![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and kill all hangar talk among pilots. Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who isn't. We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing. They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity. (this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant) Scott Moore wrote: Tom Fleischman wrote: If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing new. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Maule Driver" wrote in message om... Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk. Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and kill all hangar talk among pilots. Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who isn't. We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing. They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity. (this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant) No rant at all--your post is a good perspective on usenet in general and this issue in particular... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report | Ace Pilot | Piloting | 2 | June 10th 04 01:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Wellston Crash Report Quote | EDR | Piloting | 26 | November 21st 03 10:50 PM |
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 26th 03 01:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |