Conference back40::soapbox

    <enter Brian, stage left, with flamethrower>
    
    <loud screams off>
    
    <exeunt>

    .0, Your note is pathetic.  I sincerely hope you never need support 
    for any grief that comes into your life and you then encounter the 
    shallow and callousness displayed by your entry.  BTW, It is also 
    written in the plural regarding the parents.  There is only one, now. 
    I'm sure it doesn't help.  
    
    Brian

    The wise Wollo knows all.
    
    

    Brian:
    
    Oh for crying out loud...will you stop with the emotional tripe. 
    Nobody is saying anybody deserved anything.  
    
    I didn't even come close to saying this in the News Briefs string. 
    What I was saying is that parents who have this superficial concept of
    freedom simply don't count the costs.  
    
    If I let my seven year old ride his bike on Route 9 in
    Framingham...because I believe he should have the freedom to go to
    Friendlies for an Ice Cream whenever he wants, then it simply stands to
    reason...I'm a bonehead...catastrophe is inevitable.  
    
    I grieve for this woman...but it doesn't erase the fact that she did a
    foolish thing.  Deserving to lose a child and husband has nothing to do
    with it.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    
    This is dumb arguement, she was as safe as any passenger in the plane.
    The instructor had a full set of controls in front and beside her's. 
    He could have, and probably was in control of the plane that went down.
    
    The mistake was using that plane, from a high altitude airport
    in that weather.
    
    

 You may wish to change the plural "parents" in .0  The male parental
 unit will not be heard from (in this world anyway) on this subject.


 hth


Jim

    re : .0 (talk about an appropriate reply number. The only one better is
    .204)
    
     Isn't it kind of late in the week for Monday morning quarterbacking?

    Jack, I did not accuse you specifically of implying they deserved 
    anything.  Your biking analogy doesn't fit.  If you rode with your 
    child on Rt. 9 along with a bicycle instructor, that would possibly
    fit.  Besides riding in traffic is probably statistically more hazardous 
    than flying.  Your assertion that the parents were foolish is based upon 
    your own particular paradigm.  It is foolish, to you.  It has nothing to do
    with exercising freedoms.  The child was not free to come and go as she 
    pleased, with the plane.  She did however have the opportunity to 
    experience something virtually no one her age does and most of us never 
    will.  
    
    Brian

    
    	I believe that you need to behave responsibly as a parent and that
    doesn't mean you are paranoid or a coward. 
    
    	If the instructor was really flying the plane or in command, then
    what is the point of the flight in the first place? How can anyone say
    that the 7 yearold relly flew the plane from coast to coast if all she
    was doing was sitting in the front seat?
    
    ed

>>    I grieve for this woman...but it doesn't erase the fact that she did a
>>    foolish thing.  Deserving to lose a child and husband has nothing to do
>>    with it.
    
    So the onus is all upon her (just because she happened to be the one
    who survived)? What about the father? Or was he just going along for
    the ride? ....
    
    IMHO, I disagree with the decision made by all of the adults involved
    (the father, the mother, and the pilot). On the surface 7 yrs old seems
    young to me too, then again, I don't know anything about flying planes,
    and I don't know the facts.
    
    Both of my sons began learning to drive when they were 10 (that age
    just happened to be when they were tall enough to reach the pedals).
    They always drove on deserted roads out in the country. Had my X wanted
    to have them drive in the city or on the freeway, I would have
    definitely objected.
    
    My point?
    
    Some situations are *obviously* dangerous (like riding a bike on Route
    9 in Framingham, even for adults). This situation is still
    questionable. My gut feel says no. Then again, as I said before, I
    don't know anything about flying planes.
    
    All in all, it is tragic that these people died. It is tragic when
    anyone dies before they have a chance to grow old.

>        If the child stalled the plane on takeoff, the instructor would of had
>    no time to react before it was too late to stave off disaster.
    
   would *have*.

    No, he's just sick and tired of seeing people murder the English
    language.  Spelling and grammar *do* matter.  Observe:
    
    A:  I think guns should be illegal.
    
    B:  Your right.
    
    What did B just say?

    
    
    
    	Looks like he recognized #1's right to freedom of speech.
    

    Re: B.
    
    It had about as much validity as saying...
    
    your left?

>        What are you a freakin' grammar teacher wanabe.



     No.  I just happen to remember much of what I was taught in school.
     And you?




 Jim

    
    	And maybe, just maybe, someday some people WILL smarten up and
    	listen.
    

    re: .18
    
    The error of his ways?
    

>    Henderson, I think you are on a mission from God to show everyone the
>    error of their ways.


 Why, thank you!

    .20
    
    Bingo.

    
    re: .20
    
    >The error of his ways?
    
    Careful.... or you'll be classified as on a mission to someplace, too!
    
    

While I feel some go overboard regarding spelling and grammar,
"would of" is just plain *bad*.

    
    re: .23
    
    >but it is less jerky 
    
    To whom???
    

    
    	RE: .23
    
    	"their" doesn't mean "his or her", it means "his AND her", for
    	1 example.
    

    The instructor was ultimely responsible for this incident.  Word has it
    that his body will be placed in prison for 7 years, but will be
    released in 3.5 for good behavior.
    
    

    
    
    >        If the child stalled the plane on takeoff, the instructor
    >    no time to react before it was too late to stave off disaster.
    
    This is from years of instruction? Amazing that there are not more
    crashes everyday. 
    
    The instructor crashed this plane. He has all the controls she does.
    He doesn't have to push her out of the way or anything.
    
    She would have died if she was in the back seat.
    
    

    |his body will be placed in prison for 7 years,
    
    habeas corpses!
    

 
re .29


 I suspect a stall recovery could have been made more difficult since they
 had not gained much altitude and there was a thunderstorm (and accompanying
 variable winds) in progress putting different forces on the plane.




Jim

    Regardless of who ws flying the plane at the time it went down.  this
    is a frequent happening in the RM west, particularly when flying
    conditions are marginal.  
    
    I know, BAN SMALL PLANES! They are FLIB's to most of the controllers I
    know, and only interfere with commerce when they hold up larger planes
    from landing.  Besides, if it saves one life...........
    
    We all have to leave this lifetime dead, we are given a death sentence
    the day we are born, due to an addiction to a poison which acelerates
    fires, rust and rotting.  
    
    meg

    
    
    
    .31    Again, this was a poor plane to fly from this particular
    	   airport and especially under these conditions.
    
    	   I think her age had very little to do with the crash.
    
    	   Her ability to fly it under these conditions, whether 
    	   she's 7 or 17 as a novice may have, but the adult instructor
    	   showed poor adult judgement.  I question his abilities.
    
    In 6 months we'll get all the gory details probably. 
    Beside the recordings to the tower, the Father brought along a video 
    camera.
    
        
                                                                  

>     I know, BAN SMALL PLANES! They are FLIB's to most of the controllers I

Should pass muster - after all, they can probably be shown to interfere with
interstate commerce. If it saves one life.

    In 6 months we'll get all the gory details probably. 
    Beside the recordings to the tower, the Father brought along a video 
    camera.



 ABC has exclusive rights to the video recordings
    
        
                                                                  

    Jim, did ABC say whether or not the video recorder was ON at the time
    of the crash?
    

 I didn't hear, but I know they were looking for the camera.





 Jim

    .4  Oh my gosh!  Jack Martin said something I have to agree with.
    
    Help me I'm melting.....

    re: .0 How can one grieve for idiots?
    
    I don't know, but one of the idiots is dead.  
    
    IMO:  This deal is a pushy papa.  If papa kept his yapper shut, they'd
    probably have taken off when the weather got better and this wouldn't
    have happened, and the media could cheer loudly while tears of joy flow.
    But it didn't turn out that way.  What a bummer.

    Stuff happens, people make bad decisions that result in the deaths of
    others, including innocent children all the time.  Maybe we should ban
    parents that encourage their children to strech their wings.  It might
    same another couple of lives a year.
    
    BAN CESSNA's, BAN PARENTS, BAN THUNDERSTORMS!  It may same a life!
    
    meg

I get the impression that if there were an adult in the 
household, this wouldn't have happened.

Unfortunately, it seems the entire household was comprised of 
children.

daryll

    re: .10
    
    } How can anyone say that the 7 yearold relly flew the plane from coast
    } to coast
    
    Cause the media said so.  Otherwise it was like any other child
    (who has been taught basic flying skills) going for a ride.
    Now, if the little girl soloed... now THAT would be asking for
    trouble.

    This thing hit me harder than most of the horrible things reported on
    the news.  What business does a 7-year-old have flying an airplane? 
    And what's the point of setting this bloody record?  At best, the kid
    gets a few days of publicity, and a memory that may or may not give her
    pleasure in the future.  Not worth risking a 7-year-old's life, IMO.
    
    -Stephen

    
    
    .43 It was no great risk if done correctly.
    
        I think the parents had the formula for creating a great 
    	human-being.
    
        
    
        

    re 704.13
    
    "What are you a freakin' grammar teacher wanabe."
    
     should have been written:
    
     What are you - a freakin' grammar teacher wannabe?

    how about:
    
    What are you?  A freakin' grammar teacher wannabe?

    
    	Ummm, no, it shouldn't have, if it matters.
    

    Actually, .45 is correct.  The phrase "A ... wannabe" is an appositive,
    and appositives can be set off with either dashes or commas.  .46 is
    not correct because "A ... wannabe" is a sentence fragment.

    Or... 
    
    Wannabe a freakin grammer teacher? :)
    

    one question... waz a wannabe? Is that like a small jackalope? Or a
    mux? :)
    
    

    what is this?  a solid gold dress, i believe!

re: .45

Norm,

Was this a question you had on one of your appearances on 
Jeopardy?

daryll

    
    	You mean when they bought the pink crib, hoping they were going
    	to have a girl?
    
    	People can adapt.  I did.
    

| <<< Note 704.54 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "A Parting Shot in the Dark" >>>


| You mean when they bought the pink crib, hoping they were going to have a 
| girl?

	Shawn, I think they were hoping for a gay male child. :-)

    
    Reported last night; the plane was over weight at the time of take-off.
    One more in a series of mistakes made by the instructor.
    
    Doug.

    Word in the Denver Post is that the 7-year-old was raised in a
    household whose family home-schooled and also had no TV in the house.
    
    BAN HOMESCHOOLING!!!!  Kids are encouraged to reach beyond wht
    professionals believe kids are capable of!!!  If it saves one life,
    force every family to have TV in their homes.  
    
    meg

    
    SJ Mercury reported that their planned departure was at 7 am to
    beat the storm; in fact the skies were reported to be clear at
    at time, but they arrived at the airport at 7:45am AND the father
    was even later to finish a late-minute local TV interview.
    
    To me that last statement spoke volumes:
    1) even though I want to give the father a benefit of the doubt (that
       he wasn't hampered by a Svengali complex), that interview convinced
       me that this man was a publicity hound. He was living his dreams
       and fantasy through his kid.
    2) the instructor, if he was as careful and good as reported by his
       friends, would have known that the weather was increasingly
       becoming poor. He should have scrubbed the takeoff, but he too
       did not. Just like in sailing, one doesn't argue with Mother
       Nature, one does not sail or fly by schedule, especially when 
       doing so would be life-threatening.
    3) Even in a small airport like that one, where was the tower
       advisory in all this? Why didn't the tower stop them?
    4) If overloading was a factor, how could that have happened?
    
    I am very sorry that three lives were lost, especially in this case,
    it was totally unnecessary and probably avoidable. I sympathise with
    the survivors, but the Mother at some point after the initial shock
    would probably see this for what it was - a nice idea that snowballed
    out of control once the publicity-hunger took over. Seems she is still
    in complete denial.
    
    

 Take it easy, Meg.

   
 3) Even in a small airport like that one, where was the tower
       advisory in all this? Why didn't the tower stop them?

    from what I've read, the tower advised them as they were at the end
    of the runway that there was wind shear reported in the thunderstorm.
    However, the tower is powerless to stop them. Ultimately, it is 
    the pilot in command who has the final decision, in this case the
    instructor.
     
>    4) If overloading was a factor, how could that have happened?
    
  
        I've not done a lot of small plane flying.  I want to be a pilot
        one day and have read extensively on flight and various analysis
        of accidents.  Last summer I took an "introductory" flight lesson
        in Manchester NH.  The very first thing the instructor did
        was sit me down and explain how to calculate the weight of a plane
        considering that X was the maximum take off weight of this particular
        plane (Piper Cherokee) we flew that day.  We calculated the weight
        of the fuel, my weight, his weight, flight manuals, etc..and he
        told me the first thing you do, before gettting out to the plane
        was to calculate the weight (after checking weather of course).

        I wonder if teh instructor didn't take into account the 6000ft
        elevation of the airport.  That would have a significant impact
        on the performance of the plane.  Or, perhaps in their haste to
        try to beat the weather, he didn't calculate it at all. 


   >I am very sorry that three lives were lost, especially in this case,
   > it was totally unnecessary and probably avoidable. I sympathise with
   > the survivors, but the Mother at some point after the initial shock
   > would probably see this for what it was - a nice idea that snowballed
   > out of control once the publicity-hunger took over. Seems she is still
   > in complete denial.
    

    It is a tragedy.  I think it wonderful to encourge one's children to
    succeed and try new things.  But parents also need to protec their
    children, and included in such protection are the words "honey, I'd
    love to have you fly across the country..but that can wait".

    Somehow we're too hung up on being first to to this or first to do that.
    I was sitting at the ballpark today at the Red Sox game, looking around
    at children (Jessica was a child) about her age and imagining how one
    could think it wise to encourage this effort in such a young child.



 Jim
    

    Re .0:
    
    How do you know how dangerous it is to let a child fly a plane with an
    instructor present?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Z    the incident. "Jessica said to herself 'I don't care about the rules, I
Z    want to fly across the United States."
    
    Saw the mother on Jane Pauley's show last night.  The mothers New Age
    Philosophies carry alot of the responsibility for the attitude
    portrayed above.
    
    

    No Meg, Home Schooling is all about assuring that kids can read when
    they get into high school.  Your socialist institutions can't guarentee
    that.
    
    

    Riting is another mater.

    .63
    
    > Your socialist institutions can't guarentee that.
    
    Neither can homeschooling.  I have a 4-year-old niece who is obviously
    ready to read.  Her mother, a thumper who was taught to read at about
    that age and has worn glasses since childhood, refuses to begin
    teaching her because "It could damage her eyes, and I don't want her to
    have to wear glasses like me."
    
    This same mother was surprised a few years ago to see me using a sewing
    machine, and when she learned that I had actually designed the garment
    I was making she was floored.
    
    This same mother thought it a good idea last October that she and my
    wife should stand just inside a restaurant while her husband and I went
    to fetch the car - it was a block away, parked on a brightly lighted
    street in front of the cop shop.  This was after she had been too
    afraid to let her husband park less than half a block from the
    restaurant because there were men standing in front of a nearby liquor
    store and holding bottle-shaped brown paper bags.
    
    Guess what.  This mother was a victim of homeschooling.

    
    
    
    Your too rigid Jack.
    
    No laws were broken. I thought you were so gun-ho about the least
    Government is the best Government.
    
    

| <<< Note 704.63 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| No Meg, Home Schooling is all about assuring that kids can read when they get 
| into high school. Your socialist institutions can't guarentee that.

	Be real, Jack. Is it the school, or is it the kids in the school that
make it so it can't guarentee kids can or can't read? Is it the school, or is
it the parents that make it so a school can't guarentee that one can read? Who
is responsible for how kids act in class... the parents, the kids, or the
school? I think you will find that if a school has more than their share of
kids who act up in it, there is nothing the school can really do about it until
the parents step in, if they are around to that that. 

	What it comes down to, Jack...schools will do what they can. But
parents need to do their part, as well. Of course you knew that as seeing you
back home schooling, you seem to realize that a parent needs to take
responsibility. But you never use that reality when you talk about schools,
because it is easier to put the blame on the school system then on the parents,
where the blame in most cases lies. 

	Now in schools, they can get a flavor of life so thay don't end up
going to the outside world totally blind. Being shut off from the rest of the
world does that to a lot of people.

Glen

  guarantee


  knot that it madders

    
    re: .65
    
    Nice anecdote, Dick...
    
    
    Too bad it don't mean diddley...
    

    Andy, thanks for blocking Glen here! :-) (snarf)
    
    Dick, you are making an equivocal argument here.  There is a
    significant chunk of the population who are homeschooling their kids
    who do not fall into the category of your friends wife.  
    
    I know a couple who homeschool their kids because they don't believe in
    immunization.  I happen to think that's a whacked out idea but hey, to
    each his/her own.  
    
    The datum is there Dick.  Homeschooled children obviously get the
    personalized attention they need and overall score better on SATS.  As
    a whole that is.  
    
    -Jack

    .70
    
    Personalized attention and higher SATs don't mean squat if the kid is
    incapable of functioning well in society.  The woman I described is
    marginally so, and it is clear that her daughter will be more so than
    she herself is.

    Glen:
    
    Yes, I agree.  It is the fault of the parents or the fault of the
    situation the children happen to be in for the most part.  The schools
    do the best they can but at the same time, the teachers unions...which
    by the way are the scum of the world, are the biggest proponents of
    social engineering.  Somehow they feel they need to be a surrogate for
    parents responsibilities.  I understand that situations can be very
    complex but it doesn't mean we have to share misery evenly.  
    
    -Jack

    Dick,
    
    I attended the Framingham public school system.  Believe me, there were
    enough social retards to go around.
    
    -Jack

    Can we get another one instead of you?
    

    say jack, how'd the roast go?

    Don't spend enough time with their children.

RE: Binder,
        
    >Personalized attention and higher SATs don't mean squat if the kid is
    >incapable of functioning well in society.  The woman I described is
    >marginally so, and it is clear that her daughter will be more so than
    >she herself is.
    
    Of course, one must realize that everyone who attends organized
    schooling is fully capable of functioning well in society. Why, just
    look at the unibomber for example :-)
    
    Doug.

    Bonnie:
    
    I used 1040s for place mats, that was about it.  I welcomed the ladies,
    held up one of the forms, and told them it was an advertising stunt and
    gimmick.  The ladies of New Boston Baptist Church mean a whole world
    more to us than a $2,500.00 deduction.
    
    That was about all there was to that.  The rest of the time was
    edifying to the ladies.  Men cooked, men cleaned up, the whole bit!
    
    -Jack 

    Yeah but the Unibomber is an exception because he was brainwashed at
    Harvard and taught at Berkeley.  That's like getting a double whammy!

>    say jack, how'd the roast go?


  hmm ok..Jack..how'd the roast go?




Jim

    Tee hee!

>        <<< Note 704.79 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Yeah but the Unibomber is an exception because he was brainwashed at
>    Harvard and taught at Berkeley.  That's like getting a double whammy!

	Unabomber

	hth, but i seriously doubt it will.

    Yes, most unlikely!

| <<< Note 704.77 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>


| Of course, one must realize that everyone who attends organized
| schooling is fully capable of functioning well in society. Why, just
| look at the unibomber for example :-)

	Doug, did you notice to what length you had to go to? Dick mentioned
someone he knew. 


Glen

    
    are we now discussing the merit of homeschooling? Is this considered
    one aspect of "stupid things that parents do", as .0 stated?
    
    I don't believe that homeschooling contributed much to this tragedy;
    certainly the kids are brought rather unconventionally, but ultimately
    the control in THAT cockpit resided with the pilot-instructor, not
    the kid, her father or her mother's teaching. Having said that, I too
    caught part of the Mom's interview with Jane Pauley and I have to say
    that she's a nut. Happens to be a new-age nut, but still a nut. Pauley
    was awfully polite, but I could see some flashes of incredulity when
    she heard the mother's responses.
    
    way in .58 I know how a plane may be overloaded, but what I was really
    asking was whether there is not a mechanism to weigh a plane
    somehow. Certainly the ground altitude of 6000 ft should have been
    taken into consideration since that diminished the power of the engine.
    
    late bulletin on local SF TV:
    * the public is welcome to join the funeral procession - yet another publicity
      catcher if I put on my cynic hat.
    * the girl's 9 yr old brother will pilot, as in flying a plane, over 
      the procession!! Again on one hand I understand that this is so he 
      would not chicken out over his late sister's death; on the hand,
      this highly spiritual mother is definitely not immune to seeking
      more headlines.
                    

    The mother would never let her children read books relating to fear or
    teach her children that fear is a human attribute.  
    
    So what if Jesus sweat drops of blood on the Mount of Olives.  Her New
    Age Aura was invincable...all the way to the plane crash that is.
    
    -Jack

>    * the public is welcome to join the funeral procession - yet another publicity
>      catcher if I put on my cynic hat.
>    * the girl's 9 yr old brother will pilot, as in flying a plane, over 
>      the procession!! Again on one hand I understand that this is so he 
>      would not chicken out over his late sister's death; on the hand,
>      this highly spiritual mother is definitely not immune to seeking
>      more headlines.
                    

      
      ridiculous.




 Jim

    
    
    >    So what if Jesus sweat drops of blood on the Mount of Olives. 
    
    
    	  There's one thing my child won't read.
    

| <<< Note 704.87 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| The mother would never let her children read books relating to fear or
| teach her children that fear is a human attribute.

	This must mean homeschooling is all bad, eh? :-)

| So what if Jesus sweat drops of blood on the Mount of Olives.  

	Deb will be very upset if her olives have blood on them. 

| Her New Age Aura was invincable...all the way to the plane crash that is.

	Jack, when the kid first was going to fly, and all the way up to just
before the crash, did you say anything about how stupid this woman was? I don't
recall it. If not, bringing it up afterwards and trying to blame the parents
philosiphy is stupid.


Glen

    Okay Glen, how about this.
    
    Yesterday, the lady was going to let her young son fly a plane over the
    funeral sight to commemorate her daughter.
    
    This lady is a dingbat!

    What you may off handedly dismiss as dingbattedness, could in effect be
    nothing more than her flipping the world a virtual finger at all the
    hand wringers and nay sayers.  She may yet make a few bucks off this 
    being reportedly destitute and all.  If this turns out to be less 
    innocent than previously reported, that is a different story.  The
    piece in the paper wrt to breaking the rules, a lot of things we call
    progress are a result of someone breaking the rules.  I still see this
    as inspirational in that the family dared to do something challenging. 
    The basic premise of encouraging a child to do something out of the
    ordinary is still a good one IMO.  What most people here seem to
    continue to fail to realize is that this would have happened regardless
    of the ages of the participants.  
    
    Brian

| <<< Note 704.91 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Yesterday, the lady was going to let her young son fly a plane over the
| funeral sight to commemorate her daughter.

	So...do we stop everyone from flying because of one incident? I mean,
we have had one incident with a kid flying, but how many with adults? Be real,
Jack. 

	Now answer the question I asked. Did you say anything about how the kid
should not fly before the accident?

| This lady is a dingbat!

	No, she is not.


Glen

    Glen, this has nothing to do with people taking chances.  Paradigms and
    goals are broken because people push the envelope.
    
    I'm speaking about parental common sense and responsibility.  It may
    very well be that this woman gets a bad rap because her daughter passed
    away.  The plane was going down regardless of who flew the plane.  I'm
    speaking of a reckless attitude parents have that somehow children are
    the equivalent to adults.  This is false Glen, and her attitude about
    life in general may very well reap destruction up the road...needlessly
    I might add.
    
    I heard her speak on Sunday evening.  She's a dingbat.  

	Jack, please answer my basic question. Did you say anything about not
letting this child fly BEFORE the crash?

    Who said children are equivalents to adults, Jack?  Clearly this child
    was not allowed to fly the plane herself as it is against FAA regulations. 
    It certainly does not mean she was not skilled enough to handle the
    mechanics of flying.  What reason other than some arbitrary chronological 
    stick in the ground is there that says this started out as a bad idea?  
    Many children may be "typical" for their ages and incapable of reaching 
    beyond their years.  The incapability may include a lack of parental 
    foresight in providing extraordinary opportunities for growth and 
    experience and encouraging reaching higher than would is "normally" 
    expected of a 7, 8, 9 y.o.  You, and others will continue to dismiss
    this woman and her family as reckless.  I see it as instilling a can do
    attitude.  Something sorely lacking in today's young and old alike. 
    
    Brian

	Brian, be real. If she had made the flight, you can surely guess not a
negative word would have come from Jack. You can be sure the mother would not
be a dingbat. 


Glen

 Z   Who said children are equivalents to adults, Jack?  Clearly this child
 Z   was not allowed to fly the plane herself as it is against FAA
 Z   regulations.
    
    Brian...hold on a second.
    
    Glen, your question lacks merit and I'm ignoring it.  To appease you
    however, the quick and dirty is...I wouldn't have said anything simply
    because I didn't hear about it.
    
    Brian, let's forget about the particular incident for a minute and
    let's focus on the generic topic of stupid things that parents do.
    Brian, I have a nephew now (by marriage) who is in the Devereaux school
    in Central Massachusetts.  I met this child when he was three years old
    and I knew the minute I met him that there was something different
    about him.  In short, I recognized him as somewhat hyper and pegged him
    as a candidate for trouble unless the parents maintained a good handle
    on him throughout his development years.  
    
    The parents were quite well to do and for whatever reason, treated this
    child like he was an adult.  Nevermind the fact that he' flip your ice
    cream over your lap...or arbitrarily threw an egg, or go up to your
    face and scream with laughter for no reason at all, mommy dearest
    thought he was a cute little boy who was just growing up.  Dad would
    give him $100.00 bill and he'd run around the house with it like it was
    a quarter.  He was seven by this point and I knew...I simply knew that
    this kid was destined to be frigged up.
    
    Once he turned twelve, he acted the same, but now he was big and wasn't
    cute anymore.  The parents woke up and had a reeeal problem on their
    hands...of their own creation I might add.  Parents are going through a
    nasty divorce and the kid is, as I said, at a special school.  I spoke
    to him last wek and all he talked about was how his lawyers are going
    to get him out.  This kid will see reality in about a month because NO
    lawyer is going to get him out and the parents are not allowed to even
    call the school until further notice.  Moral of the story...stupid
    parents.
    
    Point of this entry...children cannot discern reality and fantasy like
    adults can.  Children cannot discern danger from safety like adults
    can.  Children do not possess the wisdom or the critical thinking
    ability that adults do, and they certainly don't have the life
    experiences needed to survive as adults do.  This poor little girls
    mom, by her attitude on TV the other night, neglected to prepare her
    daughter for reality.  Doesn't matter if the plane crashed or made it
    safely.  You cannot give a child the same credance you can to an adult
    regarding the freedom of choice.  There is a high probability that the
    child will end up dead, hurt, or in a special school learning to cope
    with life.
    
    -Jack

 I dropped my Boston Globe in a puddle this morning as I got out of my car.



 Jim

    
    
    .99 You think  Mike Barnacle  can speak about common sense?
    

| <<< Note 704.98 by 3258::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, your question lacks merit and I'm ignoring it.  To appease you
| however, the quick and dirty is...I wouldn't have said anything simply
| because I didn't hear about it.


	That's just it, Jack. It IS relavant. But I can see why you would
ignore it. 

	And I didn't imply that you did hear about it, but asked if you would
have complained if she made it across the states. 



Glen

| <<< Note 704.100 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| I dropped my Boston Globe in a puddle this morning as I got out of my car.

	Go to the Boston Globe's page on the net!

    Jack,
    
    Your personal account of a disintegrating family is a dismissable as
    Dick's was by Andy.  The fact that one set of parents is incapable of
    successfully guiding the development of their child does not mean
    everyone else shares that same incompetence.  
    
    You still fail to realize that the child was not calling the shots. 
    Yes, she was involved to the point where it was her flight and her
    challenge.  She was supervised.  Children routinely start learning to 
    swim as early as two.  They certainly do not undertake this challenge 
    on their own nor are they (hopefully) allowed to be in the pool alone. 
    This is just as potentially lethal as flying.  Statistically, I bet it 
    is far more lethal to children than flying.  Is there a minimum age
    at which we should allow children to be near the water?  
    
    I agree with your assertion regarding discernment relative to inherent
    dangers.  I see this with the children I coach.  It is my job to guide
    them through the dangers of skiing and racing.  It is also my job to
    help them go as fast as they possibly can in a relatively safe 
    environment.  They are supervised as Jessica was.  She was under the 
    purview of adults.  Accompanied by a certified expert.  In essence, 
    her presence was inconsequential to the outcome.  The plane would most
    likely have crashed under those circumstances anyway.  It wasn't her 
    fault.  It was the instructor's and/or the father's fault for not paying 
    attention to the details.  This blathering on about too young for this or 
    that activity and unbridled freedom is nonsense.  She was not free to 
    do as she wished.  She was given an opportunity to learn a skill which 
    by all accounts, she had done remarkably well for a 6 year old.  Even 
    with the skills attained, she was not allowed to use them without 
    supervision.  Do you see the theme here, Jack?  Far different from your 
    anecdote about the 3 year old without guidance or discipline.  Enter
    that under stupid things parents do not do if you wish.  Not a good
    comparison to Jessica's flight.  
    
    Brian

    Glen:
    
    I want you to look at my .98 and tell me what you agree with in it.
    
    

    how is coaching a child to fly and airplane any more stupid or
    "ding-bat" than coaching a child, beginning at age six to learn double
    and triple axles on a skating rink, or teaching him or her spring-board
    landings from balance beams? 
    
    As far as jessica's brother, I was raised to get back on the horse that
    threw me as soon as I could, so I wouldn't have a fear-factor about it
    later.  i can see having him fly again ASAP, if this is what he loved
    before, is the same sort of thing.  

 Z   I agree with your assertion regarding discernment relative to inherent
 Z       dangers.  I see this with the children I coach.
    
    Good...that was the crux of what I was trying to communicate.
    
    The flight issue was supervised, and as I said it may have happened
    anyway.  This mother however spoke in a way that one could draw the
    conclusion she is reckless in her attitude toward bringing up children.
    For a child, freedom without parameters is not freedom at all.  It is a
    counterfeit.  Jessica was supervised but frankly, if the child said she
    wanted to do it solo, then FAA regulations would go against the grain
    of mom's ideology on the matter of childrens freedom.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, read your .98. Sad story, but it had nothing to do with this one.
I think you need to read Brian's note again. Your story just does not compare.


Glen

    A lot of parents involve their children in activities that aren't
    exactly risk-averse, but, in the case of teaching a youngster to fly,
    one presumes that SOME common sense is available -- as in, "we don't
    fly in bad weather" kind-of-thinking.
    
    Evidently, the responsible adults in this case were more concerned
    about a timetable than about safety.

    It does compare in the sense that the parents treated the child like an
    adult...which is exactly what he was not!

| <<< Note 704.107 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| This mother however spoke in a way that one could draw the conclusion she is 
| reckless in her attitude toward bringing up children.

	Apparently this is true, as that was your assesment. 

| Jessica was supervised but frankly, if the child said she wanted to do it 
| solo, then FAA regulations would go against the grain of mom's ideology on 
| the matter of childrens freedom.

	You're an idiot. Where did the mother say her child could ever go
unsupervised? Unless you can show me this, your assesment is once again wrong.


Glen

I hate to admit, I agree with Glen 100%. For those of us and the media who 
didn't see any thing wrong in this child flying, BEFORE the crash, howcome all 
of a sudden now the whole idea seems rotten. If the rest of us couldn't 
predict the disaster, how do you think the parents could have.

- If the mission had been a success, the girl and her parents would have been
  an instant celebrity. So then its OK to make the young girl fly.

- The mom, if she had weeped and sobbed and put up a story about how she had a
  premonition the other night and wanted to stop this mission but couldn't do
  so because .... <weep> .. <sob> .. <wail>... and how she feels bad like a
  killer mom.... then we will be consoling her, as to how America is proud of
  her daughter and her courageous parents...

.. and of all don't forget ultimately its the the instructor who was at fault.
I salute this lady!

    It's difficult for us to sit behind a computer screen and really _know_
    what the reasons were for electing to take off during the weather. We
    don't know how bad the weather really was. We don't know how bad the
    weather appeared to them. All we know is that the weather was "bad" and
    a tragic outcome occurred. 
    
    Bad weather is relative. I've been out in various forms of "bad"
    weather. Sometimes the weather was worse than predicted/reported.
    Sometimes what had been billed as something major fizzled. Sometimes
    what seemed relatively innocuous turned out to be serious, and a
    seemingly sound decision turned out to be a significant miscalculation.
    There have been more than one "white knuckle" rides in my life as a
    result of deteriorating weather conditions. I sure as hell would resent
    someone coming in after the fact to tell me I should have known better
    blah blah blah. Second guessing is easy after the fact, especially when
    something goes wrong. 
    
    How would you like to have a bunch of people who weren't there berate
    you for making a mistake? It's bad enough when you have to live with
    (or die from) the results of your mistake; it's doubly bad to have the
    results endured by those you love, but it's really over the top to have
    to listen to instant experts pontificate as if they had all the data
    available to you in an identical situation. Not to mention the fact
    that risk tolerance varies between individuals. This doesn't mean that
    the most conservative tack is always best.
    
    

 Z    If the rest of us couldn't 
 Z   predict the disaster, how do you think the parents could have.
    
    First, my criticism is based on her overall ideology regarding
    childrens limitation...she communicated she doesn't have any.  I
    believe that is unhealthy.  This is what puts her into the dingbat
    category...this is what put my Sister n law/Brother n law into the
    dingbat category.  
    
    Just out of curiosity, let me put a hypothetical before you.  You have
    an illness and there are only two doctors that can help you.  The first
    is a 20 year veteran and the other one is Doogie Howser.  They are both
    equally qualified.  Which one of them do you honestly prefer to do the
    operation?
    
    

  Z   How would you like to have a bunch of people who weren't there berate
  Z   you for making a mistake? 
    
    I wouldn't...but then again I wouldn't pour out my ideologies on Jane
    Pauley's show either.
    
    -Jack

>>    Just out of curiosity, let me put a hypothetical before you.  You have
>>    an illness and there are only two doctors that can help you.  The first
>>    is a 20 year veteran and the other one is Doogie Howser.  They are both
>>    equally qualified.  Which one of them do you honestly prefer to do the
>>    operation?
  
The 20 year veteran. So ...?  

  >  This mother however spoke in a way that one could draw the
  >  conclusion she is reckless in her attitude toward bringing up children.
 
  What did she say that gave you this impression?
   
  >  It's difficult for us to sit behind a computer screen and really _know_
  >  what the reasons were for electing to take off during the weather. We
  >  don't know how bad the weather really was. We don't know how bad the
  > weather appeared to them. All we know is that the weather was "bad" and
  >  a tragic outcome occurred. 
 
  Weather conditions were reported as variable with 2mile visibility average,
  low cloulds (I don't remember the exact ceiling) and rain. Video of 
  readying the plane showed Jessica running in the rain to the plane carrying 
  a portable radio. Wind shear had been reported in the area, the tower 
  passed this on to to the plane. Add to that an overwieght plane at high
  altitude and this is a prescription for trouble.

  I suspect the weather was localized and the pilot thought they could get
  past/through it quick enough and continue on their way.

  Doug.
   

    I just wanted to be sure you agree that children have a limited scope
    of ability than adults do...no matter how much training they aquire. 
    Apparently you agree since you picked the veteran.
    
    Mom in this case doesn't appear to agree with me and that's the crux of
    my point here.  

	Jack, again, you "don't get it". The mother knew the father, and a
flight instructor was there. So she isn't being reckless. 


Glen

  ZZ   What did she say that gave you this impression?
    
    Fear was a violation to her New Age Aura.  Therefore, it was imperative
    that she not expose her children to any books or media outlets that
    spoke of fear.  She wanted her children to experience the pureness and
    fullness of freedom.  Fear would stand in the way of this.  
    
    I believe fear is a mechanism of self preservation.  Even Christ
    himself said, "Oh Lord, if it be possible, remove this cup from me..."
    What a wonderful gift we have to preserve ourselves.  What an
    unfortunate outlook on life she has...to purposely try to devoid her
    children of a natural human emotion.  Fear is appropriate as long as it
    is not used out of context.
    
    -Jack

 Z   Jack, again, you "don't get it". The mother knew the father, and a
 Z   flight instructor was there. So she isn't being reckless.
    
    Glen, are you just having your period today or are you being a dink on
    purpose.  For the umpteenth time, I am speaking of mom's ideology
    toward life.  Forget the damn plane incident...it isn't what I am
    talking about!!!!!

| <<< Note 704.121 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| For the umpteenth time, I am speaking of mom's ideology toward life.  Forget 
| the damn plane incident...it isn't what I am talking about!!!!!

	If it wasn't FOR the plane incident, we wouldn't even have the
conversations to begin with.


Glen

	And another thing... you can perceive what you like about her, but that
is all you can do. You weren't part of that family, so you don't really know
just how it was all put out for the children to begin with.


Glen

 Z   And another thing... you can perceive what you like about her, but that
 Z   is all you can do. You weren't part of that family, so you don't really
 Z   know just how it was all put out for the children to begin with.
    
    Yeah??  Did I state otherwise???  She made comments on National
    television and I commented based on what she said.
    
    Glen, I think your showing signs of toxic shock.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Yo make off-the-wall comments in here everyday.  Maybe i should
    consider you a dingbat instead of willbully ignorant instead?
    
    meg

  I think it is great that mom and dad wanted to let their little girl
  spend some time flying in an airplane.  I think it is great that they
  encouraged her.  But, as I've said before, there are times when parents
  have to protect their children and say "no".  I'm not sure that was
  a word little Jessica heard too often, if at all.  She was eulogized
  as saying "I don't care about the rules..I wanna fly across the country"..
  That, to me, speaks volumes.

  I was one who thought it wonderful that this little girl (can I say that?)
  was attempting this feat.  But, I knew little about the family situation,
  and from what I can see and in my opinion, I wonder how much parenting
  of this child was involved, or did the parents view their children
  more as "friends".

  As I've said before, my son loved baseball as a kid (and still does)..he
  wanted to play baseball, and I encouraged him.  But, I certainly wouldn't
  say "well, you like baseball?  How about taking a few fastballs from
  Nolan Ryan.


  Parenting is a responsibility, and part of that responsibility is teaching
  the child that there are limits.



 Jim

    Meg:
    
    Call me whatever you want.  It never stopped you before!!!

RE: .120 JM,

 I translate differently than you, but then again, I didn't see the interview
 so I only base this on your comments.

 While the parents may have kept the burden of fear from the young growing
 and exploring mind, that is not to say that they were exposing her to
 unnecessary danger.

 Fear often prevents people from achieving their full potential. 

 Now, had she included caution and safety in her banned topics list I
 would have a problem with this.

 But that doesn't seem to be the case.

 >What an unfortunate outlook on life she has.

  On the contrary ... Kids should not live in fear.

 >..to purposely try to devoid her
 >   children of a natural human emotion.

 I disagree that this is her intention or desire.

 >  Fear is appropriate as long as it is not used out of context.

 Which is why she does not expose her child to the unnecessary excesses of
 violence so prevelant in todays society. What should any 7 year old
 be fearing? 
 
 Doug.
	

| <<< Note 704.124 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Yeah??  Did I state otherwise???  She made comments on National
| television and I commented based on what she said.

	Wow...talk about being thick, Jack. I do feel sorry for you, though.




Glen

        jack believes everything he sees on TV?  No wonder he doesn't know the
    similarities of the hokey pokey and body dancing, or the difference
    between children's rhymes and Gangsta Rap.  

    I am surprised that a parent opposed to the perceived opiate of public
    schools has a TV on more than this public-school parent does, then
    again, given the rhetoric spewed about schools and other things, maybe
    I am not surprised.
    
    People who get their reality from the idiot box is something to be
    concerned about IMHO.

 FWIW, I thought Barnicles column in today's Boston Globe was right
 on the money..




 Jim

    law of averages

    Can someone excerpt what he wrote?  I don't have access to yesterday's 
    Globe in any format.  I am consistently unimpressed with Barnicle's 
    blathering on about whatever his rant du Jour is but it might be worth 
    looking at.  
    
    Brian

 I can't type it in from here..perhaps someone can grab it off the 'net.




 Jim

 ZZ   Wow...talk about being thick, Jack. I do feel sorry for you, though.
    
    Nice deflection (To put it in your words Glen).  Feel sorry for me all
    you want Glen.  Don't forget Glen, I'm the pompous arrogant bastard in
    Soapbox with the well ordered life and nothing to concern myself with.
    
    Hope your situation is the same but somehow I doubt it.
    
    -Jack

    well-ordered

 Z   jack believes everything he sees on TV?  No wonder he doesn't know the
 Z   similarities of the hokey pokey and body dancing, or the difference
 Z   between children's rhymes and Gangsta Rap.  

Meg, as a parent I consider it important to discern what is proper for my 
kids to watch should the idiot box be turned on.  I believed what I saw on
TV because I heard it straight from the horses mouth.  I think you're pissed
at me because I am criticizing her New Age mentality.  Very perceptive of you.
I believe New Age is one of the biggest shams of the late 20th century. 

As far as Rap goes, my opinion is that Rap is not music.  It's noise and it 
annoys me.  No appreciation for it whatsoever.

Z    I am surprised that a parent opposed to the perceived opiate of public
Z    schools has a TV on more than this public-school parent does, then
Z    again, given the rhetoric spewed about schools and other things, maybe
Z    I am not surprised.
 
Meg, the public schools have become the victim of a big whore called the 
National Education Association.  I actually feel sorry for the public schools,
however, keep in mind that as Glen says, anything can be fixed...and I agree
with this.  However, I believe putting the onus on property owners and 
allowing Washington DC to determine the fate of these schools is reprehensible.
We allow our children to watch Sesame Street (unless it is overtly noisy), 
Barney and Friends (which I have done 180 degree turn on), and Mr. Rogers.
Sometimes in the evening we will watch some of the old Nick at Night shows but
for the most part that is it.  
   
Z    People who get their reality from the idiot box is something to be
Z    concerned about IMHO.

Meg, I get my news from CSPAN and the Lehrer News hour.  Sometimes I catch the 
McLaughlin Group and Crossfire.  I don't watch the networks at all. 

Once again I believe this whole response from you to be a deflection.  Better 
yet, I see it as an electronic hissy fit coming from you because of my 
feedback on said lady's New Age mentality.

-Jack

| <<< Note 704.135 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Don't forget Glen, I'm the pompous arrogant bastard in Soapbox with the well 
| ordered life and nothing to concern myself with.

	Wow....if you want, I can tear this one apart very easily. Let me know
if you want it done in here, or in mail.



Glen

Flight of fancy not kid stuff

Mike Barnicle

 In between the time Jessica Dubroff was killed last week and the moment you 
picked up the newspaper today, thousands of people in this country died. As a 
matter of fact - according to the Census Bureau - one person dies every 15 
seconds in America.

 In all kinds of ways, too.

 The lucky pass away in their sleep. Some are just old and simply worn out.

 Many are victims of homicide. They are shot, sliced, diced, burned, choked, 
tortured, stabbed and beaten to death.

 Others leave this life after suffering from one of the various diseases that 
claim so many: Cancer, AIDS, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and clogged coronary 
arteries are just a few.

 Car crashes take a lot of people, too. Then there are house fires. Drownings, 
Suicides. Industrial accidents. Stress. Neglect. Loneliness. Why, there are 
hundreds of different ways to die and thousands of assorted reasons as well as 
explanations behind almost every death.

 Know what the explanation behind Jessica Dubroff's death was? Bad flying and 
a pair of nutty parents.

 And guess what the explanation is for the prolonged national hand-wringing 
and incredible publicity that continues right through her burial yesterday: We 
live in an absolutely whacky nation where the culture has spun so far out of 
control that otherwise sane human beings claim with a straight face that a 
seven-year-old girl is some kind of heroine or role model because she died 
seeking to fulfill a dream of flying coast-to-coast before some six-year-old 
beat her to it.

 Listen to this: "So many people of all ages die before they live. What made 
Jessica so special was the fact that even at seven years of age she was 
inspired by a dream that told her how to live life. In her mind, nothing was 
impossible. God bless the mother, God bless the father and God bless the 
flight instructor who taught the girl to dream."

 One of the ministers at a memorial service for the seven-year-old failed 
flier spoke those nutty words. But he failed to point out the obvious: Three 
of those he mentioned - father, daughter and flight instructor - died of 
stupidity while the fourth - the girl's mother - is clearly America's latest 
and, for the moment, most prominent, candidate for therapy.

 It sometimes seems that much of the last decade has been a uniquely American 
exercise in trying to trivialize nearly everything that was once shocking. You 
name it and we've either gotten used to reading and hearing about it or, 
worse, it's on TV seven nights a week or in front of our face each day: 
Murder, abortion, rape, assault, robbery, simple bag snaps, the wildest of 
sexual escapades, kids divorcing their parents, parents suing schools because 
their child didn't make a Little League team, or can't wear a ring through 
their nose in home room.

  Now this: A pathetically lame public relations stunt aimed at grabbing the 
cover of People magazine, the front pages of newspapers, a couple of minutes 
on the networks, a made-for-TV movie, an interview with Larry King and perhaps 
a book deal all turns sour when a plane falls from the Wyoming sky.

 Would any parent in their right mind allow a seven-year-old to drive a car 
to the supermarket? Yet instead of asking the only obvious question - Were 
they all nuts? - a stunning number of citizens regard the extremely dead 
Jessica Dubroff as a hero because she pursued a dream.

 A hero! As you read this there are hundreds of seven-year-olds lying in 
hospital beds battling things that kill them. There are thousands of others 
who struggle against daunting daily odds of poverty and brutality simply to go 
to school, walk a block in safety, fend for themselves in homes, apartments 
and neighborhoods where danger is a constant, where they live without love, 
mothers, fathers and hope, and do it every day.

 This kid was no hero. If anything, she was merely the latest spoiled victim of 
a culture growing more depraved by the day, a culture where celebrity is 
accorded more status than conscience, where fame and wealth are everything 
while intelligence and integrity are for saps, where so many are so busy we 
remain passive while our own society either corrupts the young, strips them of
innocence too early in their lives, or robs them of their right as well as 
their expectations to stay a kid.

 We are an amazing contradiction: We are the greatest, strongest, richest, 
most powerful nation ever. But we are also the most decadent as well as the 
dumbest because we don't even realize that common sense has apparently died.

    Glen, go ahead....make a spectable of me.  I eagerly await your harsh
    exhortations!!!!

    
    
    
    .139 I think Mike could have attacked the child less. I saw nothing
    	 spoiled about her.
    
    

    She was so spoiled she was neither allowed to watch TV nor own toys.

|| <<< Note 704.140 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

|| Glen, go ahead....make a spectable of me.  

 	Not sure that is possible, Jack.
 


Glen

    Okay then make a spectator out of me!

| <<< Note 704.144 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Okay then make a spectator out of me!

	Only you can do that...ya need to shut yer trap!

I think Barnicle is a dingbat! He wouldn't know substance if he stepped
in it.

    Thanks for posting that, Andy.  Once again Barnicle does not fail to 
    disappoint.  

    Well, I see Barnicle has his head up his ..... as usual.
    
    OJM seems to be discussing a different incident than the rest.
    
    There is only one person to blame for this crash...the CFI who was PIC
    of the flight.
    
    Have I ever made mistakes flying?  Yep.  Fortunately, I've avoided
    making major mistakes and making multiple concurrent mistakes.  Will I
    continue to make mistakes?  Yep.  Will I repeat the ones I've already
    made?  Not if I can help it.
    
    Bob

    Bob:
    
    Mom doesn't seem to believe children need parameters and limits.  I
    wasn't speaking of the crash per sae although it could potentially be
    indicative of her attitude.  
    
    If I had to predict outcomes, my guess would be the remainder of her
    children will either die young, catch an STD, end up in jail, or end up
    hating and disrespecting mom.  I could very well be wrong but I would
    say their chances of dysfunctionality exists.
    
    -Jack

	Gee, Jack. Did she ever say that the father shoudn't go? No. Did she
ever say lets do it without a flight instructor? No. What she did do was allow
her to fly. But they took steps to help ensure that she flew safely. The
instructor made a BIG mistake, and it cost all of them their lives. 

	Again, if she made it accross, would you have been carrying on about
the mother?



Glen

    >Mom doesn't seem to believe children need parameters and limits.
    
     She doesn't, huh? Then why doesn't she allow her children to watch TV
    or own toys? Couldn't it possibly be merely a matter of her choosing
    different limits and a different parenting style? No? It's gotta be
    that she "doesn't believe in parameters." At least, not OJM parameters.
    

>    Mom doesn't seem to believe children need parameters and limits

   Jack, where did you get this from? She may not believe in your definition
   of proper parameters and limits, but that does not in any way translate into
   the above ...

   Doug.

    Hey, there's an echo in here.
    
    
    Hey, there's an echo in here.
    

  i have to agree with most of what Barnicle wrote.  the mother seems
  like a real wingnut.  i realize that's a separate issue, for the most
  part, from what went wrong that day in particular.

I've seen more upset over losing their car keys.

She didn't let her kid have toys?  Is this for real?  Kids need toys for
proper development.  They can be sticks and rocks instead of Barbies,
but they're toys nonetheless.

    >She didn't let her kid have toys?  Is this for real?  
    
     This is what I heard (indirectly). She believed that spare time should
    be spent at places like the library, etc. Rather a different picture
    than the boundaryless type that OJM paints her as being. Not to say
    that she isn't a bit strange, but what have you?

    Diane:
    
    Thanks for your honesty.  Of course you realize Glen thinks you're
    thick and he feels sorry for you.  Glead you have placed yourself
    amongst the unsympathetic!

  why would i be other than honest, jack?

                      
    its true that the cfi was responsible for the safety of the plane and
    its passengers. but the point is the 7 yr old girl did not have to 
    be on that plane. the only reason she was on the plane was because
    as her mother said "children should be allowed to do whatever they
    want". that is why the child said "i dont care about rules, i want
    to fly across the country". i think a 7 yr old should understand the
    word "no" and that you cannot always get/have whatever you want.
    
    i had a bad feeling about this flight before it ever left the ground.
    i also thought it was a bad idea when the 10 yr old,9yr old, 8yr old
    tried it. are we going to have a 6yr old try it next year. all you
    need to do is sit in the pilot seat and call yourself a pilot.
     
    actually now that i think about it, why not have a 7yr become the
    youngest to pilot the space shuttle. after all there's not a whole
    lot of manual labor involved. kids should be allowed to do whatever
    they want.
    
    and by the way, when the first kid tried this (whenever that was)
    who was the lame-brain in the FAA who said "sure thats sounds like
    a fun idea to me".

    Yes...what I should have said was, thank you for your forthrightness.
    
    You would be a successful politician Di.  You seem to use the same
    philosophy Jimmy Carter did during his election campaign in 1976.
    Let everybody else do most of the talking and then give everybody a
    slight taste of your opinion.  This gives you more credance in the long
    run.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 704.158 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Thanks for your honesty.  Of course you realize Glen thinks you're
| thick and he feels sorry for you.  

	Who said I would do that for her? I haven't heard her reasons. I have
heard yours. 


Glen

    re .160

    What parts of the last few notes didn't you read before you said the
    mom let children do whatever they wanted to?  She sounds far more
    strict than OJM as far as how kids spent their spare time.  Whether I
    consider her child-raising methods to be the best way to raise kids is
    neither here nor there.  

    I see no difference in this parent than any parent of a figure skater
    with some talent, who drives her kids into the rink at 4:30 in the
    morning send them to school and picks them up for dance of gymnastics
    course until late evening when the kid eats, does any homework and
    sleeps until 0430 the next morning.

    If these people were pushing their kids too hard, they did nothing more
    than the parents of young tennis players, little leaguers, golf
    parents, stage parents.........

    The only foulup I really see was the route they chose and the failure
    of the adults to pay attention to the weather conditions, weight and
    fuel requirements for high altitude.  This is the tragedy, the other
    part is something every parent who has forced hir kid to go to
    gymnastics, dance, modeling, talent search, baby beauty contests,
    baseball practice..... when the child did not want to should look at
    carefully.

    meg

>                 <<< Note 704.162 by BIGQ::SILVA "Mr. Logo" >>>

> I haven't heard her reasons.

	what "reasons"?  reasons for agreeing with Barnicle?  i just
	do.  hopefully, i don't need to regurgitate what he said and
	blather on, self-indulgently, about why i agree with it.

>    as her mother said "children should be allowed to do whatever they
>    want". that is why the child said "i dont care about rules, i want
    
    
    	See and I heard it as, Children should be allowed to Achieve.
    
    	No rules were broken, you've overstated your case.
    
    

	Milady, you expected anything less? :-)

    Glen, you're the biggest suck up in the box.  

	How was that a suck up? 

    Ahhaaaa....another snarf gone!

    Easy...you're also criticizing me but you don't Di.  You always did
    like her best.  
    
    

| <<< Note 704.170 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Easy...you're also criticizing me but you don't Di.  

	Di likes the guy because she does. She has not, and probably won't go
into the why's. How can someone critisize someone if they don't know the
reasons? You on the other hand tell us your reasons, and it makes it quite easy
to critisize.

| You always did like her best.

	Ok, so ya got me there. :-)

The Smothers Siblings?

>	Di likes the guy because she does. 

	Oh my achin' back.  I don't "like" the guy.  I said I agreed with
	most of what he wrote in this one article.  Sheesh.

  ZZ  How can someone critisize someone if they don't know the
  ZZ  reasons?
    
    Gotcha!  So stop asking me if I would be as critical about mom had the
    girl succeeded in her flight.  I wouldn't have criticized her because
    the dirt about her philosophies would not have made the news.
    
    

>The Smothers Siblings?

	i'd opt to play the part of Tommy, as i think Jack would
	make the perfect, er, Richard.

    .160
    
    > mother said "children should be allowed to do whatever they want".
    
    Except, possibly, have toys and watch television.

>	i'd opt to play the part of Tommy, as i think Jack would
>	make the perfect, er, Richard.

He _is_ a straight man.

    Why don't we hear people complaining about parents who let their
    children go skiing?  Skiing is dangerous, but there are lots of kids on
    the slopes.
    
    The real reason many people are reacting against this mother is because
    she let her kid do something different, not because she let her kid do
    something dangerous.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

     i would not fly in a plane that was piloted by a
     seven-year old.

    re: .178
    
    > Why don't we hear people complaining about parents who let their
    > children go skiing?  Skiing is dangerous, but there are lots of kids on
    > the slopes.
    > 
    > The real reason many people are reacting against this mother is because
    > she let her kid do something different, not because she let her kid do
    > something dangerous.
    
    The main problem that I have with this (and the way that I see it
    as being different from, say, skiing or SCUBA diving) is that the
    plane crash could well have killed other people on the ground.
    Luckily, it didn't; if it had, the reaction might well be different.
    
    Beyond that, I see flying as different from something like skiing
    because it involves levels of academic ability (for the ground-school
    kind of training), judgment, hand-eye-machine coordination, handling
    emergency situations, etc., that I would not easily ascribe to a child.
    
    The "age threshold" thing comes into play at some point as well.
    Clearly, for everyone, there is some age below which one would agree
    it is not wise to fly an airplane.  That age is going to be different
    for different people; if seven is not too young, is five?  Four?  Etc.
    
    I wouldn't allow someone of that age to fly for the same reason that I
    wouldn't allow someone of that age to drive, basically.  Sure, there's
    someone there to take over in an emergency, but as any chairbound
    Flight Simulator pseudo-pilot knows, at low altitudes you don't have
    much time to transfer control and recover.
    
    One aspect of this matter that I hadn't seen mentioned in here, but
    which I'd read in yesterday's paper, is that apparently the "record
    attempt" had already been disqualified on an earlier leg of the flight
    anyway, when the instructor had to take over control of the airplane
    on several occasions.  So the "rushed takeoff" aspect of this would
    appear to be irrelevant, in which case one is left wondering why they
    did indeed take off.
    
    Very strange, and of course, tragic.
    
    Chris

    
>    The real reason many people are reacting against this mother is because
>    she let her kid do something different, not because she let her kid do
>    something dangerous.

	Well, that's an interesting assertion.  I don't quite know how you'd
	go about substantiating it.  

	Personally, my reaction to the mother is primarily as a result of
	her demeanor apres le plunge.  She reminded me of one of Charlie
	Manson's "girls", she sounded so vapid. 

    Re .180:
    
    > Beyond that, I see flying as different from something like skiing
    > because it involves levels of academic ability (for the ground-school
    > kind of training), judgment, hand-eye-machine coordination, handling
    > emergency situations, etc., that I would not easily ascribe to a child.

    This is just babble because it doesn't matter what skills you ASCRIBE
    to a person.  Deaths are deaths -- people get killed skiing even if you
    ascribe all sorts of skills to them.  Risk experts know that people
    judge risks by their level of control and familiarity, not by the
    actual danger posed.  That is what you are doing here.  Children do not
    know how to handle themselves on the ski slopes, and they do pose a
    danger to others -- you can get injured just as easily by somebody
    running into you as by losing control yourself.  Children don't have
    the skills to avoid adults or know that they pose a danger to the
    adults around them on the slopes (the bigger they are, the harder they
    fall).  Skiing requires more balance than flying -- few pilots fall
    over the first time they fly, but almost all skiers do.
    
    Nothing makes skiing a more appropriate for children than flying other
    than familiarity.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .181:
    
    > Well, that's an interesting assertion.  I don't quite know how you'd
    > go about substantiating it.  
    
    It's a proven phenomenon.  You make up a list of activities and you ask
    people to rank them for risk.  Then you rank them objectively, by
    actual deaths caused per unit of exposure/experience.  Then you compare
    the two lists.  They don't match.  Then you rank the activities by the
    amount of control participants have and by familiarity.  Then you
    compare this to the lists the people made.  They match.
    
    This is why, for example, more people are afraid of commercial air
    travel than of driving cars, even though airplanes are clearly safer: 
    They aren't in control of the airplane.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 704.182 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Nothing makes skiing a more appropriate for children than flying other
>    than familiarity.

	Proximity to the ground springs to mind.

    .184  aaaagagagagag.

    regarding small children skiing not being dangerous to others, wanta
    have my knees?  The ones that were foobarred by a 7-year-old or so
    fearless little snothead that collided with me, bounced off the ground
    and continued on.  the flibs have no fear, and their bones must be made
    out of rubber.  the worst of the batch never have parents in
    attendence.
    
    meg

>      <<< Note 704.178 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    The real reason many people are reacting against this mother is because
>    she let her kid do something different, not because she let her kid do
>    something dangerous.

	So, in saying this, you meant the real reason unbeknownst to
	them?  

>    regarding small children skiing not being dangerous to others, wanta
>    have my knees?  The ones that were foobarred by a 7-year-old or so
>    fearless little snothead that collided with me, bounced off the ground
>    and continued on.  the flibs have no fear, and their bones must be made
>    out of rubber.  the worst of the batch never have parents in
>    attendence.
    
 

     I'm sure he/she was just persuing their dream and excersizing their
     choice..let's celebrate that!



 Jim

    
    	Survival of the fittest, Meg.  Get the heck out of the way!!
    
    	8^)
    

    Naw,
    
    Just carry large caliber, er um, hand warmers, yep hand warmers, that's
    the ticket.
    
    Fortunately for my knees the ski areas are looking for the tourist
    dollar and could care less about locals, so cross country, no lift
    lines and only the cost of gas to the snow is now the ticket for me.
    
    meg

    take THAT you fearless little snothead!

    Bernie Goetz goes to Summit County!  Coming soon to an 11:00 news
    program near you!

| <<< Note 704.174 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Gotcha! So stop asking me if I would be as critical about mom had the girl 
| succeeded in her flight. I wouldn't have criticized her because the dirt about
| her philosophies would not have made the news.

	Err....Jack. How is that the same? I asked Di. She didn't go into
details. You did. You can see the difference in that, right? Now you have gone
off about the mother, and made claims that aren't correct. 


Glen

    Re .184:
    
    > Proximity to the ground springs to mind.

    Proximity to the ground has the opposite effect.  Ground causes
    injuries.  It is extremely difficult to kill yourself in a plane
    without proximity to the ground.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    From _Normal Accidents_ by Charles Perrow (Basic Books, New York: 
    1984), pages 324ff:
    
         Actually, some careful public opinion polling by Decision
         Research and members of a Clark University group supports the
         social rationality view.  The researchers were exploring the
         basis of the presumably irrational view of the public about
         some technologies, such as nuclear power, and compared the
         views of experts in various fields with the views of some
         members of the public, in this case, college students,
         members of a local business and professional association, and
         members of the League of Women Voters.
         
         The experts and the lay members of the public agreed on the
         riskiness of several of thirty activities.  Both groups rated
         as highly risky motor vehicles, handguns, smoking, drinking,
         and motorcycles.  Rated as low in risk were vaccinations,
         power mowers, food coloring, and home appliances.  But the
         experts and the public disagreed on others, especially
         nuclear power.  Where 1 equals most risky and 30 the least,
         nuclear power was ranked as 1 by both students and League of
         Women Voters members.  The business and professional club
         members ranked it 8, but the experts ranked it a very low 20
         out of the 30 activities?
         
         . . . .  Probing further, the researchers then asked the
         respondents to rate each of the 30 activities on the
         following dimensions:  the degree to which the activity's
         risks were voluntary, controllable, known to science, known
         to those exposed, familiar, dreaded, certain to be fatal,
         catastrophic, and immediately manifested.  Now the study
         began to pay off.  Here the difference between the experts
         and the public all but disappeared:  all of the groups gave
         similar ratings to each of the activities on each of the
         dimensions.  Most strikingly, nuclear power scored at or near
         the extreme on all of the undesirable characteristics, for
         both experts and the public.  "Its risks were seen as
         involuntary, delayed, unknown, uncontrollable, unfamiliar,
         catastrophic, dreaded and fatal."
         
         Note that the experts agreed with the lay people in this
         characterization of nuclear power, but in the same
         questionnaired still ranked it as only 20 in riskiness out of
         the 30 activities, while the 30 lay groups gave it ranks of
         1, 1, and 8.  Dread and the unknown, uncontrollable aspects
         were recognized by the experts, but not thought relevant in
         judging riskiness.  But not so for the public.  IN FACT, FOR
         THE LAY GROUPS, ONE COULD PREDICT ALMOST EXACTLY THEIR
         ASSESSMENT OF RISK, BASED UPON THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HOW MUCH
         DREAD WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF A
         MISHAP BEING FATAL.  [Emphasis added.]
         
         
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 704.194 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>   Ground causes injuries.  

	The ground doesn't cause injuries - falling to the ground causes
	injuries.  A tad less injury is likely to be incurred if it's
	done from atop a pair of skis rather than from several thousand
	feet in the air.   

    The ground most assuredly can cause injurues; maybe you haven't heard
    about earthquakes in yer neck of the woods just yet.  Hope you don't
    experience them firsthand!

        >A tad less injury is likely to be incurred if it's
	>done from atop a pair of skis rather than from several thousand
	>feet in the air.   
    
    But by the same token, it's many times more likely to happen at all
    while skiing.

    Glen, you're still a suck up!!!

    Bicentennial Snarf!!!

    
    
    
    Now REALLY stupid parents live in our subdivision.
    
    Riding through the streets on a regular basis are children
    (Yesterday I would have guessed 11 and 9)
    
    On Quads,trikes and motorized go-carts.
    
    This child passed my car on the road.
    
    
    
       

re .201:

Yeah, but at least they're close to the ground.

>   <<< Note 704.198 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Hudson chainsaw swingset massacre" >>>
    
>    But by the same token, it's many times more likely to happen at all
>    while skiing.

	But by the same token, you could break your leg 100 times and
	still be alive.

    Re .203:
    
    Look at what you are doing:  You are judging this risk by subjective
    factors.  The ground is close, familiar, controllable during skiing. 
    But in spite of your feelings, skiing is dangerous.  More people die
    each year skiing than skydiving, per participant.  To judge risk
    accurately, you must stop looking at subjective factors and ask instead
    what the ACTUAL damages caused are.
    
    We could analyze your feelings to see where they disagree with reality. 
    For example, skiing does not occur on level ground.  Flying does occur
    on level ground (for those portions of the flight that are normally on
    the ground).  Skiing involves traveling at high speeds near many
    dangerous objects -- trees, rocks, and people.  Flying does not.  But
    even if we find out where your feelings disagree with reality, the
    bottom line is still measured by the actual consequences, not how
    anybody feels about the risks.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    A partial list of potentially lethal dangers of skiing.
    
    Falling
    Hitting an imovable object, tree, lift tower, snow gun etc.
    Impalement
    Decapitation or other severe head trauma from whirling skis
    Being hit by a run away ski
    Collision with another skier
    Getting caught in the rope tow or lift mechanism 
    Falling from the chair lift
    Being run over by a grooming machine
    Falling into a crevasse
    Being caught in an avalanche 
    Being run over in the parking lot
    Hypothermia
    Pulmonary adema and other cardio-respiratory ailments 
    

    getting caught staring at a snow bunny by an unappreciative SO

  .204  Please don't give me this "feelings" crapola.  I understand that
	I'm looking at subjective factors.
	The statistics may show that more people die while skiing
	per year than while skydiving (though I'm not sure how
	skydiving got into the picture), or than while flying a plane,
	but that does not show that skiing is a more dangerous activity
	for a seven-year old to engage in than is flying a plane.
	

  I wonder when the TV movie will be out.





 Jim

    You have to look at deaths per number of participants of each activity
    or some other such measurement.  I would bet that statistically, a higher 
    number of under 10 fliers die than under 10 skiers.  Even if it is one 
    under 10 flier that dies due to some freak accident or under curcumstances
    beyond their control.  This does not mean that skiing is less dangerous
    than flying.  Children are injured *all* the time while skiing.  The
    majority of such instances are minor and do not even require treament
    beyond a kleenex and hot chocolate.  

>    The real reason many people are reacting against this mother is because
>    she let her kid do something different, not because she let her kid do
>    something dangerous.
    
    I saw a breif interview with the girl's mother, and whether she would
    have crashed or not, I had a negative reaction to her. I consider this
    reaction to be based on "my" preconceived ideas of how a mother
    "should/should not be".
    
    Read what you will into this. I am not willing to make a judgement
    against the woman based upon such a reaction. I think that would be
    irresponsible on my part.
    
    As far as "7-yr-old's" flying planes... The only thing that I would be
    against is if they were flying alone (eg., no other experienced pilot
    aboard the plane). I don't trust a 7-yo, to know what to do in the case
    of an emergency. That's where an adult co-pilot would come in.
    
    In this situation, there were 2 adults aboard... The co-pilot and the
    father. If "dad" didn't know how to fly, then there was only one
    competent adult, with respect to flying, aboard. However the level of
    his competence remains to be seen as he apparently chose to continue
    the flight in the face of pretty bad weather (I know someone up that
    way who said the weather was definitely not flying weather, irregardless
    of the age of the pilot).

    Approaching this from a slightly different angle, then, for those of
    you for whom the seven-year-old pilot isn't a problem, we'll ask
    whether there is indeed a specific age below which you would not be
    comfortable having them at the controls of an airplane?  If so, what
    is the "minimum" age in your assessment?
    
    Chris

re: .211 (Chris)

>    Approaching this from a slightly different angle, then, for those of
>    you for whom the seven-year-old pilot isn't a problem, we'll ask
>    whether there is indeed a specific age below which you would not be
>    comfortable having them at the controls of an airplane?
No, there is no specific age.  As long as a licensed flight instructor
is in the right seat, and the flyer-to-be has successfully demonstrated
the capability to operate the machinery (understands pre-flight preparations,
understands flight dynamics, etc), I have no problem.

>If so, what is the "minimum" age in your assessment?
Moot; see above.

\john

    re: .211
    
    I don't see a need for any age limit as long as the PIC is able to
    take control of the aircraft if needed.
    
    BTW, your only risk is the PIC, which you are subject to, whether or not
    a non-pilot is able to manipulate the controls.
    
    Bob

    
    re: .206
    
    >getting caught staring at a snow bunny by an unappreciative SO
    
    Was the snow bunny old enough to fly a plane???
    

    <---- What they said. 

    re: flight instructor in the right seat
    
    I'm not a pilot, but some of you are, so maybe you can help out here.
    Are there any situations, particularly during and shortly after
    takeoff, or shortly before and during landing, especially at low
    altitudes, where you can get into a "flight profile" such that there
    is insufficient time for the flight instructor to take over and
    recover?
    
    These are the situations that I'm most concerned with here.  I'm not
    overly concerned with a trained younger person doing the straight
    and level flight stuff (or whatever it's called).  By the way, I'd
    read that the flight instructor had done the landing (and/or the
    takeoff, I didn't read the article all that closely) on the previous
    leg of the flight.
    
    If there were dual-control automobiles, and a licensed driving
    instructor in the right seat, what (if any) minimum age would you be
    comfortable with having a child operating a car?
    
    Chris

 I'd think that altitude would be the key to ability to recover (altitude
 is your friend), unless the crisis came from some structural type failure.
 But, I'm not a pilot, only a pilot wannabe.



 Jim

    
>>    If there were dual-control automobiles, and a licensed driving
>>    instructor in the right seat, what (if any) minimum age would you be
>>    comfortable with having a child operating a car?
    
    Actually I have heard of dual-controlled autos (somewhere) for driving
    instruction.
    
    Anyway, my POV, is that the child would have to be able to reach the
    gas/brake/clutch pedals and still be able to see/steer. My kids were
    around 10 when they started learning to drive (without a dual-control
    car). At 7, they couldn't reach pedals and still see out the window, so
    learning to drive then was moot. It just wasn't feasable.

    
     It's the difference between flying in front of and flying behind the
     airplane.
    
    The pilot in command monitors the flight of the aircraft. At any
    time he choses he can take over the airplane (unless the student
    is stronger than he/she :-).
    
    So at the point where the instructor felt the airplane was not
    in the right configuration for whatever operation is being attempted,
    he can take over long before it becomes a problem.
    
    Doug.
    

    Re .207:
    
    > Please don't give me this "feelings" crapola.
    
    You're the one who's giving it to me.  I'm not going to accept a risk
    assessment based on your feelings.
    
    > . . . but that does not show that skiing is a more dangerous activity	
    > for a seven-year old to engage in than is flying a plane.
    
    So what does?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: .216
    
    I can think of several situations that even Chuck Yeager couldn't save
    a Cessna 150 (a two-seater training aircraft), but the chance of them
    happening is so small that there is no practical reason to consider
    them.
    
    Remember, we aren't talking about some kid who was picked off the
    street to fly a plane, she had approximately 40 hours of dual
    instruction by the CFI who was on the cross country flight with her. 
    He was in the position to know her strengths and weaknesses better than
    anyone else.  I'm aware of one former airline captain that I would not
    knowingly share airspace with.
    
    Statistically speaking, the landing phase of flight is the most
    dangerous, followed by take-off, and then cruise.
    
    Bob

>      <<< Note 704.220 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    You're the one who's giving it to me.  I'm not going to accept a risk
>    assessment based on your feelings.

    My "feelings" about what?  I'm talking about proximity to the ground
    and the likelihood that serious injury, i.e. death, will occur should
    something go wrong.  WTF does that have to do with my "feelings"?

 Z   No, there is no specific age.  As long as a licensed flight instructor
 Z   is in the right seat, and the flyer-to-be has successfully demonstrated
 Z   the capability to operate the machinery (understands pre-flight
 Z   preparations,
 Z   understands flight dynamics, etc), I have no problem.
    
    I have already asked another naysayer this and now it's your turn.  2
    doctors can operate on you.  One is a 20 yr. veteran and the other is a
    12 year old genius.  Both are licensed.
    
    You are scheduled to go under the knife and your chances of survival
    are 70/30.  Doogie Houser is the doctor on duty that day.  Would you
    prefer the other doctor or would you not bat an eye at Doogie.  
    
    Honesty now....

    I selected a knee surgeon based upon perceived experience and skill,
    does the cutting for the Red Sox.  Who wouldn't choose the person with
    the most skill/experience?  Your analogy doesn't work, again.  

 Z   I selected a knee surgeon based upon perceived experience and skill,
 Z   does the cutting for the Red Sox.  Who wouldn't choose the person
 Z   with the most skill/experience?  Your analogy doesn't work, again.
    
    Well, it seemed like John was saing he'd be comfortable with either
    one...as long as they were a qualified pilot.

>    I selected a knee surgeon based upon perceived experience and skill,
>    does the cutting for the Red Sox.

Judging from this year's performance, he should have cut more players.

    A bad comparison, again, Jack.  Flying != surgery.  

	Brian, flying CAN BE equal to surgery. If you crash a plane, you may 
need surgery. :-)

    2 doctors can operate on you.  One is a 20 yr. veteran and the other is a
    45 year veteran genius who invented the particular procedure you
    will be undergoing. Both are licensed.
    
    You are scheduled to go under the knife and your chances of survival
    are 70/30.
    
     The guy who invented the procedure is getting pretty old, and his
    eyesight isn't what it used to be. His hands have neither the dexterity
    nor steadiness of old. He's old but still very spunky, and if he were a
    lesser person he'd not have gotten license renewed but since he's so
    famous nobody can really stand up to him.
    
     Who do you pick?

>>    I have already asked another naysayer this and now it's your turn.  2
>>    doctors can operate on you.  One is a 20 yr. veteran and the other is a
>>    12 year old genius.  Both are licensed.
>>    
>>    You are scheduled to go under the knife and your chances of survival
>>    are 70/30.  Doogie Houser is the doctor on duty that day.  Would you
>>    prefer the other doctor or would you not bat an eye at Doogie.  
>>    
>>    Honesty now....
    
    In the flying case, the Flight instructor has his/her own controls.
    If something goes wrong, the instructor can immediately take over.
    
    Not so in the case of an operation. If something went wrong, the
    vetran would first have to push the genius out of the way (or the
    genius would probably step aside), and then get the tools to fix,
    whatever... Obviously the person could die while this was being
    done.

    Twenty year veteran who is an adult.

    
    
    .223 
    
    It's not brain surgery! Give me the controls...I've got simulator 
    experience!
    
    Stupid joy stick... stuck....must hit...keyboard....
    

    
    	RE: Jack
    
    	A 20-year veteran would very probably be an adult, since [s]he'd
    	have to be at least 20 to be a 20-year veteran.
    

    Now what if the choice is between the aging genius whose skills are on
    the decline and the young genius whose skills are improving on a daily
    basis?

    
    .223
    
    But I find years of experience a poor gauge in fast paced technology
    of today.
    
    Who would I trust to cut straight more or who is likely to be skilled with
    the latest innovations. 
    
    I'm sure at some age, if I live that long a 30 year old man will look
    like your 13 year old kid.
    
    

    .223
    
    You don't do anything until you get a second opinion; maybe a third.
    
    Personally, I think I'd avoid a "feisty" doctor, esp. if he's old too.

    Re .222:
    
    > I'm talking about proximity to the ground and the likelihood that
    > serious injury, i.e. death, will occur should something go wrong.  WTF
    > does that have to do with my "feelings"?
    
    Simple -- you do not have any reason for believing that proximity to
    the ground is safer than otherwise except your feelings.  You have no
    statistics or objective data to back it up.  Both commercial air travel
    and skydiving are safer than skiing even though they do not have this
    proximity to the ground you are so enamored of.  That proves your
    subjective opinion about proximity to the ground is NOT the determining
    factor in how safe an activity is.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 704.238 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Simple -- you do not have any reason for believing that proximity to
>    the ground is safer than otherwise except your feelings.

	Yes, I do.  I am aware that a plane falling out of the sky is
	likely to hit the ground with such an impact as to kill its
	occupants.  You want to dismiss that?  Fine.  We will simply
	not agree.

    To cut through the haze for a moment, there is a unsupported assertion
    on the table:
    
|   Nothing makes skiing a more appropriate for children than flying other
|   than familiarity.
    
    To start, *you* need to provide *OBJECTIVE* data to show that a 7-10
    year old child is safer *FLYING* an aircraft (not flying in, *FLYING*)
    than a 7-10 year old child is *SKIING*.
    
    Start with fatalities per child hour of activity.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 704.240 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    To start, *you* need to provide *OBJECTIVE* data to show that a 7-10
>    year old child is safer *FLYING* an aircraft (not flying in, *FLYING*)
>    than a 7-10 year old child is *SKIING*.

	That's what my lunch companion and I were wondering.  How much of
	a sample is there likely to be?  Yes, perhaps Eric has the stats.

    
    Or perhaps he has feelings?
    
    								-mr. bill

re: Note 704.223  MKOTS3::JMARTIN 
    
    Do I understand that your analogy applies to a choice of 20 year
    verteran flight instructor or a 12 year old doogie howser style
    flight instructor?
    
    What does this have to do with the student?
    
>    I have already asked another naysayer this and now it's your turn.  2
>    doctors can operate on you.  One is a 20 yr. veteran and the other is a
>    12 year old genius.  Both are licensed.
>    
>    You are scheduled to go under the knife and your chances of survival
>    are 70/30.  Doogie Houser is the doctor on duty that day.  Would you
>    prefer the other doctor or would you not bat an eye at Doogie.  
>   
     
      Honesty now....
    
    Doug.
    

    The point being that we naturally place our trust in an adult expert
    over a child expert.  I don't believe /John would choose the Doogie
    doctor nor would he choose a 12 year old pilot...no matter how
    qualified they were!

    
    	If I were going in for an operation, I wouldn't choose the 12-
    	year old pilot, either, Jack.
    

| <<< Note 704.234 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" >>>


| A 20-year veteran would very probably be an adult, since [s]he'd
| have to be at least 20 to be a 20-year veteran.

	But would Jack let a woman do surgery on him?

| <<< Note 704.244 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| The point being that we naturally place our trust in an adult expert over a 
| child expert.  

	Doesn't that mean we aren't weighing things out correctly? Gee, age
means better. Bull. Skill means better.

    I've been reading this string, and while the whole thing about a child
    dieing in a plane crash just breaks my heart, did anyone ever think
    that maybe no matter what she did that day, she was going to die
    because it was just her time. I believe there is some higher power who
    has the power to set our time clocks, so no matter what she was doing
    that day, she wasn't going to see the light of a new day. She had
    fulfilled her dream to fly, but because she is dead, she doesn't know
    that she didn't finish..but what of it, she died doing what she wanted.
    Naybe she lived the wholeness of her life and it was just her time.
    
    I don't know, just an optimistic way to look at a tragedy. 
    

>                    <<< Note 704.248 by SCAMP::MINICHINO >>>

>    Naybe she lived the wholeness of her life and it was just her time.

	Oh brother.  She "lived the wholeness of her life"??  What
	in heaven's name does _that_ mean?

    Actually, Michelle has a point.  Of course this gets into the whole
    predestination issue.
    
    God's perfect will or God's permissive will...which one is it?

re:  Note 704.244  MKOTS3::JMARTIN 
    
>    The point being that we naturally place our trust in an adult expert
>    over a child expert.  I don't believe /John would choose the Doogie
>    doctor nor would he choose a 12 year old pilot...no matter how
>    qualified they were!
    
    So you agree that the parents made the correct choice for the 7 year old 
    patient.. errr ... student  in choosing an adult expert as pilot 
    in command rather than a 12 year old genious ...
    
    
    Thanks, that makes it clearer ...
    
    Doug.

| <<< Note 704.249 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

| >    Naybe she lived the wholeness of her life and it was just her time.

| Oh brother.  She "lived the wholeness of her life"??  What
| in heaven's name does _that_ mean?

	Di, look closely...Naybe? :-)

    > Naybe she lived the wholeness of her life and it was just her time.
    
    Maybe someone needs to wake up and smell the toast. 

 Z   So you agree that the parents made the correct choice for the 7 year
 Z   old  patient.. errr ... student  in choosing an adult expert as pilot  
 Z   in command rather than a 12 year old genious ...
    
    Yes, they did.  Too bad however that this young child, who never had
    the chance to determine what she really liked in life, will ever find
    it out.  
    

    
>    how is coaching a child to fly and airplane any more stupid or
>    "ding-bat" than coaching a child, beginning at age six to learn double
>    and triple axles on a skating rink, or teaching him or her spring-board
>    landings from balance beams? 

    How many people die from ice skating accidents and how many people die
    from flying accidents?  That's the difference.  As a parent managing
    the risk my children face is one of my biggest responsibilities to Gia
    and Eli.
                                 
    I see nothing wrong with a seven-year old flying a plane.  I think it
    would be great experience. However I have serious doubts about a
    seven-year old doing the take-offs and landings (as an analogy I'll
    let my kids drive in a big parking lot before 16 but not on the
    highway).

    While I may conceptually agree a seven-year old flying is OK this
    particular incident points to the adults in a lot of ways.

    * For the "record" to count Jessica had to do the flying including the 
      take-offs and landings.   The instructor couldn't share the flying;
      he was just there just in case (he failed at his job in a big way).
    * They were going to fly about 8 hours a day.  The longest Jessica had
      flown was 2 hours a day.
    * Apparently she did the landings and take-offs (which IMO was nuts). 
      (I know the guess is the instuctor was at the controls went it hit
       ... given the desire for the record I'd guess Jessica took off
       stalled the plane and then the instructor tried to pull it out)
    * The Dad was pushing the stunt (arranging press interviews, getting the
      ABC camera on the plane, trying to sell the rights to a movie,
      staying on a schedule)
    * The instructor appears to have screwed up big time (weight, weather,
      gas mixture)  

    Greg

    FYI - My wife can verify we both thought this was a stupid stunt before
    they ever got started.                                                
          

Still wondering if ABC's said anything about what the camera may have
captured.


???

re: .223 (JackM)

>    I have already asked another naysayer this and now it's your turn.  2
>    doctors can operate on you.  One is a 20 yr. veteran and the other is a
>    12 year old genius.  Both are licensed.
>    
>    You are scheduled to go under the knife and your chances of survival
>    are 70/30.  Doogie Houser is the doctor on duty that day.  Would you
>    prefer the other doctor or would you not bat an eye at Doogie.  

God, Jack, you are so dumb sometimes.  I'd take the experienced one.  Too
bad this isn't even an analogy; you might have been on to something.

If these situations were similar, we'd be discussing if Doogie Houser
should even be ABLE to practice medicine.  And of course he should!!  In
a similar light, while I wouldn't CHOOSE a 7yr old to pilot my plane, I
also don't see anything WRONG with it.

Duh.

There are salespeople with more experience than you.  I guess we should
hire them instead of you, right doogie?

\john

    
>    We could analyze your feelings to see where they disagree with reality. 
>    For example, skiing does not occur on level ground.  Flying does occur
>    on level ground (for those portions of the flight that are normally on
>    the ground).  Skiing involves traveling at high speeds near many
>    dangerous objects -- trees, rocks, and people.  Flying does not.  But
    
    Virtually all plane accidents happen landing and taking off.  A plane
    is not level at that time (more level than a skier), probably travelling
    faster, and near a very hard object (the ground). 

Z    There are salespeople with more experience than you.  I guess we should
Z    hire them instead of you, right doogie?
    
    No because they are most likely mental midgets!

Where's that Pot and Kettle topic?

    Leaving small children in vehicles, unattended.  This has to be one of 
    the classic STTSPDs of all time.  Seeing as the season for this to
    occur with far deadlier results, I expect the stupidity quotient to
    rise in the next few months.  

    I think that leaving small children unattended in automobiles is
    against the law in NH. (up to age 12 -- ?)
    
    It may also be illegal in Mass.

     Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Re .239:
    
    > I am aware that a plane falling out of the sky is	likely to hit the
    > ground with such an impact as to kill its occupants.
    
    Your belief is a prejudice, not an awareness.  It cannot be an
    awareness since it is not true.  80% of plane crashes involve forces
    that are survivable by the human body.
    
    Furthermore, the issue was not even whether plane crashes are probably
    fatal, but whether proximity to the ground is safer than otherwise --
    so even BEFORE you consider how dangerous plane crashes are, an
    objective evaluation requires considering how likely plane crashes are
    to occur in the first place.  You left out that entire step and STILL
    evaluated the situation incorrectly.  Not only are plane crashes often
    survivable, they are unlikely to occur in the first place -- because
    being away from the ground is safer than sliding down an icy slope at
    high speed among many obstacles.
    
    > We will simply not agree.
    
    Deconstructionist [censored by the person to whom this response is
    directed].  Plane crashes are not a matter of opinion, and reality
    agrees with me, not you.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 704.265 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Deconstructionist [censored by the person to whom this response is
>    directed]. 

	aagagagag.  pauvre petit has to play by the same rules as
	everyone else.  quel dommage! ;>

    
      Airplanes are hurtling death traps.
    
      Do not believe the tripe about "safest per mile" put out as
     propaganda by the industry.  Try it again - deaths per day per
     traveler.  Vastly different result.
    
      bb
    

    Are we still on this airplane bit???

    
	                /////
	               ( oo )                AAAAAhaaaaaa.....
	  _________oOO___<>___OOo__________

    Re .267:
    
    > Try it again - deaths per day per traveler.
    
    Are you traveling just to enjoy the experience?  If so, measuring the
    danger per day of travel makes sense.  But if you are traveling to get
    to a destination, then the proper measurement is danger per mile.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    So you've never, ever had a child wander off? Your children have never,
    ever not even for a few minutes been out of your sight? That's amazing.

The razor wire on top on the ten-foot chain link fence keeps them from
wandering off.

    and if they DO scale the fence, the land mines usually stop 'em. 
    
    if all else fails, the border guards are crack shots. 
    
    

    .270
    
    > if you are traveling to get
    > to a destination, then the proper measurement is danger per mile.
    
    Codswallop.  I don't care the south end of a northbound rodent how far
    a destination is - I'm going to my destination, I'm not going because
    it's n miles.  The proper measure is danger per unit voyage, most
    especially so given that the most dangerous parts of a plane trip are
    takeoff and landing.
    
    And I'll bet that a larger percentage of airplane flights end in injury
    or loss of life than of automobile trips.

    
    	Binder, I'd have to see the stats on airplane accidents to be-
    	lieve that most accidents happen on takeoff/landing, because I
    	don't believe it.
    
    	The more miles travelled, the more likely you are to have an
    	accident.  If not, then driving to the grocery store around the
    	corner from your house would be just as dangerous as driving to
    	work, 40 miles away, because "it's still 1 trip", regardless of
    	the distance travelled.
    	

    
>    	Binder, I'd have to see the stats on airplane accidents to be-
>    	lieve that most accidents happen on takeoff/landing, because I
>    	don't believe it.
    
 


     Take off and landing are the most critical phases of flight where
     mechanical failure and/or human error are the least recoverable.  It is
     rare for an airplane to just fall out of the sky from cruise level.
     



 Jim 

>              <<< Note 704.276 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Basket Case" >>>

>  If not, then driving to the grocery store around the
>  corner from your house would be just as dangerous as driving to
>  work, 40 miles away...

    I've heard that it's actually _more_ dangerous.  Not sure if
    it's true, but that's what "they" say.

    
    i, too, have heard that most (or at least a large percentage) of auto
    accidents happen within 25 miles of home.
    
    
    

    .278
    
    > I've heard that it's actually _more_ dangerous.
    
    Statistically, it is.  The statistic usually cited is something to the
    effect that most auto accidents happen within 5-10 miles of home.  The
    truth that is not included is that most car trips are made within 5-10
    miles of home.

    I think that statistic is a little misleading, imho.  Most of us to the
    majority of our driving within 25 miles of home; therefore it stands to
    resona that most accisents would happen within 25 miles of home.  i
    never worked a job where I was more than 22 miles from home.

  .280, .281  Ah.  Okay - very meaningful statistic, then. ;>

    From the Curmudgeon's Dictionary:
    
    statistics  n.  Mathematical figures purporting to describe reality,
    sufficiently arcane that they can be explained in whatever way makes
    the prospects most attractive to the customer.

    besides that, u make statitistics say anything u want.

    >Codswallop.  I don't care the south end of a northbound rodent how far
    >a destination is - I'm going to my destination, I'm not going because
    >it's n miles.  The proper measure is danger per unit voyage, 
    
     To be a meaningful comparison, however, the voyages being compared
    must be the same. It's not meaningful to compare a "trip" to the end of
    your driveway and back to a trip from Boston to Bombay.
    
     A meaningful way of comparing planes as transportation vs cars as
    transportation is to compare the accident rate of planes flying between
    Boston and Vancouver to cars making the same trip. Such a comparison
    would undoubtedly show that by that measure, planes are less prone to
    accidents than cars.

    
    	But when comparing car/plane trips from Vancouver to Boston,
    	would that be 1 plane vs. 1 car, or 250 people vs. 2 people?
    

    You have too much time on your feet.

    
    	But I was serious, since it makes a big difference in the way
    	the stats read.
    
    	You either have 250 people making a safe/fatal trip, or you
    	have 1 plane making a safe/fatal trip.
    

    2 people wouldn't stand a chance against 250. I don't care how well
    trained those 2 guys are.

    
    	If they were Chuck Norris and Don "the Dragon" it might be an
    	even fight.
    

>  80% of plane crashes involve forces
>  that are survivable by the human body.

	One wonders what this means, exactly, since it's rather interestingly
	worded.  That in 80% of all plane crashes, no-one is killed?
	That there are numerous and varied forces associated with plane
	crashes, and that, 80% of the time, some of those forces are not
	enough to kill a person?  That in 80% of plane crashes, even though
	people are killed, they might as easily have lived through it, since
	other people managed to survive the forces?  Yes, one wonders, and
	one might never find out the answer. ;>

    the truth is out there!!

    
    	Trust no one!!
    

    
    re: .292
    
    >the truth is out there!!
    
    And Jack Martin, after his satellite dish purchase, will find it and
    tell us what it is!!!
    

    re: .291
    
    Lady Di,
    
    I suspect that EDP is indicating that your earlier statement along the
    lines of "planes are more dangerous than skiing because planes are
    farther away from the ground" is incorrect.  I believe EDP is correct
    in his statement.  The NTSB/FAA have found that in many cases, people
    survive the 'aircraft impacts the ground' event, only to die because
    they were unable to evacuate the aircraft before it caught fire and the
    interiors were made of the types of plastic that release very toxic
    fumes when ignited.  One example of this was the accident at least 10
    years ago where a part of the aircraft caught on fire (the lavatory?)
    and the aircraft made a successful emergency landing at CVG (Greater
    Cincinnati Airport).  No one died as a result of the aircraft landing,
    but many people died from the toxic fumes before they could be
    evacuated.
    
    Bob

  .296  So if a plane falls to the ground, causing it to ignite, the
	people who die from the fire don't figure into the number
	whose deaths were caused by the plane crashing?  I see.  Well,
	no, actually, I don't. 

    it's all so confusing!

    
    	RE: .297
    
    	Obviously not, since the deaths weren't directly related to the
    	crash.
    
    	Like if a car catches fire, and a person trapped inside dies in
    	the fire, they didn't actually die in a car accident ... they
    	died in a fire.
    
    	Eesh!!
    

    re: .297
    
    I did not say that.
    
    Bob

>   <<< Note 704.296 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>
    
>    I suspect that EDP is indicating that your earlier statement along the
>    lines of "planes are more dangerous than skiing because planes are
>    farther away from the ground" is incorrect. 

	And just so that what I said doesn't get twisted _too_ much,
	Mr. Postpischil said:

	>Nothing makes skiing a more appropriate for children than flying
	>other than familiarity.

	I said proximity to the ground springs to mind.  It is _a_ thing
	that I feel makes skiing a more appropriate undertaking for 
	children than flying.

>   <<< Note 704.300 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>    re: .297
    
>    I did not say that.

	No, I did.  But what is the point of what you said?  If you're
	trying to show that being way up in the air and then crashing
	to the ground is not dangerous, then you've really shown me
	nothing with your entry.  If the fire is caused as a result of
	the plane crashing, then that's just one more reason that the
	altitude is dangerous.

    things are suddenly clearer!!

    re: .302
    
    Lady Di, I can't explain it any better than EDP did in .265.
    
    Bob

  .304  so all the stuff you said about fire was irrelevant?

    
    Nah, all the stuff quoting "80% of plane crashes involve forces that
    are survivable by the human body" is irrelevant.  Could be worse, we
    could be treated to irrelevant statistics from "The Red Shoe Diaries."
    
    
    For what it's worth, if you throw a die, you are likely to throw a one.
    You are also likely to throw a two, or a three, or a four, or a five,
    or a six.  In my experience, a die coming to a free stop is unlikely
    to come to rest on an edge, and exceedingly unlikely to rest on a
    vertex.
    
    Now back to your regularly scheduled unsupported assertion....
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .305
    
    I didn't say that.
    
    Bob

>   <<< Note 704.307 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>  .305
    
>    I didn't say that.

	No, I did.  You're good at this.  But you seemed to be using this
	thing about fire as a way of supporting the notion that proximity
	to the ground has nothing to do with the dangerousness of an
	activity.  Are you abandoning that?

  .306 ;>  I was just musing about the word "likely" myself, last night,
       and was thinking along the same lines.  To be intellectually
       honest, when I said "likely", I meant highly probable.  I would
       have thought that more than 50% of the time, when a plane crashes,
       fatalities result.  Perhaps that's not the case.
    

    re: .308
    
    I'm not abandoning anything.  I was simply trying to explain what EDP
    said in a different manner so that you might understand it.  I see I
    have failed.
    
    Bob

   .310  You're making the assumption that I don't "understand" what
	 Mr. Postpischil said.  I "understand" that what he said about
	 80% of plane crashes is, at best, ambiguous.
	 Although he would likely say that my awareness of that is
	 a prejudice. ;>

	 If people are on a plane and it crashes and ignites due to 
	 impact, are the people who die from the fire not dead as a result
	 of the loss of altitude that the plane underwent?  Even
	 indirectly?

 
	 

 I believe Lucky Jack inquired a while back about the video camera that
 ABC had on board Jessica's ill fated flight.  I read that in their
 haste to depart, they never loaded tape into the camera.



 Jim

No doubt some ABC-droid's head is rolling down a hallway for not having
come up with a plan which would have guaranteed a loaded camera at all times.

    re: .311
    
>    	 If people are on a plane and it crashes and ignites due to 
>	 impact, are the people who die from the fire not dead as a result
>	 of the loss of altitude that the plane underwent?  Even
>	 indirectly?
    
    I guess I had my techie hat screwed on too tight...If someone says that
    someone died due to the impact of the aircraft upon the ground, I
    understand that to mean that the g-force of the abrupt stop was too
    much for their body to withstand, not that they died from some
    second-order effect of the crash, such as post-impact fire.
    
    If you die from the impact, you are dead and any second-order effects
    don't matter, but may alter your funeral arrangements.  If however, you
    survive the impact, you may or may not live, depending upon the
    second-order effects of the crash.
    
    Bob

>   <<< Note 704.314 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>   ...I understand that to mean that the g-force of the abrupt stop was too
>    much for their body to withstand, not that they died from some
>    second-order effect of the crash, such as post-impact fire.

	Whether people die from a first-order, second-order, or nth-order
	effect of the crash, they have died as a result of the crash, no?
	Which means that this argument does nothing to refute the
	assertion that proximity to the ground is a factor when considering
	the dangerousness of an activity.

    
    	Simply put, that person would not have died if the plane crash
    	didn't happen.
    
    	Therefore, the airplane crash caused that particular death.
    

    eureka!!

hoover!!

    
    	Hello?
    
    	Oh, sorry ... I thought I heard my name being called.
    

 Stupid things that stupid parents do, people..stupid things that stupid
 parents do!

  .320  that's what this is all about, ultimately.

    It's not the fall, it's the impact.

    it's not the heat, it's the humidity.

    it's not the meat, it's the motion
    
    =8^o

    
    	Christine, I would have expected a reply like that from, well,
    	probably me ... not you!!
    

    Okay, Jim.  In the spirit of the topic, I'll add the following.  All
    present company excluded of course.
    
    STTSPD, breed, procreate, have litters, spawn, sew their oats.  
    
    

    A very good frind's child was killed just out of arms reach a cuploe of
    years ago.  Was it stupid to think she would be safe in her own
    backyard?  Lily had just learned to walk that day and bolted into the
    path of a car pulling into the driveway.  Unfortunately her head wound
    up under the front left tire of Deb's son-in-law's car.  
    
    Life happens, kids die with depressing frequency in this world.  Some
    people inadvertantly run over their own relatives.  

    
    	I agree with Meg. You can't chain your children to your hip every
    second of the day. Life is full of dangers and like it or not we are
    all exposed to them.
    
    
    

What do the last two notes have to do with 

   Stupid things that stupid parents do ....

I don't see the connection ...

    How many children will drown in backyard swimming pools this summer?

    Re .297:
    
    > So if a plane falls to the ground, causing it to ignite, the	
    > people who die from the fire don't figure into the number	whose
    > deaths were caused by the plane crashing?
    
    Nobody said that.  I was responding directly to the statement YOU made,
    which was:

    .239> I am aware that a plane falling out of the sky is likely to hit the
    .239> ground with such an impact as to kill its occupants.
    
    
    Re .301:
    
    > It is _a_ thing that I feel makes skiing a more appropriate
                             ^^^^
    > undertaking for children than flying.                            
    
    In .222, you asked what your statements about the likelihood of injury
    or death had to do with your feelings (and hence why we should discount
    your statements).  Now you've answered that.  Your evaluations are
    based on your feelings, not upon fact.
    

    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .311:
    
    > If people are on a plane and it crashes and ignites due to 
    > impact, are the people who die from the fire not dead as a result
    > of the loss of altitude that the plane underwent?  Even indirectly?

    Indirectly?  How indirectly?  You could say the purchase of the plane
    ticket caused their deaths, indirectly.  Suppose they would have
    survived the plane crash if they had listened to the emergency
    information.  Is the cause of death a plane crash or the deliberate,
    conscious choice to ignore the safety information?  What if the cause
    of death is something unrelated to the things that caused the plane to
    crash -- e.g., the plane crashed because a bolt was left out of an
    engine after maintenance, but the cause of death was toxic fumes from a
    material some interior decorator chose?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .315:
    
    > Whether people die from a first-order, second-order, or nth-order
    > effect of the crash, they have died as a result of the crash, no?
    
    No.  Death is an n-th order effect of birth.  Or, said in another way,
    everything causes death, if you're going to include all ultimate
    effects.  Causes should be limited to some degree of directness.
    
    
    Re .316:
    
    > Simply put, that person would not have died if the plane crash	
    > didn't happen.
    >
    > Therefore, the airplane crash caused that particular death.
    
    Very bad logic.  The person would not have died if they had not been
    born.  Therefore, their birth caused their death.  Similarly, working
    at a job caused their death, since it gave them the money to pay for
    the ticket.  Also, wearing clothes caused their death, since otherwise
    they would have been arrested for indecency and would not have gotten
    on the plain.
      
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

   .332, .333, .334

	Yes, you're right, Mr. Postpischil.  End of discussion, for me.

    
    >effects.  Causes should be limited to some degree of directness.
    
    
    	You see, Eric, this line basically sums up what Diane and I
    	have been saying.  What "degree of directness" is OK for you
    	to admit that the plane crash caused a death?
    
    	1) Plane hits ground - death occurs via blunt trauma due to
    	   the impact
    	2) Plane hits ground, bursts into flames - death occurs via
    	   3rd degree burns
    	3) Plane hits ground, passenger thrown through window - death
    	   occurs via unrecoverable blood loss
    

    
    And following a certain noters chain of "logic".
    
    Playing on a river bank is very safe.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re .337
    
  >  Playing on a river bank is very safe.
    
           ?????
    
    Maybe for you and maybe for me, but not for everyone.
    
    ed

    
    	Using edp's logic, yes it is.
    
    	You can play all day on a river bank without getting hurt.  The
    	"fun" starts when you fall in and drown.
    
    	Like driving down the highway at 190MPH.  That's not dangerous
    	in itself, until you either try to turn and don't or try to
    	stop and don't, and end up hitting something.
    

    Re .337:
    
    > And following a certain noters chain of "logic".
    
    You are a liar.  I have not written that only deaths immediately due to
    impact should be blamed on a plane crash, nor anything else which can
    be interpreted to the above (nor has any other noter here).
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .336:
    
    > What "degree of directness" is OK for you	to admit that the plane
    > crash caused a death?
    
    The "cause" you and Diane want to impose on plane crashes is a sort of
    blame -- the death is the plane crash's fault.  But this sort of fault
    is an ethical or moral thing -- and planes do not have ethics or
    morals.  As we have seen, there is no physical basis on which fault can
    be assigned, since anything from birth to wearing clothing bears the
    same causal relationship to the death.
    
    The real question to ask here is:  What _should_ be changed to prevent
    such deaths?  In some cases, there is a clear answer.  For example, if
    changing to decorating materials that do not give off toxic fumes will
    save as many lives as installing a sophisticated fire-control system
    and is cheaper, then you change the materials.
    
    In general, you ask the costs and benefits of the various alternatives. 
    Do mechanics occasionally forget a bolt?  Then the solution is to use
    checklists and count parts -- not to prohibit flying.  If you are
    deciding whether to take a car or a plane and want to include chance of
    death in that decision, then in the costs column, you include all
    possible means of death during the trip, regardless of whether it is
    "caused" by the crash or not.  The evaluation doesn't care what the
    sequence of events that cause death are, merely that they occur.  If,
    on the other hand, you were evaluating plane travel for its future
    possibilities, then you do consider the means of death, because each
    one may or may not be part of the cost of the various choices possible
    for plane travel in the future.
    
    Some of the costs and benefits are subjective.  A person who flies
    recreationally might not enjoy skiing.  You could, with enough data,
    evaluate the risk of death -- but not the enjoyment of flying.  And
    this brings us back to the original issue.  First, the relationship
    between parent and child should be held sacred by the government -- not
    subject to interference except in the clearest cases.  Second, anybody
    who does want to interfere has the burden of proof.  (It is not the
    other way around; the parent-child relationship deserves a strong
    presumption of favor -- the parent need not defend their choices as
    "safe" until somebody has presented very clear evidence otherwise.  And
    certainly no participant here has done that.)  Third, even if you could
    prove flying is not as safe as some things, you can't prove a child's
    gain from flying is not greater than the danger.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    
    re: .340
    
    >You are a liar.
    
    And you, sir, are a jerk...
    

>>    >You are a liar.
    
>>    And you, sir, are a jerk...
  
Hmm. how interesting! I am learning a lot today!  

methinks this belongs in the "Ring"

    
      I don't want to prohibit you, EDP, from boarding any hurtling
     death traps you like.  But I'll choose alternative transport,
     when available.  Flying is not for everybody.
    
      bb

    
    You have proved once again that you are far wiser.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Okay, back to .0
    
    I consider parents buying a car for a 16 year old to be rather stupid 
    because (and there are probably more reasons):
    	a) instead of working hard IN SCHOOL, the kid probably has to
    	   work to make car payments, doing whatever like flipping burgers
    	   just to maintain a lifestyle. Working to make car payments is
    	   NOT exactly what "developing good work ethics" means, IMO.
        b) it costs the parents more (insurance for one) to make their
           lives more convenient ... y'know no more chauffering the kids around
    	   etc
    	c) it separates or isolates the kids from the family even more.
           At least they could talk while being chauferred around, not
    	   anymore.
        d) This merely further the notion of "instant gratification". It
           seems getting a car at 16 is now considered a right, not a priviledge
    	   anymore. 
        
    

    
    	I think I was 19 before I bought my 1st car, a '78 Subaru.
    
    	I had been given a '70 Maverick by my neighbor, who let me
    	drive around on a REPAIR plate for a year and a half or so,
    	but I couldn't use the plate all the time because he needed
    	it for his business ... so the Subaru was my 1st car purchase.
    
    	And it's well worth $600/year to some people not to have to
    	cart able-bodied teenagers around.
    

    
    
    	well, I had a car at 16, but let me explain a few things:
    
    	My car was a used beater (i.e. - no car payments). My parents
    never bought me ANY car. I paid for it myself.
    
    	I worked to pay for my insurance.
    
    	owning a car taught me responsibility in that a.) if I didn't take
    care of the car, I didn't get to drive around in it and b.) if I didn't
    make the insurance payments on time, I would have my insurance/registration
    revoked. 
    
    	I had a checking account at 16, a car, a job, and a little taste of
    what the real world was like. I consider that experience much more
    important that just working hard in school (and I did ok at that too). 
    
    
    YMMV,
    
    jim

    At 17 I had been working 20-30 hours a week for 2 years,
    had a brand new car given to my by my parents and paid for 
    the insurance, repairs, registration and gasoline, as well 
    as my own clothes and entertainment.  
    
    Oh, and by the way, I graduated from high school 4th in
    my class.  :-)
    
    I'd have to say the car didn't hurt.
    
    Plus, my mom and dad knew that when I was out, the car
    I was in was safe, in good running order, and not going to
    break down in the middle of nowhere.  They also knew that the
    driver was sober and not about to wreck good transportation by
    doing something stupid.  I'd call it a win-win situation.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

i think that there can be a good balance IF the youngster is fully responsible
for the vehicle including the purchase. i agree that giving a 16 yr. old a car
is not responsible.

let's see, i had at least 3-4 cars when i was in highschool. of course, none of
cost me more than $125.00 each, but they all had butt-kicking radios in them.

1) '61 Ford Galaxie 2) '61 Chevy BelAir 3) '62 Dodge Dart 4) '66 Corvair

yup, 4 cars... fun years...

    
    
>    Oh, and by the way, I graduated from high school 4th in
>    my class.  :-)
    
    	Well, errr, I didn't quite do that well. :)
    
    
    jim

    
    re: cars in high school
    
    	Hmmm...lessee here. 1976 Ford F100, 1980 Chevy Citation, 1972
    Super-Beetle. Real high roller I wuz....:)
    
    

    first of all, 'round here, 16 year-olds aren't allowed to drive alone
    without a licensed driver in the car.  can't get your license til
    you're 16-1/2.  and i got mine at 16 and 8-1/2 months.  was working for
    nearly a year before that, so the money wasn't for the car.  when i did
    get my license, my dad was most pleased.  he no longer had to cart us
    around.  if the car was home when i wanted to go out, i got to use it. 
    if dad needed it, i walked or didn't go out (was one of the first of my
    friends to get my license, eventho i am one of the youngest among
    them).  if i used the car, i paid for gas.  i paid for every other oil
    change.  i had to take care of the car as if it were mine.  and i did. 
    taught me a bit of responsibility (eventho i already had plenty).  i
    get somewhat annoyed when i hear of parents buying a car for their
    kids.  where's the responsibility if the parents paid for it??  and why
    get them a brand new one, a used car works just as well, plus,
    sometimes they need a little more maintenance than a new one, so it
    teaches responsibility in a different way.  i didn't buy my first car
    til i was a freshman in college.  '78 granada, white with a maroon
    driver's side door.  people from school STILL remember me for my car...
    
    

re: "It seems getting a car at 16 is now considered a right, not a
priviledge anymore."

I feel the same way about that, but I don't agree that it is a really
'stupid' thing to do. Maybe not a necessity (but close these days when
you have 3 plus some friends to transport ...), but not stupid.

I hope that my purchasing a car for my daughter will teach her a bit
more responsibility. I plan on buying it and keeping an eye on it, and
if she doesn't maintain it and keep it clean, she won't use it. Right
now all she has to do is ask to be driven somewhere.

Pete

    
    >Oh, and by the way, I graduated from high school 4th in
    >my class.  :-)
    >
    >I'd have to say the car didn't hurt.
    
    
    	Using Lady Di's logic, maybe it did hurt ... without the car
    	you might've finished 1st in your class.  8^)
    

    
    >first of all, 'round here, 16 year-olds aren't allowed to drive alone
    >without a licensed driver in the car.  can't get your license til
    >you're 16-1/2.  and i got mine at 16 and 8-1/2 months.  was working for
    
    
    	So someone who's 16 1/2 isn't 16?  I believe someone is considered
    	16 until they turn 17.
    

  .356  i think this is where i'm supposed to call you a liar and
	maybe threaten you with Personnel action, but i'm not
	sure. ;>

    re: .356
    
    Not unless my Dad spent $2500 on a math tutor instead
    of a car....... ;-) ;-)
    

    
    
    >>So someone who's 16 1/2 isn't 16?  I believe someone is considered
    >>16 until they turn 17.
    
    while it is true some one is 16 til they turn 17, you can not obtain
    your license in massachusetts until you are 16 and 6 months.  the state
    makes the distinction between 16 and 16-1/2, not me.  i don't think
    many people count the month in an age after they enter junior high...
    

just for the record then, i was 16.5 yrs. when i did get my license. i just used
the generic 16 yrs. in a previous note for all the non-anal retentive folks out
there that care that much about precision :-). 

just kidding, just kidding.

    I was 14 when I got mine.
    
    And I drove in 6' of snow, uphill, to and from the license bureau...in
    a street rod with slicks in the back and no windows. 

    
    	When I was 14 we didn't have windows either ... just TRS-80 DOS.
    

    
    
    	Hey, I had a Vic-20 and a tape drive...:)

    > Hey, I had a Vic-20 and a tape drive...:)
    
    braggin'? or complainin'?

    
    
    	braggin'! When ever I upgraded to a Commodor-64, I was in heaven.
    An 8088 with 640K on the board was just a pipe dream then. I had never
    seen a 3.5" floppy before. What the heck was a hard drive? :)
    
    	jim

    jim, that's nothing. when i was younger we were still writing on stone
    tablets with chisels.

you had chisels?

    
    	Chip, who are you trying to kid?  When you were young stone
    	hadn't even been invented yet.
    

Chip _is_ stone.

    Off the old block, no less.

    
    Parenting by Guilt.

> Chip_is_stone... 

  well, a granite butt, maybe.

  ...and thanks, Shawn. are we talking igneous?

    
    	You might be, but I won't be until I find out what that word
    	means.  Even then, I don't imagine it will come up too often
    	in everyday conversation.
    

    >	You might be, but I won't be until I find out what that word
    >	means.  
    
     Is a category of rocks. Rocks formed by cooling magma, specifically.

    what's the 3rd category?  I can only remember igneous and metamorphic
    (and this from someone who had to complete more than one Geology credit
    for her degree.  Memory like a sieve, I tell you)
    
    I remember one final exam consisting of going into a lab where there
    were 100 rocks of all shapes and sizes located around the room and we
    had to identify each one.  What a waste of time - as if I've ever used
    *that* information again!

    Shawn leads a more sedimentary life.

    That's my third collision this week.

    She weaseled you, Colin.

Sedimentary, my dear Watson.

    Well, that settles it then.  

    It's my own fault.

    how magmanimous of you

    Doc, it's nice seeing going with the flow.

  .384  oh yeah, he's a lava minute.

    I had to. It was a forgone conclusion that a pun fest would erupt.

    Pumice you'll never say that again?

    The basalt of the earth.

I take it for granite that this string of puns will continue.

    Yeah, I'll just be obsidian my chair quietly.

    
    	Or you'll stone him ?
    
    

    or form a rock band...

    Ore whatever.

    haven't we pretty well mined this one out?

    Attempts to stop punning are usually in vein.

    Not till one of us gets shafted.

    eureka!

Hoover!

    what a bunch of slag...

    Stupid Snarf!

>    Stupid Snarf!

One for the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau.

    Or the One for the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau Department.

    
    well, I'm glad you fossils have quit this punning.