>>I am in the unfortunate position to understand exactly what Mr. Ralston is feeling.

Unless you lost an arm, I doubt that very much.

>>Last summer I had an accident which totaled my helicopter at the 5,200 foot line on a local mountain.

Any chance you would share with us the reason for this? Was it something incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid, or was it an unforeseeable fluke? Or somewhere in between? Ran out of gas? Continued VFR into IFR conditions? Scud-running through a mountain pass? Mechanical failure? Hit by a meteor from outer space?

>>The Search and Rescue technicians in the high cover aircraft saw fit to photograph the wreck and send it to the two local papers with circulations in excess of a half a million copies daily.

If true, I consider that a gross breach of professional ethics. If they were military, I hope they were court-martialled; if they were civilians, I hope they were fired.

>>While I sympathize with Mr. Ralston, a lot of the public's money was spent searching for him.

I thought that was why we pay taxes – to provide services to the public.

>>Mr. Elberger, your client and his law suit threat look ridiculous from the common person's point of view.

I guess that makes me an uncommon person. I saw nothing ridiculous – I saw a private citizen who objected to the way his name was being used. It was a private communication to Mr. Ritter; neither Mr. Ralston nor Mr. Elberger should be held responsible for the fact that Mr. Ritter decided to use his position to publicise it.

>>It has also occurred to me that his motives may be to control this whole issue and somehow profit by the sale of movie rights or some such thing.

“MAY BE” are the operative words in this statement. This is pure speculation on your part.

>>Mr. Ritter, I am solidly behind you. You have every right and possibly even a duty to advise people of this incident and how the consequences and costs could have been avoided.

Mr. Ritter could have done this equally well without portraying Mr. Ralston as a stupid, money-grubbing opportunist, which is grossly unfair, especially since Mr. Ralston’s motivation in sending the letter may have been his concern that people would incorrectly think he was making a commercial endorsement. (MAY HAVE BEEN being the operative words, I suppose, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.)

>>Thousands of people view your web site and are better prepared because of it. My aircraft was carrying survival gear, food, water and a satellite phone, partly inspired by your site.

Mr. Ralston was carrying three days worth of water for a one-day hike. He obviously had adequate survival supplies and first aid training. What point are you trying to make here?

>>Perhaps if Mr. Ralston spent more time reading about survival

You may not have noticed this, Dean, but Mr. Ralston actually survived. Therefore, I’m not sure on what grounds you question his knowledge of survival.

>>and less time thinking of whom he can sue, or more money on gear and less on lawyers, he may have been better Equipped to Survive.

Oh, yeah. Whenever I go back-packing in the Rockies, I always carry a one-handed hydraulic jack, just in case an 800-pound rock lands on my arm. I can’t imagine what this dumbo was thinking, going out without his hydraulic jack. (That’s sarcasm, for those who failed to notice.)