X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:18:25 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-951878@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7f)
  with ESMTP id 951583 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:45:06 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.35; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (really [68.5.74.52]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP
          id <20060124054148.QGAA17690.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@[10.0.1.2]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:41:48 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <list-951532@logan.com>
References: <list-951532@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-37-860453612
X-Original-Message-Id: <a0db0df7ff72885f6b305a65ad551705@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Low Passes
X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:44:03 -0800
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623)


--Apple-Mail-37-860453612
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed


On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:32 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:

> Statistic do not lie. 1/3 of all Navy/ Marine Corps/ Air Force losses 
> are controlled flight into terrain.

And what percentage of CFIT is a result of flat hatting an airport?  
Statistics sound impressive, but are weak unless put in proper 
perspective and supported by relevant data.

Look, I'm not at all advocating flat hatting.  Flying low to the ground 
does pose inherent risk....but just like anything in flying, IF you 
truly understand the hazards/risks of what you are doing (in this case 
velocity vectors and escape plans being two big ones), you can mitigate 
the risk.

Barry

--Apple-Mail-37-860453612
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII



On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:32 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Statistic do not
lie. 1/3 of all Navy/ Marine Corps/ Air Force losses are controlled
flight into terrain.

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>

And what percentage of CFIT is a result of flat hatting an airport? 
Statistics sound impressive, but are weak unless put in proper
perspective and supported by relevant data.    


Look, I'm not at all advocating flat hatting.  Flying low to the
ground does pose inherent risk....but just like anything in flying, IF
you <italic><underline>truly</underline></italic> understand the
hazards/risks of what you are doing (in this case velocity vectors and
escape plans being two big ones), you can mitigate the risk.  


Barry


--Apple-Mail-37-860453612--