"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.

You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
pilots?


I agree that there is enough info known to establish that the pilots
screwed up and many people died. Anger or specific legal definitions
are not worth quibbling over.


If
further information shows that something happened that would have made
almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
opinion was incorrect and premature.

If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

I don't think so. I just leave open the possibility (rare that it is)
that I am wrong.

I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
negligence?

I am not a lawyer but what would you call it when someone screws up
and 49 people die?

Some want to know about how much sleep they got, whether they had
coffee, etc but those points are irrelevant. You have two
professional pilots who screwed up. 49 people died.

Ron Lee


Pete