Originally Posted by TTex600
Airplane that must be flown in a degraded state has no business in the sky.
True. What does it have to do with AF447? If thirty crews goes through ordeal unscathed, if somewhat clumsily, and one makes a catastrophe out of failure is it really an aeroplane issue? I'm not suggesting that crew arrived to their demise without help from outside, as once was said and should be often repeated:
Originally Posted by author unknown
Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Not everyone can be a skygod. It must be good to be you.
I'm merely a skytoddler and it really is good to be me, which is not the subject of the thread. Who or what is anyone discussing AF447 has no bearing on the facts of the case, it's just experts can deliver them more precisely.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Yes, I and most every pilot I know is somewhat above your "average Joe", we just don't wear it on our sleeve.
Why should we? Above averageness is not for public display (or forum talk), it is required when quick and correct evaluation of the situation, folowed by proper and timely action makes difference between going home after landing or becoming top story on CNN.
Originally Posted by Organfreak
The entirety of Clandestino's post was breath-takingly arrogant, not for the first time, eitther.
I'd rather have my posts checked for accuracy than arrogance but I can live with such an evaluation.