Wednesday, June 15, 2005
"Dude, it's losing it"
Captain Jesse Rhodes and First Officer Peter Cesarz were both killed after they decided to "have a little fun" and take the 50-seat Pinnacle Airlines jet they were flying to 41,000ft - the limit of its capability...
"Ooh look at that," Mr Cesarz said, apparently referring to cockpit readings. "Pretty cool."
"Man, we can do it. Forty-one it," the captain replied. "Forty thousand, baby."
Two minutes later Mr Cesarz said: "Made it, man."
But seconds later, as an automatic system began warning of a stall, one of the pilots is heard to say: "Dude, it's losing it." A voice then said: "We don't have any engines. You got to be kidding me."
The plane crashed two and a half miles from the runway, missing houses.
Fortunately, the jet was empty but for the fools flying it.
9 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 15, 03:21:00 PM:
So for those of you who have been advocates of allowing pilots to bring guns into the cockpit, this should serve as testimony that this would not be wise.
Let's put it this way, given the numbers, the likelihood of some random pilot doing something bad with an onboard weapon is far greater, in my estimation, than the likelihood that an armed pilot would prevent the next onboard terror incident.
Just like anybody else, some fraction of pilots are whackos and idiots. These 2 clearly, and sadly, fit the bill.
By 
, at
Wed Jun 15, 04:33:00 PM:
AH yes, blood will run in the cockpits, just like when citizens carry guns, now in 40 or so states, the streets will be the wild west. So, where is the wild west, I am still looking for it.
Little moonbat -- Go get a life.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 15, 05:05:00 PM:
My my, I touched a nerve. Most call me a wingnut, not a moonbat.
It's not the wild west, but guns are used often in our streets. I have no problem with that, to be honest. Right to bear arms and all that is fine with me. However, that does not extend, for me, onto an airplane, for pilots only. Who says all pilots are virtuous? Letting pilots bring guns on board opens a huge security loop hole, today firmly closed, to thousands of people...some percentage of whom will be bad actors. For very limited upside. Merely preventing cockpit access by hardening and locking cockpits has solved most of the 9/11 risk. More air marshals helps a bit. Allowing thousands of pilots to bring guns on board has plenty of downside, for little or no upside.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jun 15, 06:53:00 PM:
I agree with Cardinalpark -- this is not a "gun rights" issue in the least. The question is whether we have confidence that all cockpit crews would use their weapons wisely, or whether the bad guys will figure out a way to grab the weapon. True, you have to throw the risk that a bad guy would risk sneaking a weapon past security and succeed in doing so on the other side of the scale. Perhaps the armed pilots are a hedge against that risk, so you weigh that against the chance that one of them is an idiot. Maybe my view of humanity is too dim, but I think there are almost certainly dozens of idiots among the thousands of pilots who fly commercial aircraft.
By sammy small, at
Wed Jun 15, 09:40:00 PM:
I wouldn't say the were idiots. They just didn't know their limitations (as Clint would say), or those of the aircraft operating near the stall speed. Not unusual for pilots whose flying time comes from the civilian world.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jun 16, 02:33:00 PM:
RPD - well, yes, actually. I think it is probably not a leap to say most pilots would not have exercised the same judgment that the poor deceased fellows chose to exercise. My point isn't that the same fellows or even like minded fellows would be poor gun users. My point is that some percentage of pilots are not "by the book" actors. Bad judgment, drinking on the job, bad aim, cleptomania..whatever. Some percentage are flawed people. Not to be trusted with a weapon on board. Like I said, to open such a loophole would raise, rather than reduce, the risk of a bad incident onboard an aircraft. Your proposal of letting anybody do it, of course raises the risk to impossibly high levels...such that I suspect that in fact, you're kidding. At least I hope so. Because if you're not...well...forget it.
By Counter Trey, at
Thu Jun 16, 03:38:00 PM:
Cardinalpark,
Most commercial airline pilots have training as officers in the military. Most are not idiots, so the debate then comes down to: Does the cost outweigh the benefit?
I would agree with you, if your argument was that current measures are effective and allowing the pilots to carry guns would give hijackers access to a weapon they otherwise wouldn't have, but I don't think that is what you are saying. You said that some are idiots (like cleptomaniacs) and therefore couldn't handle a situation in which they needed to use a gun. I think you are wrong and I think the mere notion that a pilot might be carrying is enough of a deterrent to hijackers to make the benefits outweigh the costs. Remember the LA riots? The only shopkeepers that saved their stores were the ones who were locked and loaded.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jun 16, 04:39:00 PM:
Counter Trey - this is great, I am having so much fun. I never anticipated there'd be so much interest in this issue.
A couple of observations:
1) The majority of airline pilots DO NOT have military training, a hilarious stereotype. A significant percentage do...around 1/3, I believe. I would observe that even if they did, by the way, only a small % would actually have experience with a handheld weapon. Most military pilots fly cargo buses, helos, and only a small fraction then fly serious performance stuff with weapons. But very few would ever really exercise their use of a handgun. The point? The majority of pilots DO NOT necessarily know what they are doing with a handheld weapon. Do not convince yourself by saying, hey, these guys are all trained military fellas. False. Ask a marine or infantry buddy of yours what he thinks of a pilot's marksmanship and combat valor and he'll spit out something amusing, I am sure.
2) Like any other category of humanity, some pilots are idiots (like the geniuses who took a 50 seater to 41,000 feet, by my estimation); some are cleptomaniacs (though idiots and cleptomaniacs are not one and the same - I know some very bright cleptomaniacs...check the dictionary). My point is that some meaningful percentage of pilots are high risk people to entrust with a gun onboard an aircraft. Just like a surgeon might be. Some will do wrong with it, by accident or on purpose. Today we have almost no risk of this (unless the guy chooses to break the law). It's just statistics, not a value judgment. It's tautological. Go to Webster's...
Even if a majority of pilots would do the right thing with a gun, I wouldn't want it on the plane. Because the risk associated with the percentage that would do the wrong thing is much higher than the risk of another 9/11-like incident.
3) Current countermeasures. The immediate problem an airline had to address after 9/11 was to secure the cockpit. Kevlar walls and titanium locks have made cockpit access virtually impossible. No terrorist is going to slice a pilot's throat and fly a plane into a building by walking into the cockpit, as they did on 9/11. If the pilot needs to visit the head these days, they block the front of the plane. Other than that, you only see the guy on the ground, not in the air. A terrorist may blow the plane out of the sky with a concealed bomb. Or a patient one may train to become a real live pilot and seize control from inside (in which case allowing him to be armed is a further problem). Don't forget about the Egyptair nutcase pilot who killed himself (who knows what was going on there, right?). But seizing the cockpit a la 9/11 ain't happening again.
To be honest, the last thing I want is a bloody pilot engaging in gunfight with a terrorist. I want my pilot flying the damn plane. Let the air marshal deal with the bad guy in the back. Or better yet, when the pilot (safely locked in the cockpit) is warned of a bad actor running around on board, let him go into a 5000 foot dive. Let's hope the innocents are buckled in, because that bad guy is gonna break his neck.
Analogizing to the LA riots is interesting but irrelevant. I support the store owner having his weapon and it's totally legal. It is against Federal Law to have a weapon on a plane however, and to carve out an exception for pilots is unnecessary and dangerous.
Keep it coming folks!
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 06:41:00 AM:
We specialize in laptop battery,laptop AC adapters. All our products are brand new, with the excellent service from our laptop battery of customer service team.
the most convenient and cheap replacement battery online shop in uk. We specialize in laptop batteries,laptop AC adapters.
All our laptop AC adapters are brand new, with the excellent service from our customer service team.
the most convenient and cheap battery online shop in uk.
