Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nommedeguerre who wrote (19577)	5/21/1998 4:21:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>My friend's dad was a pilot for Pan Am and said he still preferred the odds on a 747 to that of Vietnam where he had a 1-14% chance of being shot down.<<< Yeah, of course you were as likely to be killed after leaving the plane there. I don't know if he was counting that. Since you give your source, I'll say I have had friends who are pilots at Boeing field when I was a Seattlite, that my brother in law was a Boeing engineer, that I read the mags like Aviation Weekly and Janes once in a while. I'm not a pilot or a plane owner, but I fly enough that I have gotten to know particular crew members pretty well and have had much of this confirmed by them. They don't like being exposed to danger for somebody else's profits either, and they will talk about it plenty if they know you at all. <<<Many accidents still occur during take-off and landing due to wind-shear in which parachutes and improved glide are meaningless.<<< It's still about monolithic organizations and profits. Increase the time between planes taking off, put in ground burst radar, make the plane bodies stronger, and most especially, mandate the new non-explosive fuel systems. Also, stop letting planes take off in weather everybody knows is dangerous. Stop thinking accidents per mile and start thinking accidents per hour of travel. Chaz