"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.

You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
pilots?

If
further information shows that something happened that would have made
almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
opinion was incorrect and premature.

If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
negligence?

Pete