"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:0LMmf.4135

The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea. How much more
evidence does one need?

No, you're not quite right in the analysis of your own ideas. You write
"The fact that the airplane ended up past the end of the runway is
sufficient evidence that this landing was not a good idea." This is not
accurate. You could say "The fact that the airplane ended up past the
end of the runway is sufficient evidence that something went wrong."

What you're trying to invoke is the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
regarding pilot error and negligence. Often used by plaintiff in
negligence claims, it requires, in one aspect, that the plaintiff prove
that other possible agents of responsibility, such as mechanical failure,
weather factors, etc., did *not* play a role in the accident.

Correct. Trying to dig oneself out of a hole created by a banally stupid
statement requires this sort of logical sodomy. By the same reasoning,
*every* bad landing is evidence that it shouldn't have been attempted.
Circular reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum.

moo