General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat the media wants you to believe about the San Francisco air disaster
If you have been listening to various reports about the crash landing of the Asiana flight in San Francisco, you have been hearing them repeat over and over one common theme.
"Plane crashes are survivable"
This for some reason is the primary propaganda the media is pushing in this incident so far.
Yes, some plane crashes are survivable, but do we need to have that beaten into us?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)IIRC, Disney owned ABC network, or they did a decade ago.
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...than in airplane crashes. Escalators don't carry a thousand pounds of kerosene in their bellies, though.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Funny how so many people are afraid of flying yet have no problem getting in their car to go to work every day. The chances of you dying in a car crash is extremely higher than dying in a plane crash.
Its got to be a control thing. Maybe you feel like you have more control when you are on the ground than in the air.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A media executive wants people to watch his channel as opposed to his competitor's. What's his incentive to sugarcoat anything?
Atman
(31,464 posts)If you crash just right. But had the Asiana flight crashed nose-first into that sea wall, instead of clipping it with its tail, something tells me we wouldn't have seen quite so many people walking away.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)L fucking O fucking L
Silent3
(15,266 posts)To treat risk as binary safe/not-safe thing instead of realizing that air travel actually is pretty damn safe?
To be sure that everything is an organized plot to keep selling you stuff that hurts you?
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)They seem to think they have to tell us this for some reason. It stood out to me as odd that they want to push this piece of information.
Mz Pip
(27,453 posts)I don't think there is some secret plot to convince travelers of that fact.
I doubt there is any significant drop in air travel after a major air disaster. I fly back to SFO to tomorrow and haven't thought once about canceling.
sigmasix
(794 posts)liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)because people are happy that so many survived and only 2 have died and are on edge about the injured.
Because people care about people and people need people.
And it reminds one, how it was Ronald Reagan that ruined the airline industry in the first place
and why anyone ever voted for him over Jimmy Carter in 1980, I have no idea.
malaise
(269,157 posts)for once
ananda
(28,876 posts)It all depends on the crash.
In this particular crash in SF, some survived and some did not.
Some came out relatively well, some did not.
In the Alaska crash the next day, nobody survived.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's been a lot of improvements in safety technology since then, and this was pretty amazing.
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)It was a much more sever crash where the plane cartwheeled and exploded on impact. It was miraculous that anyone survived that crash.
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua232.shtml
It is the crew that makes the difference more than technology, the seats in a plane are the same seats, the restraints have not changed. Some newer materials that are more flame resistant maybe. But it is crew training that makes the difference today. You just hope that if it ever happens on a flight you are on, the crew is well trained and that the people do not panic.