Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:14:20 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3093263@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.82; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net
From: "terrence o'neill" <troneill@charter.net>
References: <list-3090640@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John,
Define 'qualified' as pssing the FAA's touted Flight Check every two years. 
This is just a complex airplane, imho.
It has been improved, for example, with vortex generators. More improvements 
are certainly possible.
Terrence


Terrence wrote"

"In other words, lets evaluate the designs rather than carp on more and more
training .... this group is fraught with very qualified pilots, and they are
having accidetns.  The cause, imho, is likely elsewhere."

Just wondering how he reaches the conclusion that we are, as a group 
including the accident pilots, very qualified when no evidence supports it. 
Without even getting into the judgment issue, where all of the evidence 
suggests that the group referenced above is woefully deficient, Jeff's 
statistics show beyond any doubt that inadequate qualification in type is 
the most obvious common trait driving the accident statistics.

Technology is a marvelous thing  but it is not a substitute for training or 
judgment.

(I do wholeheartedly agree that the word "fraught" is apt, however.)


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


No virus found in this incoming message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.072.012).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ 


No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.072.012).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/