If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
I said "if you don't go to mins". You say that you do, so what's your
problem? You must be a troll, without a name...a touchy one at that... On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:59:01 GMT, wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:13:41 GMT, Bill Zaleski wrote: My post doesn't have any abusive language in it. Why does yours? It was probably motivated by this gratuitous assertion of yours: you are cheating your students and charging too much, |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and kill all hangar talk among pilots. Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who isn't. We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing. They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity. (this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant) Scott Moore wrote: Tom Fleischman wrote: If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing new. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
That's an unfortunate setup. On my GNC 300XL setup the VOR/GPS switch
is overriden by tuning in an ILS freq. I can't display the GPS CDI when an ILS freq is tuned. I think it was an option during the installation but 'recommended' Peter R. wrote: Gary Drescher wrote: Not at all suggesting that this was the case, but at our local flight school that has all late model C172SPs equipped with B/K KLN-94 GPS's and moving maps, a number of students over the last few years have been known to forget to toggle the NAV/GPS switch from GPS to NAV when transitioning from en route to ILS approach. As you know, when this happens the VOR1 instrument would show the CDI alive (but really tracking the GPS's course for the localizer). The glideslope needle, however, would be flagged and remain perfectly centered, as if the pilot were flying a perfect glideslope. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Fleischman wrote:
Baloney, it contains a lot that is new. 1 - There was communication with the tower throughout the approach and the pilot was WARNED that he was too low and continued to descend anyway. So ? If the instructor was in the cockpit drinking beer with the student and jerking off with a magazine, that hardly bears on the *ridiculous* conclusion made here that somehow this flight *never should have been made* because it involved because it involved a student and a pilot flying IFR. The status of the passenger was irrelivant, he/she could have been sightseeing for all I care. If the instructor was current, then he/she could fly IFR. 2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to be PIC on that flight. 3 - There was nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems that could be evaluated on the preliminary report suggesting that a mechanical problem was not a likely cause. 4 - It appears that American Flyers is incapable of even keeping track of the medical currency of their instructors, a fairly simple task. That is gross negligence IMHO. I don't know where you get the idea that I have set myself up as judge and jury on this. Obviously you have not been reading my other posts on the subject. But the more information that comes out on this crash the more disturbing it becomes. Now, what's YOUR agenda here? Eh? So maybe the pilot screwed up. Maybe American fryers did. Whats the bearing on IFR safety here ? "I'm sorry, I'm from the FAA, you can't go IFR with that student" "but hes not a student, hes just a passenger" "well, thats ok then...." BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low, and the instructor knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what he was doing about it (if anything). That's an example of your being "judge and jury" here. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Maule Driver" wrote in message om... Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk. Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and kill all hangar talk among pilots. Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who isn't. We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing. They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity. (this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant) No rant at all--your post is a good perspective on usenet in general and this issue in particular... |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Moore writes: [...] BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low, and the instructor knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what he was doing about it (if anything). That's an example of your being "judge and jury" here. Tell me, just how much information would you require the feds to put on paper before allowing yourself to form and state an educated opinion about the wisdom of this flight? - FChE |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Scott Moore writes: [...] BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low, and the instructor knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what he was doing about it (if anything). That's an example of your being "judge and jury" here. Tell me, just how much information would you require the feds to put on paper before allowing yourself to form and state an educated opinion about the wisdom of this flight? - FChE Me ? Actually, never. Fortunately, nobody asks my opinion. Our yours, either, for that matter. Before calling any dead pilot an idiot, I recommend everyone take a good look in the mirror. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Sound like a needle using junkie you do.
Peter R. wrote: During minor outpatient surgery many years ago I was hooked up to an IV and awaiting the arrival of the doctor. With nothing else to occupy my mind, I started to imagine what the IV needle must have looked like inside my vein, the tip of the submerged needle pressing against the inside wall of the vein and the suger-water dripping out of the point to mix with my blood, creating a pinkish hue as the mixture was carried off downstream. The image in my mind was so vivid I then passed out. :-) .....I had to digress |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Sound like a needle using junkie you do.
Sound like Yoda *you* do. -- Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report | Ace Pilot | Piloting | 2 | June 10th 04 01:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Wellston Crash Report Quote | EDR | Piloting | 26 | November 21st 03 10:50 PM |
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 26th 03 01:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |