Squigee From Canada, joined May 2001, 652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7492 times:
You're right Greg. Bigger plane crashes mean more ambulances to chase.
To a family who have lost a someone they love in a crash, it is cold consolation to know hundreds of other families have to go through the same pain.
Yeah, the financial cost is greater, so are the headlines and cash settlements, but on a human level (the one you always miss) the pain is the same. And to make it seem any less real or powerful is an insult to those families.
Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and then change the subject.
AOMlover From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7442 times:
If a small plane crash many less people suffer, so I think it's nonsense to say that a Cessna crash is as important as a 747 crash. Of course a life is a life, but there's not only lost lives, there are broken lives.
Of course it's always very sad when a plane crash. But if a plane crash, I prefer it's a Cessna rather than a 747.
In fact, I'd prefer no plane to crash, but unfortunately it's impossible.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1571 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7371 times:
If you want to have a discussion about the morality involved in reacting to plane crashes, please feel free to start a topic on the subject in the Non-Aviation forum. However, on this thread, let's stick to hard news about the crash. I am very interested in hearing any developing news, as we are not getting anything here in DC, either on the local stations or Fox News, CNN or MSNBC.
Flyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7024 times:
OK, I have seen the aftermath of six plane crashes in my life. One was a Cessna 172 (3 dead). Another was a Piper (3 wounded), another was a A300 (200+ dead) and the other two were 767s (3000+ dead) and the third was a Learjet (10+ dead). Each of these crash sites (ans actually seeing some of the the planes crash) has affected me profoundly. But I think that when an airliner crashes it is a bigger worry. When a Cessna crashes you seldom think how many people on the ground were killed. You seldom think about how many hundereds may have died. A big plane crash is much scarier and heartbreaking. Though all are sad.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1042 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 6996 times:
The absurdity of saying that a Cesna with 2 on board (or a Cub) with one or two is JUST as tragic as a 747 crashing is an absolute laugh. I would never want anyone to suffer the trauma of being in or having loved ones lost in a crash, however the effect of a large airliner going down is so much more massive than the crash of a general aviation plane, there is no comparison.
I guess its like the difference between a car crash and a 747 going down.....
there is no comparison.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6916 times:
Just some info for you guys...
In the month of May in the United States, there were 168 incidents/accidents/crashes involving general aviation aircraft. 26 of these were fatal, causing 43 deaths. This averages out to over 5 incidents a day, and almost one fatal crash a day (with approximately 2 people onboard every fatal one).
Although it is indeed horrible when people die in air crashes as these, they cannot be compared to what would happen if a 747 goes down. As you can see by the above quote, general aviation incidents could be more compared with that of car crashes than airliner crashes.
We're doing better in June though, only 7 fatal crashes through the 17th, with 7 deaths (1 per crash).
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
To whom it might concern:
I seem to recall the Challenger Shuttle accident occupying hours and hours of air-time and countless pages of newsprint, and attracting an endless stream of phrases along the lines of "catastrophe" and "tragedy" even though there were "only" seven crew members on board.
Since you can't put a price on life, any attempt to compare the loss of one person with the loss of dozens is utterly meaningless, and IMHO naive and immature.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see people confusing the terms "more tragic" with "more exciting to talk about".
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (13 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6756 times:
Riiiight, so a Learjet crashing with 7 passengers is the same as the Space Shuttle accident? I get your reasoning now. So a minivan crashing with 7 passengers is the same as a 747 crashing? And that light airplane crash into the Pirelli building in Italy was as tragic as the World Trade Centre crashes. I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
I am interested in knowing however if anybody has any news regarding this Piper Cub crash, as general aviation crashes do interest me. Loss of life is always tragic, and I as a general aviation pilot want to know about as many crashes, and what went wrong in order to learn from the situation and not repeat it. Let's keep this civil, and intelligent, folks.
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster