Tragity

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
It'a a little different.

I agree it's different. It's still misguided.

The companies are not protecting their employees, they are protecting the
=one= project that all [four] of these [key] employees manage.

First, most policies aren't that narrowly written. Second, my point is (in
this case) that the cost/benefit analysis isn't being done. The company is
looking only at the potential cost, but not the potential benefits (applied
over the number of successful outcomes, of course). Third, a well-managed
company ought to be able to replace the employees on that project without
causing significant long-term harm to the company. The "cost" part of the
analysis ought to be relatively small.

It may still be silly, but it is different.

Yes, it's different. I agree. It's still silly, and it's silly in a
similar (though not identical) way.

I worked for a company that had to ship the negatives for a film it was
making from overseas. They insisted on two separate flights, which IMHO
was dumb. Loss of =either= of the flights would have meant loss of the
project.

Yup...that's dumb.

Of course, it's dumb that losing a single resource like film negatives could
cause the loss of a project. At worst, it should only require repeating
work. If the work is unrepeatable, the film should be duplicated prior to
shipment.

Again, poorly managed project (even ignoring the "two flights" rule).

Pete

"ET" wrote in message
...
Well, we don't know what caused this, but taking only one child at a
time COULD reduce risks.... less weight in the plane....

My thoughts ignore the effects of the passenger count on the safety of the
flight. Not flying at all is obviously the safest approach, if one is going
to start down that road.

But even so, the conversation here is primarily about whether to put a pair
of siblings on the plane together. I did point out the question of why put
two kids on the same plane at all, if one is worried about killing a pair at
the same time. But that's not the primary focus of what I wrote.

Pete

Good Lord.....

Hey, take a kid scuba diving for a day in our dive boat. Why check
anything out??

Take a kid skydiving for a day, free, no questions asked.

Or, come hunting with Skylune for a day (not really my picture, but I like
the T-shirt)...

http://www.thoseshirts.com/atf.html

"James Robinson" wrote in message
. 97.142...
It's all driven by $$$.

No, it's driven by poor planning and management.

There have been a couple of examples where the
entire management team of a company was killed in a bizjet crash.

Only a couple? There are LOTS more examples of entire businesses failing
other ways. How can this be a significant risk?

It is a very significant event when you lose the CEO, the COO, the CFO,
and a
couple of other VPs at the same time, along with their supporting
people.

We're not talking about putting a 20-person team on the same airplane.

But even if we were, a company that is truly worried about the loss of
personnel needs to ensure that they have a backup plan in the event of that
loss. Airplane crashes aren't the only way to kill large numbers of people
all at the same time.

A well-managed company would have contingencies to deal with catastrophic
loss.

[...]
As far as other forms of travel being riskier, the business aviation
sector does not have a particularly good record in comparison to airline
or highway travel.

Funny you should lump airlines and highway travel together. They are not at
all similar in risk. Highway travel is much more similar to business GA
than to airlines.

Pete

Forget the public, my school system won't even let me MENTION the YE
program. I had arranged YE flights for 56 students in our high school
aerospace program when the teacher of that program was informed that he
was NOT going to take those kids flying and if he did and if anything
happened they would hang him out to dry, personally!

That's outrageous.

Have you been able to get to the bottom of this travesty of
"education", Margy?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The decision-maker at the school in question probably taught probability
and statistics.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.

(Boyer would be proud.)


Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
ambigious. I assume you are referring to the EAA web-site that says you
need to be a sport pilot or higher to fly young eagles.

Sigh. I will speak very, very slowly: I cut and paste the criteria from
the EAA's website. If they are advocating breaking the FARs, as a
previous poster indicated, you can take it up with them.

If you do not believe Skylune, here is the link:

http://www.youngeagles.org/volunteers/volunteer.asp

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.

(Boyer would be proud.)


Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
ambigious. I assume you are referring to the EAA web-site that says you
need to be a sport pilot or higher to fly young eagles.


It would make no difference. Blabber is blabber whether it is related to
anything or not.

Hey. While poking around their website some more, I came across their
"Airplane of the Month" photo. Man, you can't make this stuff up......

http://www.youngeagles.org/airplanem...ober&year=2005