Len?), maybe you could apologize.
Please. I would appreciate it.
Sax: Look up falcon 900
You’re trying to move the goal posts. The issue is not the number of engines the Falcon actually has, which yes is 3.
The question is the veracity of your claims that:
1. You recall Quentin Bryce being flown around in one of the RAAF’s ones – an impossible event. This completely undermines your claim to have been serving in the RAAF and have personal knowledge of this. The event is impossible, therefore you can’t remember it, therefore I doubt you ever served in the RAAF.
2. You spend your days “tossing around a 3 engine lear jet”. If I can’t trust you on your supposed memory of Quentin Bryce flying in one, then I’m certainly not going to trust your claim to actually be flying one now.
If you ever saw Quentin Bryce in an “lear jet” it would have to have been a Bombardier Challenger 604 (2 engines) and not a Falcon (3 engines).
And anyone who can’t tell the difference between the two is absolutely certainly not someone who has ever flown either of them and very likely not a pilot at all.
I’m still waiting for that apology BTW
When you do, you fraud !
You were the one mentioning Bryce not me.
I said the GG’s aircraft, which in my time, was exactly correct.
Again, you attempt to change the subject.
You asked for the links, and I gave them to you.
You got your a*se whooped again. Get over it !
Only then will you have a chance for any credibility here.
Sax: I’m not in a phone book, and neither is the business.
Strange business that. Operates multi-million dollar millionaire plaything jets. But can’t afford a phone.
Just said I wasn’t in the phone book you tool.
Again JM attempts to change the subject.
I think I have figured you out,
A bachelor of Arts dropout. (no offence Iain, you’re a graduate)
That would explain the poor argumentative skills.
Sax: You were the one mentioning Bryce not me.
I said the GG’s aircraft, which in my time, was exactly correct.
Sax, your shabbily constructed fantasy world is falling apart. You were talking about your memory of your RAAF days in respect of Quentin Bryce’s use of official aircraft operated by the RAAF.
The fact is that Quentin Bryce never flew in an official capacity in an RAAF Falcon 900. It’s impossible. She can only have flown in a Bombardier (and probably has).
Those two are similar but quite different aircraft. Any aviation fanboy can tell the difference – hell a 9 year old boy with a Biggles fixation could.
And while they might look similar at a glance – NO pilot would make that mistake. And NO pilot who had ever flown one would ever make that mistake.
(Or if they did, I’d be insisting that their license be revoked as I’d suspect them to be losing their marbles and no longer able to exercise the required judgement to be flying anything larger than a kite)
You’re a fraud Sax. It’s obvious.
Sax, dear boy. You really are losing it.
Sax (then): I’m not in a phone book, and neither is the business.
Sax (now): Just said I wasn’t in the phone book you tool.
So the business IS in the phone book Sax? Or not?
Seriously if you can’t keep the basic facts of your life – like the telephone arrangements of your business – straight in your head and contradict yourself in the space of a few hours, then you’ve got problems.
And if that’s happening and you really are a pilot … you should be handing in your license and having a medical check-up.
Again, the pot calling the kettle black.
Professor Doolittle strikes people.
In my time remember that Professor ?
Chop and change it anyway you like, it still won’t wash.
You can throw the c*ap around all you like, you still haven’t distracted anyone away from your false creds sunshine.
If you were in academia, and in the science fraternity, as you have always protested, you would know who I was, where I was, and what I do. The company has been in the journals of the trade for enough years.
So who’s the fraud again perhaps ?
Sax: The company has been in the journals of the trade for enough years
Ahhh that’s more like it. See Sax a business operates to attract customers, has to. For that it needs to be in the phone book, don’t you agree?
So why the BS about not being in the phone book? Perhaps because this “business” of yours is actually just some nebulous fantasy where you haven’t fully fleshed out all the details yet?
And make dumar**** mistakes and get caught out?
And Sax, just to crystalize the question:-
In what year did you see Quentin Bryce fly in an RAAF Falcon 900 in her capacity as Governor General?
I’ll accept an approximate answer.
I am not the one who just got caught out.
Cos, it’s not in the phone book you dill.
For a supposed scientist you cannot differentiate between a trade journal and yellow pages ?
This has all been discussed on these pages before. Actually, I think you were one of the tools that started it in the first place, again, when an argument of yours was challenged, and found wanting facts, or even cogency.
Again, if you were the scientist you claim to be ? you would have already known that JM.
Oops !
There’s your proof Iain !
JM
how long has Bryce been GG?
And were there other holder’s of the office before her time who use government aircraft for official duties?
Sax: Cos, it’s not in the phone book you dill.
The business has a phone but its number is not in the phone book?
Yet it has appeared in the trade journals for years?
What trade journals they be Sax? And if you’re advertising in them, or getting feature articles in them, how come you don’t publish the phone number? Doesn’t that sort of defeat the purpose?
JM
if you are not prepared to be forthcoming about your qualifications what makes you think that you have any right to ask personal questions about other commentators here?
In fact if you don’t drop this off topic crap I will put your comments into moderation and delete any that inquire about other people who comment here, including Sax.
If he had, even the lowest end of the scale, of the qualifications he has pointed his nose down at us Iain, he would know of these journals. I don’t have the quals he boasts, and I know about the journals, as well as how much they charge advertisers in them.
Oops !
To make the playing field even, thats enough for me as well.
It’s just not fun anymore, not that it was in the beginning.
Iain, don’t bother trying to rescue Sax here. He clearly stated on the earlier thread that he remembered Quentin Bryce “having her own RAAF Falcon lear jet”. That previous thread in March 2011 about her expenses as GG.
Yes earlier GG’s could have and probably did fly in Falcon 900′s, but Sax has nailed his case to Quentin Bryce. He’s had plenty of opportunity to correct things so saying “oh, oh, oh you mean that GG? No, I was talking about a different one entirely” won’t cut it.
I don’t think it’s very easy for anyone to mistake Quentin Bryce – a quite attractive woman – for her predecessor Major General Michael Jeffery – a rather upright military man. That excuse just won’t wash.
The RAAF operated Falcon 900′s up to the end of 2002. Bryce did not become GG until 2008. She could never have flown in a Falcon as GG.
She could not even have flown in one as Governor of Queensland. She became Governor in 2003 after the Falcon’s were retired.
And further since no-one claiming to be a pilot, would ever mistake them for the current fleet of Bombardier’s I don’t believe that Sax is a pilot. Most especially since he claims to actually fly Falcon’s. Nobody who had ever flow a Falcon would mistake one for a Bombardier. Remember Sax has often claimed to fly “lear jets”, has previously identified them as Falcon’s and taunted me on this thread over their identity.
So either he can’t tell the difference between a female GG and a male GG or he doesn’t know what the plane he (allegedly) flies even looks like. (He can tell you the number of engines though)
When someone has cooked their own goose it stays cooked and that’s what’s happened to our latest fantasist, Sax.
Period. He’s a fraud.
Sax: If he had, even the lowest end of the scale, of the qualifications he has pointed his nose down at us Iain, he would know of these journals
Sax you work in aviation. I don’t, never have and never will. My qualifications are not in aviation. I don’t read aviation journals. Why would I know of them?
And don’t run away, I’m still waiting for an apology.
there it is again folks.
If this dumb ass worked in the science field, as he boasts, he would not only know what journals I have been referring to, but could point chapter and verse where my ads are.
Sprung again folks.
Looks like you aren’t going to get your information Iain.
But, come to think of it, in a round about way, perhaps you just did ?
And perhaps more on topic:
Iain could I get your reaction to the Courier Mail’s report that the rescuers not only did look in the boat but looked repeatedly and pulled a couple of people out?
Perhaps that’s changed the view you held when originally making this post?
You were warned JM, and chose to ignore my warning so I hope you enjoy being moderated.
I have not read the report so no reaction JM
I spent the day driving so I have not been following the story any further than my observations in the original post.
Iain, it’s a good article and it fleshes out many of the details. It would be a good idea for you to read it as it completely explodes the theory in your post of “why didn’t they look in the boat?”
Because they did. They didn’t find her because she was in the “head” at the bow of the boat and she had quite naturally locked the door. There’s very little chance of a couple of men “duck diving” being able to get up there and force the door open when in an upside down boat and complete darkness.
Also as is clear from the article she appears to have drowned and not suffocated. Further since the “head” was in the bow of the boat it means it is high in the hull. Or low in the water when the thing is capsized.
No air pockets for her in other words.
This is a tragic accident but no blame should be attached to what sound like an extremely brave, resourceful and responsive group of rescuers.
And there is to be a Coroner’s inquiry and a Maritime Safety and Workplace Health and Safety inquiry which will no doubt have some tough questions for the Captain and crew. The rescuers, not so much.
Can we please put Ray into moderation each time he delves into a persons identity on here also?
Don’t worry about it Angel.
It’s all a shell game, and the first person to use such tactics, just proves they have lost the argument, and is attempting to deflect their embarrassment for having done so. As for me, not the first time, and won’t be the last ?
I just wanna see Ray moderated. Taste that medicine.
Ya wanna get me banned Angel ?
Guessing you are going down with me
What’s this got to do with me, Angel? And Sax, get over yourself. For the record though, I agree with JM that Sax is a blowhard and that most of his so-called background is made up. But I don’t give a shit. And we’ve been there before.
Get over yourself Dicko.
We weren’t even discussing you, at least until Angel suggested you be put in moderation as well, for also ALWAYS challenging people’s identities. Which, btw, is also your tactic upon losing an argument.
I was attempting to keep the peace, in some vain thought, that perhaps after his week away at the cricket, Rumbles would come back, after a bit of fresh air and exercise, and be civil.
I wasn’t going to bother, and just let your comment re Ray slide Angel, that is why the smile, but after Nurse Ratchet’s entrance, panic attack, ego explosion and brain f*rt, that is no longer possible.
Obviously, he didn’t bother to read the above warning from Iain, but then again, he is a protected species on these pages. That is why he is as bad as he is. Also the reason why he has little or no credibility ANYWHERE !
You want to denigrate me, and my business Dixon, in a public forum, two can play that game.
You really want to go down that road sunshine ?
Use that massive intellect of yours for a minute, think about that for a second, and get back to me.
Pull your head in kiddo, and come join us in the real world, or ffs just f*ck off !
You’re really hoping I’ll put that ridiculous rant of yours in moderation, aren’t you Sax? Then you’d have something else to carry on over. Look, you angry fool, I’ve never queried YOUR IDENTITY … I’ve only suggested you fabricate a lot about yourself. Now use some manners and stop calling real identities here by their surname and/or telling them to fuck off, you anonymous knob.
rofl
You really don’t know the difference do you ?
Couldn’t have said that any better myself.
right back at ya.
you really are a gutless coward dicko
Sax if you use the “f” word your comment goes into moderation automatically without any help from Ray, as I have explained before.
rofl
You really don’t know the difference do you ?
Couldn’t have said that any better myself.
right back at ya.
funny Iain, it was a direct copy of Rays derogative comment
Funny how that never went into moderation.
But then again, there is nothing like equality is there ?
Ok then Ray I will play it
“I’ve never queried YOUR IDENTITY …”
Does that refer just to Sax or me also.
Sax, FYI, author’s comments bypass the word filter (i.e. words Iain has banned from use). That’s just how WordPress works. But if you want what you call “equality”, which I guess you mean you want to be able to slag off at others without any controls, well you’re doing that and more already … and you get to do it anonymously with no repercussions to your personal life and business, whatever the hell they are. Sounds more than fair to me. Just pipe down and behave yourself or I will put any further abuse into moderation (where Iain can decide what to do with it).
Angel, when you first started commenting here I suspected you were one of Iain’s regular trolls and stalkers (the one who uses the pseudonym Bridgit Gread). I’m less inclined to think so now but… (a) I had good grounds to suspect that, given your style (or lack of grace) and given that you then went and posted abuse at an anonymous stalking blog – the one we don’t talk about. (b) I’ve no interest WHATSOEVER in your real identity, despite you actually phoning me to try to prove who you were. I don’t care .. just play nice and stop the crap. You started this, how about you resolve to cut it out as a New Year deal? Cheerio.
That should be a sufficient answer to all your questions Angel ?
rofl