>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.