Plane down.

Scott Dolan · January-15th-2009, 06:10 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/ny...6crash.html?hp

I sure hope (Ollie) had nothing to do with this.

Seems like plane crashes are ramping up suddenly. They always seem to come in cycles. But, like the crash in Denver last month everyone on this flight survived. Back-to-back plane crashes with no deaths, I wonder if that's ever happened before?

Gentle Giant · January-15th-2009, 09:16 PM

Amazing that in a fight between a jet and a bunch of birds, it's a wash.

Scott Dolan · January-15th-2009, 09:21 PM

Growin up in lorida you learn very quickly, don't fuck with seagulls.

For a multitude of reasons.

jesus marion joseph · January-15th-2009, 09:52 PM

The seagulls are one thing, those fucking pelicans are the ones to look out for, though. They're like a broken sewer main with wings.

Gordon B · January-15th-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/ny...6crash.html?hp

I sure hope (Ollie) had nothing to do with this.

Seems like plane crashes are ramping up suddenly. They always seem to come in cycles. But, like the crash in Denver last month everyone on this flight survived. Back-to-back plane crashes with no deaths, I wonder if that's ever happened before?

There were no fatalities from scheduled commercial flights in the US for either 2007 or 2008. There were 49 fatalities from 1988 to 2006 (9-11-01 excluded). To give you an example about how safe air travel is, for the year 2007 for all aircraft with 10 or more passengers, there was one accident (non-fatal) for every 446,400 flights.

jesus marion joseph · January-15th-2009, 10:25 PM

Judging by your clever use of statistics, I'm guessing you never actually *saw* any of those accidents, did you?

Scott Dolan · January-15th-2009, 10:34 PM

Really, Gordo. Were you there? Huh, big boy?

But honestly, my question is whether there have been back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners with zero fatalities.

Seems rather unlikely.

GoodSpeak · January-15th-2009, 11:06 PM

The pilot deserves a medal.

Wow.

Gordon B · January-16th-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Really, Gordo. Were you there? Huh, big boy?

But honestly, my question is whether there have been back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners with zero fatalities.

Seems rather unlikely.

Most back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners combine for zero fatalies.

What's unlilkely is back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners where there are fatalities for both crashes.

If you don't believe me, check out the FAA site.

The reason for your misconception, quite understandable, IMO, is that most non-fatal commercial airline accidents are not reported in the national press.

I rarely read about two consecutive car crashes where nobody gets killed yet we all know that most car crashes are non-fatal.

tippy · January-16th-2009, 07:52 AM

What I like is the switch you can flip – I forget what they called it on the news – that keeps the lower part of the plane from taking on water. Nice invention! I was also pleased that the ace pilot was 58. Go 58 year olds! I bet it helped that he use to fly F-2s.

Hey would that plane be able to fly again with new engines? I hate how they called it a bird strike. It made me think of a bird attack. There’s your next Airplane movie, where a plane gets bullied by birds. Also didn’t like how the news had a pilot early on lugubrious over the dangers of birds. I mean if they were so continually dangerous would people ever fly at all? Lastly, worst and deliberately misleading headline online was “Plane crashes in New York City.”

Brian Olewnick · January-16th-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tippy

Lastly, worst and deliberately misleading headline online was “Plane crashes in New York City.”

As anyone who capable of reading a map can see, there's a dotted state border line that more or less bisects the Hudson River. Photographs and footage clearly show this line rippling some fifty feet on the Jersey side of the plane, so yes, it crashed in NYC.

tippy · January-16th-2009, 08:23 AM

I still say it was deliberately misleading. Crashing into a city means crashing into buildings and people imo.

steve(thelil) · January-16th-2009, 09:24 AM

Despite earliest reports, there is a possible terrorist angle. A previously unknown terrorist group calling itself the GAP (Geese Against Peace) has claimed responsibility for the "suicide mission."

Gentle Giant · January-16th-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tippy

I still say it was deliberately misleading. Crashing into a city means crashing into buildings and people imo.

Bad joke told to me once by a mechanical engineer:

Q: What's the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer?

A: Civil engineers build targets.

I'm sad about all those little bottles of Chivas that sank into the river.

Scott Dolan · January-16th-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Most back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners combine for zero fatalies.

What's unlilkely is back-to-back crashes of commercial airliners where there are fatalities for both crashes.

OK, show me proof of this. I checked the FAA site and found zero evidence to support your claim. Most "accidents" listed were smaller planes and rarely had anything to do with an actual crash.

So please show me what you found because I'm having a very hard time believing it.

Scott Dolan · January-16th-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I'm sad about all those little bottles of Chivas that sank into the river.

Lots of little taste buds were spared.

steve(thelil) · January-16th-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

Despite earliest reports, there is a possible terrorist angle. A previously unknown terrorist group calling itself the GAP (Geese Against Peace) has claimed responsibility for the "suicide mission."

It gets worse: It appears that they were Canadian geese.