"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in
:

Sure the chute worked as advertised. Great.

What irks me is how and why the aircraft experienced all these
instrument failures one right after another. If any of our
Pipers/Cessnas/Beechcrafts had a propensity to experience near
simultaneous failures of supposedly separate systems there would be an
uproar. Fresh off a maintenance visit or not, sounds like a dangerous
design of single-to-many points of failures. With an airframe serial
number of 80, I am assuming this was not a glass cockpit.

Did this strike anyone else as bothersome?

Marco





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers
- Total Privacy via Encryption =---


propensity

n 1: an inclination to do something; "he felt leanings toward frivolity"
[syn: leaning, tendency] 2: a natural inclination; "he has a proclivity
for exaggeration" [syn: proclivity, leaning] 3: a disposition to behave
in a certain way; "the aptness of iron to rust"; "the propensity of
disease to spread" [syn: aptness]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



I don't believe that the after action report of a single instance of a
action meets the definition of propensity. It also remains to be seen
just what happened here. Did the instruments fail, or did the pilot not
believe the indications?