Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:49:45 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3090636@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.142; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: 
Thread-Index: AckEPfPnPcgI8/ihTNqCdJvRjcOtvQANyLRc
References: <list-3088145@logan.com>
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

Terrence wrote"
=20
"In other words, lets evaluate the designs rather than carp on more and =
more
training .... this group is fraught with very qualified pilots, and they =
are
having accidetns.  The cause, imho, is likely elsewhere."

Just wondering how he reaches the conclusion that we are, as a group =
including the accident pilots, very qualified when no evidence supports =
it.  Without even getting into the judgment issue, where all of the =
evidence suggests that the group referenced above is woefully deficient, =
Jeff's statistics show beyond any doubt that inadequate qualification in =
type is the most obvious common trait driving the accident statistics.

Technology is a marvelous thing  but it is not a substitute for training =
or judgment.

(I do wholeheartedly agree that the word "fraught" is apt, however.)