Dennis,

While the language is losing it specificity due to improper usage and the
incorporation of distorted definitions in modern dictionaries, there is
general agreement that the words, "fact", "truth", and "honesty" are not
synonomous.

You often select factual statements in an attempt to prove some larger truth
or your own honesty. The omission of critical facts makes it possible to
present factual statements while failing to be truthful or honest.

You are so proud of those FAA accident reports that reach a conclusion of
pilot error. Both civil and military accident reports use a rather strict
standard in establishing whether an accident was the result of pilot error.
In short, the approach is to determine if the pilot could have done anything
at any point to avoid an accident - EVEN IF FACTORS BEYOND THE PILOT'S
CONTROL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION. As a result, poor design and
production can significantly contribute to an accident that is eventually
attributed to pilot error.

Pilot error is not some trump card you can throw down on the table. So yes,
I think you are less than truthful or honest when you insist that pilot
error absolves you of any responsibility.

The realm of experimental aviation further complicates the validity of such
accident reports. The reason for this is pretty obvious, the FAA is
trained to investigate accidents involving certified aircraft. As a result,
they will make assumptions about experimental aircraft based on their
limited training and experience.

For example, if I build a plane that is impossible to fly or a helicopter
that cannot be auto-rotated, it is still very possible that an accident
report could conclude that I was at fault for not avoiding a stall or not
successfully performing an auto-rotation. Why? Because the FAA makes
certain assumptions about experimental aircraft that are not supported by
any basis in reality.

When I have a little more time, I would be happy to rehash the lies.