Comair Pilot Error

"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?

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 doubt that it will turn out this way.

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

Pete

"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

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
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.

And yet you do quibble. Odd.

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.

You have an odd way of looking at things (though that was already
apparent...see above). You specifically say that you don't have enough
information to know for sure that you aren't wrong, and yet you feel your
current judgment of the situation isn't premature?

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?

An accident. Get a dictionary and look up "gross negligence". It has a
very specific meaning, and the simple act of causing ANY number of people to
die is not part of the definition.

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.

Yup, those are pretty much the facts we know. So which of those facts
justify your judgment of "gross negligence"?

Pete