Trial by newspaper

[Paul kgyy]

I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
> last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
> lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
> difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
> braking, short runway.
>
> I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
> of scrutiny.

One of the first things you learn as a professional pilot is that everything
you do with an airplane is subject to scrutiny. Some of it is good, some
bad.
The scrutiny you get from lawyers after a crash is seldom related to the
actual facts involved in the crash.
From the moment of impact, you have lawyers on both sides of the issue
arguing that you either did the right thing, or that you did the wrong
thing. Many times....many, many times, the actual truth is never known and
lawyer who presents the most believable argument and proves to be the better
salesman wins.
The pilot seldom wins.
I was an airshow pilot for many years. There was never a doubt in my mind
that had I somehow suffered a catastrophic structural failure in my aircraft
that resulted in my burying myself in a hole fifteen feet deep in the middle
of an airfield, before the fire was out and what was left of my body removed
from the wreckage, there would have been a hundred lawyers standing at the
edge of the hole looking down and discussing what it was I did wrong to
cause the accident; questioning every onlooker trying desperately to find
someone who could claim they had been injured by my crash, and how what I
did wrong could be turned into income .
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Sarangan]

Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.

[Dudley Henriques]

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Andrew;
> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
> way.
> In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
> Dudley Henriques

Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

>
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.
>>
>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm using
is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup reference
properly.
Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with no
pickup reference.
If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere other
than my news reader.
There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as well as
"piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have defaulted through
"owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps that is the issue.
Dudley Henriques

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Andrew;
>> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
>> way.
>> In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
> the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
> threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
> do a fine job.
>
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm using
> is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup reference
> properly.
> Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with no
> pickup reference.
> If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere other
> than my news reader.
> There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as well as
> "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have defaulted through
> "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps that is the issue.
> Dudley Henriques

Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm
>> using is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup
>> reference properly.
>> Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with no
>> pickup reference.
>> If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere
>> other than my news reader.
>> There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as well
>> as "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have defaulted
>> through "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps that is the
>> issue.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
> in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
> Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Sacramento, CA

No biggie for sure :-), but when I hit reply on Andrew's message, the
reference shows normally as below;

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.

but when simply pulled up in the thread, just the sentence.

Interesting!! Just one of those unexplained mysteries that must drive Bill
Gates nuts from time to time :-)))
Dudley

[Montblack]

>> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
>> way.

("Mark Hansen" wrote)
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing the
> thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing threads,
> perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that do a fine job.


I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up
without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)


Montblack
M$ OE 6.0

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 09:05, Montblack wrote:

>>> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
>>> way.
>
> ("Mark Hansen" wrote)
>> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing the
>> thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing threads,
>> perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that do a fine job.
>
>
> I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up
> without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)

Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?

>
>
> Montblack
> M$ OE 6.0
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

It's nice to have the quotes, but if the reply is something I'm
interested in and it's missing a quote, I'll manually go back and look
at the thread to see what it's replying to. Very often a reply stands
(or falls) on its own, and I'll just let it.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ross Richardson]

When Andrew's post came across at 9:49 it was one line only with no
attached threads.

I use Netscape 7.2 on W-2000.


-------------
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm
>> using is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup
>> reference properly.
>> Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with
>> no pickup reference.
>> If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere
>> other than my news reader.
>> There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as
>> well as "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have
>> defaulted through "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps
>> that is the issue.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
> in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
> Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).
>
>

[Chris Colohan]

"Dudley Henriques" > writes:
> No biggie for sure :-), but when I hit reply on Andrew's message, the
> reference shows normally as below;
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.
>
> but when simply pulled up in the thread, just the sentence.
>
> Interesting!! Just one of those unexplained mysteries that must drive Bill
> Gates nuts from time to time :-)))

Ahhh. I think the issue is that you have two different definitions of
"thread".

In my newsreader (and in most threaded newsreaders), you can see who
replied to each message by the layout of the messages in the summary
view. So in this thread, my summary view looks like this:

R [ 9: Paul kgyy ] Trial by newspaper
R [ 35: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 3: Andrew Sarangan ]
R [ 14: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 27: Mark Hansen ]
R [ 43: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 22: Mark Hansen ]
R [ 42: Dudley Henriques ]
R [ 16: Montblack ]

See how you can tell from the indentation that Paul sent a message,
then Dudley and Andrew replied to it, then Dudley repsonded to
Andrew's message, etc. Your posting software will put a "references"
header in your posting so that other newsreaders can figure out this
threading.

In addition to seeing these "threads", some of the posters choose to
quote from earlier messages, as I have quoted from Dudley's message
above. I think this quoting is what Dudley is calling a "thread".

Dudley: from your description, it sounds like Outlook either does not
have threading, or you do not have that feature enabled.

In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[Montblack]

>> I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up
>> without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)

("Mark Hansen" wrote)
> Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?


You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain
innkeeper did over Thanksgiving, are you? <g> ...new messages go to the
BOTTOM!

I don't like a cluttered tree of read posts and unread posts. Too
overwhelming - searching for a better word.

I delete all of the posts in a newsgroup, at one time, then plow through the
next batch when I pull them up. I do this a couple of times per day. I read
more posts this way - the other way, I look at the intermixed thread-tree
mess and say "screw it," as often as not.

Newsgroup/Properties/Local Files/Delete


Montblack

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 09:57, Montblack wrote:

>>> I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up
>>> without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)
>
> ("Mark Hansen" wrote)
>> Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?
>
>
> You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain
> innkeeper did over Thanksgiving, are you? <g> ...new messages go to the
> BOTTOM!
>
> I don't like a cluttered tree of read posts and unread posts. Too
> overwhelming - searching for a better word.
>
> I delete all of the posts in a newsgroup, at one time, then plow through the
> next batch when I pull them up. I do this a couple of times per day. I read
> more posts this way - the other way, I look at the intermixed thread-tree
> mess and say "screw it," as often as not.
>
> Newsgroup/Properties/Local Files/Delete

In my news reader (Mozilla 1.7.5), I simply configure the news group
with View -> Threads -> Threads with unread, and it only shows those
threads with unread messages. This cuts way down on the clutter and
still allows me to see the thread history for any posting.


>
>
> Montblack
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Charles Oppermann]

>I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
> last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
> lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
> difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
> braking, short runway.
> I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
> of scrutiny.

We all would. Given the circumstances (little boy killed, worst storm in
recent years, etc.), the scruitny is warranted, in my opinion.

What bothers me is the lack of accuracy in the reporting. Just today the
Chicago media discovered that there is a 696 feet displaced threshold on 31C
and that their previous reporting of a 6,522 feet runway was incorrect.

Ultimately though, it's only the kids lawyers and retired pilots who are
doing the talking to the media, thus the news coverage will slant that way
until the NTSB releases its report.

Charles Oppermann
http://www.coppersoftware.com/

Southwest Airlines flight 1248 accident articles:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

[Andrew Sarangan]

Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

[Jim Macklin]

Dudley, they will get an answer when the NTSB releases the
report. Until then, the discussion here is just to get
pilots of all types, thinking about what and how to avoid it
happening again before the NTSB releases a and the FAA and
airline amend their regulations and procedures [that will
take years longer].

On the subject of your posts, you can set your newsreader to
include the message you're replying to, in Outlook Express
on the Send tab (Tools/Options) Include Message in Reply...


You can edit this, but still include enough useful info,
such as name and context of the message...


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Dudley
|
| I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry
if it came
| off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your
sentiments about
| lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the
victim in
| question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian
at the
| airport property. I did not suggest that the victims
parents should sue
| SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an
answer as to
| why this freak accident happened.
|

[Chris]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
> last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
> lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
> difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
> braking, short runway.
>
> I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
> of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?

[Paul kgyy]

Certainly an examination of the event is warranted. The accident did
happen. But newspapers and lawyers tend to assess blame long before
the real cause is known and seldom get facts correct.

[Jay Beckman]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
>> last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
>> lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
>> difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
>> braking, short runway.
>>
>> I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
>> of scrutiny.
>
> So trial by newgroup is any better?
>

At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
99.999% of the media.)

Jay B

[Kobra]

>However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
> why this freak accident happened.

I don't know that it was a "freak" accident. I think the pilots should have
saw this coming a 100 miles away. Tailwind, snow and ice covered runway,
short runway, low visibility, large fast aircraft, no over run with a
densely developed and populated area immediately after the airport barrier
fence. If the reverse thrusters or spoilers didn't work that only put the
icing on the cake that was already baked.

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

Kobra

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

[Jose]

> I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
> does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
> unless I manually cut and paste.

Then manually cut and paste, choosing what you wish to reply to.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tom Conner]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Andrew;
> > No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
> > way.
> > In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
> the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
> threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
> do a fine job.

If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there
is no thread to follow.

[John Galban]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
> does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
> unless I manually cut and paste.

This is the new (well, from earlier this year) Google interface. If
you just hit the reply button, your reply will not contain any quoted
material unless you put it in manually. If you want the full-featured
reply Hit "show options", THEN hit "reply" and you will get a reply
window with the full quoted text of the post your are replying to.

Piece of cake once you know where to find it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
> does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
> unless I manually cut and paste.

Hm, when I click Reply in Google Groups, I automatically get the previous
post conventionally quoted in the new message window. Perhaps this is a
settable option, but offhand I don't see where it's set.

--Gary

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/14/2005 14:54, Tom Conner wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>> > Andrew;
>> > No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
>> > way.
>> > In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
>> the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
>> threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
>> do a fine job.
>
> If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there
> is no thread to follow.
>
>

The news reader I used allows me to see each thread which includes
unread messages. It excludes threads that have no unread messages.
This cuts way down on the clutter but still allows me to see the
entire thread.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Charles Oppermann]

> I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
> minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
> situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

I've been blogging about the incident with all the factual data I can find.
The ceiling was holding steady at 300 feet, the visibility was ranging
between 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile. FAA minimum for 31C was 250 feet and a RVR of
4000, which apparently was met. It's been mentioned in this newsgroup that
the heads up display would have enabled an approach down to 3000 RVR, but
that's not confirmed.

In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
Burbank accident.

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

[John Clonts]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...
>>> I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up without supporting references, I'm
>>> left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)
>
> ("Mark Hansen" wrote)
>> Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?
>
>
> You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain innkeeper did over Thanksgiving,
> are you? <g> ...new messages go to the BOTTOM!
>
> I don't like a cluttered tree of read posts and unread posts. Too overwhelming - searching for a better word.
>
> I delete all of the posts in a newsgroup, at one time, then plow through the next batch when I pull them up.
> I do this a couple of times per day. I read more posts this way - the other way, I look at the intermixed
> thread-tree mess and say "screw it," as often as not.
>
> Newsgroup/Properties/Local Files/Delete
>

Do you know about "read next unread"? Control-U and/or add the "Next Unread" button to your button bar...

[Matt Whiting]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Andrew;
>> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in
>> some way.
>> In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
> the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
> threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
> do a fine job.

I have a thread capable newsreader and it is still much preferred to
quote a sufficient portion of the thread to which you are replying to
let the reader know the context. I read from message to message and
typically the message window is covering the window that shows the
thread structure.

Dudley's advice is right on here.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 12/14/2005 08:13, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I'm using Outlook Express 6.0 and every thread on every newsgroup I'm
>> using is showing normally, including your post which shows a pickup
>> reference properly.
>> Andrew's post shows up with a blank screen and a single sentence with
>> no pickup reference.
>> If you are seeing a pickup reference, the problem might be somewhere
>> other than my news reader.
>> There is one anomaly however. The OP has cross posted to "owning" as
>> well as "piloting". I'm answering to "piloting" only, and have
>> defaulted through "owning" as the other group won't rectify. Perhaps
>> that is the issue.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Strange. I'm looking at the thread posted to both owning and piloting, and
> in both cases, the entire thread is there. I'm using Mozilla 1.7.5 on a
> Windows platform (Windows/2000 Professional).

Likewise, I see the thread structure clearly, but I'm using Netscape 7.2
which is Mozilla based. Even so, including a short quote is good form.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>>> I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up
>>> without supporting references, I'm left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)
>
> ("Mark Hansen" wrote)
>> Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?
>
>
> You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain
> innkeeper did over Thanksgiving, are you? <g> ...new messages go to the
> BOTTOM!

Paul is using dial-up strategies in a DSL world. He started doing things
that way in "the olden days", and continues to do so because it's
comfortable, even though the need to save time and disk space is long gone.

I'm the same way with cut-and-paste operations. I *know* that "CTRL-C"
works just as well as "ALT-E-C", and takes one less keystroke, too -- but I
still use the old Lotus 1-2-3 "ALT-E-C" as often as not...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Dudley
>
> I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
> off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
> lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
> question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
> airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
> SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
> why this freak accident happened.
>

And they deserve to know if it really was a freak accident or an error
in judgement. The NTSB is pretty good at sorting these out so I suspect
the parents will get an answer in due time.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Beckman wrote:

> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
>>>last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
>>>lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
>>>difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
>>>braking, short runway.
>>>
>>>I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
>>>of scrutiny.
>>
>>So trial by newgroup is any better?
>>
>
>
> At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
> 99.999% of the media.)

True, but we still enjoy speculating just as the media folks do!

Matt

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Andrew;
>> No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in
>> some way.
>> In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
> the thread.

I only have displayed unread posts so if I read the original post it may
well be his post is first next time I check the news.

[Matt Whiting]

Charles Oppermann wrote:

> I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
> affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
> and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
> should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans
under all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the
cases where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop. These
conditions are basically deep snow or other soft material such as sand.
In these cases, the material builds up in front of the lock tires and
increases the resistance of the tire moving through the material (forms
a bow wave essential). However on dry or wet pavement, ice, light snow,
light layer of sand or loose dirt, etc., the ABS wins.

I have seen a few tests (auto and motorcycle, not airplane) where very
highly skilled racers have been able to outbrake and ABS vehicle on dry
pavement. However, the margin of winning was very small, and only a few
REALLY skilled drivers/riders could beat the ABS with any regularity.
And through in a patch of loose dirt or oil, etc., and, at least with
the motorcycles, the ABS would allow control to be maintained.


Matt

[Charles Oppermann]

> I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
> anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
> all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
> where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.

This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
accident at Burbank:

"At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
stop using maximum manual brakes."

Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
and pilot experience and technique.

My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

[Andrew Sarangan]

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Tom Conner]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thanks for pointing that out!
>

Pointing what out?

[Matt Whiting]

Charles Oppermann wrote:
>>I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
>>anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
>>all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
>>where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.
>
>
> This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
> accident at Burbank:
>
> "At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
> stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
> minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
> applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
> touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
> required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
> maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
> stop using maximum manual brakes."

These were simulations, though, and not tests. It would be curious to
see actual test data to see if the simulations are relatively accurate.


> Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
> off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
> and pilot experience and technique.

Yes, every situation is somewhat unique.


> My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
> allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.

Impossible to know for sure. This is one case where it actually might
have been better if the airplane had left the runway earlier and got
into some grass or softer area. That might well have allowed a shorter
stop than did staying on the runway. Then again, if they'd have hit
something more solid by doing this, they might have saved the child's
life, but lost lives on the aircraft. No way to know.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

I totally agree.....and my Outlook Express is reading this post normally
:-))
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dudley
>
> I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
> off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
> lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
> question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
> airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
> SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
> why this freak accident happened.
>

[Montblack]

That.

[Newps]

Tom Conner wrote:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Thanks for pointing that out!
>>
>
>
> Pointing what out?

Nobody knows, it's just a mystery.

[George Patterson]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> When Andrew's post came across at 9:49 it was one line only with no
> attached threads.

That's interesting. Andrew's post is timestamped 10:49 on my machine (EDST). The
post to which he replied is stamped 9:52. W-2000, Mozilla.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'm the same way with cut-and-paste operations. I *know* that "CTRL-C"
> works just as well as "ALT-E-C", and takes one less keystroke, too -- but I
> still use the old Lotus 1-2-3 "ALT-E-C" as often as not...

And I go to the Edit menu 'cause I'm not comfortable using ctrl-C. That's the
kill signal for a Unix system, and I coded on those for too many years.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Morgans]

"Chris Colohan" > wrote

> In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
> previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
> nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
> newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
> sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
> messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
> little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

I totally agree, about quoting some of the text, and when it makes sense,
the author- as I did in this reply. It really is not hard.

The only reason I do not sometimes quote the most recent author to which I
am replying, is when I want to quote two authors, or two posts back, then I
leave out both of the authors. I think it reduces the chances that someone
will think that you are attributing someone else's words to them.

In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
waste my time reading some nutcases.

In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
thread.

So for many reason, it stands that it is polite to quote some of the person
that you are responding to. It is just as bad to quote all of the post,
along with several other's posts before that.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"John Clonts" > wrote

> Do you know about "read next unread"? Control-U and/or add the "Next
Unread" button to your button bar...

That is exactly how I bring order to the groups.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

Who's on first?

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrtoe)
> Who's on first?


<http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?master_movie_id=13484&movie_nss=19510703>


Montblack :-)

[David Lesher]

"Charles Oppermann" > writes:


>In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
>use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
>737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
>Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
>SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
>Burbank accident.


If what I read today was correct, "Autobrakes" is NOT antiskid/antilock.
Rather, it's "...when the squat switch says we're down, clamp 'em up NOW"
vice pilot-actuated braking.

And the SWA policy is to first use reverse-thrust. Why? Brake cooling
times and short turn-arounds. SWA is all about never ever letting
the aircraft sit still.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
> at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
> thread.

Mozilla has the option of having the system mark the kill-filed posts as "read"
instead of deleting them. That way the headers will show up in the thread, but
the "next" button skips right past them. OE may have something similar.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
> responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
> waste my time reading some nutcases.

What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote
>
> What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
> order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
> posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
> that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

If you feel the need to say "you won", then there is a pretty good clue that
you are not mature enough to carry on a conversation, or not worthwhile, at
least. You have been in my killfile before, by the way.

I read the groups by hitting the "next unread" box, and if you are on the
list as not being read, then your post will open. I use a slow machine, and
I don't want to waste the time opening the post.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote
>
>>What time? All the posts are listed in pretty much a chronological
>>order and you can clearly see who wrote them. If you don't want to read
>>posts from a certain person then don't click on that post. The fact
>>that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.
>
>
> If you feel the need to say "you won", then there is a pretty good clue that
> you are not mature enough to carry on a conversation, or not worthwhile, at
> least. You have been in my killfile before, by the way.

Well put me back in there.


>
> I read the groups by hitting the "next unread" box, and if you are on the
> list as not being read, then your post will open. I use a slow machine, and
> I don't want to waste the time opening the post.

I don't waste time either, although it is irrelavant to me with a cable
line. I only click on the posts I want to read and no killfile to maintain.

[Jay Somerset]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:59:05 -0800, Mark Hansen >
wrote:

> On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Andrew;
> > No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
> > way.
> > In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
> the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
> threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
> do a fine job.

How patronizing! My newsreader supports threads, and this post does not
tell anyone what article was being replied to. Only by keeping the entire
thread "alive" in your newsreader might you be able to infer this. Most
people delete articles after reading them.

So, please do not be so quick to provide a snippy reply. It's just plain
rude!

>
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
> >> Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.
> >>
> >
> >

--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Jules]

Newps wrote:
The fact
> that you have a killfile with my name on it means I won.

Oooookay. You won, over me also. But you don't want to know what title
is put on the filter. Nothing so grandiose as your name.

[Jack]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
> SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve
> an answer as to why this freak accident happened.

They will eventually get the best information the NTSB can give.
They will sue, because ultimately, and always, it comes down
to money. That's how we punish those who do not serve us well,
or at least those most accessible.

The injured families will get a small fraction, in recompense,
of the millions which have been saved by, for example: not adding
low minimums approaches to MDW's 13C which at least match those on
31C, in order to avoid compounding ORD traffic congestion; not using
the power of Eminent Domain, or at least the power of the Daley
machine to make of MDW what it should be, in the decades since DC-3's
and CV-580's; not spreading more of the air traffic burden to Gary,
or DuPage, or Rockford, or any of a number of other politically
inexpedient measures.

Those trapped by these rock-hard realities are not only the rare
crash victims and families, whose losses are immeasurable and not
truly compensable. The others, always in the middle from beginning
to end of every flight, are the airline cockpit crew members of whom
the business can require the wisdom of a Solomon, the deft touch of
a surgeon, and the clairvoyance of a Joan of Arc. To sort and select
from a menu of imperfect solutions and execute precisely in the midst
of a unique four-dimensional dynamic, also depends on the accuracy
and timeliness of information obtained from a mixture of human and
non-human sources outside of the airplane. An imperfection of focus
or judgment or accuracy on a snowy winter's night can sell a million
early editions the next morning.

Recent years have given Airline crews some fine new equipment with
which to work, and a fifty percent reduction in pay for doing that work;
a threat environment not seen here at home even during World War Two;
a massive loss of jobs, a loss of pay and benefits for active employees,
and a loss of pensions and benefits for our retirees who lack financial
alternatives. Stock holders have been left with little or nothing in
too many cases to list here. But, ignoring the effects of 9/11, that's
the way deregulation was supposed to work, and only the ultimate time
table was impossible to predict thirty years ago.

The next wave to wash over our industry will be that of Foreign
Ownership and Control. It's already gaining formal consideration in
our legislature. Will the Pound, Franc, Mark, Yen, or Riyal do more than
the dollar has done to create a safe and available and pleasant
air travel experience? Of course they will not, and the amount of
influence US citizens can exert to make needed improvements in Airline
safety and service can be expected to erode even further as the next
phase of change sweeps over our Airline industry.

If one wonders whether we are doing all we can do now, just wait until
the answers to questions such as those about the future of airports
like MDW lie not in the hands of politicians like Mayor Daley, but in
international agreements with governments bound to, and by, Saudi Kings,
Japanese Oligarchs, and the Communist Party of China.


Jack