![]() |
| 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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Icebound wrote:
This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as "no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and ingenuity. There are also 10 full-time professional mechanics for 9 airplanes. That sure sounds like "no-expense-spared" to me. I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are As am I. I fully support their right to accept whatever level of risk is acceptable to them. Let's just not kid ourselves about what that level of risk is - when the reporters point out how many accidents there have been, these are not numbers taken out of context. The accident rate is pretty bad - comparable to motorcycle racing, BASE jumping, and similarly hazardous activities. The difference is, the Canadian taxpayer isn't funding motorcycle racing or BASE jumping teams. Is that a criteria? Military value? Sure. I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that category, much as I enjoy that particular form of entertainment. The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue Angels. The Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million spectators. That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator ratio lower. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you - I simply want the assumption out in the open where it can be examined. It will certainly make a less-popular but much safer act that only ever had ONE fatality look a lot worse because the spectator numbers will be lower. In any case, while the comparison with the Blue Angels is reasonable, I certainly never meant to imply that the Snowbirds were less safe than the Blues nor in any way inferior. I've seen both acts, and while they're very different they're both great to watch. If it makes you feel better, I don't like my tax money paying for the Blue Angels either - though I will happily buy a ticket to a performance. Michael |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|