zoom's zooming againZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Actually your exactly right Bob .Here's what I said right from jaun's
source:

"It's not designed to fly without a fuselage cover," Slusarczyk said,
adding
that he hopes to visit Jackson, see the wreckage and confer with the
National
Transportation Safety Board to help determine the cause of the crash."

It wasn't designed to without a fuselage cover but I never said that's why
it
crashed.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret


Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about the
fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to infer
that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed to the
crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric

Ric wrote:

Actually your exactly right Bob .Here's what I said right from jaun's
source:

"It's not designed to fly without a fuselage cover," Slusarczyk said,
adding
that he hopes to visit Jackson, see the wreckage and confer with the
National
Transportation Safety Board to help determine the cause of the crash."

It wasn't designed to without a fuselage cover but I never said that's why
it
crashed.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret



Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about the
fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to infer
that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed to the
crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric


The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to
an earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote in message
news:uIkVe.18252$dm.10225@lakeread03...
Ric wrote:

Actually your exactly right Bob .Here's what I said right from jaun's
source:

"It's not designed to fly without a fuselage cover," Slusarczyk said,
adding
that he hopes to visit Jackson, see the wreckage and confer with the
National
Transportation Safety Board to help determine the cause of the crash."

It wasn't designed to without a fuselage cover but I never said that's
why it
crashed.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret



Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about
the fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to
infer that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed
to the crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric
The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to an
earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote in message
news:uIkVe.18252$dm.10225@lakeread03...
Ric wrote:

Actually your exactly right Bob .Here's what I said right from jaun's
source:

"It's not designed to fly without a fuselage cover," Slusarczyk said,
adding
that he hopes to visit Jackson, see the wreckage and confer with the
National
Transportation Safety Board to help determine the cause of the crash."

It wasn't designed to without a fuselage cover but I never said that's
why it
crashed.
Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret



Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about
the fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to
infer that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed
to the crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric
The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to an
earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, you are correct. "Imply" is the correct word. I need to read before
hitting the send button. If indeed the above statement was used out of
context it would be pertinent to post the whole interview .......maybe?

Ric, Australian Air Force, retired :0)

In article , Ric says...

Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about
the fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend to
infer that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have contributed
to the crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric
The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to an
earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, you are correct. "Imply" is the correct word. I need to read before
hitting the send button. If indeed the above statement was used out of
context it would be pertinent to post the whole interview .......maybe?

That statement like many statements I gave to the news media are edited.I talked
with quite a few media people during the first few days after the accident and
they only use a small portion of what you say.

As an example of mis information, during the first few days after the accident
the plane was reported to be ultralight, it was not.That it was bought in
Virginia, it was not. That it was a used plane ,it was not. That the engine quit
,it did not. That it crashed on take off ,it did not and that it probably
stalled and spun it did not. Rumors and speculation ran wild even on this
newsgroup.Those were only a few of the ones I heard and saw reported in the
media.

In my conversations with that reporter and other reporters I said that it was
way too soon to come to any conclusions and that information was still coming
in, some true some false .For example the truth was, the plane was actually
bought new ,that it was built in West Virginia,the accident occured during
landing, the engine was running and that it was a Hirth not a Rotax . I also
mentioned that we just recently learned that the plane was being flown without a
fuse cover.I said it wasn't designed to be flown that way but that I had flown
it without the cover years earlier during the test phase of the design.It was
just another tidbit of info, another piece of the puzzle that we were trying to
solve...

I was trying to impress on them that info will be forth coming for a long time
and it will take time to try and sort things out because anything else is pure
speculation.

I just returned this afternoon from Jackson Hole where I met with the NTSB and
we examined the wreckage together. We learned a few more bits of info but I'm
not at liberty to discuss it. A second report from the NTSB will be out in the
future and until then I can't and won't speculate on the crash .If we find
something of a safety related issue that could affect current Hawk owners I will
certainly alert them.

As far as posting the entire interview I doubt it exists ,I don't tape record my
conversations except for those I used to have with zoom .

Cheers

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...
In article , Ric says...

Just to play devils advocate here, you were talking to a reporter about
the fatal crash of one of you ultralight designs. If you didn't intend
to
infer that flying the ultralight without a fuselage may have
contributed
to the crash why on earth would you mention it?

Ric
The correct word would be "imply." I wasn't there, but I have seen
enough bad editing to wonder if his response may have partially been to
an
earlier question.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, you are correct. "Imply" is the correct word. I need to read before
hitting the send button. If indeed the above statement was used out of
context it would be pertinent to post the whole interview .......maybe?

That statement like many statements I gave to the news media are edited.I
talked
with quite a few media people during the first few days after the accident
and
they only use a small portion of what you say.

As an example of mis information, during the first few days after the
accident
the plane was reported to be ultralight, it was not.That it was bought in
Virginia, it was not. That it was a used plane ,it was not. That the
engine quit
,it did not. That it crashed on take off ,it did not and that it probably
stalled and spun it did not. Rumors and speculation ran wild even on this
newsgroup.Those were only a few of the ones I heard and saw reported in
the
media.

In my conversations with that reporter and other reporters I said that it
was
way too soon to come to any conclusions and that information was still
coming
in, some true some false .For example the truth was, the plane was
actually
bought new ,that it was built in West Virginia,the accident occured during
landing, the engine was running and that it was a Hirth not a Rotax . I
also
mentioned that we just recently learned that the plane was being flown
without a
fuse cover.I said it wasn't designed to be flown that way but that I had
flown
it without the cover years earlier during the test phase of the design.It
was
just another tidbit of info, another piece of the puzzle that we were
trying to
solve...

I was trying to impress on them that info will be forth coming for a long
time
and it will take time to try and sort things out because anything else is
pure
speculation.

I just returned this afternoon from Jackson Hole where I met with the NTSB
and
we examined the wreckage together. We learned a few more bits of info but
I'm
not at liberty to discuss it. A second report from the NTSB will be out in
the
future and until then I can't and won't speculate on the crash .If we find
something of a safety related issue that could affect current Hawk owners
I will
certainly alert them.

As far as posting the entire interview I doubt it exists ,I don't tape
record my
conversations except for those I used to have with zoom .

Cheers

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always better to get the
story from the horses mouth, so to speak :0)

Ric

Ric

In article , Ric says...
As far as posting the entire interview I doubt it exists ,I don't tape
record my
conversations except for those I used to have with zoom .

Cheers

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always better to get the
story from the horses mouth, so to speak :0)

Ric

Thanks some have called me worse than that:-)

See ya

Chuck(the right end of the horse) S

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Ric says...

As far as posting the entire interview I doubt it exists ,I don't tape
record my
conversations except for those I used to have with zoom .

Cheers

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret


Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always better to get the
story from the horses mouth, so to speak :0)

Ric


Thanks some have called me worse than that:-)

See ya

Chuck(the right end of the horse) S


Yep, I called you a gentleman once

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Why do you feel it necessary to quote over a hundred lines of text to give
your line and a half of wisdom? Did anybody ever teach you to SNIP????

Jim



"Ric" wrote in message
u...

Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always better to get the
story from the horses mouth, so to speak :0)

For crying out loud, Jim, don't get your panties in a knot...

RST Engineering wrote:
Why do you feel it necessary to quote over a hundred lines of text to give
your line and a half of wisdom? Did anybody ever teach you to SNIP????

Jim



"Ric" wrote in message
u...


Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply. It's always better to get the
story from the horses mouth, so to speak :0)