First of all, you only quoted a small portion of my response to your senseless comment. (Carl, is that you? )

Secondly, you don't know anything about my military career(history). It discredits your post when you make assumptions to the fact.

Thirdly, although my comment - the only one you quoted - might've been slightly 'over the top', you WERE diminishing (discounting) the tragedy AND addressing the accident by referring to the fact that it was "all because the Captain was unable to perform a stall recovery." With that being said, my personal attack was not called for either.

Lastly, the answer to your question. "YES," we would still have FAR117, whether or not the accident (Colgan 3407) had happened like it did. Do you remember what happened a only one month prior to the Colgan accident? Do an internet research of Airbus landing in the Hudson river, in January 2009. (Ring a bell?)

Almost immediately after the accident of US Air 1549, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger started his work as an advocate for pilots and the safety of the profession. Shortly thereafter, the fatal results of the Colgan flight only helped to propel his cause that much further.

Would we have had FAR 117, effective Jan. 2014? Maybe not, but it was an eventuality, especially with the shortage coming to the regionals now. (One might even argue that FAR 117 has helped the profession, by not allowing operations like Great Lakes, Republic, etc. to hire the "250 wonders.")

So, by your "OVERSIMPLIFICATION" of the accident, you succeeded once again, to take a one-line attack ad on the tragedy. Have Slowplay and Sailingfun not given you enough material to attack them lately?

Good eve,

GJ