A320 Crash

[Sweper]

Nope. Sorry, it's too late. You're one of '"us" now. Welcome to the club Sven.

[SkyPup]

Utterly stunned over the Alps air disaster. For a pilot to commit mass murder is just incomprehensible, especially when I think of those families and kids on board.

[DD_Brando]

Utterly stunned over the Alps air disaster. For a pilot to commit mass murder is just incomprehensible, especially when I think of those families and kids on board.

 

Yup. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the loss of a child is something that the parents never recover from

[gec]

BTW, Gecster, do try to show up occasionaly; we enjoy the company.

Oh, and BTW I apreciate the adultness of this conversation. Time will tell how far that goes on.........

 

I should m8. I really should. I miss u guys a lot.

 

Still did not buy a new joystick but I'll stop buy as soon i get one.

[Sid]

Bad timing.

 

The advert was on the London Underground and was taken down the same day, hopefully before too much upset.

[Kira]

Please, I'd rather run the risk, than have all them 'Merican 'rules', behaviours, and wotnots over here already... sure it will happen in the end, but let us please enjoy our feeling of 'freedom' while it lasts... as long as possible! (Oh Carp, we're already there.... I'll just keep on not realising... la lal lla llal lla  lalala)

 

 

Thanks!

 

That's the way a lot some of us over on this side of the pond think as well.  The chances of a catastrophic event are so small that to take everyone's freedom away in an attempt to mitigate and legalize the inherent danger out of life...  Well, at some point it just gets supid.  Yet that's exactly what's happening. 

 

On the other hand, take look at a somewhat recent crash test with regards to motor vehicle safety where they crashed a museum quality 1950's car and a late 90's early 2000s (whenever the test was done) car. A majority of the extra cost of the new design (adjusted for inflation) went into safety features, and the results were, of course, predictable.  Go back and look at the records from the 1950s and you'll find that roadway vehicle crashes resulted in a much larger percentage of deaths in the 1950s than it does today. Part of that has to do with advances in medicine, but you have to have a live patient, first.

 

As the saying goes "You are now leaving the safe skies for the danger of the roads.  Drive safely."  But there's a reason for that, at least here in the US, where aviation is the second most heavily regulated industry in the country after nuclear power.  Why?  Because flying is not natural to humans and is thus inherently dangerous.  The fact that it is at all viewed as "safe" and events like this cause the concern they do is due to massive regulation on the part of governments.  Translation:  You are not "free" in any way, shape or form when you board an airplane.  The same goes for many other aspects of life where there have been attempts to regulate the danger out of certain activities.  Take a not so recent discussion on house building requirements in the EU, for example.  Same as cars.  Why are they so expensive?  Why can't you build the house you want?  Because they've regulated it to the point where you must have this and you must have that, and in the end, you get a predictable result instead of what you wanted.

 

Take a much closer look at the realities therein, and you'll find that as governments recognize that flying is dangerous, and as a result of regulation, not just anybody gets to fly these things.  Things go wrong every day with airplanes, and when something does go wrong, the ridiculously vast majority make it down either perfectly safely, or with a minimum of problems.  The reason for that is that flight crews (both cockpit and cabin) are professionals who are trained to deal with just about any emergency that could possibly happen.  Such crashes as this make headlines not because they happen every day (like auto crash deaths in the 1950s), but because they are so rare. 

 

You get to be free when your dead FT, in the meantime just shut up and do what your told!!!!!

 

Amen to that!

 

....That said, true freedom sort of borders on anarchy a little bit, in that it relies on the majority of a given populace to be law abiding and reasonable citizens willingly...

 

That's the problem, right there.  Reasonable citizens.  What are those again?  Why is it that so few of them get to be lawmakers, anyway?  Oh, yeah.  Could it be that either so few of them are around or that those that are are out making an honest living?

[BadAim]

 

Please, I'd rather run the risk, than have all them 'Merican 'rules', behaviours, and wotnots over here already... sure it will happen in the end, but let us please enjoy our feeling of 'freedom' while it lasts... as long as possible! (Oh Carp, we're already there.... I'll just keep on not realising... la lal lla llal lla  lalala)

 

 

Thanks!

 

That's the way a lot some of us over on this side of the pond think as well.  The chances of a catastrophic event are so small that to take everyone's freedom away in an attempt to mitigate and legalize the inherent danger out of life...  Well, at some point it just gets supid.  Yet that's exactly what's happening. 

 

On the other hand, take look at a somewhat recent crash test with regards to motor vehicle safety where they crashed a museum quality 1950's car and a late 90's early 2000s (whenever the test was done) car. A majority of the extra cost of the new design (adjusted for inflation) went into safety features, and the results were, of course, predictable.  Go back and look at the records from the 1950s and you'll find that roadway vehicle crashes resulted in a much larger percentage of deaths in the 1950s than it does today. Part of that has to do with advances in medicine, but you have to have a live patient, first.

 

As the saying goes "You are now leaving the safe skies for the danger of the roads.  Drive safely."  But there's a reason for that, at least here in the US, where aviation is the second most heavily regulated industry in the country after nuclear power.  Why?  Because flying is not natural to humans and is thus inherently dangerous.  The fact that it is at all viewed as "safe" and events like this cause the concern they do is due to massive regulation on the part of governments.  Translation:  You are not "free" in any way, shape or form when you board an airplane.  The same goes for many other aspects of life where there have been attempts to regulate the danger out of certain activities.  Take a not so recent discussion on house building requirements in the EU, for example.  Same as cars.  Why are they so expensive?  Why can't you build the house you want?  Because they've regulated it to the point where you must have this and you must have that, and in the end, you get a predictable result instead of what you wanted.

 

Take a much closer look at the realities therein, and you'll find that as governments recognize that flying is dangerous, and as a result of regulation, not just anybody gets to fly these things.  Things go wrong every day with airplanes, and when something does go wrong, the ridiculously vast majority make it down either perfectly safely, or with a minimum of problems.  The reason for that is that flight crews (both cockpit and cabin) are professionals who are trained to deal with just about any emergency that could possibly happen.  Such crashes as this make headlines not because they happen every day (like auto crash deaths in the 1950s), but because they are so rare. 

 

You get to be free when your dead FT, in the meantime just shut up and do what your told!!!!!

 

Amen to that!

 

....That said, true freedom sort of borders on anarchy a little bit, in that it relies on the majority of a given populace to be law abiding and reasonable citizens willingly...

 

That's the problem, right there.  Reasonable citizens.  What are those again?  Why is it that so few of them get to be lawmakers, anyway?  Oh, yeah.  Could it be that either so few of them are around or that those that are are out making an honest living?

 

Methinks that this may be putting the given conversation off the rails a bit, but it does bring up the point that this country was never meant to be run by full time politicians, and it was doing just fine before they came along. As for the murderer of 150 persons, It's interesting that I just had a conversation last night with a friend that has suffered from depression who experessed that insofar as she ever considered suicide, it would never have been concievable to take a single person with her (even some who it might be argued had earned it, and that's my own addition- Chet) My answer was "That's because your not an entitled narcissistic little shit". "There's that" was her reply. How else do you explain it other than pure unudulterated evil? I know there is only a handful here that could envisage that.  

[SkyPup]

http://www.nycaviation.com/2015/03/lurking-behind-germanwings-cockpit-door/#.VSF0R_nF_RQ

[Kira]

"the industry overshot the correction and now made it possible to keep a captain locked out temporarily"

 

Typical of most responses to disasters of any sort.  For some reason the middle ground almost always gets lost in the knee jerk reaction - aannnd there goes the pendulum, right back to the other extreme.

[Sweper]

http://www.nycaviation.com/2015/03/lurking-behind-germanwings-cockpit-door/#.VSF0R_nF_RQ

Very intresting read. Especially the discussion it started. Thanks for the link.

[SkyPup]

The media treatment of this disaster has been appalling.  Here's a clear voice amid the crazy BS:

 

http://www.askthepilot.com/germanwings-crash/