Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

[3WE]

Anything having to do with aviating is good.

JMO, some sort of acceleration tracking seems like it could be helpful. I’m always impressed with gross weight 747 takeoffs…and regardless of what you say, there’s some assumptions and risks that can sneak in there.

I always thought a green, yellow or red color around the airspeed indication at 80 kts and V1 would be helpful.

I apologize that I find situations where there are trade offs interesting, so pandemic responses and airplane operations are both interesting.

Heck, look at an instrument rating that “frees” pilots to add risks to flying.

[3WE]

i bet they cut plenty of corners and conveniently left out information in their applications or buried it nice and deep where it wouldnt be found

1. Biology is amazingly imprecise.

2. Feed lab rats pesticides, some of them will get cancer.

Feed lab rats organic kale, non GM smoothies with free range milk from cows that are sang to, some of them get cancer.

Give folks a CoVid vaccine and some of them have reactions…conversely some folks get real CoVid and have no symptoms. Give folks a CoVid vaccine and some get cancer. Give folks a CoVid vaccine and some of them die from the flu. Some folks get killed in car accidents on the way to get CoVid vaccines.

I’m sure the vaccine is relatively safe…just like MCAS. The stats are, indeed, strong.

But to TeeVee’s point, there’s likely some other vaccine data that may or may not mean something…and yeah, the long term safety experiment is underway right now.

[BoeingBobby]

Are you willing to discuss the issue of takeoff roll screw ups, which seem to occur from time to time...in that gray area of 'extremely rare', but conversely 'known and predictable'?

Anything having to do with aviating is good.

[3WE]

Just curious, is this ever going back to an aviation safety forum? Asking for a friend.

Are you willing to discuss the issue of takeoff roll screw ups, which seem to occur from time to time...in that gray area of 'extremely rare', but conversely 'known and predictable'?

[BoeingBobby]

Just curious, is this ever going back to an aviation safety forum? Asking for a friend.

[TeeVee]

also, what has been doled out to date are NOT vaccines in the traditional sense (i.e., one or two shots and you're good for basically your life). it's a temporary SHOT, like the flu shot (which has a miserable protection rate).... so let's call spades spades.

[TeeVee]

It already did. 5.5 billion vaccines over a year and a half. mRNA has been exceptionally effective against severe disease. And exceptionally safe. The tale is told TeeVee.



By regulating bodies across the world; the ones that required a full spectrum of human trials; the ones that suspended the Astra Zeneca and J&J vaccines when doubts arose; the ones that are comprised of scientists who are not diabolical. I think maybe you watch to much... T... V...

oh so you ADMIT that the true experiment was testing it on the public after it was "approved" as safe. that is EXACTLY my point. jesus you are obtuse.

no, i'll bet that when pfizer's dirty laundry is put out to air, they are gonna have to answer a lot of questions, will have 7 armies of lawyers running interference, and the whole thing will be called political. i bet they cut plenty of corners and conveniently left out information in their applications or buried it nice and deep where it wouldnt be found

[Evan]

you toss words around like rigorous as if you are personally involved. more likely, some moron from the CDC or FDA used that term once upon a time and you bought it--hook, line and sinker.

time will tell all. it always does.

It already did. 5.5 billion vaccines over a year and a half. mRNA has been exceptionally effective against severe disease. And exceptionally safe. The tale is told TeeVee.

healthy amount of distrust? where? by whom?

By regulating bodies across the world; the ones that required a full spectrum of human trials; the ones that suspended the Astra Zeneca and J&J vaccines when doubts arose; the ones that are comprised of scientists who are not diabolical. I think maybe you watch to much... T... V...

[Gabriel]

how corporate boards act to raise dividends and share prices over everything else, INCLUDING the very future of the company.

That is unfortunately true sometimes, and I would add over the the future value of their shares too. Boeing was a good example. It costed billions to Boeing and their shareholders, but some made a lot of money by bailing out early and re-buying when it was at the bottom of the pit, or by bailing lout with a golden parachute. But most shareholders lost a lot of money with Boeing's tricks.

your last point: no, but i spend a lot of time reading about any new drug someone proposes to prescribe me and have several times refused to take them.

And you still got the COVID vaccine shot.

no i don't check airplanes, but i do rap the fuselage on the right side of the entry door twice before boarding.

That will make a lot of difference when the plane is overspeeding into the ground in flames

[TeeVee]

Absolutely. Which is why we haven’t done any such thing. Emergency Use Authorization is a process of evaluation, not a process of “blind trust”. Although it is attenuated, it is still rigorous. And once approval is given, the evaluation continues. If concerns arise, the authorization is suspended. It is vigilant. There is a healthy amount of distrust.

But you know this. Are phrases like ‘blind trust’ just things lawyers throw in to win arguments? Can you stop being one long enough to have an honest discussion about the facts?

you toss words around like rigorous as if you are personally involved. more likely, some moron from the CDC or FDA used that term once upon a time and you bought it--hook, line and sinker.

time will tell all. it always does.

what "facts" would you like to have an honest discussion about? the FACT that the FDa doesn't want to release pfizer's docs? what? to protect their investment? yeah, that is certainly more important than public health. dont get me wrong, i respect IP rights, but the coincidence here is just way to convenient.

healthy amount of distrust? where? by whom? our govt sunk 10's of billions of dollars into these shots before they were "proven." do you think it's possible that the FDA pulled a FAA in approving and kinda looking the other way? after all, it woulda been really embarrassing to have one branch of govt essentially contradict another...

[TeeVee]

I do not fully agree. Some CEOs are really good guys that want a better world, in addition to a lot of $$$. But even when they don't, product/service and customer are not secondary, ESPECIALLY in terms of safety. It is a prerequisite for the $$$. There is a saying (in aviation, but could be applied to anything) that goes "Those who think that safety is expensive should try with an accident". Quality and especially safety issues have ended with companies.

But yes, science, as any other human endeavor, is, well, human, and subject to human conditions that include ignorance, mistakes, bias (whether conscious or unconscious), greed, and ole plain sonofabitchness. You have policemen that traffic drugs and high priests that rape children. So...

Now, at the end of the day, in practice, do we really have a choice other than act as if we believed that they (the for-profit organizations) really care about our safety and are taking all reasonable measures to preserve it? Or are you going to conduct your own independent medical trial each time your doctor prescribes a medicine and conduct your own D-check before boarding each plane?

did you watch the documentary on boeing? you should. do you invest in the market at all? you should read the uncountable stories of how corporate boards act to raise dividends and share prices over everything else, INCLUDING the very future of the company. hell, even evan has called it right on this related to the MAX: short-term profit ruled the day. because boeing spent many, many years trying to maximize current profits and share prices, they got caught with their pants around their ankles while airbus innovated. another example i just read about reecently is how exxon, once one of the largest companies on the planet, was removed from the dow jones partially as a result of things like its board working to maximize dividends over investing in future tech. this caused the market to shit on its shares to the point where it no longer qualified to be listed on the dow. good job boys!

your last point: no, but i spend a lot of time reading about any new drug someone proposes to prescribe me and have several times refused to take them. no i don't check airplanes, but i do rap the fuselage on the right side of the entry door twice before boarding.

[TeeVee]

We[no italics] have much higher standards of proof in Science than you lawyers do.

But, good science generally stops short of ABSOLUTE proof. (I know TeeVee knows this).

It’s more like, “This is consistent (or is not_consistent) with the hypothesis…”

ESPECIALLY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. (Which you see from the paramedic side and I see from plants and pests)…And yeah, in spite of good efforts…bias exists.

i do know and agree. science "proves" by repetition and results. belief becomes proof in the sense that the scientist BELIEVES that if he repeats the expirement the results will be the same 233,956,712 times. and yeah, that is kind of a proof...

[3WE]

[Can we have] an honest discussion about the facts?

Not until you acknowledge a number facts that you actively avoid.

[Evan]

not saying it doesn't. my point is not to blindly trust an entity because its business is "x.

Absolutely. Which is why we haven’t done any such thing. Emergency Use Authorization is a process of evaluation, not a process of “blind trust”. Although it is attenuated, it is still rigorous. And once approval is given, the evaluation continues. If concerns arise, the authorization is suspended. It is vigilant. There is a healthy amount of distrust.

But you know this. Are phrases like ‘blind trust’ just things lawyers throw in to win arguments? Can you stop being one long enough to have an honest discussion about the facts?

[Gabriel]

Why most published research is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q