Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:15:35 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-608063@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=148.78.247.122; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Another LNC2 Down
References: <list-607746@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Barry Hancock wrote:

> Guys, all of your comments are right on target. It does not take away 
> from what's being said, but let's remember we are dealing with *very* 
> preliminary information. We do not know if he lost power, etc. 

I second the notion of holding off blaming the pilot or speculating on 
what happened till we know a little more.  Was there an engine failure? 
Some other mechanical problem?  A mid-air with a bird?  A medical 
problem?  Was this at the end of a 4 hour flight at 12,500 with no 
oxygen resulting in impaired pilot judgment?  We need to wait for more 
facts, rather than creating our own facts by repeating speculations -- 
theories and speculations, when repeated enough, can and do take on the 
authenticity of facts.

I have had the opportunity to review the data from the CFS system in a 
few accidents (this is NOT one of them) and the one thing that really 
stands out for me in all of them is that the initial speculation in the 
media and aviation mailing lists has been just that, speculation, and 
often very far off from the truth.  Yes, the pilot should not have been 
that far below the glide slope, but lets not speculate as to how or why 
he got there.

Regards,

Hamid