Trial by newspaper

Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

Dudley, they will get an answer when the NTSB releases the
report. Until then, the discussion here is just to get
pilots of all types, thinking about what and how to avoid it
happening again before the NTSB releases a and the FAA and
airline amend their regulations and procedures [that will
take years longer].

On the subject of your posts, you can set your newsreader to
include the message you're replying to, in Outlook Express
on the Send tab (Tools/Options) Include Message in Reply...


You can edit this, but still include enough useful info,
such as name and context of the message...


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Dudley
|
| I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry
if it came
| off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your
sentiments about
| lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the
victim in
| question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian
at the
| airport property. I did not suggest that the victims
parents should sue
| SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an
answer as to
| why this freak accident happened.
|

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?

Certainly an examination of the event is warranted. The accident did
happen. But newspapers and lawyers tend to assess blame long before
the real cause is known and seldom get facts correct.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.

So trial by newgroup is any better?


At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
99.999% of the media.)

Jay B

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:30:14 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:22:39 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
A superior product for reading Usenet in my opinion is Forte Agent
available free he http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php


I tried Forte Agent a long time ago. I didn't like it - don't recall why.

Like any new software, there is a learning curve to surmount. But
it's worth the effort in my opinion.

You'll have to do a bit of configuring (POP address, NNTP address, ISP
user ID and password, ...) to get started. Then you need to get a
list of all the newsgroups your news server provides.

I'll give it another look.

That's the spirit.

Be advised that if you want killfile capability, the lite version
won't do. You need to purchase the full-blown version. That's what I
did. (I'd have been happy with trn, but, hey, I'm running XP and this
is the Century of the Fruit-Bat.)

Don

However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

I don't know that it was a "freak" accident. I think the pilots should have
saw this coming a 100 miles away. Tailwind, snow and ice covered runway,
short runway, low visibility, large fast aircraft, no over run with a
densely developed and populated area immediately after the airport barrier
fence. If the reverse thrusters or spoilers didn't work that only put the
icing on the cake that was already baked.

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

Kobra

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

Then manually cut and paste, choosing what you wish to reply to.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques

Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there
is no thread to follow.