全部
← Back to Squawk list
Tragedies and Young Pilots
Is 17 too young for a pilot to attempt such a flight? On one's own? The answer is an emphatic "yes." With help? Well, getting help makes such attempts dubious to begin with. (www.flyingmag.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Why do people climb mountains? I believe that they knew the risks involved with the flight. It shouldn't be against the law to try.
Does "knowing the risks" entitle them to put others at risk, or to burden rescue and recovery personnel with the task of dealing with the aftermath of their failure?
I profoundly disagree with that line of thinking. Do you receive lectures on health care costs when you ask for cheese on your burger?
No, but my cheeseburgers have never been known to fall out of the sky, endangering people on the ground, either. What I said, and which you ignore, is "put OTHERS at risk".
You know the risks of getting out of bed in the morning. I'll bet you still get out and put others at risk of your possible failings.
Quite true, but there are common, everyday risks, and there are unusual, out of the ordinary risks. Getting out of bed in the morning does not constitute the latter, while circumnavigating the globe in a small plane does.
Should Charles Lindbergh not have tried to cross the Atlantic? What about the Wright brothers? By your logic, these activities are far too risky and should not have been done. These are extreme examples but gets the point across. Remember, great things do not come without great risk, who knows what this person could have become...
And whom did they put at risk but themselves? I am not against personal risk, if that's what you want to do. I am, however, against personal risk that endangers others, whom have not had the chance to make that choice for themselves. I'm also against personal risk wherein the failure of the risk taker results in a financial burden to the general public. As an extreme example, why should anyone have to deal with your corpse coming through their windshield because you decided to take a personal risk and climb a skyscraper and fell? Why should the public have to foot the bill for the resulting cleanup? As I said, an extreme example, but we seem to have become a world populated by people who think only of themselves and what they want to do, without giving any, or at most minimal, consideration towards how their actions affect others. I spent 14 years as an EMT, cleaning up the results of various fools and risk takers. You (a figurative "you", not you personally) want to take an unusual risk? Ride along with an ambulance crew for a few weeks and see the aftermath of other risk takers who have failed first.
Thank you for your service as an EMT Bernie. I'm sure that your feelings are profound and I respect them. Who I believe you are describing though are STUPID IDIOTS. These are people who willingly risk their and other's lives to be one car further up the exit ramp or one up at the next traffic light. They will also risk running over small children in a parking lot racing to be one space closer to the front door. Now sane people, those who carefully weigh the risk vs reward equation and choose to push the boundaries, are a benefit to all of us. We cannot revel in their victories without also supporting, consoling, or mourning their failures. I put the Sulemans in the later group.
You do know you just completely negated your first comment to Bill right? No one would have to go looking for the kid, just like no one would have to go looking for Lindbergh if he would have put it in the ocean, but people would have, also accepting the risk involved. You are also confusing adrenaline junkies and thrill seekers with risk takers, depending on the context, like this one, they mean completely different things.
In what way does my comment above negate my first comment to Bill? I'm not seeing it, so please explain it from your perspective.