Piloting is the second most dangerous occupation

Gattman wrote:
wrote in message
...



If you take out the few high risk piloting occupatations such as
crop dusting and fire fighting, aviation is hardly dangerous.


The general public should continue to believe professional flying is
dangerous, and the danger should equate to better pay for professional
pilots.



Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
complicated than a bus with wings.

Newps wrote:

Pilots are not worth that anymore. Todays airliners are nothing more
complicated than a bus with wings.

Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
talent to fly on occasion.
In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
every year just to tell him that :-))
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:

Well.......I'll tell ya; those "buses with wings" require a wee bit of
talent to fly on occasion.

On increasingly rare occasions. Commercial pilots in the U.S. train a great
deal for events that are more and more unlikely to happen. I'm not saying
that's a bad idea, but from an economic standpoint it means that, to an ever
increasing extent, the bulk of their skills aren't really required to do the
job. On a typical, normal, flight, it would be possible for pilots with far
less training to do the work--which in turn means that the job is worth less
money.

Even if the U.S. has not compromised on the standards it imposes for
commercial pilots, other nations are not so strict.

In fact, the survivors of United 232 send a Christmas card to Al Haynes
every year just to tell him that :-))

The exception does not invalidate the rule.

On Aug 11, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
According to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNN, being
a pilot is the second most dangerous occupation in the country (being a
fisherman is in first place).

Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
findings.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary writes:

Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
findings.

The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Robert M. Gary writes:

Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
findings.

The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.


Was this right after their article on lift?

Bertie

It followed the news clip on breast feeding.

"Viperdoc" wrote in news:46beed7d$0$4686
:

It followed the news clip on breast feeding.



Ahh, OK....

bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Robert M. Gary writes:

Interesting that you elected not to include a link to the actual
findings.

The CNN article didn't provide one, as far as I could tell.

What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
provided.

Judah writes:

What I find interesting is this: You have expressed that you choose not to
believe anything published online by pilots unless it is already in line with
your existing preconceived notions - even in the face of supporting evidence.
Yet you believe (and even spread) information presented online as truth
because it was published by CNN, even though no supporting documentation was
provided.

I never said anything about what I believed or didn't believe. I said
"according to." I thought the news item would be of interest to people here.

What I find interesting is that almost this entire thread is consumed by
dscussion of me and personal attacks against me, rather than discussion of the
news item that I posted. Whose fault is that?