Think you're safe?

Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005 @ 6:00 p.m.

It really irks me how whenever something newsworthy happens, the news stations (*cough*NBC*cough*) keep poking at it beyond its death. Their "investigational reports" go beyond the uncovering of what went wrong, and right into "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU! YOU COULD BE DEAD! MUAHAHA!!".

I was watching the Jet Blue Flight 292 incident report last night, and after all was well, I heaved a great big sigh of relief for those who were on board. Come today, there were several newscasts during the day, and it was ALL they could talk about. (That and hurricane Rita. 2 news items, all day, all night. Only the Rita one I understand.) There's nothing new to talk about (regarding the Jet Blue flight) seeing that it's OVER, and guess what? They dig and dig until they find stuff to report. They just reported that this airbus front landing gear mishap wasn't the first occurance, and there could be more in future due to its design. Well, why are you reporting this to us for? Tell the aviation security people or whoever it is that can fix this!! Make THEM pee in their pants, not US!!! It never fails, everytime something bad happens, the media just LOVES to sensationalize and it and make it relatable to everyone. Terrorist bomb go off somewhere in the globe? Watch for newscasts with live reports at a vulnerable location (like the airport) and reporting "This could happen here! And the local security are not prepared for it if it does! We will be doomed!". Just send a message to Al Qaeda saying "ATTACK HERE, WE'RE DEFENSELESS" instead, will ya? Serves the same gawddamn purpose anyway!!

Anyway, the Jet Blue incident got me to thinking... why aren't there parachutes on airplanes? If sky-divers could jump off a plane 10,000 feet in the sky, why can't passengers evacuating a problematic plane? Sky-divers wear this protective suits... and if airplanes can equip life vests, why not protective suits too? I understand that it takes training to be a safe sky-diver, but I would imagine that haphazard sky-diving would still save substantially more lives than not having the option at all, and having all 200 passengers go up in flames with the plane. If at least 1 passenger can be saved via parachutes, then it's already better than the current plane crash-survivor ratios.

And tall buildings too. I guess it's kinda tricky maneuvering the chute so that it doesn't slam you back against the building, but smaller parachutes might alleviate that problem. Just think of the number of lives that could have theoretically been saved if parachutes were available in the world trade center towers and hijacked planes during 9/11.

I'm sure there's a logical explanation as to why parachutes aren't available on planes and skyscrapers, and I just don't know it... I think. If it's such a simple idea, I'm sure someone would have thought of it before... after all, I'm not Einstein, and neither is this idea even the slightest bit Einstein-esque. Hmm.

And on another thought, everytime a tragedy like the Jet Blue flight happens and people survive, it won't be such a happy occasion after the dust settles and all the lawsuits start coming in.

"That flight inflicted psychological trauma on me!"

"I was late for a meeting that could have made me millions - you must compensate my opportunity costs!"

"That plane mishap happened because I'm black! THAT PLANE IS RACIST!! I'm telling Oprah!!!"

"The pilot jeopardized my life 'cos he didn't predict the malfunction! WHY DIDN'T HE PREDICT THE MALFUNCTION!?!?" (Hey, after people suing McDonalds' for making them fat, what's legally impossible these days?)

If you run the company, you're screwed if the plane crashes, and you're screwed if everyone survives.

That's the American majority for ya. Whiney bunch of bastards that are never happy with anything.

Navigate

Contact

Credits

Think you're safe?