On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > Whats?? > Who said that? that's not what I'm saying!
Actually - you did imply that you thought they "had the knowledge that devices to save your life were never implemented because they cost too much". I think it's a little too early to make that call. > All I'm saying is that these accidents just shouldn't happen in my view. That would be nice, though impossible. > And there SHOULD be a cool radar system that shows these planes in > flight over the oceans. Yeah - I agree. Reporting the GPS location back to *somewhere* regularly would be nice. That would not prevent any accidents though - just tell you where to focus on recovery. > And..what I am saying is that there have been cost cutting measures > that affect safety. In my view, we shouldn't have plane crashes. Spending 100% of the global economy on aircraft safety would still not guarantee 0 crashes. It's not as simple as an "evil greedy airline" problem, but the jump to blame cut cutting on safety for this specific accident is an interesting mindset. -Cameron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:297878 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
