Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Safety or stupidity?

  1. #21
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    oh you guys are killing me.
    Look man, I think I'd enjoy many barroom conversations with you, but let me add this zinger.

    While you worry about illogical taxiway seatbelt rules, I'd just like to see a solid halfway honest, intelligent presidential candidate who will seek to solve problems and bring the country together, along with a media that attempted some semblance of balance, integrity and honesty...

    But, ummmm, Well, that's the way it is... (insert one-eye-shut, one-eye-open, tongue-out, crazy-face icon)...Merry expletive Christmas! (and happy holidays so as to not offend non Christians).

    [Edit: Blue font is probably appropriate for much of this, even though it's quite true too...anyway, no anger intended.]
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    oh you guys are killing me.
    I guess I forgot the blue font.
    I am more your kind of person, those who think that the way it is is not necessarily the way it should be, or even that it could be.
    A personality that is appreciated by some and objected by many, and that does give me problems (at work, for example).
    The "well, that's the way it is" is an attitude that would make my life much easier and problem-free. I just don't find it compelling.
    That said, the "well, that's the way it is" has its place in my life too. As the saying/prayer goes:
    "God, give me the bravery to change the thins I can change, the resilience to accept the things that I cannot change, and the wisdom to tell one from the other."

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  3. #23
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    It's a spiral of rebelliousness and lawyering and MBA-and-scientific-engineering-total-pursuit-of-the-last-penny-to-hell-with-common-sense that got us here Teevee.
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  4. #24
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    right. couldn't possibly be b&w /absolutist thinking. or maybe man's innate fear of flying even if its unconscious.

    3w is right. you are truly a one dimensional thinker who lives in a bubble and has never experienced things such as pedaling a tricycle faster than Vmes.
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    at least some of whom i'm sure you voted for
    Yes, because when you're looking at a ballot with two candidates, both of whom are lawyers, there's no other sensible option.

    I should also say that in principle, I don't object to candidates for office having JD degrees or other legal qualifications. All you have to do is look at our current situation to see what happens when you elect someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of the law! But one would hope that when those folks get elected, they'd do what's in the best interest of all their constituents, not just those in their profession. Yeah, I know, idealism...
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  6. #26
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,103

    Default

    off-topic

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Merry expletive Christmas! (and happy holidays so as to not offend non Christians).
    Wait, what? Christmas is a Christian holiday? That's not "the rule" in the US for sure. All the houses decorated with bright lights, fake snow, sleds, reindeer, an old fat man with a heavy red coat, hat and boots, a pine tree, socks and presents next to a fireplace.... All radios playing Christmas songs, quires of boys singing in the entrance of Walmart and Walgreen, songs about snow, Santa, Rudolph, sleights, and happiness... Such a contrast with the poor birth of that Jewish guy in the Bronze era in a barn in the middle of the desert in the Middle East.

    The Christmas in Argentina is still quite different, but it is getting closer to the American style every year (driven by marketing).

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  7. #27
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    The Christmas in Argentina is still quite different, but it is getting closer to the American style every year (driven by marketing).
    Ironingly, (and this is getting very deep, but is still on topic)...one problem is how we worship the almighty dollar and our wonderful corporate culture (including safety), instead of God whom most religions saddle with a very powerful duty of maintaining right and wrong.

    Of course we humans mess that up too, just like seatbelts when on an active taxiway- My God and my actions are right...whereas you are going to hell.

    How do we teach right and wrong...and what IS right and wrong and who says what's right and wrong??? The Almighty Dollar says what's right and wrong cuz if a passenger falls and bruises his a$$ while on an active taxiway, there will be paperwork...

    (Warning Bobby, I should probably be using some blue font...but you'll have to figure out where).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #28
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    ***whom are lawyers***
    TeeVee is a tad reluctant to acknowledge that lawsuit fears are a significant part of seatbelts during taxi (even though seatbelt-less busses and trains do challenge the logic).

    Been fortunate to have a lawyer friend or two. I think stereotypically they are deeply entrenched in their beliefs and love to argue. That being said, my friends have also been governed by a deep concern for right and wrong.

    It's interesting to sit behind my keyboard and pass judgement that TeeVee seems to contain those stereotypes.

    And to keep things light- since we have no choice BUT to vote for Lawyers, how about getting Tee Vee to run for president...Eric would be a good candidate, but he's not_a lawyer.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    TeeVee is a tad reluctant to acknowledge that lawsuit fears are a significant part of seatbelts during taxi (even though seatbelt-less busses and trains do challenge the logic).
    Here's the logic behind that: the rules on an airplane are that you must remain seated WHENEVER the seat-belt sign is lighted. I don't know if that is an actual law or just wise policy, but it's there and you are made aware of it before every flight. Busses and trains don't have a seat belt light, law or policy. They also lack many of the other safety features of an aircraft. They are also more dangerous and carry a higher risk of injury or death. That's right, a metal tube jetted through the upper atmosphere at close to the speed of sound is safer than the humble city bus. That's a remarkable achievement. So, hurray for aviation safety. Why are we criticizing it?

    Tip: Relax. Remain seated at all times, unless the call of nature won't be denied. Unless you have a medical condition or a weak bladder, that should allow you to remain seated on most short-haul flights. On the longer ones, wait for the sign to be turned off. And if that makes you feel self-righteously oppressed, please take the much more liberated and dangerous bus.

  10. #30
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ***Why are we criticizing it?***
    Because, unlike you, we have the ability to discern big logic issues and look for the elusive gray-area middle ground, and discuss the pros, cons and gray areas. Zoomin' along in Amtrak at 80-120 mph...Greyhound at 70 mph...(even our precious young grade-school students on bumpy, dangerous, curvy, two-lane roads)....no seatbelt sign...and yet the ride is a magnitude or two more stable (and pretty darn hard to be killed) when on the dreaded active taxiway...

    Nope...no room (zero point zero) for anyone to ask questions there...

    Footnote: My black and white Evan doll is in the other room, again, you have stepped in it with a vengeance.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Here's the logic behind that: the rules on an airplane are that you must remain seated WHENEVER the seat-belt sign is lighted. I don't know if that is an actual law or just wise policy, but it's there and you are made aware of it before every flight.
    I am breaking the law in almost every multi-hour flight. For some reason the Captains nowadays ALMOST always turn off the seatbelt sign upon reaching cruise altitude, turn it back on at the slightest bump, and then leave it on for the remaining of the uneventful and smoothest flight. And I need to use the toilet once or twice in 12-hours flight. Sometimes I think they are just sloppy and forget. Sometimes I think it is intentional, either in an attempt to keep as many passengers seated as much as possible, or as an "insurance policy" (any passenger that bruises their arse after slipping with a banana that was in the aisle, they were violating a federal regulation by not complying with the seatbelt sign). Of course, when people do get up (we have no other choice) the FAs don't say a thing. This kind of attitude only provokes a diminishing respect for the seatbelt sign first, and then for the rest of sings and instructions. But I am very sorry: If a law says that I have to stop breathing (or to pee in my pants), I WILL disobey the law. I don't know what it is that causes this, only that whatever it is, it is ridiculous.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  12. #32
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...turn it back on at the slightest bump, and then leave it on...Sometimes I think they are just sloppy and forget. Sometimes I think it is intentional...Of course, when people do get up (we have no other choice) the FAs don't say a thing. This kind of attitude only provokes a diminishing respect for the seatbelt sign...
    Not very consistent logic, is it?...nor does it seek the elusive gray middle ground of trying to be safe AND address bladder comfort.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #33
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,854

    Default

    beg to differ with you given you vast expertise, but being anti-establishment doesn't mean i don't abide by rules. further, these FARS did not come about as a result of lawsuits. rather, the mystery of being inside an aluminum tube that has the potential to be deadly, but very rarely is, especially on the ground!

    you completely ignore the unavoidable truth that the regs are backward from a safety perspective. the rules totally permit the non-use of seatbelts during cruise but mandate them during taxi. we have discussed ad nauseum the failure of pax to use seatbelts during cruise because the light was off. we've debated the propriety of allowing pax to walk around etc etc.

    you can't argue with physics: the chances of being injured in a taxi accident are far less than those brought about as a result of unexpected turbulence.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    beg to differ with you given you vast expertise, but being anti-establishment doesn't mean i don't abide by rules. further, these FARS did not come about as a result of lawsuits. rather, the mystery of being inside an aluminum tube that has the potential to be deadly, but very rarely is, especially on the ground!

    you completely ignore the unavoidable truth that the regs are backward from a safety perspective. the rules totally permit the non-use of seatbelts during cruise but mandate them during taxi. we have discussed ad nauseum the failure of pax to use seatbelts during cruise because the light was off. we've debated the propriety of allowing pax to walk around etc etc.

    you can't argue with physics: the chances of being injured in a taxi accident are far less than those brought about as a result of unexpected turbulence.
    The difference you aren't seeing is that cruise is a stable phase of flight, wheareas taxi is a dynamic one. Again, Obviously when the aircraft is stationary or moving under 20kts, you are going to survive without a seatbelt, but the entire idea is to have passengers pre-flight ready for takeoff and to keep them that way rather than doing all that while taking up valuable runway time. And after landing I think it is a combination of rather fast taxi speeds and keeping antsy pax in their seats for that last painful five minutes or so.

    Yes, the cabin crews are forced to be inflexible on that. The gods who gave us incredibly safe aviation probably don't trust the cabin crews to improvise on this. And then there's excessive lawyering, which has led us into an age of 'better-safe-than-logical (BSTL)' corporate policies.

    I agree with you on one point: society today is harangued by a mess of broadly-painted and inflexible rules authored by dimwitted bureacratic minions. But in the case of aviation safety, it somehow works.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •