On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:16:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until
right at the end.

It was a good flight until the terrorists burst into the cockpit and drove
the plane into the ditch. And yeah, I'd give the keys to the plane back to
the proven pilots - but I'd strengthen the cockpit door.

Acvtually, the plane was in an uncontrollable oscillation virtually
from the moment of takeoff, but all the instruments were "fudged" to
make it look like straight and level flight, and the controls all
crossed up. When the captain who had "fudged" the instruments and
screwed with the controls handed the controls over to the new captain
for landing, all hell broke loose. Trying to lock onto the ILS when
flying upside-down at VNE with aelerons, flaps, rudders and elevators
dissabled and/or the controls crossed up made for an "interesting
ride"

The definition of a good landing?
One you can walk away from
Definition of an excellent landing?
One where the plane survives to fly another day.

I'd say it was an AWFULL flight, and a landing that could have been a
lot worse.

Too bad Obama wasn't a "captain Sully" who could pull off a flawless
river ditching. Sully had had a WHOLE LOT more experience.

Given the circumstances, I'd say he did pretty darn good.