Re: Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation

[Kwyjibo]

"Ned" > wrote in message ...
> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
<snip>

Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
drastic changes that resulted.

--
Kwyj.

[Sylvia Else]

Kwyjibo wrote:
> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
> <snip>
>
> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> drastic changes that resulted.
>

No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.

Sylvia.

[Arnold Sten]

Kwyjibo wrote:
> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
> <snip>
>
> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> drastic changes that resulted.
>
Those four plane crashes were, in my opinion, not accidents, but
deliberate and pre-meditated acts of suicide and murder. To me, that
would explain why those did not make the list.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:31:06 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote in
>:

>Kwyjibo wrote:
>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
>> drastic changes that resulted.
>>
>
>No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>
>Sylvia.

The terrorist attacks may not have resulted in increased aviation
safety (despite the best efforts of the TSA), but they very
significantly altered aviation in the US and the world.

Relieved the airlines of the expense of passenger screening.

Established port security as an inherently governmental function.

Temporarily shutdown the entire NAS with the exception of the
Bin Laden family's expeditious flight out of the country.

Spawned a plethora of VIP TFRs that continues today.

Implemented mandatory background checks for flight students.

Created a new ADIZ over Washington DC.

Impacted airline captain job satisfaction[1]

...



[1] http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2063130.ece
Enough security checks
At least one pilot in airline Widerøe has opted for early
retirement rather than continue to endure the security routines at
Norwegian airports.

Tom Erik Liverud, head of Widerøe's pilot union confirmed this to
newspaper Adresseavisen.

A captain chose to retire early primarily because of what he
called "security madness".

"He is happy to be retired and finished with this. This is a
marked contrast to some years ago when pilots were sad to give up
their dream jobs when they passed 60," Liverud said.

Just a few days ago a Widerøe pilot delayed a departure from
Namsos for refusing to take off his shoes in a security check, and
reportedly screamed - 'I am no terrorist!'.

This problems is most acute on the short hop networks where pilots
and other crew may have to go through security checks up to ten
times a day, all year round, even if their exit and re-entry is
due to a trip to the toilet or to get a cup of coffee.

"The security demands are all for show and in some situations are
counterproductive. All a pilot needs to crash a plane is his
hands. It feels meaningless to use so many millions of crowns
without even carrying out a risk analysis," Liverud said.

The Norwegian Airline Pilots Association believes that flight
crews should have separate arrangements, like customs officers and
police, who are allowed to freely pass through airport security
checks when on duty.

[Kwyjibo]

"Arnold Sten" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>> the drastic changes that resulted.
>>
> Those four plane crashes were, in my opinion, not accidents, but
> deliberate and pre-meditated acts of suicide and murder. To me, that would
> explain why those did not make the list.

Ahh, but the title of the article is "Ten Plane *Crashes* That Changed
Aviation", not "Ten Plane *Accidents* That Changed Aviation".
No reason for them to be excluded, given the massive changes to aviation
that resulted worldwide.

--
Kwyj.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else > wrote:
> Kwyjibo wrote:
> > "Ned" > wrote in ...
> >> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> >> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
> > <snip>
>
> > Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> > I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> > drastic changes that resulted.
>
> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.

I'd argue that there have been significant increases in safety
since those attacks. I'll go so far as to predict that there will
be no more succesful airliner hijackings in the rest of my lifetime.

But the reason has absolutely nothing to do with the government's
many actions. They could stop screening passengers entirely,
and hijackings still wouldn't be feasible.

The reason has everything to do with the change in public
consciousness. If you did a survey on Sept 10, 2001, asking
people what is the safest course of action if they're a passenger
on an airliner when someone stands up and announces that
the plane is being hijacked, most people would've said to
stay quiet, lay low, cooperate, and don't attract attention.
Up until then, hijacked passengers and flight crew members
could expect to survive the ordeal if they followed those rules.

Since that time, the correct course of action has
changed to, "If you want to live, do whatever it takes
to disable or kill the hijackers, at all costs. Do not
cooperate at all under any circumstances."

THAT is what has put an end to airliner hijacking.

[Sylvia Else]

wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else > wrote:
>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>> "Ned" > wrote in ...
>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>> <snip>
>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
>>> drastic changes that resulted.
>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>
> I'd argue that there have been significant increases in safety
> since those attacks. I'll go so far as to predict that there will
> be no more succesful airliner hijackings in the rest of my lifetime.
>
> But the reason has absolutely nothing to do with the government's
> many actions. They could stop screening passengers entirely,
> and hijackings still wouldn't be feasible.
>
> The reason has everything to do with the change in public
> consciousness. If you did a survey on Sept 10, 2001, asking
> people what is the safest course of action if they're a passenger
> on an airliner when someone stands up and announces that
> the plane is being hijacked, most people would've said to
> stay quiet, lay low, cooperate, and don't attract attention.
> Up until then, hijacked passengers and flight crew members
> could expect to survive the ordeal if they followed those rules.
>
> Since that time, the correct course of action has
> changed to, "If you want to live, do whatever it takes
> to disable or kill the hijackers, at all costs. Do not
> cooperate at all under any circumstances."
>
> THAT is what has put an end to airliner hijacking.
>

Well, yes, that's what I had in mind. The September 11th style
hijackings were already impossible on the 12th. The crashes that changed
aviation article was about changes to practice and construction that
resulted from the investigation, not about changes to passenger behaviour.

It's a shame the Ethopian Airlines hijacking didn't occur after 9/11.
The majority of the passengers died in the ensuing ditching, but the
hijackers didn't really have a bomb.

Sylvia.

[Nobody]

Arnold Sten wrote:
> Those four plane crashes were, in my opinion, not accidents, but
> deliberate and pre-meditated acts of suicide and murder. To me, that
> would explain why those did not make the list.

Perhaps that Cypriot 737 that crashed in Greece should be considered an
important one. Not because of failure of pressurisation system, but
because the politicians, after 9-11, mandated a hurried implementation
of the locked cockpit door system which proved fatal in the Cypriot 737
crash since the remaining conscious crewmember was prevented from
entering the cockpit to save the situation until the door unlocked when
fuel ran out, but by then, it was too late.


There is also the issue of aircraft wiring. It wasn't a single
accident/crash that changed aviation, but rather realisation after a
number of incidents that aircraft wiring was a big problem. And in the
case of the UA 747 near Hawaii, the conclusion was changed years later
from human error to faulty aircraft wiring. TWA800 and SR111 were the
more obvious accidents.


The early A320 problems also showed that FAA and other certification
agencies had antiquated testing procedures that did not ensure the
software on an aircraft was reliable. Most of the A320 problems did not
result in a crash, but still showed that the aircraft was put into
service with less than acceptable software quality which should have
been spotted before the aircraft entered commercial service. Aircraft
certification tests were revised and subsequent aircraft introductions
were far more reliable.


I'd have to say though that Comet was probably the biggest one since it
made engineers realise that pressurisation cycles affect aircraft
structure and that has been a major impact on all subsequent aircarft.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote

> Well, yes, that's what I had in mind. The September 11th style hijackings
> were already impossible on the 12th. The crashes that changed aviation
> article was about changes to practice and construction that resulted from
> the investigation, not about changes to passenger behaviour.

What difference does it make, how the lack of future hijackings came about?
If it is increased security, stronger cockpit doors, or more vigilant
passengers, the change produces the same result. I think the 9-11 change
should be at the very top of the list. No credit should go to the airlines,
though. All the credit is due the passengers.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Nobody" > wrote

> I'd have to say though that Comet was probably the biggest one since it
> made engineers realise that pressurisation cycles affect aircraft
> structure and that has been a major impact on all subsequent aircarft.

Hard to argue that, but I think it is important because of the style of
reconstructive investigation that grew from figuring out the crashes. It is
the standard that all modern investigations grew from.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave[_5_]]

> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> drastic changes that resulted.

No, because those crashes were not unintentional. There was no failure
of technology or pilot error involved.

David Johnson

[LeroyJones]

Dave wrote:
>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
>> drastic changes that resulted.
>
> No, because those crashes were not unintentional. There was no failure
> of technology or pilot error involved.
>
> David Johnson
>

The Eastern L-1011 flight that flew into the Everglades
while the crew fiddled with a light bulb back in the 70's
created new alerts on radar software for controllers and new
landing procedures.

MSAW(Minimum Safe Altitude Warnings) were born from that crash

[mrtravel]

Dave wrote:

>>Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
>>drastic changes that resulted.
>
>
> No, because those crashes were not unintentional. There was no failure
> of technology or pilot error involved.
>

How did they get control of the aircraft if the pilots didn't error in
letting them into the cockpit?

[John Ewing]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave wrote:
>
>>>Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>>>the
>>>drastic changes that resulted.
>>
>>
>> No, because those crashes were not unintentional. There was no failure
>> of technology or pilot error involved.
>>
>
> How did they get control of the aircraft if the pilots didn't error in
> letting them into the cockpit?

Simple - there was no requirement to lock the door and the door wasn't
reinforced to prevent intrusion, until after this date.

John

[Ron Natalie]

John Ewing wrote:

> Simple - there was no requirement to lock the door and the door wasn't
> reinforced to prevent intrusion, until after this date.

Not true. The doors have been locked since the seventies.
They weren't overly substantial, nor were there any real
strict procedures to cover the opening of the door during
flight.

[Graeme Hogan]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
u...
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>> the drastic changes that resulted.
>>
>
> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>

What about Tennerife

[John Ewing]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> John Ewing wrote:
>
>> Simple - there was no requirement to lock the door and the door wasn't
>> reinforced to prevent intrusion, until after this date.
>
> Not true. The doors have been locked since the seventies.
> They weren't overly substantial, nor were there any real
> strict procedures to cover the opening of the door during
> flight.

Beg to differ, Ron.
Doors were not routinely locked.
Most could be locked, but certainly there was no mandatory requirement for
them to be locked in flight.
I think my statement is correct.

John

[Sylvia Else]

Graeme Hogan wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
> u...
>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>>> the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>
>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>
>
> What about Tennerife
>
>

Did it happen on September 11, 2001?

Sylvia.

[mrtravel]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>
>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>> u...
>>
>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list,
>>>> given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>
>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>
>>
>> What about Tennerife
>>
>
> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>
> Sylvia.

When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?

[John Godwin]

"Graeme Hogan" > wrote in
:

> What about Tennerife

A greater emphasis on CRM.


--

[Sylvia Else]

mrtravel wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>> u...
>>>
>>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list,
>>>>> given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>>
>>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about Tennerife
>>>
>>
>> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?

When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.

Sylvia.

[mrtravel]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> mrtravel wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>>> u...
>>>>
>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list,
>>>>>> given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about Tennerife
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?
>
>
> When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.
>
> Sylvia.

No, you replied to someone's comment about Tenerife.
DIdn't you see it? It says "What about Tennerife", and you quoted it.

[Sylvia Else]

mrtravel wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> mrtravel wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>>>> u...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the
>>>>>>> list, given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about Tennerife
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?
>>
>>
>> When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> No, you replied to someone's comment about Tenerife.
> DIdn't you see it? It says "What about Tennerife", and you quoted it.

Go back further. The sequence of events should be clear enough.

Sylvia.

[wb]

"Graeme Hogan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
> u...
>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>> "Ned" > wrote in message ...
>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>>> the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>
>>
>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>
>
> What about Tennerife

What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
happening again?

[F. Baum]

On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else > wrote:
> > Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> > I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> > drastic changes that resulted.
>
> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>
> Sylvia.
This is completely not true ! The industry has completely changed the
way they handle security, hijackers, disturbances, etc.. The loopholes
that were explioted that day no longer exist. You have FAMs, FIFDOs,
secure cockpits, pasengers willing to stand up and fight, and a whole
host of security mesures the traveling public knows little or nothing
about.
I think this article is silly and very incomplete.

[Sylvia Else]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:31 pm, Sylvia Else > wrote:
>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
>>> drastic changes that resulted.
>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> This is completely not true ! The industry has completely changed the
> way they handle security, hijackers, disturbances, etc.. The loopholes
> that were explioted that day no longer exist. You have FAMs, FIFDOs,
> secure cockpits, pasengers willing to stand up and fight, and a whole
> host of security mesures the traveling public knows little or nothing
> about.
> I think this article is silly and very incomplete.
>

You correctly identify a change in passenger attitudes. I didn't regard
that as relevant, because it was not a change introduced by the industry
or regulators, but simply a changed perception on the part of passengers
seeking to look after their own interests.

The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.

What the rules have done is to ensure that passengers are completely
disarmed so as to have nothing to use against the next terrorist who
dreams up a novel approach to air piracy.

Sylvia.

[mrtravel]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> mrtravel wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> mrtravel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>>>>> u...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the
>>>>>>>> list, given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about Tennerife
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> No, you replied to someone's comment about Tenerife.
>> DIdn't you see it? It says "What about Tennerife", and you quoted it.
>
>
> Go back further. The sequence of events should be clear enough.
>

Yes, but you responded and quoted the question about Tenerife and asked
if it happened on Sept 11. Why would you think it happened on 9/11?

[mrtravel]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
> needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
> anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
> behaviour.
>

Knitting needles are permitted.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

The list is still stupid.

You can bring a walking cane, but not a hockey stick or pool cue.

[Sylvia Else]

mrtravel wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
>> needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
>> anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
>> behaviour.
>>
>
> Knitting needles are permitted.
> http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
>
>
> The list is still stupid.
>
> You can bring a walking cane, but not a hockey stick or pool cue.

Kniting needles are banned in Australia.

But the amount of inflammable material you can take on board (2kg of
matches, for example) is unbelievable. You can also take 2 litres of
lighter fuel, though nowadays you'd have to buy it in the secure area
because of the general (and totally stupid) limit on liquids.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

mrtravel wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> mrtravel wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>> mrtravel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Graeme Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> u...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Ned" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>>>>>>>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the
>>>>>>>>> list, given the drastic changes that resulted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about Tennerife
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you replied to someone's comment about Tenerife.
>>> DIdn't you see it? It says "What about Tennerife", and you quoted it.
>>
>>
>> Go back further. The sequence of events should be clear enough.
>>
>
> Yes, but you responded and quoted the question about Tenerife and asked
> if it happened on Sept 11. Why would you think it happened on 9/11?

The "What about Tennerife" question was a non sequitur in the context in
which it appeared. My comment was a reasonable response to that.

If you don't get it, don't worry about it.

'nuf said on this.

Sylvia.

[DC]

Sylvia Else said the following on 7/11/2007 2:32 PM:

> The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
> needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
> anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
> behaviour.

I think the term is security theatre

[F. Baum]

On Nov 6, 4:55 pm, "wb" > wrote:
> "Graeme Hogan" > wrote in message
>
> > What about Tennerife
>
> What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
> happening again?- Hide quoted text -
>
If you are talking about Tenerife and other accidents like it, there
have been substantial changes to SMGS airport markings and lighting.
Also, substantial changes to low vis operations, ground radar, etc. At
some airports there are higher RVR requirments to taxi than to take
off. Take a look at the 10-9 page for KBOS.

[AES]

This thread has brought out once again how the truly remarkable level of
safety we enjoy in our civil aviation system has evolved primarily
through the learning experiences of a long series of crashes and
accidents.

These accidents were individually tragic -- but also individually small
in some reasonable sense of that term, and thus acceptable.

It also seems to me they were in most cases largely unanticipated and
perhaps largely "unanticipatable" -- we had to have them, in order to
evolve to the level of safety we have today.

It's these aspects of aviation safety that bother me about the analogous
case of nuclear safety (in the sense of both nuclear power, and nuclear
weapons risks). We've had a few nuclear accidents, and undoubtedly
learned from them.

But we've not had the sustained chain of nuclear accidents to teach us
the risks and the necessary safeguards of nuclear technology -- and we
may never have them until it's way, way too late.

A worst case aviation accident (a fully fueled 380 falling out of the
sky onto a fully filled football stadium) might kill a few tens of
thousands. A worst case nuclear accident might kill or poison many
hundreds of thousands and upwards, and render a major metropolitan area
or half a state uninhabitable for decades to centuries.

And, as my wife keeps saying, "fail safe systems by definition fail by
failing to fail safe".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

AES > wrote in news:siegman-34243A.11130907112007
@nntp.stanford.edu:

> This thread has brought out once again how the truly remarkable level of
> safety we enjoy in our civil aviation system has evolved primarily
> through the learning experiences of a long series of crashes and
> accidents.


No, they were very much secondary in their contribution.




Bertie

[Sylvia Else]

Craig Welch wrote:
> GB > said:
>
>> You're absolutely right of course. I'll make a collective apology on
>> behalf of all members of aus.aviation right now. "Sylvia Else" is our
>> resident robot/troll. It has no knowledge of aviation, learned everything
>> it knows about the law from a trashy paperback courtroom drama novel
>> and wants to be a (nude) politician when it grows up.
>
> Miss Else is, I believe, a licensed pilot.

Well, I was, some considerable time ago, but yes, his claim that I have
no knowledge of aviation has to look a bit suspect in that light.

>
>> Apparently innoent
>> non-sequiturs designed to provoke responses such as yours are its stock-
>> in-trade, it dodges all failures to agree with it by characterising them
>> as "ad-hominem attacks" and won't hesitate to invoke actual lawyers if
>> it feels suitably aggrieved by something you say. It's just a troll and
>> is best ignored. I apologise for failing to alert you sooner.
>
> I'm not aware of the use of 'actual lawyers'. Can you elaborate?
>

I did get a will drawn up by one. I wonder if that counts.

Sylvia

[Sylvia Else]

GB wrote:
> Craig Welch > wrote in
> :
>> Miss Else is, I believe, a licensed pilot.
>
> That is entirely compatible with the claim that I made about it's
> knowledge of aviation.

You realise, presumably, that there are exams that have to be passed to
qualify for a licence, as well as a test of the ability actually to fly
a plane. It is not really tenable to hold the view that it is possible
to pass the exams and test while knowing nothing about aviation.
Therefore your position has to be that I've forgotten not just most of
what I knew when I took the exams and test, but *all* of it - every last
detail.

Seems a bit of stretch to me.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

GB wrote:
> Craig Welch > wrote in
> :
>> If I understand you correctly, you are stating that licensed pilots
>> know nothing about aviation?
>
> You misunderstand me completely.
>
>
>> Now, could you perhaps answer the question?
>
> I'm not going to do your research for you.

Oh, no, not the old "I'm not going to do you research for you" defence!

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

GB wrote:
> Craig Welch > wrote in
> :
>> GB > said:
>>> Craig Welch > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> If I understand you correctly, you are stating that licensed pilots
>>>> know nothing about aviation?
>>> You misunderstand me completely.
>> Well, feel free to have me understand you completely.
>
> The Else bot may or may not be a licensed pilot, but it
> demonstrates a markedly ill informed state every time
> posts here. It is, of course, difficult to tell whether
> it is actually ill informed or just a very active troll.
>
>
>> Why talk in riddles?
>
> When talking to romans...
>
>
>>>> Now, could you perhaps answer the question?
>>> I'm not going to do your research for you.
>> Research? I assumed that you knew, and could therefore answer with a
>> one-liner.
>
> It is said to have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:39:45 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:

>GB wrote:
>> Craig Welch > wrote in
>> :
>>> If I understand you correctly, you are stating that licensed pilots
>>> know nothing about aviation?
>>
>> You misunderstand me completely.
>>
>>
>>> Now, could you perhaps answer the question?
>>
>> I'm not going to do your research for you.
>
>Oh, no, not the old "I'm not going to do you research for you" defence!

Hit and run posting.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>You correctly identify a change in passenger attitudes. I didn't regard
>that as relevant, because it was not a change introduced by the industry
>or regulators, but simply a changed perception on the part of passengers
>seeking to look after their own interests.
>
>The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
>needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
>anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
>behaviour.
>
>What the rules have done is to ensure that passengers are completely
>disarmed so as to have nothing to use against the next terrorist who
>dreams up a novel approach to air piracy.
>
>Sylvia.

Not so. I for one had options before 11 September that still exist
today. It was not for terrorists like 9/11 but the rare whacked
individual who would try to enter the cockpit.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvia Else writes:

> You realise, presumably, that there are exams that have to be passed to
> qualify for a licence, as well as a test of the ability actually to fly
> a plane. It is not really tenable to hold the view that it is possible
> to pass the exams and test while knowing nothing about aviation.

True ... but it is possible to pass the exams without knowing much about
aviation. You only have to know enough to pass the exams, and that hardly
covers even a fraction of everything there is to know about aviation.

[Sylvia Else]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sylvia Else writes:
>
>> You realise, presumably, that there are exams that have to be passed to
>> qualify for a licence, as well as a test of the ability actually to fly
>> a plane. It is not really tenable to hold the view that it is possible
>> to pass the exams and test while knowing nothing about aviation.
>
> True ... but it is possible to pass the exams without knowing much about
> aviation. You only have to know enough to pass the exams, and that hardly
> covers even a fraction of everything there is to know about aviation.

That doesn't invalidate my point. GB was claiming that I know nothing
about aviation, not that I know very little.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvia Else writes:
>
>> You realise, presumably, that there are exams that have to be passed
>> to qualify for a licence, as well as a test of the ability actually
>> to fly a plane. It is not really tenable to hold the view that it is
>> possible to pass the exams and test while knowing nothing about
>> aviation.
>
> True ... but it is possible to pass the exams without knowing much
> about aviation.


Why, you try it fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvia Else writes:

> That doesn't invalidate my point. GB was claiming that I know nothing
> about aviation, not that I know very little.

On USENET, such a claim is merely a synonym for "I disagree."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvia Else writes:
>
>> That doesn't invalidate my point. GB was claiming that I know nothing
>> about aviation, not that I know very little.
>
> On USENET, such a claim is merely a synonym for "I disagree."
>

Dumb and dumber.


Amazing that theh only people who will have converstaions with you are
known k00ks.

Sylvia is a former alt.usenet.kooks award nomnee, fjukkwit.



Bertie