Knee Jerks

[[email protected]]

Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
happenings?
Why does it take well trained professional crash investigators to do a
full investigation that may last several weeks, months, years, to
determine what happened when they could just take a quick look here and
see what the "experts" have to say?
There have been several crashes in recent days which is disturbing as
hell to me and they have been well publicized. In nearly all of these
crashes, there have been eye witnesses who breathlessly describe what
they saw, or THINK they saw and the media laps it up as if it were
gospel. Often the witness can't tell the difference in a Cessna and a
Piper or a JetRanger. Then, to make matters worse, there are those
amatuers, and a few more pros, who make immediate pronouncements as to
what happened and who is to blame.
I have been guilty of making statements in the past that turned out to
be only partly right because I didn't have all the facts. In 50 years
of flying I've learned that if you aren't in the airplane or ar not
doing the flying, or are not looking right at the action with a
professional eye, why make a fool of yourself with knee jerk
statements?
Dudley, if you are still here, what do you think? You've been around
long enough and have been to enough crashes to have some ideas on the
subject.
Rocky

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Then, to make matters worse, there are those
> amatuers, and a few more pros, who make immediate pronouncements as to
> what happened and who is to blame.

I concluded that pilots, at least those whom I encountered locally, who
were too quick to label an accident pilot were either overcompensating for
their own aviation insecurities/inabilities or just had an overly large
ego.

--
Peter

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
> quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
> pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
> happenings?

Maybe because some of us are tired of seeing accidents posts in an ng
titled "piloting" rather than "crashing" or "gory" or ... you get the point.


Matt

[buttman]

is crashing not a part of piloting?

[Rachel]

buttman wrote:
> is crashing not a part of piloting?
>
No.

[Matt Whiting]

buttman wrote:
> is crashing not a part of piloting?

Not if you are a good pilot.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
> quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
> pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
> happenings?
> Why does it take well trained professional crash investigators to do a
> full investigation that may last several weeks, months, years, to
> determine what happened when they could just take a quick look here and
> see what the "experts" have to say?
> There have been several crashes in recent days which is disturbing as
> hell to me and they have been well publicized. In nearly all of these
> crashes, there have been eye witnesses who breathlessly describe what
> they saw, or THINK they saw and the media laps it up as if it were
> gospel. Often the witness can't tell the difference in a Cessna and a
> Piper or a JetRanger. Then, to make matters worse, there are those
> amatuers, and a few more pros, who make immediate pronouncements as to
> what happened and who is to blame.
> I have been guilty of making statements in the past that turned out to
> be only partly right because I didn't have all the facts. In 50 years
> of flying I've learned that if you aren't in the airplane or ar not
> doing the flying, or are not looking right at the action with a
> professional eye, why make a fool of yourself with knee jerk
> statements?
> Dudley, if you are still here, what do you think? You've been around
> long enough and have been to enough crashes to have some ideas on the
> subject.
> Rocky

Those of us like you and me and others like us who have been in the
professional end of the community for any length of time usually tend to shy
heavily away from the accident speculation business, as we know from actual
experience how often the cause of an accident turns out to be something
other than the obvious.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Those of us like you and me and others like us who have been in the
> professional end of the community for any length of time usually tend to shy
> heavily away from the accident speculation business, as we know from actual
> experience how often the cause of an accident turns out to be something
> other than the obvious.

May be wrong, but it's human nature to speculate...especially when
*some* of the initial reports of the circumstances/events leading up to
them read like connect-the-dots illustrations.

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>May be wrong, but it's human nature to speculate...especially when
>*some* of the initial reports of the circumstances/events leading up to
>them read like connect-the-dots illustrations.

Speculation is natural, and probably productive, as it makes us think about the
accident process. When you see it happen to someone well trained, in well
conceived equipment, often described by peers as a cautious and concientious,
then it may get you to think "it could have been me. . ."

What's important (and sometimes forgotten) is to be sensitive to the situation,
as some people are suffering through a real tragedy at that moment. If some
family member were to browse to an aviation group looking for answers, only to
read that the pilot must have been an idiot . . .

I think the real knee-jerk, though, is often a defensive reaction. Accidents
give very bad publicity to aviation, and knees jerk all over the place,
particularly anti-aviation knees. Fortunately, injuries to "innocents" on the
ground are exceedingly rare - otherwise airports would be closing at a much
faster rate than they currently are.

Developers with greedy eyes set on airport properties have very sensitive
knees.

Greg

[Arketip]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> buttman wrote:
>
>> is crashing not a part of piloting?
>
>
> Not if you are a good pilot.
>
>
> Matt


So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
>>quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
>>pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
>>happenings?
>>Why does it take well trained professional crash investigators to do a
>>full investigation that may last several weeks, months, years, to
>>determine what happened when they could just take a quick look here and
>>see what the "experts" have to say?
>>There have been several crashes in recent days which is disturbing as
>>hell to me and they have been well publicized. In nearly all of these
>>crashes, there have been eye witnesses who breathlessly describe what
>>they saw, or THINK they saw and the media laps it up as if it were
>>gospel. Often the witness can't tell the difference in a Cessna and a
>>Piper or a JetRanger. Then, to make matters worse, there are those
>>amatuers, and a few more pros, who make immediate pronouncements as to
>>what happened and who is to blame.
>>I have been guilty of making statements in the past that turned out to
>>be only partly right because I didn't have all the facts. In 50 years
>>of flying I've learned that if you aren't in the airplane or ar not
>>doing the flying, or are not looking right at the action with a
>>professional eye, why make a fool of yourself with knee jerk
>>statements?
>>Dudley, if you are still here, what do you think? You've been around
>>long enough and have been to enough crashes to have some ideas on the
>>subject.
>>Rocky
>
>
> Those of us like you and me and others like us who have been in the
> professional end of the community for any length of time usually tend to shy
> heavily away from the accident speculation business, as we know from actual
> experience how often the cause of an accident turns out to be something
> other than the obvious.
> Dudley Henriques

And, fortunately, those of you who have been in the professional end of
the community also abstain from posting in this ng every accident that
you hear about. And for that many of us are grateful!

Unfortunately, the amateurs likely will keep posting accidents and the
amateur commentators will keep speculating...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Arketip wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> buttman wrote:
>>
>>> is crashing not a part of piloting?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not if you are a good pilot.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>
> So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?

Since the topic here is piloting, I'm ruling out aircraft problems as
that isn't a piloting issue. So, yes, in this context.

Matt

[B a r r y]

wrote:
> Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
> quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
> pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
> happenings?

Ever been in a sports bar during the "big" game or race?

I'm with ya' all the way.

[B a r r y]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
> Since the topic here is piloting, I'm ruling out aircraft problems as
> that isn't a piloting issue.

It depends on the aircraft problem.

Some problems are plenty recoverable, even by a student. Others are
beyond superhuman flying skills.

[Denny]

There are accidents - a crank breaks on an otherwise perfectly
functioning engine - a microburst downdraft on short final in otherwise
clear air - a bird impact that blinds the pilot - icing encounters that
were not forecast - the vacuum pump goes bad - and so on... However,
the vast majority of "accidents" - 98% -are not accidental, they are
caused... There is a chain of events that leads up to the crash that
would have been prevented, could have been prevented, and should have
been prevented, had the pilot done his job before leaving the ground...
Examples:
Other than a fuel line breaking in flight there is no excuse for
running out of fuel - none - zero - nada... A pilot who runs out of
fuel should lose his certificate imediately and permanently.. He is not
fit to pilot an aircraft...
CFIT no exuse - none - zero - nada....
Busting a TFR - ADIZ, no excuse - none - zero - nada (there is also no
excuse for the TFR's, but that is another rant) They are published...
They don't move, they don't hide behind a cloud... You are required by
regulatory law to review restricted and prohibited airspace along your
route of flight before leaving the ground... There is no excuse...

Now, how about other stuff... Such as running off the runway in a
cross wind... An accident? Nope... Pilot error, pure and simple... If
the pilot did his job he would know what the maximum crosswind the
airplane can handle is, and he would have set a maximum crosswind that
HE is prepared to handle... Should be right on his check list - e.g. 8
KT crosswind limit... Check the AWOS or ATIS and if it exceeds the
limit, use another runway or another airport...
Landing downwind and running off the end... doh!!!! Need we say
more...
Hitting the ground on an instrument approach (recent)... Pure pilot
error... Either set the altimeter wrong, or went below minimums...
Snuff one pilot...
VFR into IMC (well, let's just go awhile and take a look, it should
get better) uhuh, sure it will with an area forecast for lowering
ceilings!
Giving ATC your position from the airport 180 degrees wrong and
altitude off by 2000 feet... (KJAX last year - hysterical, you should
have heard it)... Finally admitted he had a new GPS and wasn't sure how
to read it... (You should have heard the disgust in the controllers
voice after he had to issue warnings to all aircraft in the area
because this bozo did not know where he was (only off by 20 miles and
2000 feet)...
Going to a dawn patrol last year, the V tail Bonanza last year that
passed over top of me on downwind at least 2000 feet higher and
announced he was on downwind... Then proceeded to angle left about 30
degrees unannounced (not a base turn), then make a hard 150 degree
turn and announce he was short final (I was on base by then, and I had
announced) while he was 3 miles out and still high... At this point I
began to believe that this dip wad would run into me from behind if
given the chance so I elected to make a right turn and continue
downwind a bit, announcing to the heavy inbound traffic my intentions
and position every ten seconds... I let him pass me close on the left
and then completed my pattern, with a conga line of planes following
me... On the ground one of the guys came over to me and said he was
the plane behind me during landing and had just heard this bozo in the
food line ranting about the 'idiot' that cut him off, and did I want to
do anything about it as he would back up my story... I declined to make
an issue of it and went on my way...

All of us want to believe the best of our fellow pilots... But you only
have to talk to your FSDO inspector for a bit to see how tired he is of
hearing endless excuses for what was the pilot's responsibility to
prevent in the first place...

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> What's important (and sometimes forgotten) is to be sensitive to the
> situation,
> as some people are suffering through a real tragedy at that moment. If
> some
> family member were to browse to an aviation group looking for answers,
> only to
> read that the pilot must have been an idiot . . .

Sadly, that's a product of the anonymity of Usenet (for many), and the
general decline in public decorum.

Across society, manners have become uncommon.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G Farris]

I take strong exception to this reasoning, which is not supported by real
world experience or data. All of us are imperfect, and all of us walk,
drive and fly imperfectly, all the time. The same mistake, made by a
thousand people, will bring a thousand results, by no means equal.

Tragic accidents have been caused by great pilots - great by any measure
we can concieve (and pilots' performance is measured on a continual
basis). If we could conceive an infallible test, which would determine
which of us is immune to imperfections, we would all lose our
certificates, and no more planes would fly.

You argument betrays a lack of experience, or humility, or both. I am not
a religious person, but I would recommend to you the book of
Ecclesiastes:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor
the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches
to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and
chance happeneth to them all.

GF





In article om>,
says...
>
>
>There are accidents - a crank breaks on an otherwise perfectly
>functioning engine - a microburst downdraft on short final in otherwise
>clear air - a bird impact that blinds the pilot - icing encounters that
>were not forecast - the vacuum pump goes bad - and so on... However,
>the vast majority of "accidents" - 98% -are not accidental, they are
>caused... There is a chain of events that leads up to the crash that
>would have been prevented, could have been prevented, and should have
>been prevented, had the pilot done his job before leaving the ground...
>Examples:
>Other than a fuel line breaking in flight there is no excuse for
>running out of fuel - none - zero - nada... A pilot who runs out of
>fuel should lose his certificate imediately and permanently.. He is not
>fit to pilot an aircraft...
>CFIT no exuse - none - zero - nada....
>Busting a TFR - ADIZ, no excuse - none - zero - nada (there is also no
>excuse for the TFR's, but that is another rant) They are published...
>They don't move, they don't hide behind a cloud... You are required by
>regulatory law to review restricted and prohibited airspace along your
>route of flight before leaving the ground... There is no excuse...
>
>Now, how about other stuff... Such as running off the runway in a
>cross wind... An accident? Nope... Pilot error, pure and simple... If
>the pilot did his job he would know what the maximum crosswind the
>airplane can handle is, and he would have set a maximum crosswind that
>HE is prepared to handle... Should be right on his check list - e.g. 8
>KT crosswind limit... Check the AWOS or ATIS and if it exceeds the
>limit, use another runway or another airport...
>Landing downwind and running off the end... doh!!!! Need we say
>more...
>Hitting the ground on an instrument approach (recent)... Pure pilot
>error... Either set the altimeter wrong, or went below minimums...
>Snuff one pilot...
>VFR into IMC (well, let's just go awhile and take a look, it should
>get better) uhuh, sure it will with an area forecast for lowering
>ceilings!
>Giving ATC your position from the airport 180 degrees wrong and
>altitude off by 2000 feet... (KJAX last year - hysterical, you should
>have heard it)... Finally admitted he had a new GPS and wasn't sure how
>to read it... (You should have heard the disgust in the controllers
>voice after he had to issue warnings to all aircraft in the area
>because this bozo did not know where he was (only off by 20 miles and
>2000 feet)...
>Going to a dawn patrol last year, the V tail Bonanza last year that
>passed over top of me on downwind at least 2000 feet higher and
>announced he was on downwind... Then proceeded to angle left about 30
>degrees unannounced (not a base turn), then make a hard 150 degree
>turn and announce he was short final (I was on base by then, and I had
>announced) while he was 3 miles out and still high... At this point I
>began to believe that this dip wad would run into me from behind if
>given the chance so I elected to make a right turn and continue
>downwind a bit, announcing to the heavy inbound traffic my intentions
>and position every ten seconds... I let him pass me close on the left
>and then completed my pattern, with a conga line of planes following
>me... On the ground one of the guys came over to me and said he was
>the plane behind me during landing and had just heard this bozo in the
>food line ranting about the 'idiot' that cut him off, and did I want to
>do anything about it as he would back up my story... I declined to make
>an issue of it and went on my way...
>
>All of us want to believe the best of our fellow pilots... But you only
>have to talk to your FSDO inspector for a bit to see how tired he is of
>hearing endless excuses for what was the pilot's responsibility to
>prevent in the first place...
>
>denny
>

[Skylune]

>>by "Peter R." > Feb 13, 2006 at 09:14 PM

I concluded that pilots, at least those whom I encountered locally, who
were too quick to label an accident pilot were either overcompensating
for
their own aviation insecurities/inabilities or just had an overly large
ego.<<

I talked to my pilot friend about the rash of crashes the previous weekend
(before the California Rash). He generally believes if the plane is
well-maintained, and if the pilot is diligent and doesn't push minimums,
the risk is minimal.

I asked him about the seemingly obligatory post- crash commentary ("He was
such a good pilot." or "He was a hero for avoiding the
house/school/shopping center"), and asked if he thought the dead pilots
might have the same opinions.

He obviously considered this, but still seemed to think a crash was pretty
much beyond the realm of possibility in his case. I think his attitude
(Denial: Can't happen to me. I'm careful and fly a relatively new, well
maintained plane) is a psychological defense mechanism to disregard the
risk.

It seems to me that the risk IS minimal for the well trained pilot who
doesn't get too comfortable, but risk does exist and even a proficient
pilot who does everything right might crash under a combination of
problems and/or errors.

[ET]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>Why is it everytime someone posts an accident, there are those who
>>>quickly make a decision or pronouncement that it was stupid, or the
>>>pilot was a moron, or, etc, etc, and never have a clue as to the real
>>>happenings?
>>>Why does it take well trained professional crash investigators to do
>>>a full investigation that may last several weeks, months, years, to
>>>determine what happened when they could just take a quick look here
>>>and see what the "experts" have to say?
>>>There have been several crashes in recent days which is disturbing as
>>>hell to me and they have been well publicized. In nearly all of these
>>>crashes, there have been eye witnesses who breathlessly describe what
>>>they saw, or THINK they saw and the media laps it up as if it were
>>>gospel. Often the witness can't tell the difference in a Cessna and a
>>>Piper or a JetRanger. Then, to make matters worse, there are those
>>>amatuers, and a few more pros, who make immediate pronouncements as
>>>to what happened and who is to blame.
>>>I have been guilty of making statements in the past that turned out
>>>to be only partly right because I didn't have all the facts. In 50
>>>years of flying I've learned that if you aren't in the airplane or ar
>>>not doing the flying, or are not looking right at the action with a
>>>professional eye, why make a fool of yourself with knee jerk
>>>statements?
>>>Dudley, if you are still here, what do you think? You've been around
>>>long enough and have been to enough crashes to have some ideas on the
>>>subject.
>>>Rocky
>>
>>
>> Those of us like you and me and others like us who have been in the
>> professional end of the community for any length of time usually tend
>> to shy heavily away from the accident speculation business, as we
>> know from actual experience how often the cause of an accident turns
>> out to be something other than the obvious.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> And, fortunately, those of you who have been in the professional end
> of the community also abstain from posting in this ng every accident
> that you hear about. And for that many of us are grateful!
>
> Unfortunately, the amateurs likely will keep posting accidents and the
> amateur commentators will keep speculating...
>
> Matt

So we should not discuss this??? I'm a student pilot, but I find the
speculation, discussion of accidents very productive...

No, we should not instantly label every pilot an idiot, but how many
lives can one post and discussion here about an alleged "idiot" save??

How many pilots who read about a few guys with dry tanks who bought it,
might be a bit more likely to divert for fuel rather than "push it"....
just one example....

As far as I'm concerned, speculate away! (with reasonable respect....)
--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Skylune]

>>by Matt Whiting > Feb 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM


And, fortunately, those of you who have been in the professional end of
the community also abstain from posting in this ng every accident that
you hear about. And for that many of us are grateful!<<

For goodness sakes, a plane crash is NEWS! Even if you don't like it.
Maybe just a blurb if its a minor crash and no one gets killed, maybe a
longer story if people watch an idiot buzzing houses and then crashes into
one, setting it ablaze.

On the front page of today's New York Times, you will see an article
entitled "No End to Questions on Cheney Hunting Incident." See?

Unfortunately, the amateurs likely will keep posting accidents and the
amateur commentators will keep speculating...

Matt

[Jose]

> there is no excuse for [fill in] - none - zero - nada...

> [i.e.] A pilot who runs out of fuel should lose his
> certificate imediately and permanently.. He is not
> fit to pilot an aircraft...

People make mistakes. Are you really saying that only people who do not
make mistakes should pilot an aircraft (or car or boat)?

Part of living on this planet is living with the fact that people make
mistakes, and that you, too, will make mistakes.

> If
> the pilot did his job he would know what the maximum crosswind the
> airplane can handle is, and he would have set a maximum crosswind that
> HE is prepared to handle... Should be right on his check list - e.g. 8
> KT crosswind limit...

For example, you just made a mistake here. The pilot really has no way
of knowing the maximum crosswind the airplane can handle, short of
becoming a test pilot himself. The "demonstrated crosswind component"
is not what you seem to think it is.

> Check the AWOS or ATIS and if it exceeds the
> limit, use another runway or another airport...

.... which for many reasons beyond the pilot's control may not be
available. Short of not flying when there is the chance that a forecast
is wrong, part of living on this planet is dealing with unexpected
circumstances that may expand your envelope.

This is not by way of "excuse". Nonetheless, it is a fact. People make
mistakes. They are unfortunate, but while it is possible to have
averted any given mistake, it is not possible to avert mistakes in
general. Don't confuse the two.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> What the heck does this [Ecclesiastes quote] have to do with the topic?

Bad things happen to good people. Good people do bad things. Good
people do things that have bad consequences. It is very relevant to the
meting out of blame for accidents (look up the word "accident")

> To sum up Denny's most excellent post: If you run out of gas (or do any of
> the other stupid pilot tricks he outlined), you're a BAD PILOT -- period.

That is very judgemental, O Perfect One. I've read about some of the
things you claim to have done in an airplane and they don't all inspire me.

Although your flying has been flawless I'm sure, one day you =will= make
an error, be it in judgement or skill. That error may well go
undetected and you will think you are a Good Pilot. But that error may
(that time) have unfortunate consequences, leading to a flurry of
postings here.

You =will= make an error.

You =are= human.

This however does not make you a Bad Pilot.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by Jose <teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 14, 2006 at 02:24 PM


Bad things happen to good people. Good people do bad things. Good
people do things that have bad consequences. It is very relevant to the
meting out of blame for accidents (look up the word "accident")



Although your flying has been flawless I'm sure, one day you =will= make
an error, be it in judgement or skill. That error may well go
undetected and you will think you are a Good Pilot. But that error may
(that time) have unfortunate consequences, leading to a flurry of
postings here.

You =will= make an error.

You =are= human.

This however does not make you a Bad Pilot.<<

Excellent post, Jose. If more pilots thought like that (i.e.
circumstances and events, however unlikely, can come together to
overwhelm the skill of the pilot, regardless of how well trained) there
would probably be fewer crashes.

Knowing that you are never in complete control (in all of life's
endeavors), and that a combination of problems and/or circumstances can
result in your demise' is a healthy attitude, IMO. It makes you take less
for granted and better prepared.

[Jay Honeck]

> Knowing that you are never in complete control (in all of life's
> endeavors), and that a combination of problems and/or circumstances can
> result in your demise' is a healthy attitude, IMO. It makes you take less
> for granted and better prepared.

You guys are starting to scare me with this "Fate is the Hunter" hocus
pocus. We have specifically and explicitly stated that mechanical
breakdowns are NOT a part of this discussion.

I will further state that medical "breakdowns" of all kinds should be
eliminated from the mix. For example, a pilot having a stroke and crashing
should obviously not be labeled a "bad pilot".

That said, is there some other combinations of factors that could cause a
pilot to crash that could occur if the pilot WEREN'T a "bad pilot"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Got to agree with Matt on this one.
>
> A pilot who crashes (again, NOT for mechanical reasons) is, by definition,
> "bad" -- at least at that moment.

The fatal mid-air accident last year between two very skilled and talanted
aerobatic pilots should be a reminder that even excellent pilots sometimes
make mistakes.


--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> That is very judgemental, O Perfect One. I've read about some of the
> things you claim to have done in an airplane and they don't all inspire
> me.

Right. And on those (thankfully, rare) occasions where I have exhibited
poor judgment, or insufficient skills, I was acting as a "Bad Pilot".
Luckily, to date, none of my relatively minor transgressions have resulted
in bent metal or injury.

However, if one makes errors that result in crashing, one is a REALLY "Bad
Pilot". If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND -- that
you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" -- because
that's exactly what I would have been.

Where's the debate?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> That said, is there some other combinations of factors that could cause a
> pilot to crash that could occur if the pilot WEREN'T a "bad pilot"?

You have defined "bad pilot" as "a pilot who crashes for non-mechanical
reasons". By this definition, no.

But, what I am taking issue with is your definition of "bad pilot" (and
the presumed converse, "good pilot"). Define it independently of
crashing and then I can address the question. Be wary of definitions
such as "a good pilot is one who never..."

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

G Farris > wrote:
> What's important (and sometimes forgotten) is to be
> sensitive to the situation, as some people are suffering
> through a real tragedy at that moment. If some family
> member were to browse to an aviation group looking
> for answers, only to read that the pilot must have been
> an idiot . . .

ICAM that the human nature speculation after an accident, when trying to
put the pieces together, should be done constructively and with respect.
But as you said, much of the speculation comes out of trying to learn
from the event and what is known about it, so we don't make the same
mistake. For that reason, I think speculation and the offshoot
discussions that arise from it can be a very beneficial thing...sounds
overly dramatic, but the resultant thinking and conversation might save
someone else.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
> For goodness sakes, a plane crash is NEWS!

And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as
the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.

[Peter R.]

Arketip > wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>
>>> is crashing not a part of piloting?
>>
>> Not if you are a good pilot.
>>
>> Matt
>
> So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?

How about this: Can one be a bad pilot who has never crashed?

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Arketip > wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> buttman wrote:
>>>
>>>> is crashing not a part of piloting?
>>>
>>> Not if you are a good pilot.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?
>
> How about this: Can one be a bad pilot who has never crashed?
>

Sure, we call them lucky.

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>> For goodness sakes, a plane crash is NEWS!
>
> And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as
> the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.


Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention. An
event that occurs over 40,000 times a year is not news.

[Skylune]

>>by "Jay Honeck" > Feb 14, 2006 at 02:39 PM



You guys are starting to scare me with this "Fate is the Hunter" hocus
pocus. We have specifically and explicitly stated that mechanical
breakdowns are NOT a part of this discussion.<<

If all mechanical causes are eliminated, wouldn't it by definition come
down to some sort of piloting error? (Which doesn't equate to Bad Pilot.)


Don't you thinks it is normally a combination of factors for so called
Good Pilots? In some cases, its obvious that the crash is mainly due to a
stupid pilot (like the idiot who just crashed into the house in Ca.) In
others, something goes wrong and conditions amplify the problem (e.g. the
carburateor heater craps out when you're on your last 15 gallons, the
pattern is crowded, and there's lots of chatter on the radio).

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 08:46 AM

And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as

the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.<<

Jeez, that sounds like it came from the AOPA "How to Talk to the Media"
guide....

You actually think if there were more small plane crashes, they would no
longer make news??! If 50 more planes crash into homes this year, you
think the media will stop reporting?? Thats rich.

[Jose]

> And on those (thankfully, rare) occasions where I have exhibited
> poor judgment, or insufficient skills, I was acting as a "Bad Pilot".

You are confusing "being a bad pilot" with "acting as a bad pilot".
Maybe that's where the FAA gets this stuff. :)

If you use the words "bad pilot" to refer to momentary events and
transgressions, you have made it equivalent to "made a mistake", while
retaining the pejorative connotations of "habitually makes mistakes".
It's great catharsis, but harms people's reputations unnecessarily, and
also detracts from understanding and learning from mistakes.

> However, if one makes errors that result in crashing, one is a REALLY "Bad
> Pilot".

You are confusing "error" with "unfortunate outcome". One can make
errors that actually improve the outcome, and one can do correct things
that lead to unfortunate outcomes. The outcome merely draws attention
to the chain of events, which may or may not contain significant errors.

> If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
> because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND -- that
> you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" -- because
> that's exactly what I would have been.

No.

You are (I'm making this up) a "bad pilot" because you routinely buzz
the hotel carrying hotel guests, you routinely go flying before you go
flying, you routinely skip the preflight as long as you're at your home
airport, and you never plan for reserves. However, you've been lucky
for tweny years and have never so much as scratched paint.

One day your daughter gets into a car crash in Michigan. She's ok, but
a bit shaken up. The hotel biz isn't doing all that well, and you were
thinking of your usual 100LL therapy, and this gives you a great excuse
to take to the skies to see your daughter and to bring her home. Up you
go, flying a route you've done many times before. The weather's good,
the gas tanks are full, and the whole day is ahead of you. You start
thinking about your daughter, and the last time you saw her (and got
into an argument with her about something silly like a boyfriend) and
realize how close this was to the last time you would ever see her.

The engine stumbles, you ram everything forward, but it's too late. In
your slightly distracted state you didn't realize how good conditions
were for forming carb ice, and neglected to apply it soon enough.
You're over some hills under an overcast, and at 3000 feet there isn't a
lot in range for a dead stick. But you can do this (you have little
choice) and pick a nice road or field that's sort of flat, you think.
It's a little gusty down in the hills, and the field isn't quite as flat
as you had hoped. You touch down nicely and the nose wheel catches a rut.

Oops... forgot to tighten the seat belt. Ouch.

You were =unlucky=.

You also made a mistake (carb heat, seat belt)

You arguably excercised bad judgement (flying while under stress because
you didn't even realize that her little car accident would affect you
that way, applying 100LL therapy when the hotel gets you down).

However these things don't make you a "bad pilot". What made you a bad
pilot was all the other stuff I made up earlier. But even a good pilot
could make the mistakes I just described. They sneak up on you, leaving
a bigger window for luck to enter.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

>>by "Dave Stadt" > Feb 14, 2006 at 03:03 PM



Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention. An
event that occurs over 40,000 times a year is not news.<<

Multiple death traffic accidents seldom get mention?? There are ALWAYS
stories about fatal car accidents in every non-national paper I read. Of
course the NY Times won't report on a fatal car accident in Detroit, but
the Detroit press certainly will.

Fatal accidents (planes, cars, boats, skiing, hunting, snowmobiling,
bicycling, surfing, scuba diving, etc. etc. etc.) ARE news.

The fact that so many are discussing this stuff here verifies that fatal
crashes are news.

[Skylune]

>>by Jose > Feb 14, 2006 at 03:15 PM


> And on those (thankfully, rare) occasions where I have exhibited
> poor judgment, or insufficient skills, I was acting as a "Bad Pilot".

You are confusing "being a bad pilot" with "acting as a bad pilot".
Maybe that's where the FAA gets this stuff. :)<<

I'd fly in the right seat of your plane.

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Dave Stadt" > Feb 14, 2006 at 03:03 PM
>
>
>
> Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention. An
> event that occurs over 40,000 times a year is not news.<<
>
> Multiple death traffic accidents seldom get mention?? There are ALWAYS
> stories about fatal car accidents in every non-national paper I read. Of
> course the NY Times won't report on a fatal car accident in Detroit, but
> the Detroit press certainly will.

Thanks, you supported my point.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> To sum up Denny's most excellent post: If you run out of gas (or do any of
> the other stupid pilot tricks he outlined), you're a BAD PILOT -- period.
>
> There's no need for humility or experience, nor should there be any debate.


That's a pretty harsh judgement for a man of relatively limited flying
experience. You'd do well to develop some tolerance for the day your luck
changes.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

ET wrote:
> How many pilots who read about a few guys with dry tanks who bought it,
> might be a bit more likely to divert for fuel rather than "push it"....
> just one example....


You want a fuel rule that will serve you well your entire flying career? "If
you have to worry about fuel, you don't have enough".



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?
>>
>> How about this: Can one be a bad pilot who has never crashed?
>>
>
> Sure, we call them lucky.


Sometimes we call them "students". <G> Thankfully, God grants a special
dispensation for the young and inexperienced... most of the time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Montblack]

("ET" wrote)
[snips]
> So we should not discuss this??? I'm a student pilot, but I find the
> speculation, discussion of accidents very productive...

> As far as I'm concerned, speculate away! (with reasonable respect....)


I agree with ET.


Montblack

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Dave Stadt" > Feb 14, 2006 at 03:29 PM
>
>
>
>>
>> Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention. An
>> event that occurs over 40,000 times a year is not news.<<
>>
>> Multiple death traffic accidents seldom get mention?? There are ALWAYS
>> stories about fatal car accidents in every non-national paper I read.
> Of
>> course the NY Times won't report on a fatal car accident in Detroit,
> but
>> the Detroit press certainly will.
>
> Thanks, you supported my point.<<
>
> Really? OK.
>
> I'm not sure how you figure that, when you state "Which is why multiple
> death traffic accidents seldom get a mention."
>
> How many multiple death accidents don't get a mention? Can you name one?
>
>
> If they didn't get a mention, how do you know they occurred? How many
> have you witnessed (or heard of firsthand) that have not been reported in
> the media (because that is what it would require for you to know that such
> accidents aren't reported)?
>
> Sigh. Call me anti GA, call me a skylune, whatever, but there ARE huge
> problems in GA and once again there is complete and utter denial, or
> blaming it on unrelated third parties such as the press. Some pilots are
> the industry's (sport's?) worst enemies, not your's truly.
>
> Skylune out (this discussion is elevating my blood pressure...)
>

Auto accidents, unless they are particularly spectacular, in some way
unique, or it just a real slow news day don't make TV news in a major
market. Sure they get mentioned in the newspaper everything gets mentioned
in the newspaper.

On the other hand the slightest aircraft incident even if a fatality is not
involved gets coverage because they are a rare happening and involve
something that "Joe Six-Pack" already has a fear of even though they don't
come into contact with them.

For you to not understand this dynamic proves one or more of the following.

A. A complete failure to understand what makes news.

B. A somewhat psychotic phobia of GA aircraft probably because you got
scared when you took a discovery ride.

C. You understand it completely and you are just an asshole who, likes to
come into this group and stir **** up and are enough of an asshole that you
are even willing to use another persons death as a further excuse to do so.

I think it's C, with a little A & B mixed in.

[B a r r y]

ET wrote:
>
>
> So we should not discuss this??? I'm a student pilot, but I find the
> speculation, discussion of accidents very productive...

I see lots of value reviewing accidents, as I do via the NTSB database
and local FAA safety seminars.

I don't see any value in speculation.

[Montblack]

(Skylune" wrote)
> Skylune out (this discussion is elevating my blood pressure...)


That might be a medical condition worth looking into.

Have you considered Sport Pilot?


Montblack

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM

First you say:
"Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention."

Then, when I push you on this point, you say:
"Sure they get mentioned in the newspaper everything gets mentioned in the
newspaper."

And next, the ad hominem attack in which you "prove one or more of the
following."

A. A complete failure to understand what makes news.

B. A somewhat psychotic phobia of GA aircraft probably because you got
scared when you took a discovery ride.

C. You understand it completely and you are just an asshole who, likes to

come into this group and stir **** up and are enough of an asshole that
you
are even willing to use another persons death as a further excuse to do
so.

I think it's C, with a little A & B mixed in."

I may be an asshole, but you are garden variety dumb.

Skylune over and out.

[Dave Stadt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> (Skylune" wrote)
>> Skylune out (this discussion is elevating my blood pressure...)
>
>
> That might be a medical condition worth looking into.
>
> Have you considered Sport Pilot?
>
> Montblack

He doesn't have the ability to pass the check ride.

[Montblack]

("G Farris" wrote)
> You argument betrays a lack of experience, or humility, or both. I am not
> a religious person, but I would recommend to you the book of Ecclesiastes:
>
> I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor
> the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to
> men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance
> happeneth to them all.


http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16135
Turn Turn Turn - Pete Seeger


Montblack

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Hey bitch, you completely changed what I wrote. I never wrote, "Which is why
multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention." I wrote...

>>Auto accidents, unless they are particularly spectacular, in some way
>>unique, or it just a real slow news day don't make TV news in a major
>>market. Sure they get mentioned in the newspaper everything gets mentioned
>>in the newspaper.

So take your lying little ass and go **** yourself.


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM
>
> First you say:
> "Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention."
>
> Then, when I push you on this point, you say:
> "Sure they get mentioned in the newspaper everything gets mentioned in the
> newspaper."
>
> And next, the ad hominem attack in which you "prove one or more of the
> following."
>
> A. A complete failure to understand what makes news.
>
> B. A somewhat psychotic phobia of GA aircraft probably because you got
> scared when you took a discovery ride.
>
> C. You understand it completely and you are just an asshole who, likes to
>
> come into this group and stir **** up and are enough of an asshole that
> you
> are even willing to use another persons death as a further excuse to do
> so.
>
> I think it's C, with a little A & B mixed in."
>
> I may be an asshole, but you are garden variety dumb.
>
> Skylune over and out.
>
>

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM


Hey bitch, you completely changed what I wrote. I never wrote, "Which is
why
multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention." I wrote...<<

Yeah, F-me... Someone else made the original statement. I got aggravated
and made a mistake. Sorry.

Over and out for real this time.

[Jay Honeck]

> You are confusing "being a bad pilot" with "acting as a bad pilot".
> Maybe that's where the FAA gets this stuff. :)

I understand your distinctions, but I think you are using semantics to
muddle a rather clear-cut situation.

But, in the end, it really doesn't matter what either of us think. As
so many before us have discovered, during certain flight regimes there
is simply no room for error. You can call it "being a bad pilot" or
you can split hairs and call it "acting as a bad pilot" -- but pilot
error is BAD, and will kill you quite efficiently.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You actually think if there were more small plane crashes, they would no
> longer make news??! If 50 more planes crash into homes this year, you
> think the media will stop reporting?? Thats rich.

Of course. Someone is killed in a car accident in America every couple
of minutes, and -- although it might make the local newspaper -- it
doesn't get mentioned in the next county.

If there were over 100 fatal plane crashes each day, every day, for
decade upon decade (as there has been with automobiles), no one --
including you -- would give a rat's ass.

New is, by definition, "new".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

B a r r y > wrote:
> I see lots of value reviewing accidents, as I do
> via the NTSB database and local FAA safety seminars.
>
> I don't see any value in speculation.

None as far as the actual accident, but there's value in analyzing,
hypothesizing, thinking about how/why things happen or *could have*
happened, etc. Ya can't draw definite conclusions about the accident w/o
the NTSP reports, but anything that gets you thinking, talking and maybe
understanding more is valuable, IMO.

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as
> the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.


Dick Cheney and Bobby Knight go hunting...


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> So take your lying little ass and go #%&^ yourself.


Um, ...yeah, ...oh well, ...whatever.


Montblack :-(

[G Farris]

In article <f1mIf.555301$084.131444@attbi_s22>,
says...

>
>However, if one makes errors that result in crashing, one is a REALLY "Bad
>Pilot". If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
>because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND -- that
>you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" -- because
>that's exactly what I would have been.
>
>Where's the debate?



That's sophmoric, Jay. You know better.

The Air France captain who ran out of runway in Toronto last year - is he a
BAD pilot? Or has he been downgraded even further now, to REALLY BAD pilot?
Or perhaps, since no one was killed he is only a "pretty bad" pilot.

I am not trying to ridicule you - only to underscore what I think you already
know : The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of the
result.

This is because we are all imperfect, and make mistakes and misjudgements all
the time - not just once in a while. Every time you fly, Jay, you make
mistakes. I'll go further - I'll bet almost every time you fly you make
misjudgements serious enough to have killed other pilots, on other days, in
other places . . . I'll bet the Air France guy makes fewer of these.

If you don't want to learn - or if you think there's "nothing to discuss"
(you've said it twice) then you could be at risk of an attitude problem, which
could indeed make you a bad pilot.


PS -

>There's no need for humility or experience, nor should there be any debate.
If an Ayatollah said that, the US would invade :-)

Greg

G Faris

[Denny]

If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND --
that
you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" --
because
that's exactly what I would have been.
************************************************** *********

Nyaa Jay... We'll all begin the trash talk with, . . . and he was a
good pilot . . .

denny

[Jose]

> I understand your distinctions, but I think you are using semantics to
> muddle a rather clear-cut situation.

Then you don't understand my distinctions. Or more correctly, you
dismiss them unwarrantedly. (is that a word?)

> during certain flight regimes there
> is simply no room for error.

True. But during most of most flights, there is actually quite a lot of
room for error. That's why humans can fly. Every now and then however,
error meets opportunity and headlines result. It's important to
minimize errors, but it is equally important to minimize the traction
that errors can obtain. One's attitude towards errors and those who
commit them is important here.

> You can call it "being a bad pilot" or
> you can split hairs and call it "acting as a bad pilot"

.... The distinction is not only important, it is vital. Your life
depends on it.

> pilot error is BAD...

Yes, but that is yet a different thing.

Why do I harp on this? Because a bad =attitude= is what kills. The
sense that "only bad pilots make errors that kill, and I am not a bad
pilot because I would =never= do that". It is this attitude that makes
it more likely that an error will gain traction and have the opportunity
to bite you.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques]

The main gist of the real issue with this thread might be going unnoticed in
the back and forth that's going on between the postings.
There is no doubt that discussing an accident is beneficial to the issue of
flight safety. The rub comes in on exactly WHEN this "discussion" becomes
beneficial and at what point the discussion contains positive information as
opposed to a huge potential for negative impact caused by inaccurate
conclusions based on assumption of cause; not to mention the totally unfair
possibility for damage to a pilot's reputation that can result from
inaccurate speculation on a crash before all the facts are in and the
investigation has been completed.
There will always be speculation in the aviation community on any accident,
most of it done innocently and in good faith by people who have an honest
desire to help with the flight safety issue. Their argument seems sound to
them; that ANY discussion on an accident can't help but be of some use in
enhancing the flight safety issue.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that only a part of it is sound.
Naturally, any discussion on an accident will generate a give and take
within the community that if nothing else will heighten the awareness of the
flight safety issue. This is the positive aspect of speculation.
The negative aspect enters the equation when the focus diverts from the
positives gained from discussing the general safety aspect and becomes
focused instead on the unavoidable fact that no matter how hard one attempts
to keep pilot error out of a specific accident discussion, the aspect of
pilot error HAS to be considered as a possibility in any accident.
So there are TWO distinct aspects to the speculation issue; the positives
gained from discussing safety generally, and the possible negatives for both
the pilot involved in the accident and the potential for focusing the safety
issue on the wrong area before an investigation has been completed.
Personally, I don't like to engage in speculation. I've served on several
accident investigation committees and I've seen how inaccurate speculation
can be as well as how damaging it can be to a pilot not there to defend
himself.
Like anything else in aviation, there are pros and cons to accident
speculation.
Everything considered, I believe the community is best served by waiting
until the facts are in and the investigation has been completed, THEN using
the accident in an intelligent way so as to maximize the positive gain for
the flight safety issue within the community.
By doing this, we gain as a community, and minimize the potential for error
caused by inaccurate assumption for cause.
Dudley Henriques

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article <f1mIf.555301$084.131444@attbi_s22>,
> says...
>
>>
>>However, if one makes errors that result in crashing, one is a REALLY "Bad
>>Pilot". If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
>>because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND --
>>that
>>you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" -- because
>>that's exactly what I would have been.
>>
>>Where's the debate?
>
>
>
> That's sophmoric, Jay. You know better.
>
> The Air France captain who ran out of runway in Toronto last year - is he
> a
> BAD pilot? Or has he been downgraded even further now, to REALLY BAD
> pilot?
> Or perhaps, since no one was killed he is only a "pretty bad" pilot.
>
> I am not trying to ridicule you - only to underscore what I think you
> already
> know : The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of
> the
> result.
>
> This is because we are all imperfect, and make mistakes and misjudgements
> all
> the time - not just once in a while. Every time you fly, Jay, you make
> mistakes. I'll go further - I'll bet almost every time you fly you make
> misjudgements serious enough to have killed other pilots, on other days,
> in
> other places . . . I'll bet the Air France guy makes fewer of these.
>
> If you don't want to learn - or if you think there's "nothing to discuss"
> (you've said it twice) then you could be at risk of an attitude problem,
> which
> could indeed make you a bad pilot.
>
>
> PS -
>
>>There's no need for humility or experience, nor should there be any
>>debate.
> If an Ayatollah said that, the US would invade :-)
>
> Greg
>
> G Faris
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Arketip" > wrote in message
...
> So, you are saying that all the pilots that had a crash are bad pilots?

They were certainly bad pilots at the time of the crash.

I would have distinguished between "good pilot" and "good piloting". Even
good pilots are guilty of bad piloting at times. But that does not mean
that crashing is part of (good) piloting.

Pete

[Denny]

Barry, your comment is right on... It would behoove us all to review
the completed accident reports once a month... You will not believe
some of the stuff you read...
Go to www.ntsb.gov and go to the monthly listings... Go back a year or
two so you get final reports... It will leave you just shaking your
head...

denny

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM
>
>
> Hey bitch, you completely changed what I wrote. I never wrote, "Which is
> why
> multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention." I wrote...<<
>
> Yeah, F-me... Someone else made the original statement. I got aggravated
> and made a mistake. Sorry.
>
> Over and out for real this time.
>

Bull****, you replied to my post and you changed what I wrote to help
support your position. You are a lying little **** and you got caught. Now
go away.

[Jay Honeck]

> Why do I harp on this? Because a bad =attitude= is what kills. The
> sense that "only bad pilots make errors that kill, and I am not a bad
> pilot because I would =never= do that". It is this attitude that makes
> it more likely that an error will gain traction and have the opportunity
> to bite you.

And why do *I* harp on this? Because IMHO the attitude that *everyone*
makes bad decisions, and that this is somehow expected and okay, is
what is going to get pilots killed.

To pilot well is to strive for perfection. Can we achieve perfection?
No. But are we satisfied with not achieving it? Hell, no.

When I make mistakes (as opposed to having mechanical or health
problems), I'm a bad pilot. If that mistake kills me, I'm a REALLY bad
pilot. If it kills you, YOU'RE a really bad pilot.

To accept that ultimate, unrelenting, 100% reponsibility is what
separates pilots from passengers, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Here's a beauty... jeez

The airplane stalled and impacted the runway during an aborted landing.
The pilot reported that the accident flight was with a prospective new
flying club member. The pilot stated that the club required new members
complete a check-out flight with a current member. The prospective new
member (passenger) held a student pilot certificate and had flown solo
prior to the accident flight. The pilot held a private pilot
certificate and had accumulated 73 hours as pilot-in-command (PIC). The
pilot was not a flight instructor and was acting as PIC for the entire
flight. The pilot was seated at the right pilot station and the
passenger was seated at the left pilot station. The pilot reported that
he had "never piloted from the right position before." The pilot
reported that the passenger flew three landing approaches and each
attempt terminated in a go-around maneuver. After the third landing
attempt, the passenger asked the pilot to "demonstrate a landing." The
pilot stated that he assumed aircraft control during the downwind leg
for runway 17. He reported his final approach was flown with full flaps
and an uneventful touchdown was made on the runway. He stated that
during rollout the airplane "started to veer toward the right" and that
he "incorrectly applied the right rudder instead of left." The pilot
decided to perform an aborted landing in order to "demonstrate a better
landing." The pilot reported he applied full engine power and "lifted
the flaps briefly (but not fully)." He stated that he thought the flaps
were "up more" and that he became "flustered" as the airplane "pitched
up." He reported that the airplane "stalled" about 30-50 feet above the
ground, and that he was "able to pull the nose up so that we landed
hard on the [landing] gear."

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 14, 2006 at 01:45 PM



Bull****, you replied to my post and you changed what I wrote to help
support your position. You are a lying little **** and you got caught.
Now

go away.<<

Tough guy: I'm not gonna leave that unanswered. You know damned well
that I was responding to Dave Stadt's post (you can look it up), and
incorrectly attributed it to you AFTER you picked up his argument, and
then you went on with your feeble-minded little attack.

"Lying little s__t??" If that was all there was to it, why would you go
ballistic?

So, sorry again for the misattribution. But, you are garden-variety dumb.

[Marco Leon]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> Don't you thinks it is normally a combination of factors for so called
> Good Pilots? In some cases, its obvious that the crash is mainly due to a
> stupid pilot (like the idiot who just crashed into the house in Ca.) In
> others, something goes wrong and conditions amplify the problem (e.g. the
> carburateor heater craps out when you're on your last 15 gallons, the
> pattern is crowded, and there's lots of chatter on the radio).

I think we need to differentiate between a "bad pilot" and "bad piloting."
Overall good pilots sometimes are guilty of "bad piloting"--no one is
perfect.

That said, there are certain screw-ups that can be can be categorized under
"no good pilot would ever do that." These usually are also considered the
"basics" in piloting or pilot-in-command responsibility. Fuel exhaustion is
probably one of them. It's like committing "sins." Even the best people
commit some but how would you refer to someone that breaks one or more of
the Ten Commandments?

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jose]

> And why do *I* harp on this? Because IMHO the attitude that *everyone*
> makes bad decisions, and that this is somehow expected and okay, is
> what is going to get pilots killed.

Everyone makes bad decisions. It is not "ok" any more than hurricaines
are "ok". But they happen. Saying that is =not= saying that minimizing
bad decisions, and minimizing the =impact= of bad decisions, is not
important. It is. But badmouthing pilots does not help minimize bad
decisions.

> To pilot well is to strive for perfection.

Failure to achieve perfection does not make one a bad pilot.
Consistantly failing to come close however does. That's the difference.
Don't be misled by the statistic of one.

> When I make mistakes [...], I'm a bad pilot.

So you can go from good pilot to bad pilot to good pilot in fifteen seconds?

> If that mistake kills me, I'm a REALLY bad pilot.

No, you are unlucky. The badness of your piloting has to do with what
you =do=, not with how it turns out.

> To accept that ultimate, unrelenting, 100% reponsibility is what
> separates pilots from passengers, IMHO.

Well put, but besides the point. A single error can get you killed, but
it is the =tendency= to make errors that makes you a good or bad pilot.

Place your bets where you will (and there are good and bad places to
place your bets) but the dice still roll.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>>by "Dave Stadt" > Feb 14, 2006 at 03:03 PM
>
>
>
> Which is why multiple death traffic accidents seldom get a mention. An
> event that occurs over 40,000 times a year is not news.<<
>
> Multiple death traffic accidents seldom get mention?? There are ALWAYS
> stories about fatal car accidents in every non-national paper I read. Of
> course the NY Times won't report on a fatal car accident in Detroit, but
> the Detroit press certainly will.
<...>

Well, to test your hypothisis, I did two searches of the 7-DAY STORY SEARCH
on the Detroit Free Press web site (www.freep.com)
and came up with exactly one automobile accident that was mentioned twice:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS06/602140466
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS06/602140329

that involved 86 vehicles on the west side of the state. With no
fatalitites.


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>> For goodness sakes, a plane crash is NEWS!
>
> And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as
> the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.

Strictly speaking, he shot a poaching partner - Our VP didn't have the
required license.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:

> So we should not discuss this??? I'm a student pilot, but I find the
> speculation, discussion of accidents very productive...

Speculation about accidents is only worthwhile as entertainment.
Discussion about the cause of a crash after a thorough investigation has
been done is very worthwhile, but that isn't what is happening here.
What is happening here is basically ambulance chasing, often with pictures.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Skylune" > wrote in message
>>> For goodness sakes, a plane crash is NEWS!
>>
>> And you know why it's news Lune? Because it is still fairly rare. Much as
>> the VP shooting a hunting partner is rare.
>
> Strictly speaking, he shot a poaching partner - Our VP didn't have the
> required license.

With the proper license what is the bag limit for lawyers? :-)

>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.
>

[Matt Whiting]

G Farris wrote:

> In article <f1mIf.555301$084.131444@attbi_s22>,
> says...
>
>
>>However, if one makes errors that result in crashing, one is a REALLY "Bad
>>Pilot". If I were to crash as the result of making a poor decision, or
>>because of inadequate piloting skills, I would expect -- no, DEMAND -- that
>>you guys rip me to shreds posthumously for being a "Bad Pilot" -- because
>>that's exactly what I would have been.
>>
>>Where's the debate?
>
>
>
>
> That's sophmoric, Jay. You know better.
>
> The Air France captain who ran out of runway in Toronto last year - is he a
> BAD pilot? Or has he been downgraded even further now, to REALLY BAD pilot?
> Or perhaps, since no one was killed he is only a "pretty bad" pilot.

Yes, a pilot who lands halfway down the runway and then runs off the end
is definitely a bad pilot. A good pilot would have aborted the
landing and come back again or diverted somewhere else.


> I am not trying to ridicule you - only to underscore what I think you already
> know : The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of the
> result.
>
> This is because we are all imperfect, and make mistakes and misjudgements all
> the time - not just once in a while. Every time you fly, Jay, you make
> mistakes. I'll go further - I'll bet almost every time you fly you make
> misjudgements serious enough to have killed other pilots, on other days, in
> other places . . . I'll bet the Air France guy makes fewer of these.

So he's a bad pilot less often than Jay. What's your point?

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:14:09 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>With the proper license what is the bag limit for lawyers? :-)
>>
>
> No limit...
>
> Just like rats... <G>

Taste the same too I would guess.

[G Farris]

In article >, says...

>
>Yes, a pilot who lands halfway down the runway and then runs off the end
> is definitely a bad pilot. A good pilot would have aborted the
>landing and come back again or diverted somewhere else.
>

Hindsight permits us to judge with severity one whom we could never have hoped
even to emulate in the present tense. . .

[G Farris]

In article >, says...

>
>So he's a bad pilot less often than Jay. What's your point?
>
>Matt


My point is simple.
There is such a thing as a bad pilot, but to define it as "one who has been
involved in an accident" is unsatisfactory, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

GF

[Matt Whiting]

G Farris wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>>So he's a bad pilot less often than Jay. What's your point?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> My point is simple.
> There is such a thing as a bad pilot, but to define it as "one who has been
> involved in an accident" is unsatisfactory, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

And your definition is...?

Matt

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
> That said, is there some other combinations of factors that could cause a
> pilot to crash that could occur if the pilot WEREN'T a "bad pilot"?

Hail shafts, windshear. getting shot at, hi-jackers, wake turbulence,
exceedingly optimistic braking reports from the tower, unforecast mountain
rotor waves....

If you fly long enough, s**t happens. If Mr. Honeck flies long enough,
eventually s**t will happen to him. Hopefully he will come out unscathed,
but with a better understanding of the concept of 's**t happens'. You can
quote every flying manual ever written verbatim, word for word, and Mother
Nature can still get you. Mother Nature can't read.

I have hired pilots who have crashes on their records. I will agree that
most were for mechanical reasons. However, I have confidence in hiring
someone that has been in a crash. These pilots have been tested. They were
thrown a real emergency and they didn't panic. They dealt with it and lived.
They passed the ultimate test. Ain't nothing like the real thing!

D.

[Jay Honeck]

> Don't you thinks it is normally a combination of factors for so called
> Good Pilots? In some cases, its obvious that the crash is mainly due to a
> stupid pilot (like the idiot who just crashed into the house in Ca.) In
> others, something goes wrong and conditions amplify the problem (e.g. the
> carburateor heater craps out when you're on your last 15 gallons, the
> pattern is crowded, and there's lots of chatter on the radio).

I'll bet you're right. But "the carb heat crapping out" (unless you mean
the pilot didn't use it) is a mechanical failure -- which we have
specifically ruled out of this discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Hail shafts, windshear. getting shot at, hi-jackers, wake turbulence,
> exceedingly optimistic braking reports from the tower, unforecast mountain
> rotor waves....
>
> If you fly long enough, s**t happens. If Mr. Honeck flies long enough,
> eventually s**t will happen to him. Hopefully he will come out unscathed,
> but with a better understanding of the concept of 's**t happens'. You can
> quote every flying manual ever written verbatim, word for word, and Mother
> Nature can still get you. Mother Nature can't read.

I've experienced wind shear, severe wake turbulence, glare ice runways, and
I've flown over the mountains. And, thanks to decent training and a
dedication to flying that means I'm not only current, but proficient, I came
through somewhat rattled, but unscathed.

Getting shot at or being hijacked has (so far) not happened. I would tend
to place those occurrences under the "mechanical failure -- out of the
pilot's control" heading, quite frankly.

This all said, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here. By
saying "s*it happens" are you implying that I survived these challenges
through luck?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Everyone makes bad decisions. It is not "ok" any more than hurricaines
> are "ok". But they happen. Saying that is =not= saying that minimizing
> bad decisions, and minimizing the =impact= of bad decisions, is not
> important. It is. But badmouthing pilots does not help minimize bad
> decisions.

Badmouthing pilots is an entirely separate issue. That's just bad manners,
and falls under the heading of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say
anything at all."

> Place your bets where you will (and there are good and bad places to place
> your bets) but the dice still roll.

I'll agree with you on mechanical issues. In that realm, sh*t happens, and
can happen at any moment.

On the piloting side, however, I think we are masters of our own fate. Your
superior skill must outweigh the random acts of "bad luck" (for lack of a
better phrase) throughout every phase of flight. When your skills fail,
you fail -- and if it occurs at a critical moment of flight, you die.

Pilot error is bad piloting. If we choose to believe that the guy who made
a fatal error wasn't a bad pilot, that is charitable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Badmouthing pilots is an entirely separate issue. That's just bad manners...

It's more than bad manners when it destroys reputations. And "that was
one dumbass pilot - I would =never= do that!" is badmouthing a pilot.
Maybe the pilot was dumbass, but maybe one day you =will= do that.

You'll be preflighting, it's night, you'll drain and dip the right tank,
you'll see something you don't like, dump the gas, and drain it again.
You'll go over to the left side of the plane for better light to ensure
that the thing you see isn't water, and you find that it is of no
concern. It's good gas, you dump it back into the left tank (and peer
in - it's full), and continue your preflight where you left off. When
you are at the tail, your passenger arrives, you wave hello, she asks
where the bathroom is. You tell her and continue your careful
preflight. She returns just after you dipped and drained the left tank
and says that the room is locked. Duh - it's after nine pm. There you
are with some unexamined gas in your sampler; you dump it on the tarmac
and walk her to the bathroom and open the door with your key, and return
to complete your preflight. You've already dipped both tanks, you've
already drained both tanks, you even remember pouring gas back into both
tanks, and something in your brain says "done here". Somehow, the fact
that you didn't actually examine the last load escapes you in the
moment, since you did examine two loads, and did dip both tanks, and are
a careful pilot.

You continue, your passenger comes back, you load up and start the engine.

Runup is fine, both tanks are working, engine's happy. It's 9:15, the
sunset is in your eyes on takeoff but that's not a big deal. You climb
a few hundred feet, are now over the forest, and the engine sputters and
dies. With the lightning-fast instincts of a Good Pilot, you ram
everything forward, turn on the fuel pump, switch tanks, switch mags,
but nothing helps. Just as you are about to impact the trees, the
engine roars to life but it's too late to save you. There is no fire,
but both you and your passenger die of the impact.

Two gallons of water are found in the left tank. The fuel selector is
found on the right tank. The truck that fueled you last is found with
water in its tank.

Clearly pilot error.

Easily could happen to a Good Pilot. Even Good Pilots make mistakes.
Mistakes don't always kill; when they don't they are no less a mistake.
When they do, they are far less fortunate.

Also clearly bad luck. Had you taken off on the other tank, you would
not have had the water problem until you were at 8,500 over farmlands,
and would have had plenty of time to recover and land under power at an
airport, saying "whew, that was close" (but not to your passenger, who,
impressed with your handling of an emergency, would label you as a Good
Pilot)

> On the piloting side, however, I think we are masters of our own fate.

Yes, but we are imperfect masters. All of us are. The goal, of course,
is to reduce the number of opportunities bad luck has to bite us. But
when teethmarks are found on a pilot, to insinuate that they prove he is
a Bad Pilot is the mistake of statistics of one.

Bad Pilots can have long uneventful flying careers. Good Pilots can be
killed on their first mistake.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> The Air France captain who ran out of runway in Toronto last year - is he
> a
> BAD pilot? Or has he been downgraded even further now, to REALLY BAD
> pilot?
> Or perhaps, since no one was killed he is only a "pretty bad" pilot.

He ran off the end of a runway. How can you get "more bad" than that?

Through pilot error he jeopardized the lives of his crew and passengers, and
destroyed a multi-million dollar aircraft. What else can you say?

> I am not trying to ridicule you - only to underscore what I think you
> already
> know : The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of
> the
> result.

How else shall we be judged?

> If you don't want to learn - or if you think there's "nothing to discuss"
> (you've said it twice) then you could be at risk of an attitude problem,
> which
> could indeed make you a bad pilot.

There's "nothing to discuss" as far as the outcome of being a bad pilot.
Everything about piloting is learning, and taking responsibility for our
actions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

Absolutely!
> We'll even say he was a hero, because he went out of his way to avoid
> houses and populated areas! :-)

Actually, it will be reported that my last actions, as I struggled with the
flaming wreckage of my aircraft, will be to steer away from houses of
worship and child care centers, whilst helping my passengers bail out.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> To sum up Denny's most excellent post: If you run out of gas (or do any
>> of
>> the other stupid pilot tricks he outlined), you're a BAD PILOT -- period.
>>
>> There's no need for humility or experience, nor should there be any
>> debate.
>
>
> That's a pretty harsh judgement for a man of relatively limited flying
> experience. You'd do well to develop some tolerance for the day your luck
> changes.

Are you saying that running out of gas is "bad luck"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>>The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of
>> the result.
>
> How else shall we be judged?

By our actions. Not by the results.

If I fire random shots in the air and happen to kill somebody, who
happens to be your daughter, am I a Good Person or a Bad Person? If the
person I kill instead happens to be Osama, same question. If nobody
gets hit but we all enjoy the celebration, same question.

In my book, the answers would all be the same, independent of the result.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Are you saying that running out of gas is "bad luck"?

Fuel exhaustion isn't limited to a pilot's failure to properly fuel the
aircraft for the flight's planned duration.

--
Peter

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> Fuel exhaustion isn't limited to a pilot's failure to properly fuel the
> aircraft for the flight's planned duration.

This I'd like to hear...

Please explain! <G>

Barry

[Peter R.]

B a r r y > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> Fuel exhaustion isn't limited to a pilot's failure to properly fuel the
>> aircraft for the flight's planned duration.
>
> This I'd like to hear...
>
> Please explain! <G>

Fuel cell/bladder/tank leak in flight, fuel cap improperly secured and is
blown away in flight resulting in siphoning of fuel, ruptured fuel line,
clogged fuel filter, fuel pump failure, etc., etc, etc.

Ok, perhaps some of these fall under fuel starvation.


--
Peter

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:

>
> Fuel cell/bladder/tank leak in flight, fuel cap improperly secured and is
> blown away in flight resulting in siphoning of fuel, ruptured fuel line,
> clogged fuel filter, fuel pump failure, etc., etc, etc.
>
> Ok, perhaps some of these fall under fuel starvation.
>


With the exception of the cap (which is usually part of a good preflight
on GA aircraft), the rest are fuel system failures, not "running out of
gas".

[Peter R.]

B a r r y > wrote:

> With the exception of the cap (which is usually part of a good preflight
> on GA aircraft), the rest are fuel system failures, not "running out of
> gas".

Oh, really?

Every article from AOPA, Aviation Safety, IFR, and other periodicals seemed
to lump them in a much more broad category.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

B a r r y > wrote:

> With the exception of the cap (which is usually part of a good preflight
> on GA aircraft), the rest are fuel system failures, not "running out of
> gas".

AOPA's Safety Advisor categorizes fuel accidents as fuel exhaustion, fuel
starvation, and fuel contamination. Don't see a category specifically for
fuel system failure:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa16.pdf

The 2004 Nall Report has an all encompassing category called "Fuel
Management," where these accidents are then broken down into the three
types I listed above. Again, no specific category of fuel system failure.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf

Running out of fuel specifically because the pilot failed to fuel properly
is pilot error, but running out of fuel for any number of other mechanical
reasons may not be. If the latter were to happen over dark terrain at
dark, it might be reasonable to call this "bad luck," because it certainly
would be outside the pilot's control.

--
Peter

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:

>
> AOPA's Safety Advisor categorizes fuel accidents as fuel exhaustion, fuel
> starvation, and fuel contamination. Don't see a category specifically for
> fuel system failure:

Excuse me. <G>

Barry

[Peter Duniho]

"B a r r y" > wrote in message
. net...
> With the exception of the cap (which is usually part of a good preflight
> on GA aircraft), the rest are fuel system failures, not "running out of
> gas".

Breaking his post down into the following items:

>> Fuel cell/bladder/tank leak in flight,
>> fuel cap improperly secured and is blown away in
>> flight resulting in siphoning of fuel,
>> ruptured fuel line,
>> clogged fuel filter,
>> fuel pump failure, etc., etc, etc.

I see five items, three of which *definitely* fall into the category of
"running out of gas" (in that they all can lead to fuel exhaustion in
addition to the possibility of fuel starvation), and a fourth (fuel pump
failure) easily could fall into that category as well (depending on the
nature of the failure...any failure where fuel leaks from the pump can
result in fuel exhaustion...that is, "running out of gas").

A "fuel system failure" is not mutually exclusive with "running out of gas",
and that was (I think) Peter's point in the first place.

It's certainly true that most engine failures are caused by "running out of
gas" and most instances of "running out of gas" are simply due to pilot
failure. But to say that that's true 100% of the time is simply wrong.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Actually, it will be reported that my last actions, as I struggled with
> the flaming wreckage of my aircraft, will be to steer away from houses of
> worship and child care centers, whilst helping my passengers bail out.


You fly a Piper.

You've got no choice but to help your passengers bail out ...IYKWIM. <g>


Montblack :-)
Now a Navion or an Ercoupe - slide canopy ...see ya later.

[Flyingmonk]

Congratulations Montblack! you are the 100th poster to this thread...
<g>

No, seriously you are bro!

The Monk

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> It's certainly true that most engine failures are caused by "running out of
> gas" and most instances of "running out of gas" are simply due to pilot
> failure. But to say that that's true 100% of the time is simply wrong.

And, therefore, running out of gas is not always a sign of a "bad pilot."

--
Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>>>The quality of our action cannot be judged solely on the basis of the
>>>result.
>>
>> How else shall we be judged?
>
> By our actions. Not by the results.

Not where I have ever worked. Results are what count, all else is pretty
much immaterial. Never heard of a salesman getting bonus based on actions.

> If I fire random shots in the air and happen to kill somebody, who happens
> to be your daughter, am I a Good Person or a Bad Person? If the person I
> kill instead happens to be Osama, same question. If nobody gets hit but
> we all enjoy the celebration, same question.

Seems to me you just described judgement based on results.

> In my book, the answers would all be the same, independent of the result.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Peter
There are far too many pilots who make the knee jerk statement that
fuel exhaustion is the mark of a bad or poor pilot. As you point out,
fuel exhaustion is not always a failure of the pilot to put fuel in the
aircraft. I've had a couple of incidents when my engine quit with a
fuel problem. It was a fuel system problem.
Lots of happenings that the uninitiated will call poor piloting without
any of the facts surrounding the issue or incident. Those are the knee
jerkers I refer to and referred to in my original post on the subject.
Cheers
Selway Kid

[Jose]

>>>How else shall we be judged?
>> By our actions. Not by the results.
> Not where I have ever worked. Results are what count, all else is pretty
> much immaterial. Never heard of a salesman getting bonus based on actions.

Salesmen get bonuses and such based on consistant results. They
generally don't get fired for botching one sale, especially when they
have made many other sales.

>>If I fire random shots in the air and happen to kill somebody, who happens
>> to be your daughter, am I a Good Person or a Bad Person? If the person I
>> kill instead happens to be Osama, same question. If nobody gets hit but
>> we all enjoy the celebration, same question.
> Seems to me you just described judgement based on results.

No, I'm asking a series of questions. If the answers are different,
then the person answering is basing their answers on results. IF the
answers are the same, they are answering based on actions. My next
statement:

> In my book, the answers would all be the same, independent of the result.

should make it clear where I stand

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> You fly a Piper.
>
> You've got no choice but to help your passengers bail out ...IYKWIM. <g>

That's true -- and I've seen the, er, "better sides" of a LOT of
passengers whilst flying Piper products...

"Jes slather on the grease and PUSH, honey! I'ze be outta here in NO
time...!"

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[MaulePilot]

Somebody, please 'hose' him down.

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> There are far too many pilots who make the knee jerk statement that
> fuel exhaustion is the mark of a bad or poor pilot. As you point out,
> fuel exhaustion is not always a failure of the pilot to put fuel in the
> aircraft. I've had a couple of incidents when my engine quit with a
> fuel problem. It was a fuel system problem

I imagine you have to do a lot of extra talking when someone asks you if
you ever experienced an engine failure.

--
Peter

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

> Easily could happen to a Good Pilot. Even Good Pilots make mistakes.
> Mistakes don't always kill; when they don't they are no less a mistake.
> When they do, they are far less fortunate.

What is your definition of a good pilot?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> There are far too many pilots who make the knee jerk statement that
> fuel exhaustion is the mark of a bad or poor pilot. As you point out,
> fuel exhaustion is not always a failure of the pilot to put fuel in the
> aircraft. I've had a couple of incidents when my engine quit with a
> fuel problem. It was a fuel system problem.

Then, by definition, you did NOT "run out of gas." You had a mechanical
problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B a r r y]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There are far too many pilots who make the knee jerk statement that
>> fuel exhaustion is the mark of a bad or poor pilot. As you point out,
>> fuel exhaustion is not always a failure of the pilot to put fuel in the
>> aircraft. I've had a couple of incidents when my engine quit with a
>> fuel problem. It was a fuel system problem.
>
> Then, by definition, you did NOT "run out of gas." You had a mechanical
> problem.

That was kind of where I was headed. <G>

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Then, by definition, you did NOT "run out of gas." You had a mechanical
> problem.

This is similar to the concept that the only true cause of death is lack of
oxygen to the human brain.

Technically, an engine runs out of fuel (or gas, in your aircraft's case)
if fuel stops flowing to the engine. The list of reasons why it stopped is
long.

But seriously, my point was simply that the NTSB and other official
aviation safety organizations seem to lump what you are labeling as
"running out of gas" into a broader category.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

>> Then, by definition, you did NOT "run out of gas." You had a mechanical
>> problem.
>
> This is similar to the concept that the only true cause of death is lack
> of
> oxygen to the human brain.

Take it one more step, and I'm with you.

Running out of gas and crashing due to outflying your on-board fuel is like
brain death caused by purposefully hanging oneself.

Running out of gas and crashing due to a fuel system failure is like brain
death caused by a sudden heart attack.

Either way your dead, right? But one is far different than the other.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> What is your definition of a good pilot?

That which makes a pilot a "good pilot" or a "bad pilot" (or something
in between) falls in two categories - skill and judgement.

The skill side is self evident - a good pilot has mastered the controls
and responses of the aircraft to the point where it is an extension of
himself or herself, the bad pilot can barely keep the nose pointed in
the right direction. This can be a result of lack of experience, poor
training, or a number of other things but the result is that a bad pilot
can't control the airplane well.

The judgment side is more pertinent to the discussion we're having, and
I'd a "bad pilot" is one who routinely excercises poor judgement. While
this can come from inexperience, especially coupled with too much luck,
the primary culprit IMHO is attitude. The bad pilot is the one who has
the attitude that he (or she) knows it all. It is necessary to have
confidence in one's abilities (or one would never take to the sky!) but
the attitude that "everyone who disagrees with them is wrong" limits the
amount of careful consideration that is applied to flying. The bad
pilot =knows= they would never do something utterly stupid. The good
pilot realizes that it may well happen, and takes the steps needed to
prevent it from happening, and mitigating the results should he actually
=make= the stupid mistake that day. It is ingrained in the good pilot's
psyche.

The essence of "good pilot" "bad pilot" is "routinely". Every pilot
occasionally makes errors. The good pilot is less =likely= to, and is
more likely to realize soon enough that he has screwed up, and is more
likely to be able to recover.

But since nothing is guaranteed, a single unfortunate outcome of bad
piloting is not sufficient to identify a bad pilot. It is rather the
=pattern= of bad piloting, irrespective of outcome, that identifies one.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:o60Jf.15117over.
>
> But since nothing is guaranteed, a single unfortunate outcome of bad
> piloting is not sufficient to identify a bad pilot. It is rather the
> =pattern= of bad piloting, irrespective of outcome, that identifies one.
>


But Jose, a single failure in a flight rarely leads to a catastrophic event.
Let say Mr. Good missed that final tightening of the fuel cap. That's one
mistake that could lead to disaster. But since he is Mr. Good and does an
excellent scan of his panel he notices that the right tank is loosing fuel
faster than the engine could possible be burning it. So he makes the right
decision and lands the nearest airport, finds the problem and lives to fly
another day.

No let's look at Mr. Bad as he takes the same flight with the same single
mistake before take off. He doesn't notice the fuel burn rate is higher or
if he does he blames the gauge or makes the determination that it isn't a
problem and continues his flight. At some point he exhausts his fuel and
since he has spent most of the flight playing with his new Garmin 396 he
doesn't have a clue that there is a wide open field 1/4 mile behind him and
instead he tries to land on the highway in front of him where he catches a
powerline and plunges into a family of 5 on their vacation in a rented
convertable.

Two different types of pilots, one original mistake, two very different
outcomes.

[Jose]

> Two different types of pilots, one original mistake, two very different
> outcomes.

Statisitic of one.

Mr Good is =more=likely= to ...
Mr Bad is =more=likely= to ...

Good pilots sometimes have bad days. Bad pilots sometimes get lucky.

A good pilot, on a bad day, might not notice that the fuel burn is not
what was expected. It could be from simply miscalculating the number of
hours (subtracting seven from twelve and getting four), external
distractions (say, fighting turbulence the whole way, making the jiggly
needle hard to pin down), denied mental stress (recent problems at the
hotel for which this flight is a supposed antidote), or any number of
things that can cause a mistake on a bad day.

The unfortunate outcome draws attention to the possibility that the
pilot might be habitually careless. But it is not true that only the
habitually careless get bit.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:
> B a r r y > wrote:
>
>> That was kind of where I was headed. <G>
>
> You grin more than the Cheshire cat of _Alice in Wonderland_.

'cause I'm just as happy as a Cheshire cat, and I regularly fly over a
town by the name of Cheshire. 8^)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> Two different types of pilots, one original mistake, two very different
>> outcomes.
>
> Statisitic of one.
>
> Mr Good is =more=likely= to ...
> Mr Bad is =more=likely= to ...
>
> Good pilots sometimes have bad days. Bad pilots sometimes get lucky.
>
> A good pilot, on a bad day, might not notice that the fuel burn is not
> what was expected. It could be from simply miscalculating the number of
> hours (subtracting seven from twelve and getting four), external
> distractions (say, fighting turbulence the whole way, making the jiggly
> needle hard to pin down), denied mental stress (recent problems at the
> hotel for which this flight is a supposed antidote), or any number of
> things that can cause a mistake on a bad day.
>
> The unfortunate outcome draws attention to the possibility that the pilot
> might be habitually careless. But it is not true that only the habitually
> careless get bit.

If all or most of the causes of any given accident are because of a mistake
by the pilot then yes he is a bad pilot. He may have been just a bad pilot
that flight but the poor guy was a bad pilot that flight.

Your constant harping that pretty much can be summed up as "**** happens"
reminds me of the Clinton administration where the outcome didn't matter
only that they wanted to do good.

[Montblack]

("Flyingmonk" wrote)
> Congratulations Montblack! you are the 100th poster to this thread...
> <g>
>
> No, seriously you are bro!


The prize. Get to the prize!


Montblack

[Jose]

> He may have been just a bad pilot
> that flight...

Is he a good pilot if he makes lots of mistakes that never result in an
accident?

To me, the usefulness of the categorization "bad pilot" is predictive.
Prediction is based on a propensity to do something. Statistics of one
do not show a propensity. Although it calls attention to a pilot which
may belong to the class, it does not =put= that pilot in that class.

> Your constant harping that pretty much can be summed up as "**** happens"...

That's not the point of my harping. The point is that, using statistics
of one to label somebody with a moniker that is presumed to have
predictive value is erronious, and wrong thinking leads to wrong acting.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Peter R." wrote)
>> It's certainly true that most engine failures are caused by "running out
>> of gas" and most instances of "running out of gas" are simply due to
>> pilot failure. But to say that that's true 100% of the time is simply
>> wrong.

> And, therefore, running out of gas is not always a sign of a "bad pilot."


[Running this through the (M)ontblack (U)niversal (T)ranslator]

A 9 time All-Pro offensive lineman jumps offsides...
For a five yard penalty...
On 4th down...
With his team down by one point...
Pushing the offense back, out of field goal range...
In the NFC Championship game...
With 3 seconds remaining in the game...
First kick was just barely through the uprights - kick over...
Blah, blah, blah. Final timeout - ice the kicker (again)...
Reset the game clock...

Good player.

"Mental mistakes will kill you in the playoffs," says the announcer.


Montblack
Yeah, it could happen.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> He may have been just a bad pilot that flight...
>
> Is he a good pilot if he makes lots of mistakes that never result in an
> accident?


No he is a lucky Bad Pilot.

>
> To me, the usefulness of the categorization "bad pilot" is predictive.
> Prediction is based on a propensity to do something. Statistics of one do
> not show a propensity. Although it calls attention to a pilot which may
> belong to the class, it does not =put= that pilot in that class.
>

If you show me a pilot that regulary breaks the rules, ignores safety
concerns and does things that most of us in this forum would catagorize as
"Bad Pilot" tricks. Then that pilot is more likly to have an accident than
someone that most of us would catagorize as a "Good Pilot"

>> Your constant harping that pretty much can be summed up as "****
>> happens"...
>
> That's not the point of my harping. The point is that, using statistics
> of one to label somebody with a moniker that is presumed to have
> predictive value is erronious, and wrong thinking leads to wrong acting.
>

Entire industries are based on doing just that. I deal with workers'
compensation insurance on a daily basis so I will give you an example from
that arena.

For a given type of work let's say masonry there is a given "manual rate"
for each state. Let's say that rate is $10/$100 of payroll or 10%. If you
have two companies both open for business on the same day. A little while
after the two companies have been in business for over a year and have a
claims history and organization called the NCCI is going to assign to each
company a Experience MOD rate. This number for a company that has performed
equal to the average company in that business will get a 1.0 mod rate a
company that has done worst than the average will get a MOD of say 1.1, a
company that has done better will get a mod of say 0.9. The total premium
the company will pay for the next term is then the manual rate times the MOD
rate.

Let's say are two make believe companies have a history now and company A
had 10 injuries that cost the insurance company a total of $100,000. Company
B only had one injury but it was a big one and cost $100,000. One might
thing that when the MOD rate was calculated for these two companies that it
would be the same. Well guess what? One would be wrong. Company A with a
bunch of injuries would be considerably higher because in comparison they
are a more dangerous place to work and statistics show that there will
sooner or latter be a large accident that costs more than the little
injuries combined plus the little injuries will still be there.

Company B on the other hand doesn't have little injuries and statistics show
that it might be years if ever that they will have another big accident.

[Jose]

> If you show me a pilot that regulary breaks the rules, ignores safety
> concerns and does things that most of us in this forum would catagorize as
> "Bad Pilot" tricks. Then that pilot is more likly to have an accident than
> someone that most of us would catagorize as a "Good Pilot"

Right. That person would be a "Bad Pilot", even if he never bends
metal. But that's not what we're given in the posts I am disagreeing
with. We're shown a pilot who bent metal. Once. We know nothing else
about that pilot (except perhaps that the bent metal was due to a single
act of bad piloting). While this is eyebrow raising, it is not predictive.

> [Experience MOD rate snipped]

That's exactly my point. You need a history of Bad Things, not just one
Bad Thing, to make a reasonable prediction. Calling someone a "bad
pilot" is making a prediction about the future, but calling something an
"act of bad piloting" is just making a statement about the past.

It's a crucial difference, and is the one I am harping on. You and I
are agreeing here.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> If you show me a pilot that regulary breaks the rules, ignores safety
>> concerns and does things that most of us in this forum would catagorize
>> as "Bad Pilot" tricks. Then that pilot is more likly to have an accident
>> than someone that most of us would catagorize as a "Good Pilot"
>
> Right. That person would be a "Bad Pilot", even if he never bends metal.
> But that's not what we're given in the posts I am disagreeing with. We're
> shown a pilot who bent metal. Once. We know nothing else about that
> pilot (except perhaps that the bent metal was due to a single act of bad
> piloting). While this is eyebrow raising, it is not predictive.
>
>> [Experience MOD rate snipped]
>
> That's exactly my point. You need a history of Bad Things, not just one
> Bad Thing, to make a reasonable prediction. Calling someone a "bad pilot"
> is making a prediction about the future, but calling something an "act of
> bad piloting" is just making a statement about the past.
>
> It's a crucial difference, and is the one I am harping on. You and I are
> agreeing here.
>
> Jose
> --
>

We're getting closer the thing is history shows that doing one bad thing
does not lead to an accident it is a sum of a number of bad things. Hence
any pilot who does a number of bad things is a bad pilot.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>
>>Then, by definition, you did NOT "run out of gas." You had a mechanical
>>problem.
>
>
> This is similar to the concept that the only true cause of death is lack of
> oxygen to the human brain.
>
> Technically, an engine runs out of fuel (or gas, in your aircraft's case)
> if fuel stops flowing to the engine. The list of reasons why it stopped is
> long.
>
> But seriously, my point was simply that the NTSB and other official
> aviation safety organizations seem to lump what you are labeling as
> "running out of gas" into a broader category.
>

Personally, I make a distinction between fuel exhaustion and fuel
starvation, however, I don't think the NTSB makes any such distinction.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> What is your definition of a good pilot?
>
>
> That which makes a pilot a "good pilot" or a "bad pilot" (or something
> in between) falls in two categories - skill and judgement.
>
> The skill side is self evident - a good pilot has mastered the controls
> and responses of the aircraft to the point where it is an extension of
> himself or herself, the bad pilot can barely keep the nose pointed in
> the right direction. This can be a result of lack of experience, poor
> training, or a number of other things but the result is that a bad pilot
> can't control the airplane well.

Well as defined by whom?


> The judgment side is more pertinent to the discussion we're having, and
> I'd a "bad pilot" is one who routinely excercises poor judgement. While
> this can come from inexperience, especially coupled with too much luck,
> the primary culprit IMHO is attitude. The bad pilot is the one who has
> the attitude that he (or she) knows it all. It is necessary to have
> confidence in one's abilities (or one would never take to the sky!) but
> the attitude that "everyone who disagrees with them is wrong" limits the
> amount of careful consideration that is applied to flying. The bad
> pilot =knows= they would never do something utterly stupid. The good
> pilot realizes that it may well happen, and takes the steps needed to
> prevent it from happening, and mitigating the results should he actually
> =make= the stupid mistake that day. It is ingrained in the good pilot's
> psyche.

Who defines good judgement?


> The essence of "good pilot" "bad pilot" is "routinely". Every pilot
> occasionally makes errors. The good pilot is less =likely= to, and is
> more likely to realize soon enough that he has screwed up, and is more
> likely to be able to recover.
>
> But since nothing is guaranteed, a single unfortunate outcome of bad
> piloting is not sufficient to identify a bad pilot. It is rather the
> =pattern= of bad piloting, irrespective of outcome, that identifies one.

But if a bad pilot by your definition flies without incident for 50
years, is he/she still a bad pilot?

Personally, I'll stick with the results based definition. I'd rather
fly with the "bad" pilot who has never had a crash than the "good" pilot
who averages a crash a year. :-)

Matt

[Jose]

> We're getting closer the thing is history shows that doing one bad thing
> does not lead to an accident it is a sum of a number of bad things. Hence
> any pilot who does a number of bad things is a bad pilot.

Well, no. "Is a bad pilot" is a statement about a person which is
relatively independent of time, like "is an engineer", "is a poor judge
of character" and "is tall".

A flight, notably one with an unfortuante outcome, occurs in a
relatively tiny slice of time, like "did a calculation", "went on a
horrible date", and "bumped his head on the doorway".

It is in that sense that I count the bad piloting which led to an
unfortunate outcome as a statistic of one, even if several errors were
committed that day.

A "bad pilot" is one I would certainly not want to fly with, because I
believe that it is likely that he will engage in bad piloting. However
I would certainly fly with a "good pilot who had a bad day" because one
bad day does not make a pilot a bad pilot (although it can certainly
make him a dead pilot). I will not draw a conclusion of likelyhood
based on one bad flight, although I will look more closely at his other
flights (and my other flights for that matter) when presented with that.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Well as defined by whom?

As defined by whoever will be applying the definition.

We can legitimately disagree thusly on whether or not this or that pilot
is "good" based on our own evaluation of "well". But my point is that
the point is not "how good..." but rather, "how consistently good". To
be a "good pilot" (a term with predictive value) one must be
consistently (though not perfectly) good, and to be a "bad pilot" one
must be consistently (though not perfectly) bad.

> Who defines good judgement?

Ditto

> But if a bad pilot by your definition flies without incident for 50 years, is he/she still a bad pilot?

Yes. He's damned lucky, but I still wouldn't fly with him.

> I'd rather fly with the "bad" pilot who has never had a crash than the "good" pilot who averages a crash a year. :-)

Well, a crash a year due to bad piloting (or perhaps consistently bad
choice of aircraft) is no longer the "statistic of one" to which I
object. But a test pilot who flies all sorts of different wierd
homebrew designs all the time for a living, and =only= crashes once a
year, is proabably a damned good pilot. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
> This all said, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here. By
> saying "s*it happens" are you implying that I survived these challenges
> through luck?

Minimizing the risk through good training is great. And there certainly are
some idiots out there that I don't want to share the sky with. However, I'm
not so quick to categorize all non-mechanical, non-medical accidents to
pilots being idiots. I don't judge a pilot until I have all the facts.
Sometimes circumstances are beyond the control of the best pilots. I also
don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

In my younger days, I was quick to judge other pilots. I was 10 years old
the first time I saw a crashed airplane. It was a C-150 with 2 bodies still
in it. They were the victims of a mid-air collision. I wondered how they
could have let that happen. What was wrong with them? In the years since
then, I've had some close calls of my own. I quit judging others quickly.

I check that my landing gear is down and green 3 times before landing. Want
to guess why I am so paranoid about it? I haven't yet, but I've come close.
If I do land with the gear up one day, would that make me a bad pilot? Some
of my friends with over 10,000 hours each have landed with the gear too
short. Does that make them bad pilots?

In 2 cases mechanical discrepencies were discovered after the investigation
was
over. One of those helped spawned an AD concerning Mooney's electric gear.
People sure were quick to judge that pilot before the switches were found to
be at fault. None of them apologized afterwards.

Here's another angle. Last fall, I went into the Mexican desert, put some
air in the tires of Navajo, put some gas in the tanks, and flew it to
Florida. It was a drug confiscation that had set there for 16 years. The
instrument panel had nothing but bullet holes. One wing leading edge had a
dent nearly back to the spar. The paint and interior was long gone. The
airplane looked like crap. The risk of me needing to fill out an NTSB report
was somewhat higher than when you fly Atlas. Does that make me a bad pilot?

Some may think so, and I have been labeled a cowboy. And yet I have 10 years
of airline management and the Administrator's blessing to give checkrides on
3 families of aircraft. Who's right about me?

One other lesson that took me many, many years to learn is to not hold
others to my standards. Most won't be able to meet my standards, including
some airline pilots I have flown with. I have to respect the ideal that even
the idiots have a right to fly, and a right to crash.

D.

[[email protected]]

Capt Doug
BRAVO !!! I have often asked some of my students if they would fly an
airplane when they KNEW something was wrong with it.The answer was
always a resounding NOOOOoooo.
Then in their aviation history they are faced with something similar to
the Navajo you describe. I don't know how many aircraft I've been
tasked to fly that were like that.
In my 45 years of professional aviation around the world, and now
pushing 23,000 hours logged, I've had one accident that injured
someone. A student on a dual XC with a C-150 back in 1966. We had
contaminated fuel and junk in the fuel lines. Engine puked at night
over trees. We both got hurt.
I've been called as an expert witness in agricultural aircraft
operation crashes and was appalled at the sloppy field work by whoever
did the investigations...both FAA and NTSB. I got the impression if it
wasn't a major news event with lots of press coverage, the "C" team was
sent to investigate.
Back in my earlier days I too was labeled a cowboy or renegade. That
has morphed into more like..."That old guy knows his sh*& and if you
can get some dual with him take it."
Now I am smart enough to wait to see all the facts before I make a
judgement and even then sometimes I elect to keep my conclusions to
myself. That holds true here as well. I never realized I could strike
such a nerve with my original post and I'm glad I did.
Best Professional Regards
Rocky

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<1tkIf.798152$xm3.724032@attbi_s21>::

>Across society, manners have become uncommon.

It starts at the top:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
"**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
presidency.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate
passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99
to 1.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/
Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and Democrats have
suggested that while serving in the Bush administration he helped
win lucrative contracts for his former firm, including a no-bid
contract to rebuild Iraq.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/politics/main620517.shtml
Halliburton took in $3.6 billion last year from contracts to serve
U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton
executives say the company is getting about $1 billion a month for
Iraq work this year.

In March, the Pentagon said it plans to withhold about $300
million in payments to the company because of possible
overcharging for meals served to troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

Halliburton's other problems include allegations of a kickback
scheme by two former workers in Kuwait that prompted Halliburton
to reimburse the Pentagon $6.3 million; faulty cost estimates on
the $2.7 billion contract to serve troops in Iraq, including
failing to tell the Pentagon that KBR fired two subcontractors;
and a separate audit that accused KBR of overcharging by $61
million for gasoline delivered to serve the civilian market in
Iraq last year. Halliburton has said the charges were proper.

Halliburton paid $2 million in 2002 to settle charges it inflated
costs on a maintenance contract at now-closed Fort Ord in
California.

Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton
broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran,
whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in
the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million
bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it
improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.

Previous reports indicate Halliburton studied the possibility of
privatizing Pentagon contracts when Cheney was defense secretary,
then was awarded one of the first private deals. Cheney became CEO
after leaving the Pentagon.

A financial disclosure form obtained by CBSNews.com indicates that
Cheney received deferred income from the firm after becoming vice
president.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote in
>::

>I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

You've got that right.

Read the NTSB's probable cause of this MAC between an Navy A7 and a
glider: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER.
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER.
CHECKLIST..POOR.

So while the NTSB found the glider pilot (who obviously had the right
of way) to be at fault in this MAC, the truth is, the military pilot's
actions weren't merely improper, they were contrary to _regulations_*,
but the NTSB failed to mention that.

* http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/search.asp?keyword=AFI11-202&page=2

22 AFI11-202V3 6 JUNE 2003

5.5. Right-of-Way Rules . Usually, right-of-way is given to the
aircraft least able to maneuver, which normally permits that
aircraft to maintain course and speed. However, visibility
permitting, each pilot must take whatever action is necessary to
avoid collision, regardless of who has the right-of-way. When
another aircraft has the right-of-way, the yielding aircraft must
not pass over, under, abeam, or ahead of the other aircraft until
well clear.

5.5.1. Distress . Aircraft in distress have the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.

5.5.2. Converging. When converging at approximately the same
altitude (except head-on or approximately so), the aircraft to the
other’s right has the right-of-way. Aircraft of different
categories have the right-of-way in the following order of
priority:

5.5.2.1. Balloons.

5.5.2.2. Gliders.

5.5.2.3. Aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.

5.5.2.4. Airships.

5.5.2.5. Rotary or fixed-wing aircraft.

5.5.3. Approaching Head-On . If aircraft are approaching each
other head-on or approximately so, each shall alter course to the
right.

5.5.4. Overtaking Aircraft . An overtaken aircraft has the
right-of-way. The overtaking aircraft must alter course to the
right.

[RST Engineering]

You've got that MORE than right. I was doubly involved with an aircraft
that was destroyed in an emergency landing in 1989. I was the PIC, but also
the A&P on that aircraft. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB ever asked for
copies of the maintenance logbooks which clearly reflected the overhaul and
service bulletins performed on that aircraft.

The proximate cause of the accident was double ignition failure -- one
magneto failed and leaded up the other set of plugs. After the accident,
one set of plugs (the ones on the failed magneto) were white-clean and the
other set of plugs were loaded with lead. It can be easily shown how this
can happen.

The NTSB (which galls me to this day) laid the cause of the accident to
"improper maintenance". Yet the magneto overhaul times and bulletin times
were complied with to the letter and spirit of the mag company. The plugs
had less than 25 hours since cleaning. THe failure mode (open coil)
couldn't have been detected even with a full-bore overhaul, much less the
service bulletin inspections.

Gospel, my tiny hiney.

Jim



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
> wrote in
> >::
>
>>I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.
>
> You've got that right.

[[email protected]]

Don't recall the dates..1990's..a crop duster pilot in a Grumman Ag
Cat, Palouse area of SE Washington state was returning to base and got
overun by some Navy jets on low level training. He was RUN OVER FROM
THE REAR and the Navy tried to blame him for the accident. When fault
is being discovered, it seems those with the best legal minds are going
to prevail regardless of what happened. OJ Simpson anyone...?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:26:08 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in
>::

>You've got that MORE than right.

[Stupid NTSB finding snipped]

I'm beginning to think our federal government is broken to the point
of uselessness. The many personnel among its ranks have no incentive
to perform competently; apparently they are paid the same amount
regardless of their level of performance.

I had occasion to contact FEMA a few days ago. The person to whom I
spoke was so moronic and illiterate, that I was astonished that she
was employed at all, let alone being paid with my tax dollars.

Welcome to the 21st century.

If something is done about our nation's abysmal education system soon,
we're not going to enjoy living in this country in the future.

[[email protected]]

Jim-RST Enginering
I've had a number of engine or mechanical failures that caused me to
make an unscheduled landing in both airplanes and helicopters. The
problems could not have been found short of a tear-down inspection. The
fact that I got the machine back on the ground without further damage
was how much luck and how much pilot skill? To be sure, in ag
operations the vast majority of pilots fly "cocked and locked" for an
immediate response to an emergency or malfunction. Now, having said
that, with 40 years of crop dusting behind me, and at least 13,000
hours in the lowest reaches of the airspace system, and having had more
scares and frights in a year than most pilots will ever experience in a
lifetime.... I think too many lesser experienced pilots here tend to
limit their views to that narrow range of their experience. Well, that
is to be expected. It is their fault if they don't pick the diamonds of
wisdom to add to their pilot bag of tricks to help them out if the sh*&
hits the fan and they have to react to salvage the ensuing mess.
In 50 years of flying as PIC, I've experienced 18 maydays, have had at
least 5 actual autorotations with mechanical failures or fuel
exhaustion, I've hit 18 wires that were carefully logged, have killed
literally hundreds of birds in mid-air collisions aka bird strikes,
have many times come back in to the base with pine needles or leaves
stuck someplace on the aircraft. Now I ask you, does this put me into
the Bad pilot catagory? Does it put me into the LUCKY pilot catagory?
Is it a combination of lucky, poor/good/bozo?
Doesn't really matter to me since I am still here and able to pass
along my mistakes and observations to those who may one day be faced
with similar problems. Those who choose to slam me are free to do so. I
invite them to fly with me under challenging circumstances and see what
THEY can do to cope. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish much.
Now I'll take a step back with my big stick and see what happens next.
Cheers
Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

RST Engineering wrote:
> The NTSB (which galls me to this day) laid the cause of the accident to
> "improper maintenance". Yet the magneto overhaul times and bulletin times
> were complied with to the letter and spirit of the mag company. The plugs
> had less than 25 hours since cleaning. THe failure mode (open coil)
> couldn't have been detected even with a full-bore overhaul, much less the
> service bulletin inspections.


The idiots at the NTSB concluded I was too fast when I crashed and totalled a
Piper Lance, estimating I was doing a cool 130 knots when I hit. I must be the
toughest man alive, because I wasn't wearing a shoulder strap. Didn't break any
ribs either.

The engine out approach was flown at 90 mph; I told them that. No telling how
much slower I was when I lost the wing but there's no way in hell I was anywhere
near the speed they concluded.

I sometimes wonder if they mix up the reports in a big stack on the desk when
they write their conclusions.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Larry Dighera]

On 17 Feb 2006 10:30:12 -0800, wrote in
. com>::

>Don't recall the dates..1990's..a crop duster pilot in a Grumman Ag
>Cat, Palouse area of SE Washington state was returning to base and got
>overun by some Navy jets on low level training. He was RUN OVER FROM
>THE REAR and the Navy tried to blame him for the accident. When fault
>is being discovered, it seems those with the best legal minds are going
>to prevail regardless of what happened. OJ Simpson anyone...?


Would that have been this MAC?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1
NTSB Identification: SEA93FA094A.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 50895.
14 CFR Armed Forces
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 14, 1993 in STEPTOE, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/18/1994
Aircraft: GRUMMAN A6E, registration: USN
Injuries: 2 Serious, 1 Minor.
THE A6E WAS TRACKING 033 DEG LEVEL AT 200 FT AGL AT 468 KTS VFR IN
PUBLISHED ROUTE VR-1354. THE AGCAT WAS TRACKING 334 DEG LEVEL AT
200 FT AGL AT 96 KTS VFR ACROSS THE ROUTE TO HIS DESTINATION SPRAY
FIELD. THE TWO AIRCRAFT CONVERGED ON A 59 DEG COLLISION ANGLE WITH
A CLOSURE SPEED OF 429 KTS. THE A6E NOTIFIED FSS THAT HE WAS
ENTERING THE ROUTE LATE AND PROJECTED EXITING 8 MINUTES AFTER THE
PUBLISHED CLOSURE OF THE ROUTE. THE AGCAT PILOT REPORTED HE WAS
UNAWARE OF ANY INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION OF
MILITARY AIRCRAFT IN THE AREA. THE LOCAL FSS WAS IN THE HABIT OF
REPORTING THE ROUTE 'HOT' 24 HRS A DAY RATHER THAN THE PRECISE
SCHEDULE. THE CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF THE A6E WAS 111 DEG (8 O'CLOCK
POSITION & BEHIND THE AGCAT'S LEFT WING). THE CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF
THE AGCAT WAS 10 DEG. AT THE PROJECTED CLOSURE SPEED THE AGCAT
WOULD HAVE SUBTENDED AN ANGLE OF 0.2 DEG 8.6 SECS BEFORE IMPACT;
THE A6E 19.2 SECS.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE SEE-AND-AVOID CONCEPT OF
SEPARATION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLIGHT RULES THAT
PRECLUDED THE CREW OF THE A6E AND THE PILOT OF THE AGCAT FROM
RECOGNIZING A COLLISION HAZARD AND TAKING ACTIONS TO AVOID A
MIDAIR COLLISION

It would appear that the NTSB investigator got that part of the
probable cause right, but why is there no mention of FAR § 91.113
(f):

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter
course to the right to pass well clear.


I don't know if a Class 1 medical certificate is required to PIC an
A6E, but given:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA93FA094A&rpt=fa
Date of Last Medical Exam: 08/1992
Medical Cert.: Valid Medical--no waivers/lim. Class 1
Occurrence Date: 04/14/1993

It would appear that the A6E pilot's Class 1 medical certificate was
two months out of date.

[Larry Dighera]

On 17 Feb 2006 10:52:04 -0800, wrote in
om>::

>To be sure, in ag operations the vast majority of pilots fly
>"cocked and locked" for an immediate response to an emergency
>or malfunction.


And then, there are those who aren't able to reach the four mile
distant work-site before winning a Darwin Award:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08016&key=1
NTSB Identification: SEA97LA099 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS).
14 CFR Part 137: Agricultural
Accident occurred Monday, May 05, 1997 in ROSALIA, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/28/2000 1800 local time
Aircraft: Grumman G-164A, registration: N7926
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The pilot-in-command departed the airport in a Grumman G-164A
spray plane. En route to the destination field, and while
overflying hilly terrain, the aircraft's tail wheel impacted the
ground, followed by the main gear. The aircraft continued over an
embankment, nosing over while crossing a paved road, before coming
to rest and burning. There was no evidence that the pilot
jettisoned the 2,040 pound herbicide load. Propeller slash marks
early in the ground track indicated high engine RPM at the initial
ground impact. Additionally, toxicological evaluation of samples
from the pilot-in-command revealed 0.002 ug/ml of
Tetrahydrocannabinol detected in blood, 0.08 ug/ml of
Tetrahydrocannabinol Carboxylic Acid detected in blood, and 0.035
ug/ml of Tetrahydrocannabinol Carboxylic Acid detected in urine
indicating fairly recent (within several hours) use of Marihuana.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot-in-command's failure to maintain clearance with terrain.
Factors contributing to the accident were, hilly terrain
conditions and impairment due to recent use of marihuana.

Full narrative available:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA97LA099&rpt=fa

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in
> <1tkIf.798152$xm3.724032@attbi_s21>::
>
>
>>Across society, manners have become uncommon.
>
>
> It starts at the top:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
> "**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
> presidency.
>
>

Let me see ... Cheney swears, Clinton has extramarital sex in the White
House. Yes, it really is hard to see a good example at the top isn't it?


Matt

[[email protected]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> ET wrote:
> > How many pilots who read about a few guys with dry tanks who bought it,
> > might be a bit more likely to divert for fuel rather than "push it"....
> > just one example....
>
>
> You want a fuel rule that will serve you well your entire flying career? "If
> you have to worry about fuel, you don't have enough".
>
>
> Here is another one from Selwaykid; Fuel gages always lie until they get below 1/4. At that point they are cause for concern.
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:26:29 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote in
>> <1tkIf.798152$xm3.724032@attbi_s21>::
>>
>>
>>>Across society, manners have become uncommon.
>>
>>
>> It starts at the top:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
>> "**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
>> presidency.
>>
>>
>
>Let me see ... Cheney swears,

Cheney's senatorial blaspheme epitomizes the ethos of the Executive
branch. He defends torture and warrantless domestic invasion of
privacy.

>Clinton has extramarital sex in the White House.

http://www.youth4him.com/articles/teens_and_oral_sex.htm
Here's what one a 15-year-old girl from Wisconsin told USA Today's
Karen Peterson about oral sex: "Children from grades as early as
sixth or seventh who hang from the top rung of the popularity
ladder brag about activities such as these. The consensus in my
high school is that oral sex makes girls popular, whereas
intercourse would make them outcasts. The mentality is that oral
sex is as far as you can go without maintaining any level of
emotional attachment. It's something that happens at a party, is
whispered about between friends and forgotten about the next week.
Intercourse is, for some people, a huge leap from oral sex.
Intercourse is something that is carefully thought through."
(11/16/00).

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/time/kirn.html
Though it's nowhere in sacred Scripture, the
oral-sex-isn't-really-sex distinction does have some secular
modern precedents. According to Black's Law Dictionary, oral sex
is not, technically, adultery (though in certain states it's
sodomy, a felony). What's more, reports Debbie Then, a California
social psychologist, it's common among professional American males
to view oral sex as a kind of moral freebie. Sexual folklore backs
up this attitude. In general, female prostitutes charge less for
fellatio than for intercourse. And teenage girls who have given
oral sex but haven't yet been vaginally penetrated tend to go on
regarding themselves as virgins.


>Yes, it really is hard to see a good example at the top isn't it?

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
Sex scandals have resulted in the resignations of 19 Roman
Catholic prelates worldwide since 1990.

[lynn]

And what does this DNC diatribe have to do with aircraft accidents?

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:26:29 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >::
>
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
>>><1tkIf.798152$xm3.724032@attbi_s21>::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Across society, manners have become uncommon.
>>>
>>>
>>>It starts at the top:
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
>>> "**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
>>> presidency.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Let me see ... Cheney swears,
>
>
> Cheney's senatorial blaspheme epitomizes the ethos of the Executive
> branch. He defends torture and warrantless domestic invasion of
> privacy.
>
>
>>Clinton has extramarital sex in the White House.
>
>
> http://www.youth4him.com/articles/teens_and_oral_sex.htm
> Here's what one a 15-year-old girl from Wisconsin told USA Today's
> Karen Peterson about oral sex: "Children from grades as early as
> sixth or seventh who hang from the top rung of the popularity
> ladder brag about activities such as these. The consensus in my
> high school is that oral sex makes girls popular, whereas
> intercourse would make them outcasts. The mentality is that oral
> sex is as far as you can go without maintaining any level of
> emotional attachment. It's something that happens at a party, is
> whispered about between friends and forgotten about the next week.
> Intercourse is, for some people, a huge leap from oral sex.
> Intercourse is something that is carefully thought through."
> (11/16/00).
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/time/kirn.html
> Though it's nowhere in sacred Scripture, the
> oral-sex-isn't-really-sex distinction does have some secular
> modern precedents. According to Black's Law Dictionary, oral sex
> is not, technically, adultery (though in certain states it's
> sodomy, a felony). What's more, reports Debbie Then, a California
> social psychologist, it's common among professional American males
> to view oral sex as a kind of moral freebie. Sexual folklore backs
> up this attitude. In general, female prostitutes charge less for
> fellatio than for intercourse. And teenage girls who have given
> oral sex but haven't yet been vaginally penetrated tend to go on
> regarding themselves as virgins.

You Dems are all alike. You overlook or rationalize gross negligence
and misconduct and have hissy fits over a swear word. No wonder you
can't win the big elections. You need to learn what really matters and
what is trivial. Hint: illicit sex in the White House is worse than
swearing.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Matt, you have a good head and can convey rational thoughts with your posts,
> but dammit man, either top post or learn to snip.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>>You Dems are all alike. You overlook or rationalize gross negligence and
>>misconduct and have hissy fits over a swear word. No wonder you can't win
>>the big elections. You need to learn what really matters and what is
>>trivial. Hint: illicit sex in the White House is worse than swearing.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

Jim,

I'll never top post as that is against almost all published netiquette
and isn't logical in societies that read left to right and top to bottom.

I generally do snip posts, but in this case it wasn't all that long and
I didn't take the time as it didn't seem necessary.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>>Across society, manners have become uncommon.
>
> It starts at the top:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
> "**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
> presidency.

Since when is any level of government the "top" of our society?

Closer to the bottom, methinks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Since when is any level of government the "top" of our society?
>
> Closer to the bottom, methinks.



"Better my sister in a whorehouse than my brother in Congress."



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry, are you actually using the fact that 15 year old girls don't think a
blow job is sex as proof that a blow job isn't sex? Did you ever think that
the reason they believe this is that the President of the United States of
America said so?


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>>Clinton has extramarital sex in the White House.
>
> http://www.youth4him.com/articles/teens_and_oral_sex.htm
> Here's what one a 15-year-old girl from Wisconsin told USA Today's
> Karen Peterson about oral sex: "Children from grades as early as
> sixth or seventh who hang from the top rung of the popularity
> ladder brag about activities such as these. The consensus in my
> high school is that oral sex makes girls popular, whereas
> intercourse would make them outcasts. The mentality is that oral
> sex is as far as you can go without maintaining any level of
> emotional attachment. It's something that happens at a party, is
> whispered about between friends and forgotten about the next week.
> Intercourse is, for some people, a huge leap from oral sex.
> Intercourse is something that is carefully thought through."
> (11/16/00).
>

[darthpup]

Empirical evidence is not an element of proper formal reason.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Larry, are you actually using the fact that 15 year old girls don't think a
> blow job is sex as proof that a blow job isn't sex? Did you ever think that
> the reason they believe this is that the President of the United States of
> America said so?


Only because it happened to agree with their position. Ordinarily, I doubt very
seriously any 15 year old girl gives a **** what the POTUS has to say.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Larry, are you actually using the fact that 15 year old girls don't think
>> a
>> blow job is sex as proof that a blow job isn't sex? Did you ever think
>> that
>> the reason they believe this is that the President of the United States
>> of
>> America said so?
>
>
> Only because it happened to agree with their position. Ordinarily, I
> doubt very seriously any 15 year old girl gives a **** what the POTUS has
> to say.
>
>
>
> --

You are probably right but it could have been the fact that they have heard
the liberal adults in their life arguing the fact with the conservative
adults in their life.

That said, I'd still not use the position of 15 year old girls as evidence
in any debate on any topic that wasn't about the mall.