Trial by newspaper

"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

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.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
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.

This is the new (well, from earlier this year) Google interface. If
you just hit the reply button, your reply will not contain any quoted
material unless you put it in manually. If you want the full-featured
reply Hit "show options", THEN hit "reply" and you will get a reply
window with the full quoted text of the post your are replying to.

Piece of cake once you know where to find it.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Hm, when I click Reply in Google Groups, I automatically get the previous
post conventionally quoted in the new message window. Perhaps this is a
settable option, but offhand I don't see where it's set.

--Gary

On 12/14/2005 14:54, Tom Conner wrote:

"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.



The news reader I used allows me to see each thread which includes
unread messages. It excludes threads that have no unread messages.
This cuts way down on the clutter but still allows me to see the
entire thread.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

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.

I've been blogging about the incident with all the factual data I can find.
The ceiling was holding steady at 300 feet, the visibility was ranging
between 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile. FAA minimum for 31C was 250 feet and a RVR of
4000, which apparently was met. It's been mentioned in this newsgroup that
the heads up display would have enabled an approach down to 3000 RVR, but
that's not confirmed.

In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
Burbank accident.

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

"Montblack" wrote in message ...
I start with a clean slate a couple of times a day. If a post pops up without supporting references, I'm
left guessing ------ RMG!! :-)

("Mark Hansen" wrote)
Why is that better? Are you trying to save disk space?


You're not going to start changing my computer around now, like a certain innkeeper did over Thanksgiving,
are you? g ...new messages go to the BOTTOM!

I don't like a cluttered tree of read posts and unread posts. Too overwhelming - searching for a better word.

I delete all of the posts in a newsgroup, at one time, then plow through the next batch when I pull them up.
I do this a couple of times per day. I read more posts this way - the other way, I look at the intermixed
thread-tree mess and say "screw it," as often as not.

Newsgroup/Properties/Local Files/Delete


Do you know about "read next unread"? Control-U and/or add the "Next Unread" button to your button bar...