X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 50 [XX] (67%) URL: contains host with port number (33%) BODY: text/html email has no html tag Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:47:29 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1991954 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:53:41 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.132.244; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c34so226278anc for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:52:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=aNP3jmyGjHWbE+3awrhqLIULo94ZYszVPe3U3VEfs47MC58J/68Fv4pQwHhJ0+QnumXC6IGPFtMKsVk86CpH9J8BBvgImN9FTbbXjE47G7/2N3MppDkYQvAdDYNfNJFEUYnZy1x+AkP1EULSB6BPHMKuRkd/pAtDC0p7OR6fmLU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=m/EKW9WeJaXCQKv95UGBMDdTc8CB14p2+j7YkQGrvdXgeY5ZKfQadQ8dMWAL8bfKode03nNq8xSMVtkzE9cbpDfq0MpssNTAGYjeozAjlC1iZwBK1AKPlUbcYCYfSu8rrs2PATHeIT7/qQF/OrzhC90T0kzfIshMCcBn/9Vm0WY= Received: by 10.100.111.16 with SMTP id j16mr461969anc.1176911549632; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.14.9 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:52:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <5cf132c0704180852j6115eb76sb0f85ddb88a0da0c@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:52:29 -0500 From: "Mark Steitle" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair's Down In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_96913_23230449.1176911549444" References: ------=_Part_96913_23230449.1176911549444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline If I can make a suggestion... While we probably won't know all the details of this particular accident for years, we can go to the ntsb web site and do a search on "Lancair" and read the final reports on many Lancair accidents. Seems to me that this would be more informative than attempting to fill in the blanks on an accident that is only days old where all we have to go on is a newspaper report of the accident. If you use the percent (%) character before and after the word "Lancair" in the search, it works as a wild card and you will get reports for all of the different Lancair models. I did this yesterday and it returned six pages of Lancair accidents. I was then able to go in and read each one of the final reports and gain some good insight as to the cause(s) of each. Ref: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm Mark S. On 4/18/07, marv@lancair.net wrote: > > Posted for Kevin Kossi : > > Jeff, > > Looking back, I see you had some very insightful comments on the guy who > flew into the Lake! (Before the Official Report was out) > > You might think about pursuing a career in comedy. > > You and I both know, the bottom line her is safety. Everyone learns from > accidents in different ways. From the moment an accident happens, we start > to > wonder what happened, and start to form an opinion based on the available > information. Sure it would be nice to have a final report at hand when you > > start to formulate that opinion, but unfortunately it takes sometimes > years > before that happens. And in certain cases even when the final report is > published, there is doubt about its conclusions. > Look at the TWA flight 800 accident in 1996 with many witnesses including > Radar seeing a missile intercept, and the final report attributing the > crash > to a faulty fuel sensor that ignited the fuel tank. > > No hard feelings. > > Regards, > Kevin > > [C'mon, guys, let's not start another pissing contest here. It's human > nature to attempt to fill in the blanks when initial and sketchy reports > suggest many possible conclusions, and, like it or not, we all partake of > the activity to one extent or another. I guess the question is whether or > not we can actually benefit from uninformed speculation, and I further guess > that the answer is that it depends on what we each do with it. Anything > that raises our level of consciousness and/or motivates us to pay closer > attention to our equipment or flying habits and attitudes is most likely a > good thing... and learning something from others' mistakes definitely > qualifies, even if we don't know exactly what those mistakes, if any, > actually may have been. Food for thought is always a good thing, and that's > really what we're dealing with here. ] > > > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > ------=_Part_96913_23230449.1176911549444 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
If I can make a suggestion...
While we probably won't know all the details of this particular ac= cident for years, we can go to the ntsb web site and do a search on "L= ancair" and read the final reports on many Lancair accidents.  Se= ems to me that this would be more informative than attempting to fill in th= e blanks on an accident that is only days old where all we have to go on is= a newspaper report of the accident. =20
 
If you use the percent (%) character before and after the word "L= ancair" in the search, it works as a wild card and you will get report= s for all of the different Lancair models.  I did this yesterday and i= t returned six pages of Lancair accidents.  I was then able to go in a= nd read each one of the final reports and gain some good insight as to the = cause(s) of each.
 
 
Mark S.

 
On 4/18/07, = marv@lancair.net <marv@lancair.net> wrote:
Posted for Kevin Kossi= <kevin@airforcemechanic= al.com >:

Jeff,

Looking back, I see you had some very insight= ful comments on the guy who
flew into the Lake! (Before the Official Re= port was out)

You might think about pursuing a career in comedy.

You and I both know, the bottom line her is safety. Everyone learns= from
accidents in different ways. From the moment an accident happens,= we start to
wonder what happened, and start to form an opinion based o= n the available=20
information. Sure it would be nice to have a final report at hand when = you
start to formulate that opinion, but unfortunately it takes sometim= es years
before that happens. And in certain cases even when the final = report is=20
published, there is doubt about its conclusions.
Look at the TWA fli= ght 800 accident in 1996 with many witnesses including
Radar seeing a m= issile intercept, and the final report attributing the crash
to a fault= y fuel sensor that ignited the fuel tank.

No hard feelings.

Regards,
Kevin

[C'mon, guys,= let's not start another pissing contest here.  It's human nat= ure to attempt to fill in the blanks when initial and sketchy reports sugge= st many possible conclusions, and, like it or not, we all partake of the ac= tivity to one extent or another.  I guess the question is whether or n= ot we can actually benefit from uninformed speculation, and I further guess= that the answer is that it depends on what we each do with it.  Anyth= ing that raises our level of consciousness and/or motivates us to pay close= r attention to our equipment or flying habits and attitudes is most likely = a good thing... and learning something from others' mistakes definitely= qualifies, even if we don't know exactly what those mistakes, if any, = actually may have been.  Food for thought is always a good thing, and = that's really what we're dealing with here.  <marv, off soa= pbox>         ]

 

--

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


------=_Part_96913_23230449.1176911549444--