I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

Why should I know of someone who was killed by a meteor? It is not
necessary to know of someone who was killed by a meteor to ascertain
whether or not it is possible to be killed by a meteor.

My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

In any case the thread is drifting into irrelevance.

I contend that flying is more dangerous to the non-flying public than
boating is dangerous to the non-boating public. I might be wrong; I'm
open to data.

However, I also contend that =IF= the above is true, =THEN= it makes
sense to have more stringent regulation of airplane pilots than boating
pilots.

I also do not see an inconsistancy WRT allowing a student pilot to fly
solo but not with passengers. Since the danger to passengers is
inherently greater than the danger to the nonflying public, it makes
more sense to protect passengers via this rule. If the risk is small
enough, rulemaking is not necessary. (FSVO "small")

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.