Angry

"Hilton" wrote in message
news
There is no point in being angry. I'm not angry about this delibrately.
It makes me angry to hear about two kids who will never grow up to see
their teens, never go on a first date, never get married, etc

So it's the hearing about it that makes you angry?

I still don't get it. News like this is all around us. Kids die every day,
usually as a result of far more heinous circumstances. A person getting
angry at the deaths, or of the news of the deaths (whichever) would have to
be angry every single day of their life.

[...]
Using the same logic, I shouldn't feel any emotion when I transport a 2
year-old girl who has organ problems to hospital. Using the same logic, I
shouldn't feel any emotion when this girl runs up and gives me a big bear
hug and kisses me on the cheek.

Using the same logic? Uh...right. You should double-check your reference
on "logic".

I'm not talking about personal experiences. I'm not saying one should leave
emotion behind. I'm saying that it makes no sense to get all emotionally
entangled with events that have absolutely nothing to do with you, that are
simply a part of every day life, that occur on a regular basis.

To sign up for doing that, you leave no room for your own personal
experiences, nor your own personal happiness.

Using the same logic, I would be emotionally dead and with all due respect
Pete, I prefer having my eyes swell up with tears of joy helping on an
Angel Flight.

Your "conclusion" doesn't use any logic, never mind "the same logic". The
two situations are entirely irrelevant of each other.

Anyway, I guess you've answered my question. I still don't comprehend being
angry about something like this (unless you're actually related to the
parties involved or something like that), but obviously each individual is
welcome to feel whatever they like. Sorry if my questioning seems like
pointless interference. I just didn't understand why the subject was
"Angry".

Pete

Robert M. Gary wrote:
A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in
similar
conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
? Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when
they
tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into
the
valley).

Were they on an IFR clearance?

No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.

Was this recent accident on an IFR clearance?

FAA records show that the pilot did not have an instrument rating - now
those records are a little old, so he may have. Prelim FAA data show that
the pilot did get a weather briefing, but it does not show him on an IFR
flight plan. (Again, this data is often wrong).


Sounds like you have more information about this situation
than the rest of us.

I followed the accident pretty closely. I was watching the weather
conditions the whole week. San Jose was completely 'socked in' for days -
Sacramento/Modesto etc area was clear though so I'm sure that was tempting.
I watched the radar plot immediately afterwards and they stayed really low,
followed Hwy 101 and then took a left at the reservoir. It was a typical
scud run for about 20 minutes or so. I saw the accident area several times,
it is right on the RHV to Harris Ranch run. The CFI made numerous claims
including that he wasn't monitoring the altitude, that the plane was on fire
prior to the accident, and that he was just a passenger and not the CFI at
the time. The NTSB (correctly IMHO) rejected those claims.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...03FA187&rpt=fi

Hilton

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
sexual relation with that woman..."


Maybe I am wrong about this, but I have never understood this "lying"
argument that justified the impeachment. If I remember correctly, the judge
in the case where Clinton lied specifically ruled, that for the purpose of
the trial, sex was only considered to be intercourse.

While his answer was evasive, it was accurate in regard to the trial.

The point is that we don't know if the recent accident occured on an
IFR clearance. Since we don't know that, I don't see how we can compare
the two. Skud running through the mountains at night is not the same
thing as being on an IFR clearance.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maybe I am wrong about this [...]

You are not wrong.

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...

No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.


Doesn't sound like they were too concerned about legalities. Scud running
all the way from RHV along Hwy 101 below 500' would surely run afoul of FAR
91.119.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous

Tell that to an F-16 pilot.

OK, show me one.


Jack

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:31:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Hilton" wrote in message
link.net...

No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.


Doesn't sound like they were too concerned about legalities. Scud running
all the way from RHV along Hwy 101 below 500' would surely run afoul of FAR
91.119.

I'm confused. Was that how they originally got to South County
Airport? (Q99)

Q99 was the departure point immediately before the crash, and the
crash scene (going by a map in the newspaper) was 2 miles away, into
rising terrain, more or less along a crosswind departure leg, assuming
a takeoff to the south. That'd be orthogonal to 101.

The accident report says the departure point was "Santa Clara," but
that's just part of Q99's full name.

I apologize if I'm trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs here.

Don

beavis wrote:

In article . com,
Robert M. Gary wrote:


I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
sexual relation with that woman..."


Well, Bush sat down, raised his hand, and said, "I do solemnly swear
that I will...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

He hasn't.

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?


Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Ejection seats don't necessarily guarantee safety. My father died after
ejection.

Didn't say they did. They do increase the odds of survival as compared
to an off-airport landing in a fighter.


Matt