C.D.Damron wrote:
Dennis,

While the language is losing it specificity due to improper usage and the
incorporation of distorted definitions in modern dictionaries, there is
general agreement that the words, "fact", "truth", and "honesty" are not
synonomous.

You often select factual statements in an attempt to prove some larger truth
or your own honesty. The omission of critical facts makes it possible to
present factual statements while failing to be truthful or honest.


C.D.
I believe that is what I'm here about, but the other way around. It is
some people here that are making posts that are incomplete so that they
take on a bad meaning. That is a fact, just read my responses over the
last few days.


You are so proud of those FAA accident reports that reach a conclusion of
pilot error. Both civil and military accident reports use a rather strict
standard in establishing whether an accident was the result of pilot error.
In short, the approach is to determine if the pilot could have done anything
at any point to avoid an accident - EVEN IF FACTORS BEYOND THE PILOT'S
CONTROL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION. As a result, poor design and
production can significantly contribute to an accident that is eventually
attributed to pilot error.


Please, name some of those factors that the government forgot to mention.

None of the accidents were caused by the design or flight
characteristics of the Mini-500, how simple can that be? The helicopter
had great flight characteristics compared to any helicopter. People love
the way it fly's. Kin Armstrong of Kitplanes magazine did a flight
review and said it had no bad characteristics, on the contrary he said
it had very good flight characteristics. So if no parts failed that were
installed properly and it flew fine, where is it the fault of the
aircraft or it's designer if it crashes due to strictly pilot error or
maintenance error, or stupidity?


Pilot error is not some trump card you can throw down on the table. So yes,
I think you are less than truthful or honest when you insist that pilot
error absolves you of any responsibility.


I'm not insisting, the reports are insisting. The facts are insisting.
The cause of the accidents are insisting. I will be the first to stand
up and say this accident is my fault, if it were. But if I did that
would be a lie. Now, if it would make you feel better to hear me say so
just because, forget it. I will if it was my fault, but it has not been
my fault. If you want someone to be sacrificed just for the fun of it,
then why don't you take the blame. Why not, your as guilty as I am.


The realm of experimental aviation further complicates the validity of such
accident reports. The reason for this is pretty obvious, the FAA is
trained to investigate accidents involving certified aircraft. As a result,
they will make assumptions about experimental aircraft based on their
limited training and experience.

For example, if I build a plane that is impossible to fly or a helicopter
that cannot be auto-rotated, it is still very possible that an accident
report could conclude that I was at fault for not avoiding a stall or not
successfully performing an auto-rotation. Why? Because the FAA makes
certain assumptions about experimental aircraft that are not supported by
any basis in reality.


Well if that were the case that the Mini-500 would not autorotate, then
yes, that would be a serious design flaw and I would be responsible. But
that is not the case, the Mini-500 autorotates better that most helicopters.


When I have a little more time, I would be happy to rehash the lies.


If you could just put forth one piece of evidence to substantiate your
accusations would be very helpful in giving you something to argue
about. But that has not been the case. So I'm afraid that what you are
saying is worthless and lacking.

Dennis Fetters