And what implied position is that then?
Airbus A320 Crashes in Alps
- Thread starter SS-89
- Start date
And what implied position is that then?
Does it even matter whether you are more likely to die in a hijacking or a suicidal pilot? Really, is it worth arguing over?
The chances of being killed in a plane full stop are pretty small, so who the hell cares whether the pilot is a crazy hijacker or just plain crazy. Either way it is tragic.
The chances of being killed in a plane full stop are pretty small, so who the hell cares whether the pilot is a crazy hijacker or just plain crazy. Either way it is tragic.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you think I was implying. Especially as I wasn't trying to imply anything.
If you add in MH370 then the number of passengers killed by a suicidal pilot does out number those passengers that were killed by hijacked terrorist pilots.
Even if you look after 9/11 and don't count MH370 then suicidal pilots have still killed more passengers than passengers killed by Hijacked terrorist pilots.
Now as a passenger at 40k feet I would be more concerned about a suicidal pilot than I would a hijacker. And again at 40k feet I wouldn't really be that concerned about being on the ground, Especially as I'm not on the ground.
Looking a Wikipedia there doesn't appear to have been a single death from highjacking in quite some time infact it looks like 9/11 was the last time.
Yes terrorists have killed more people, ISIS alone have killed many many more than died during 9/11
I didn't have an agenda. I wasn't trying to imply anything. I was researching something and an interesting set of numbers cropped up. That I then posted on an informal NON professional forum.
So whilst you sat on your air lingus flight waiting to depart to dublin surrounded by stereo typical Irish punters would you be worried about a muslim suicide hijacker or would you hope the pilot isn't going to flip and point the plane down
Last edited:
I think the worry is at one point not that long ago pilot suicide didn't enter anyones head. But with recent issues its now something to think about.
To be honest, hijacking nor pilot suicides enters in most people's heads when they book their holiday to Tenerife or business trip to Milan.
I certainly don't.
You can fly with my mrs next time.
She's all for going on holiday but then cries when we fly. She had a panic attack when we hit turbulance a few years back. She'll be checking the pilots eyes next to see if they are too close together
The thing is we are reminded every step of the way about 9/11 with all the security measures now in place. If your a frequent flyer then you'll be used to it. But we don't get away that often due to work commitments. Last time we flew was in 2011
I've always said if something is going to happen please let it be on the way back. At least I've had chance to enjoy my holiday
Last edited:
You can fly with my mrs next time.
She's all for going on holiday but then cries when we fly. She had a panic attack when we hit turbulance a few years back. She'll be checking the pilots eyes next to see if they are too close together
The odds of her being killed by a hijacker or suicidal pilots are significantly less than being a bit scared of turbulence and flying in general.
Besides, she still gets in the plane doesn't she?
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,782
To jump out of a passenger plane at high altitude you'd need full breathing gear and an explosive charge to blast open a door as well as the parachute.
No it doesn't. Pax don't decide safety protocols, airlines and aircraft authorities do. And they will ensure there are safe guards for both and more.
Whether a hijacking or a suicidal pilot does the deed, the passengers are still at risk if you don't account for every realistic threat, it's not about choosing one over the other, it about ensuring protocols and procedures account for both.
Not that any of that was what I was really pointing out, I was pointing out that it's futile getting into an argument over how many people died by hijacking compared to suicide in this thread.
No it doesn't. You just explained why, the authorities have to account for both, which is easily done with increasing crew or changing protocols, they account for both, not choosing one over the other dependant on whether x amount died over y amount in the last 10 years.
Arguing over who kills more in this thread is pointless, unless your suggesting ocUK is the authority.
Essentially, arguing over death tolls on the Internet isn't going to change anything, to suggest otherwise is daft, almost as daft as even responding to you frankly.
Last edited:
, the ex girlfriend apparently said she knew that he said one day everyone will know his name, its unclear and unconfirmed what she knew about anything else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Pretty much like when I told my wife I'd be High King of Ireland one day....
Yup you read it here second, it will be the way.
Its like all the Military top brass writing books when they depart and saying how crippling the changes will be to the military, after they've left and taken their massive pensions with them.
Maybe they'd consider saying something sooner, when it might cost them something personally.
And how does arguing about relative death tolls on the Internet help this?