Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was this reported by the White house or the FAA? Is this before Congress or something that the FAA is considering? Have we EVER seen or heard of or seen such reports?
Its posts like this that take credibility away from major issues that require energy.
Was this reported by the White house or the FAA? Is this before Congress or something that the FAA is considering? Have we EVER seen or heard of or seen such reports?
Its posts like this that take credibility away from major issues that require energy.
What is truly incredible is your ability, time and time again, to form opinions when you admit you don't know the facts. Might I find your picture under the dictionary definition of "Blind Faith"?
OK, here's a clue for all of you, a LOT of birds hit aircraft, both commercial and private EVERY DAY. It's not new news. As the number of aircraft in the sky increases the incidents of bird strikes increase, as the aircraft decrease, the strikes decrease. Do any of you feel less or more confidence in your survivability chances now?
BTW, a lot of aircraft "incident" data rely on "self reporting". About a year ago, maybe less but definitely during the Bush admin, there was a push to release raw numbers on (IIRC) "near misses". The FAA withheld that for the same reason, "self reporting" has to rely on aircrew cooperation, if information starts getting out to the general public it will compromise the reliability of the data.
BTW, would a number of 5 per day make you feel better? Would a number of 100/day make you feel worse? Didn't think so.
I heard this on the news yesterday. While we've never seen such reports highlighted, I suspect they were accessible to those who inquiring minds that wanted to know. If this goes through, the info will no longer be accessible. This just happend to hit the news because some airlines/airports would suffer if the reports were known.
If you can't SEE that things are hidden, and don't know that they are, then transparency prevails...no?
OK, here's a clue for all of you, a LOT of birds hit aircraft, both commercial and private EVERY DAY. It's not new news. As the number of aircraft in the sky increases the incidents of bird strikes increase, as the aircraft decrease, the strikes decrease. Do any of you feel less or more confidence in your survivability chances now?
BTW, a lot of aircraft "incident" data rely on "self reporting". About a year ago, maybe less but definitely during the Bush admin, there was a push to release raw numbers on (IIRC) "near misses". The FAA withheld that for the same reason, "self reporting" has to rely on aircrew cooperation, if information starts getting out to the general public it will compromise the reliability of the data.
BTW, would a number of 5 per day make you feel better? Would a number of 100/day make you feel worse? Didn't think so.
golfgod
Obama's teleprompter couldn't have said it better.
Here's a clue for you...
Some of us don't think the "G" should withhold safety related information from us, especcially when we are paying for it.
Hint: It's about the secrecy, not the snowy egret vs. jet engines.
What is truly incredible is your ability, time and time again, to form opinions when you admit you don't know the facts. Might I find your picture under the dictionary definition of "Blind Faith"?
Schiavo nailed it on the head - the FAA is more interested in the "bottom line" than the public's right to know.
Whew, your head is so inbeeded in your own...well you could fill the rest in. Considering you don't know the difference between a question being posed for clarification before giving an opinion and someone (Like YOU) who continue to not only instill their opinion, fabrication before facts and fearmonger.
I choose to obtain information and as in other posts if i do not agree with the current administration i would say it, unlike (again you) who would gloss over any acknowledgement that neither the Republicans as well as the Democrats have done a DAMN thing for the people that voted them in. Take that bit of opinion and rotate on it.
OK, here's a clue for all of you, a LOT of birds hit aircraft, both commercial and private EVERY DAY. It's not new news. As the number of aircraft in the sky increases the incidents of bird strikes increase, as the aircraft decrease, the strikes decrease. Do any of you feel less or more confidence in your survivability chances now?
BTW, a lot of aircraft "incident" data rely on "self reporting". About a year ago, maybe less but definitely during the Bush admin, there was a push to release raw numbers on (IIRC) "near misses". The FAA withheld that for the same reason, "self reporting" has to rely on aircrew cooperation, if information starts getting out to the general public it will compromise the reliability of the data.
BTW, would a number of 5 per day make you feel better? Would a number of 100/day make you feel worse? Didn't think so.
golfgod
Thanks for answering my QUESTION golfgod.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
