Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 19:35:39 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1850787@logan.com>
From: Dan O'Brien <danobrien@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Response to Jeff Edwards
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

 >Personally, I'd rather trust an automated weather observation than a 
paramedic or some bum on the >street or Sheriff's that never fly. FAA 
reports the facts.

Wait a minute...This is getting tiring.   It is a fact that the automated 
weather observation reported 2000 ft.  It is also a fact that automated 
weather observation systems are VERY OFTEN OFF by many hundreds of 
feet.  Check the report of the local AWOS the next 5 times you do an 
approach.    Accuracy varies, for reasons I suppose someone who understands 
how these systems works could explain.

Doug Pohl (who I don't know from Adam) has now given four patient, 
measured, responses on this list to questions about what happened.  If what 
he has said is accurate, a factor in this accident will turn out to be the 
same factor that appears in many other accidents --- decision-making.   Can 
we give a company trying its best to crack a very difficult nut (GA engine 
construction) a break!  I'm just getting really sick of the insinuation in 
some of the emails on this list.

Tort law in this country has screwed GA manufacturers royally the last 30 
years.  Soap operas about accidents played out on lists like this serve no 
useful purpose, and probably help fan the flames of the terrible tort 
situation we have in this country today.

Can we talk about something productive out of this accident, like the 
merits of redundant electrical systems?  I bet the pilot of this plane 
would have wanted that.