X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:44:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [204.13.112.10] (HELO mail1.hometel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTPS id 999796 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:00:37 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.13.112.10; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com Received: (qmail 95033 invoked by uid 90); 27 Feb 2006 15:20:23 -0000 Received: from dsl-stj-204-13-118-2.stj.hometel.com (HELO MARKNLISA) (204.13.118.2) by mail.hometel.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2006 15:20:23 -0000 From: "Mark & Lisa" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: Dangerous Attitudes X-Original-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:21 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Wes, I suggest reading the following articles: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-99/03-05-99/a06wn024.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/cavalese-cable-car-disaster I'm a 20-year USAF veteran. I can tell you from personal experience that accident investigations are handled far differently than criminal investigations. Criminal investigations seek to lay blame; accident investigations seek facts to prevent future accidents -- two very different goals. Ordinarily, reports derived from interviews and investigations conducted by a safety board are used exclusively for accident prevention -- they are not usable in criminal proceedings, although they sometimes show up in civil actions. This convention provides those involved protection from self-incrimination so that safety investigators can get the facts. BTW, the use of safety investigation reports in tort cases has made safety investigators' jobs that much harder. Anyone with a modicum of foresight knows they can be named in a lawsuit and their testimony to the accident investigator might just show up in the courtroom. As you might imagine, this can have a rather chilling affect on one's desire to "prevent future accidents." I can't say what the Judge and panel on this case intended by aquitting the pilot, but I have my opinion... the US did avoid quite a mess. Had the pilot been convicted, then the USMC, and by default, the US Government, would also have been guilty. With victims' families already seeking damages, how would this have played out in the Italian courts? You believe that the crew's decisions and behavior on this flight were legal and proper based on the results of the criminal proceeding. I submit that your opinion would be far different if you had access to the accident investigation report. Mark & Lisa Sletten Legacy FG N828LM http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com Posted for Wesley Hunt : Your facts regarding the EA6B incident are completely incorrect. The crew was involved in a low level, authorized mission that followed the flight plan. The military routinely conducts such training to achieve and maintain flight skills required for combat. The altitudes and air speeds were within the expected limits for such training. The cause of the accident was that the gondola cable was not depicted on the DOD charts provided for the aircrew. All the facts of the incident were throughly reviewed by the Court Marshal and the pilot and other aircrew were exonerated of all charges, except concealing evidence. To state that this is an example of "rogue" flying behavior is simply incorrect, unless you believe that routine low level flight training conducted by the USAF, USN and USMC constitutes "rogue" behavior.