Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:02:11 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6023534@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.54; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [LML] WPR13FA076
From: Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6021452@logan.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <list-6021452@logan.com>

Instead of trashing someone is isn't around to defend himself, what =
would we prefaced the accident by speculating the guy flew this route =
regularly, was proficient in the airplane, had lots of current time, =
took care in his planning and when flying with his family, had checked =
wx and notams and fuel and all the things we are supposed to do.  What =
if someone said all those things were done and the pilot was normally a =
stickler for safety?   How about we start with that as an assumption =
instead of the pilot assumed to be "auto-deficient" as we see from the =
back benchers?

I think you owe this guy the courtesy of assuming he was a good pilot =
and look for circumstances that would take us all by surprise instead of =
the easy solution that he was a dolt.  I don't understand the need for =
speculation immediately that the pilot was not proficient or skilled or =
ignored rules.   Those early comments are really harsh considering the =
circumstances.  Shame on you guys.

Paul
Legacy=