Judah wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Judah wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip


He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying
the airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.


I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,

either

he was suicidal or he was disoriented.

That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using.

If

the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in
control.

Matt


The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.

This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
completely irrelevant.

I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
control to any great extent.


Matt