Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:43:30 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1312874@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.222; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net
From: "terrence o'neill" <troneill@charter.net>
References: <list-1312755@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: response to Terrence O'Neill's posting...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Skip,
    I'm sorry that you misunderstood my comment about the FAA 'babysitting' 
airliners.  The intent was to say that the airlines are not much safer than 
GenAv in spite of the fact that they have all these extra benefits: compete 
FAA congtrol of movement, latest technology, maxim um training, excellent 
experience ... as compared to the week-end Airknocker pilot.  Isn't that 
what I said? I don't think I implied you guys needed any baby-sitting.  The 
implicastion was that yhou were over-regulated, and didn't need as much as 
you have.
Read my comments to Mr. Jensen.
Terrence
N211AL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Skip Slater" <skipslater@earthlink.net>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 01:58 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: response to Terrence O'Neill's posting...


> Well said, Ed!
>   When I read Terrence's comments about airline pilots being "baby-sat" , 
> I just laughed at it's patent absurdity.  As a 17,000+ hour Captain for a 
> major airline and former Navy carrier pilot like yourself, that notion was 
> one I'd never heard before.  I have to wonder just who is supposed to be 
> doing the sitting???  I sure don't get any baby sitting when I'm being 
> evaluated during my recurrent simulator checks when they can throw any 
> emergency in the book at me.
>  Thanks for setting the record straight.
>   Skip Slater
>   N540ES
>
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>