wrote in
:

On Aug 5, 4:13*pm, More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:31*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:66-

Other than it was the final outcome of a flight that in itself
would violation of the child endangerment laws of most states?
Not much.

you dont know that.

Your name Lynch, by any chance?

What don't I know? There is little doubt that the flight ended in
an accident.

I note you say accident not incident. What you don't know is if he
was a skilled pilot and the extent to which improper operation
contributed to the incident. He didn't stall but carried out a
controlled crash landing apparently. Not a bad outcome for engine
loss over a wooded area -suggesting some skill doncha think?

Cheers

It's hard to argue with the fact that the crash was a success. The
question is would it have been more likely avoided had the PIC
undergone PPL training. Even well trained pilots make mistakes, but we
often read here of pilot wannabes who, without the training, just
don't understand some of the realities of flying an airplane. The PICs
lack of competence as demonstrated to an examiner opens a pretty wide
door for speculation, wouldn't you agree?

Do you remember the JFK Jr crash? Nearly all of us came to the early
conclusion that was later found to be the primary reason for the
accident. It may not be a duck but if it walks like one and talks like
one, to use a tired phrase, the rebuttable assumption is pretty
obvious.

I'm sure there's much more to be learned, but this is not an accident
review board, it's the 'net. The interesting thing of course is even
in the face of whatever of objective evidence is found, some of us
will stick to our own conclusions. Why let facts intrude?

.



Xachery.

bertie