501–510 of 633 posts
There is a person on X who says he has left the plane before takeoff and has uploaded videos of non-functional entertainment panels: https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe globally it's an average year but the DCA crash alone makes it an extraordinary year in US commercial aviation. Not all crashes are created equal. A 10 person Cessna disappearing near Nome, Alaska !== mid-air collision above the Potomac. If you're looking at US news sources, I don't think you need to resort to clickbait and fearmongering to justify the increased focus.
There is a media difference though since the DCA crash. Military and small planes ( On a personal level, I know three people that have died in small plane crashes in the Alaska wilderness in the last 15 years, which is so common that it didn't even get on local news. I have acquaintances that were in involved in two others elsewhere over the last few years. Small planes are unbelievably dangerous. Commercial jets, no…
We don't hear about military jet crashes unless they're F-35s. The controversial jet gets coverage because it gets eyeballs from people satisfying their confirmation bias. These are never put into context of course.
> The F-16 has been involved in over 670 hull-loss accidents as of January 2020.[312][313]
Fighter jets are simply dangerous, period. They're meant to be flown right at the bleeding edge, accidents are inevitable. But every time an F-35 crashes, the media makes a big deal out of it and idiots see that as confirmation of their belief that the F-35 is bad. Even if the F-35 is bad, it crashing sometimes wouldn't be evidence of that. Occasional crashes are just what happens when fighter jets get flown a lot. It's going to happen whether the jet is good or bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No correlation between non-functional displays on passenger seats & possible engine failures etc.
"No correlation between non-functional displays on passenger seats & possible engine failures etc." No. No no no. This is wrong, mistaken thinking. A minimum standard of operations and attention to detail must be adhered to for high consequence / life critical endeavors and that behavior (culture?) must be enforced at all levels throughout the operation . Ignore this heuristic at your peril - as either a consumer of…
Airlines are large and heavily regulated organizations, and passenger amenities (once successfully certified) might just not be in the loop for mandatory maintenance cycles and certifications.
Maintenance of IFE units vs. avionics or the airframe itself might as well be performed by completely different contractors, maintenance crews etc.
There is a person on X who says he has left the plane before takeoff and has uploaded videos of non-functional entertainment panels: https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455
No correlation between non-functional displays on passenger seats & possible engine failures etc.
Correlation just helps lead you to common causes.
Not a cause but and indicator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As they said, you can skip the opinion columns.
You think the opinion pages are the only place he pushes his agenda? The very stories they report are selected to further the narrative he wants. That's why apologies and retractions are always tiny.
In my experience, WSJ just reports what happened and who said what in a very dry way.
My impression is that their news section provides a very anti Republican party view. Note that this is my impression, not the paper's stance. They don't really take any, apart from the opinion section, which I ignore. The opinion section has a massive pro republican bent.
> Lying by omission
I'll admit, I might have a blind spot here because I'm only reading 2 newspapers. That being said, I'm not sure of any stories reported by the other news outlets which were ignored/downplayed by WSJ.
> apologies and retractions
Happen when they happen. I remember a few per month. But since they're so dry, there's very little scope for major corrections. If they say, "this guy said that", there's very little to correct there. Occasionally, they mis-paraphrase someone and have to correct their report. Most sound like honest mistakes to me.
EDIT:
> You aren't getting any sort of counterpoint you are getting whatever supports his world view.
Fair enough, but you mostly don't get any points to counter in the first place. Only plain dry facts. I go to the Economist for opinions and counter opinions. (*side note, the Economist should publish more counter opinions IMO)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
holy shit. relatively unscathed at that. I retract my statement obviously. he must've been thrown out at just the right angle to not hit too much along the way...
B.S. how do you walk away from that? This is some frankly humiliating reporting by BBC
I will reserve my judgement but Boeing can’t catch a break.
Sure they can, they're contracted to design America's next-generation F-47 fighter jet! And hell, after the sexy beast they call the X-32 I can't see why you wouldn't want their designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro tip from a lifelong life enthusiast: if its breaking news, wait one week - first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Flick through last weeks newspaper if you need reassurance.
Pro tip from an absolute rando: don’t bother with any source of breaking news. Read a weekly paper that summarises the important stuff. If something is truly pressing, you’ll hear about it from friends or coworkers.
Gentle tip from a lifelong aviation enthusiast: wait one week before reading on causation. Exposing yourself to first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive since the actual findings can rhyme with the false speculation closely enough that you wind up muddling the two in your mind.
Pro tip from a lifelong life enthusiast: if its breaking news, wait one week - first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Flick through last weeks newspaper if you need reassurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a media difference though since the DCA crash. Military and small planes ( On a personal level, I know three people that have died in small plane crashes in the Alaska wilderness in the last 15 years, which is so common that it didn't even get on local news. I have acquaintances that were in involved in two others elsewhere over the last few years. Small planes are unbelievably dangerous. Commercial jets, no…
> Military and small planes ( We don't hear about military jet crashes unless they're F-35s. The controversial jet gets coverage because it gets eyeballs from people satisfying their confirmation bias. These are never put into context of course. > The F-16 has been involved in over 670 hull-loss accidents as of January 2020.[312][313] Fighter jets are simply dangerous, period. They're meant to be flown right at the b…
The reason verbiage matters is because many people fear flying because they look at it as some kind of gamble as opposed to something where risks can be mitigated down quite a bit by the act of being safety-conscious. Even flying multi-plane low-levels or opposed large force exercises are not "dangerous" per se, so long as everyone plays by the rules and takes it seriously. Civil aviation is so safe because of a culture of making it safe.