Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
AirTran emergency lndg.
- Thread starter ReportCanoa
- Start date
- Watchers 36
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
<< Appeasement - that will surely work. >>
Who's to say? Appeasement might just work. Or more correctly - more appeasement might work. Afterall, "W" already has a bit of a track record appeasing Osama & the other various "evil doers" on multiple occasions already (...and in a turn of fair play when he asked all the "insurgents" in Iraq to "Bring it on!"...they appeased him right back...and they've been appeasing the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of us ever since - with 2,613 dead US soldiers, 19,323 wounded, 348 dead contractors, 5,200+ dead Iraqi police/guardsmen, and untold numbers of civilians...although estimates of these range anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 dead...and as was recently reported - the number of bomb attacks have doubled this year compared to last).
Early on, GWB gave members of Osama's family a free upgrade to appeasement-class when he let them dash out of the United States on private jets just days after the 11th of September without allowing them to be detained for questioning - (you know, minor stuff like: "What is Osama's current mailing address?" & "Which falafel stand does he like to hang out at?" ...things which even the most jr. patrol officers on "Cops"...or the Reno 911 deputy sherriffs routinely ask of the relatives of the stereotypical drunk, half naked guy that knocked over the local liquor store for 200 bucks, a case of Old Swill and a carton of Menthol Cools that they are endlessly chasing...you know, real criminal masterminds). This of course, occured at the same time that they were rounding up and imprisoning over a thousand other Muslims or at least guys they thought looked dark and swarthy, detaining them for many months or years as they put them under the hot lamps.
Then a little farther down the time line: "I'm the Decider"-in-Charge pulled our military out of the House of Saud (the occupation of which, unlike the b.s./short school bus reasoning - "They-hate-us-for-our-freedom" non sequitur, is actually one of the top reasons he put us on his "enemies of Osama" list to begin with...we don't have to guess at this - this is what he has stated on numerous occasions). "They hate us for our freedoms"...seriously, how do they even keep a straight face when they say that? Do they have to Botox their whole face beforehand?
So who's Mission was really Accomplished here anyway? (In addition that is, to the executives & the stockholders of the many defense contractors and oil industry playas ...And for those of you playing the war profiteers appeasement home game, let's check the scoreboard - since the war began: Halliburton stock: has taken a nice little bump - from $11 to 33 bucks a share, Lockheed: $46 to $84, Northrup-Grumman: $44 to 65, Gen. Dynamics: $27 to 67, Raytheon: $29 to 46, Boeing: $37 to 76, Textron: $38 to 87, United Technologies: $30 to 60, L-3 Communications: $38-72 to name but a few...and in the black gold/texas tea dept. Shell Oil: shot up from $42 to 73, Chevron Oil (who has also named a tanker after their ex-employee & our current Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice...how many govt. employees can say that?): $33 to 65, BP Oil: $40 to 69, Exxon Mobil: $35 to 69. And as an aside: when you take into account the industries own reserves based on the rise in the price of gas - the value of these reserves since the war began comes out to approx. $2.3+ trillion (trillion with a T) for 5 of the top oil companies. Oil industry profits for 2005 alone totaled $113 Billion. Maybe there is something to be said about that "follow the money" thing...naw, that is crazy talk. (Anyway, have we appeased this group enough yet? Well, probably not...).
And in other news: Double-Ya' has turned Iraq into a bigger recruiting tool than Al Quesadilla could have ever dream of (appeasement?, unintended consequence?, lack of planning? perhaps, afterall he didn't even know there was a difference between the Sunnis and the Shias just 2 months prior to Operation Iraq Liberation...I mean Freedom) ...while our military has had to resort to upping the age limit on new recruits as well as issuing waivers for recruits with criminal convictions, drug use & medical and mental conditions.
All this with no end in sight. And what has our $309 Billion dollar investment gotten us so far? (although the Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz & Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes have estimated that the real cost of the war could easily be anywhere between 1 to 2 Trillion dollars when finally tallied. Remember how Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil could finance it's own reconstruction and that the cost to the US taxpayer would be negligible? And how Bush fired his economic advisor Larry Lindsey for having the gall to estimate the cost at between 100 to 200 billion?).
So now, 1,800 days since 9/11, Osama is still a free man, we are spending approx. $6.4 Billion/month in Iraq & another $1.3 Billion/month in Afghanistan while we are going through security in our barefeet & diverting airliners because of water bottles, oil costs 70+ bucks/barrel (which is a huge roundabout tip of the ol' appeasement hat to Iran as the mullahs are now raking in so much moolah that they don't even have to wait for double coupon day at the International House of Nukes. Not to mention all the huge piles of money that the Saudis and Bush's other pal Hugo Chavez are now using as down hill ski runs. Perhaps our enemies had all "misunderestimated" our ability to appease 'em before. But by now all this appeasement has got to be having them laughing their collective arses off in their various evil volcano lairs. (Or - was it our master plan all along to bump them all up into the "Totally Ludicrous/Bill Gates/mo' money-mo'-money-mo'-money" tax bracket?? And then converting them all into republicans? Check mate! GW - you sly dog you.).
On a related tangent - it is always interesting how someone can find it perfectly reasonable that we occupy prime real estate on another nations soil ( 702 various bases in 132 different countries at last count - not counting the not-so-secret ones that the men in black don't like to talk about) when that same person would never tolerate even the mere idea of another nations military operating a base on our own oil...I mean soil (sorry, Freudian Slip).
If the Canadians (much less the Pakistanis or Saudis...or god forbid...the Dutch) started pouring cement on a new 12,000' runway for their new airbase in Peoria - there would be pick-up trucks full of armed militias flooding in from all over the country (even if Nascar was on tv that day) for what these occupiers would probably refer to as...I don't know...an "insurgent war" (regardless of whether or not the new base had the blessing of our govt.).
Even if allies of ours - countries where we have large permanent bases (such as Germany where we have approx. 70,000 military personnel , S.Korea with 32,000 personnel , Japan: 35,000, Italy: 12,000 & the United Kingdom with 11,000 of our countrymen - to name but a few) - wanted to have reciprocal bases (with the requisite claims of wanting to help "bring security & to stabilize the region", blah, blah, blah) there would be an outcry like never before. The blow up over the proposed Dubai ports deal would be a drop in the ocean by comparison. The entire NRA as well as your average water bottle toting little old ladies would be stocking up their personal arsenals and lockin'-n-loading their AK's in order to kick the foreigners out.
So why the disonnect?
Why would one man (or tribe, group or nation) be expected to tolerate it while another wouldn't (especially when the base is to be permanent)? Perhaps it is because, as someone once said, it’s hard to get people to understand something when their salary (or their professional standing, or maybe just their SUV) depends on their not understanding it. Or is it because we hate their freedom (ie - freedom to control their own s-oil...see I almost did it again)? Naw. Now that would be crazy. Not 'Katherine Harris Crazy' but crazy nonetheless.
From the Oxford American dictionary:
Hegemony |həˈjemənē; ˈhejəˌmōnē| noun: leadership or dominance, esp. by one country or social group over others.
The inevitable result is that for every action there is gonna be a reaction (or a cumulative one)...the CIA often refers to the more spectacular of these reactions as "Blowback". And yet there is always such feigned & obligatory shock (& awe?) when it is, on occasion, directed back at us.
Leaving them alone?...Hmmmm, what a novel concept. I think you are on to something there. Afterall, when it comes to the middle east, we haven't tried that one yet - It's just might be crazy enough to work - seeing how this course upon which we have been forever staying (following this precessing gyro of a clue...I mean fearless leader) is spiraling ever closer to the rising terrain.
"Whoop whoop...pull up!".
Who's to say? Appeasement might just work. Or more correctly - more appeasement might work. Afterall, "W" already has a bit of a track record appeasing Osama & the other various "evil doers" on multiple occasions already (...and in a turn of fair play when he asked all the "insurgents" in Iraq to "Bring it on!"...they appeased him right back...and they've been appeasing the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of us ever since - with 2,613 dead US soldiers, 19,323 wounded, 348 dead contractors, 5,200+ dead Iraqi police/guardsmen, and untold numbers of civilians...although estimates of these range anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 dead...and as was recently reported - the number of bomb attacks have doubled this year compared to last).
Early on, GWB gave members of Osama's family a free upgrade to appeasement-class when he let them dash out of the United States on private jets just days after the 11th of September without allowing them to be detained for questioning - (you know, minor stuff like: "What is Osama's current mailing address?" & "Which falafel stand does he like to hang out at?" ...things which even the most jr. patrol officers on "Cops"...or the Reno 911 deputy sherriffs routinely ask of the relatives of the stereotypical drunk, half naked guy that knocked over the local liquor store for 200 bucks, a case of Old Swill and a carton of Menthol Cools that they are endlessly chasing...you know, real criminal masterminds). This of course, occured at the same time that they were rounding up and imprisoning over a thousand other Muslims or at least guys they thought looked dark and swarthy, detaining them for many months or years as they put them under the hot lamps.
Then a little farther down the time line: "I'm the Decider"-in-Charge pulled our military out of the House of Saud (the occupation of which, unlike the b.s./short school bus reasoning - "They-hate-us-for-our-freedom" non sequitur, is actually one of the top reasons he put us on his "enemies of Osama" list to begin with...we don't have to guess at this - this is what he has stated on numerous occasions). "They hate us for our freedoms"...seriously, how do they even keep a straight face when they say that? Do they have to Botox their whole face beforehand?
So who's Mission was really Accomplished here anyway? (In addition that is, to the executives & the stockholders of the many defense contractors and oil industry playas ...And for those of you playing the war profiteers appeasement home game, let's check the scoreboard - since the war began: Halliburton stock: has taken a nice little bump - from $11 to 33 bucks a share, Lockheed: $46 to $84, Northrup-Grumman: $44 to 65, Gen. Dynamics: $27 to 67, Raytheon: $29 to 46, Boeing: $37 to 76, Textron: $38 to 87, United Technologies: $30 to 60, L-3 Communications: $38-72 to name but a few...and in the black gold/texas tea dept. Shell Oil: shot up from $42 to 73, Chevron Oil (who has also named a tanker after their ex-employee & our current Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice...how many govt. employees can say that?): $33 to 65, BP Oil: $40 to 69, Exxon Mobil: $35 to 69. And as an aside: when you take into account the industries own reserves based on the rise in the price of gas - the value of these reserves since the war began comes out to approx. $2.3+ trillion (trillion with a T) for 5 of the top oil companies. Oil industry profits for 2005 alone totaled $113 Billion. Maybe there is something to be said about that "follow the money" thing...naw, that is crazy talk. (Anyway, have we appeased this group enough yet? Well, probably not...).
And in other news: Double-Ya' has turned Iraq into a bigger recruiting tool than Al Quesadilla could have ever dream of (appeasement?, unintended consequence?, lack of planning? perhaps, afterall he didn't even know there was a difference between the Sunnis and the Shias just 2 months prior to Operation Iraq Liberation...I mean Freedom) ...while our military has had to resort to upping the age limit on new recruits as well as issuing waivers for recruits with criminal convictions, drug use & medical and mental conditions.
All this with no end in sight. And what has our $309 Billion dollar investment gotten us so far? (although the Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz & Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes have estimated that the real cost of the war could easily be anywhere between 1 to 2 Trillion dollars when finally tallied. Remember how Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil could finance it's own reconstruction and that the cost to the US taxpayer would be negligible? And how Bush fired his economic advisor Larry Lindsey for having the gall to estimate the cost at between 100 to 200 billion?).
So now, 1,800 days since 9/11, Osama is still a free man, we are spending approx. $6.4 Billion/month in Iraq & another $1.3 Billion/month in Afghanistan while we are going through security in our barefeet & diverting airliners because of water bottles, oil costs 70+ bucks/barrel (which is a huge roundabout tip of the ol' appeasement hat to Iran as the mullahs are now raking in so much moolah that they don't even have to wait for double coupon day at the International House of Nukes. Not to mention all the huge piles of money that the Saudis and Bush's other pal Hugo Chavez are now using as down hill ski runs. Perhaps our enemies had all "misunderestimated" our ability to appease 'em before. But by now all this appeasement has got to be having them laughing their collective arses off in their various evil volcano lairs. (Or - was it our master plan all along to bump them all up into the "Totally Ludicrous/Bill Gates/mo' money-mo'-money-mo'-money" tax bracket?? And then converting them all into republicans? Check mate! GW - you sly dog you.).
On a related tangent - it is always interesting how someone can find it perfectly reasonable that we occupy prime real estate on another nations soil ( 702 various bases in 132 different countries at last count - not counting the not-so-secret ones that the men in black don't like to talk about) when that same person would never tolerate even the mere idea of another nations military operating a base on our own oil...I mean soil (sorry, Freudian Slip).
If the Canadians (much less the Pakistanis or Saudis...or god forbid...the Dutch) started pouring cement on a new 12,000' runway for their new airbase in Peoria - there would be pick-up trucks full of armed militias flooding in from all over the country (even if Nascar was on tv that day) for what these occupiers would probably refer to as...I don't know...an "insurgent war" (regardless of whether or not the new base had the blessing of our govt.).
Even if allies of ours - countries where we have large permanent bases (such as Germany where we have approx. 70,000 military personnel , S.Korea with 32,000 personnel , Japan: 35,000, Italy: 12,000 & the United Kingdom with 11,000 of our countrymen - to name but a few) - wanted to have reciprocal bases (with the requisite claims of wanting to help "bring security & to stabilize the region", blah, blah, blah) there would be an outcry like never before. The blow up over the proposed Dubai ports deal would be a drop in the ocean by comparison. The entire NRA as well as your average water bottle toting little old ladies would be stocking up their personal arsenals and lockin'-n-loading their AK's in order to kick the foreigners out.
So why the disonnect?
Why would one man (or tribe, group or nation) be expected to tolerate it while another wouldn't (especially when the base is to be permanent)? Perhaps it is because, as someone once said, it’s hard to get people to understand something when their salary (or their professional standing, or maybe just their SUV) depends on their not understanding it. Or is it because we hate their freedom (ie - freedom to control their own s-oil...see I almost did it again)? Naw. Now that would be crazy. Not 'Katherine Harris Crazy' but crazy nonetheless.
From the Oxford American dictionary:
Hegemony |həˈjemənē; ˈhejəˌmōnē| noun: leadership or dominance, esp. by one country or social group over others.
The inevitable result is that for every action there is gonna be a reaction (or a cumulative one)...the CIA often refers to the more spectacular of these reactions as "Blowback". And yet there is always such feigned & obligatory shock (& awe?) when it is, on occasion, directed back at us.
Leaving them alone?...Hmmmm, what a novel concept. I think you are on to something there. Afterall, when it comes to the middle east, we haven't tried that one yet - It's just might be crazy enough to work - seeing how this course upon which we have been forever staying (following this precessing gyro of a clue...I mean fearless leader) is spiraling ever closer to the rising terrain.
"Whoop whoop...pull up!".
atafan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Posts
- 434
I've read the news report and most the stupid and mean responses on this board and I have formed my own opinion.
I believe that the captain made the right decision. When I first heard about this incident I thought the crew was crazy but then I read the news article and put myself in the captains shoes. The captain has at least one flight attendant ringing the cockpit telling him/her that there is a suspicious odor coming from the area that the "water" was dumped. The captain probably had the flight attendants freaking out and of course the flight deck crew can't come out to see for themselves. They really have no other choice but to divert.
This situation would never had gotten to this point if the flight attendants were properly trained about "liquid" bombs. The passenger could have taken a drink of it before giving it to the flight attendant and for goodness sake if you thought this could possibly be a flammable liquid you don't just pour it down the drain or in the trash - HELLO.
I am sure with all this hype and uninformed hysteria about "liquid bombs" the flight attendants were going crazy with the captain on the interphone. The captain really only had to divert. The blame falls squarely on AirTran and the government for not better training all flight crews regarding this new "threat".
I'm not singling AirTran out, I don't know of an airline that has incorporated this training yet.
I believe that the captain made the right decision. When I first heard about this incident I thought the crew was crazy but then I read the news article and put myself in the captains shoes. The captain has at least one flight attendant ringing the cockpit telling him/her that there is a suspicious odor coming from the area that the "water" was dumped. The captain probably had the flight attendants freaking out and of course the flight deck crew can't come out to see for themselves. They really have no other choice but to divert.
This situation would never had gotten to this point if the flight attendants were properly trained about "liquid" bombs. The passenger could have taken a drink of it before giving it to the flight attendant and for goodness sake if you thought this could possibly be a flammable liquid you don't just pour it down the drain or in the trash - HELLO.
I am sure with all this hype and uninformed hysteria about "liquid bombs" the flight attendants were going crazy with the captain on the interphone. The captain really only had to divert. The blame falls squarely on AirTran and the government for not better training all flight crews regarding this new "threat".
I'm not singling AirTran out, I don't know of an airline that has incorporated this training yet.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
I'm certain there's a LOT more to the story.180ToTheMarker said:
So all you people condemning the crew's actions: what are YOU going to do? Seriously, with your VAST command experience, your cabin crew comes to you after a suspicious incident with a banned cabin item they suddenly start smelling some unidentified fumes that make them either tear up, nauseous, or hard to breathe. They ALL get on the intercom and tell you about it, what are YOU going to do? You're telling me you're going to IGNORE them? PRETEND you can't hear them? How old are you anyway, 12?
The CORRECT and PROPER response between cockpit and cabin crew will ALWAYS BEGIN AND END WITH RESPECT. I don't care if it's a crew of 19-year olds fresh out of training, you simply CANNOT dismiss their concerns. That is the ENTIRE basis of CRM... the one time you do, you either destroy your own future authority (they don't respect you and fail to act during an emergency), OR you miss the REAL emergency because you don't respect or believe them, and/OR they decide to take matters into their own hands (they start an evacuation on the runway without your command). Yes, that's happened before, genius.
Just for the sake of discussion, what if the F/A's had said they smelled smoke shortly after the incident? What if it was unrelated to the fluid in the bottle, but you were already predisposed to think since it's a "rule" we believe to be stupid from the TSA, we'll just ignore it?
I wonder how many extra minutes could be saved if a brand new F/A in the aft seat smelled smoke before it was visible and the crew IMMEDIATELY ACTED rather than thinking "Oh, they're brand new and just being alarmist about that guy's water; it's probably nothing" until the smoke started seeping up from the aft cargo through the flooring, meaning the fire is already RAGING below?
I wonder how many lives that would cost because of YOUR ego, believing you know better than everyone else and don't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes. You gonna go door to door and apologize to the familes of the people YOU KILLED with your arrogance? Assuming you live to do so?
Incidentally, Crusty, I have FAMs on a LOT of our flights to all the normal hot spots. Funny though, I've never seen one get on a turboprop. Doesn't your regional fly those?
p.s. Yes, I know why they don't fly TP's, that was tongue-in-cheek humor. Just want to make sure you didn't miss it.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
