Emergency landing at Meigs Sunday

Michael 182 wrote:
You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
there wasn't enough information to make a decision.

Good grief! What sort of graduate school was this and where?

There is always more to know.

Yes, there is. However, often one has access to substantial
information, and can draw a reasonable conclusion based on the
data presented.

However, in this case, at the time you made your post, hardly
anything was known about the situation in question.

If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
that's most unfortunate.

My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.

As a general precept, I grant it.

However, you appeared to be making it as a specific analysis of
a specific situation -- the plane which landed at Meigs, reportedly
after an electrical failure.

As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

If your graduate school courses encouraged you to theorize and
conclude in the absence of data, I find that most regrettable
and somewhat discouraging.

Always a pleasure to be guided by you, however.

On the evidence of these posts, how would you know? *g*

Sydney

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:27:55 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:
You know, when I went to graduate school all the courses were case study.
You got an automatic "F" if you ever handed in a paper that concluded that
there wasn't enough information to make a decision.
[snip]

If your graduate education discouraged you from recognizing a
situation where there's inadequate data to reach a conclusion,
that's most unfortunate.

On first reading, I assumed it was one of those cases of disconnect
between academia and the so-called real world ("consider a spherical
cow").

OTOH, it does make some sense. You have to draw some conclusion with
the information available. So, you have to rely on preconcieved data
to prejudge the situation. Waitaminute, isn't that...


My comment that "a failed alternator hardly
qualifies as an emergency landing situation" is absolutely correct.

As a general precept, I grant it.

Hairsplitting, perhaps, but you're relying on some default assumptions:
VMC, no smoke in the cockpit, no loose bits of metal flying around
inside the cowling, maybe a working battery with lots of charge, a not
too busy airspace, proficient pilot not relying on electronic
navigation... (you know, conditions where someone might fly an airplane
that doesn't have an electrical system in the first place...)

Given the situation of someone electing to make an off-field
precautonary landing, I'd default to assume it was a reasonable
decision until knowing the particulars.

But in the end, all that matter are the particulars.

As a specific assessment of a specific situation, in the absence
of all but a few newspaper sentences, it's clearly flawed.

Agreed.


Morris