1. Why should the extraordinary effort to ensure no crossing runway traffic exists be the sole responsibility of just the glider aviation activity at KLGC?
2. Wouldn't the Baron pilot have overreacted similarly if the aborting traffic on Rwy 3 had been, say, a Cessna 172?
3. Why didn't the NTSB report discuss how locally mandated, non-standard airport procedures can be detrimental to safety of flight by counterintuitively conflicting with established, FAA mandated procedures, especially at uncontrolled airports where such standard procedures must be universally assumed and relied upon?
4. Why wasn't KLGC/Airport Authority/City of LaGrange/Troup County named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not ensuring all operators were 1) aware of "their" local airport rules and 2) that such local rules were were being adhered to?
5. Why wasn't Beechcraft Aircraft Corporation/Textron Aviation named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not building a foolproof airplane?5. Did the airport authority involve the CAP & glider club in the local rules making process?
6. Did the airport authority ever formally notify the CAP & glider club about the local rules pertaining to glider flying at KLGC?
7. Considering personnel/membership changeover, does the airport authority periodically remind the CAP & Glider club of the local rules pertaining to glider flight at KLGC?
8. Why wasn't the estate of the Baron's pilot in command not a named defendant due to his negligence by not maintaining situational awareness and aircraft control?
9. Why wasn't the estate of the CFI onboard the Baron not a named defendant due to his negligence by not ensuring situational awareness and safety of flight, not to mention performing his flight duty while having methadone in his system?
10. Why was is never mentioned that common side affects of the antihistamines found in the Baron pilot's system are dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision?
11. Why did the court summarily dismiss the possibility [probability] the CAP operation made a takeoff radio call when witness testimony stated that CAP CTAF use was "constant"?
12. Why did the court summarily dismiss expert witness testimony that the Baron's "lift detector" (stall warning system?) was inoperative based on the [il]logic *because it always worked just fine before*?
13. How could a judge (or jury?) have read the NTSB report and still conclude the "cause" of the Baron crashing was strictly the towplane/glider abort?

Seems the burden of guilt continues to be squarely laid upon the CAP glider op, and that just ain't right in so many ways...

Ray Cornay