Absolutely nothing says that. Are you suggesting we put our thinking caps back in the closet because some of our brainstorming ideas cannot be 100% guaranteed before R&D begins?

This guy has got a bone to pick with JohnBurke. Doesn't matter what you say to him you are wrong.

He only had to dodge one large tree, in a grove of much smaller trees, at the end of a nice flat grassy open field. Two lousy degrees of steering would have been ample. It was quite a feat of his to put his plane down so gently in a grass field, being only able to see out the open side storm window. If anyone could have done it, he could have.

Yes, always use your shoulder harness, if your company has installed them in your plane. If it's your plane, and you don't have them, you should install them. But, no shoulder harness will protect you from a tree branch smashing through the windshield and penetrating your face.

Now that you've addressed the obvious potential shortcomings, do you have any constructive ideas?

I agree 100%

People don't like change. People are afraid of change. Pilots are people. I don't like change. I prefer steam gauges to glass panels. But if I continue to fly, eventually I'll have to change my attitude.

Pilots may have to change their attitudes about Lithium ion batteries, Mode S transponders, 406Mhz ELTs, PDAs, and even cameras.

You're the one whining about not having wings covered in seran wrap, mate. Your words. Live with them or eat them. Your choice.

Wow. With your attitude, one might think you had 25,000 hard earned hours.

You thought wrong, didn't you? What did you just say about "don't assume?"

The majority of the tanker fleet are Type III and IV tankers: single engine air tankers (SEATs). I was in one of them, and given that it had one engine, and given that the reason for the power loss was complete loss of engine oil, and given that I was directly behind the engine...you figure it out.

There were trees. And really big rocks. And power lines, and vehicles...and let's not forget the damn mountain...that was on fire.

Yes, you did, didn't you?

What would you know about that, at 250 hours?

Well, actually I didn't when you wrote this. I still had hope that he might become more constructive and less confrontational and insulting. I even hoped I might learn something from him.

But alas, after his last post, I better just not feed the trolls.

I guess actually, I did learn something from him.

John appears to have some good experience and knowledge to convey, he just hasn't learned to do so in a way which doesn't come across as - oh shall we say "in your face."

I'd put that down as a "growth area" for him as the HR people would say.

And to put something in on topic: I've never flown any of the SVS equipped aircraft, but IF the aircraft incorporated a camera view as part of a PFD I can see where it _might_ be useful in a vision-obscured type emergency. If the display was anywhere other than the PFD or HUD I'd think it would be worse than useless.

Sounds likr someone put too much oil in their pt6.... You really should not fill it past the minimum line since it will just burn it. The min line is only like 2 or 3 quarts(correct me if im wrong its been a few years). But also a catastrphic engine failure in a van?? Thats just not rare, that windscreen is so large i dont think i could vomit and cover it. Also at 35mph thats gotta be one big branch to not only go through that big windscreen but to breakbone... After going thrpugh that big fan and pt6.

Overservicing the PT6 damages seals. The engine doesn't "burn" oil. It's not a piston motor. One should not service a PT6 to the minimum. Generally one keeps it at the 1-2 mark on the dipstick, which is one or two quarts below full.

It doesn't take a lot of oil to obscure vision; a fine mist or spray will make it difficult to see out the windscreen. Turbine oil from a PT6 isn't like piston oil, however, and doesn't come out black; it's fairly clear (slightly bluish/purplish in tint).

The poster to whom you're responding has described a catastrophic engine failure. Material striking the windshield (and subsequently entering the cockpit) doesn't ever need to "make it through the PT6" and the "big fan" already quit working...that's part of the reason it's an engine failure, you see.

Never had a bird strike on the cockpit, that's made it past the propeller? I certainly have...hundreds of times. That's hundreds. As for striking objects during the roll-out...of course it happens with some regularity during a forced landing. This is surprising?

You can put it down to whatever you want, but my comments are deliberate and intentional, and made without apology. Do your own growing.

Quite the contrary. I come across exactly as I intend. That you may or may not like it is meaningless and irrelevant. Simply put, I don't care.