Until your own family are on board

Thanks Oxcart, that was exactly the point I was trying to make in my first post.

Don’t confuse him with obvious logic…or statistics for that matter. 🙂

I’m sure he never drives anywhere unless it’s on a divided highway and all cross roads have been blocked.

Or for that matter I’m sure he doesn’t drink, smoke, eats darn near anything, or goes outside, lest he gets hit by lightning.

Err, sorry, what did I say that rattled your cage JB?

All I was pointing out was that ETOPS rules are based on statistics, which is fine for everyone except those unfortunate few that happen to be aboard the one flight in ten million (or whatever number applies) that will (statistically) suffer twin engine failure at some point in time and perhaps end up in the water beyond range of rescue services – at which point the sensationalist media will no doubt whip up a furore asking why such “risks to “unsuspecting” passengers)”were considered acceptable by the authorities (who the media will no oubt claim were “bowing to pressure from profit-hungry airlines” etc etc).

Look at all the media finger-pointing that followed the loss of Air France over the Atlantic, and the “disappearance” of Malaysian over the Indian Ocean – lots of media “surprise” that commercial pax flights are often well beyond radar coverage, and again the, more recent, MH17-driven media concerns raised about commercial overflight of war zones etc – plenty of evidence that the media, and many pax, have no real understanding of how risks are assessed and decisions made that relate to flights they may take.

If you read my post I clearly said “it seems that current ETOPS rules are sufficient to protect passengers”. By which I was stating that the statistics bear out the current rules – no more, no less.

I wasn’t saying I disagreed with those that set the ETOPS rules – so why such a snotty response :stupid:?

….irresistable to kids who want to climb on it.

Where an artefact is unique (i.e. last one left, or of particular significance by virtue of what that particular example did, or who used that particulalr one) then it should be out of reach.

Where we have multiple examples of an artefact, then letting people/kids touch it, climb on it etc is no bad thing, as it gives them more of an “experience” that may get them interested in coming back. Who knows, one of them may even going on to study military history, develop a lifelong interest in something, or even end up curating a museum at some stage in the future?

So, some things like the retrieved Chevvy Desert vehicle and Lancaster nose should probably be safely out of reach, but some other items should be accessible and sacrificed to the visiting masses. I am sure we could spare an old Lee Enfield .303, or a 25pdr field gun?

No doubt it’s a hard decision to make, but as we regularly discuss in this forum, we have to catch the imagination of ‘tomorrows enthusiasts’ – and what will they remember most, a dusty old truck out of reach behind barriers/glass, or the fact they climbed on and fiddled with a real tank/field gun/aeroplane….

If we don’t let them get touchy-feely with soemthing they’ll soon prefer to stay in front of the video console playing “pretend soldiers” at home rather than wandering past loads of “out of bounds” signs.

But, it does look like the revamped IWM have perhaps swung too far towards the “access everything” end of the spectrum?

Thankfully it is not always a one way event…

Idiots.

It amuses me that a State that is member of the EU still permits this level of cruelty (to the bulls, not to the idiots 😉 ).

Likewise, I wonder how the Pamplonians find a way around the EU Health and Safety rules and regulations…. I can just imagine the UK’s approach would involve a multi step risk-assessment resulting in all bulls being segregated from runners by a solid barrier so high that a bull could not jump it, all bulls’ horns being blunted, all runners running in full helmets and body armour, and all runners having to sign a multi-page disclaimer in triplicate, plus town council charging a massive entrants fee to cover the “all risks” liability insurance they would feel they need to put in place to cover their own ar$es….

Still, it’s Darwin’s principle in action again, anyone who feels this is a sensible event to enter deserves to have their genes removed from the pool…. and I doubt those “lost” genes woud be missed by the rest of us ;-).

Are we told whether it’s malt vinegar, spirit vinegar, or wine vinegar? I need to know.

Moggy,

The sooner you get a new set of wings the better, you’re obviously spending too much time on-line swandering around the deepest darkest corners of t’net ….. :highly_amused:

I’d go for balsamic vinegar myself, far stickier and thus more likely to collect all those nasty chemicals as they fall down on you.

Personally though, I think the most scary aspect of chem-trails is the fact that the airforces of the world get away with it at such close quarters, and no-one complains…..just think how many people (and their happy, innocent, little kids!) have been subdued/fumigated/brain-washed/infected every time they watch those pretty-coloured little jets leaving all those pretty coloured trails at airshows…..it’s so outrageous that you couldn’t make it up could you!

So, don’t forget children, take your bottles of vinegar ask to your favourite airshow, and spray them in the air whenever the Red Arrows, Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, Patrouille de France etc appear….

How she came up with that I have no idea.

Perhaps on the assumption that no terrorist organisation has publically claimed responsibility, but that would not rule out a lone “nutter” working outside the remit of a known terror group. Nor would it rule out a ‘simple’ act of selfish suicidice, nor rule out the option that by keeping quiet a terrorist group might be about to embark on further “unclaimed” acts like this in order to scare the wider public/undermine public trust in established “security measures” etc – i.e. it’s far more disturbing to know there is someone out there taking planes down and not know who is behind that, than it is to know who is behind an ongoing campaign.

However, IMHO, the fact that (to date) there have been no further instances of this type suggests it is probably not the start of an orchestrated campaign, but rather an isolated instance.

But as to whether it was mechanical failure, suicide, “one man band ” terrorist? The worrying thing is that we may never know…

Mike and David, Yes, that is what I was saying, and I think Paul actually agreed with that.

Thanks for clarification Bruce, I assumed (and hoped) that was what you meant,it just didnt seem clear (to me at least) from your post. Yes, am in total agreement, and also agree that any preservation “diorama” should be a full re-creation of her current resting place too, as you say, no small undertaking for any museum to devote that much floor space/cash to one.

As to turret removal – I’m no expert, and I can’t remember exact words used in the documentary but I wonder if the fact the necessary mods were (IIRC) said to have been “hurried”, plus perhaps colloquial use of ‘chopped’ rather than “removed”, ended up giving the impression that the removal was a little more “brutal” than was actually the case?

That’s it, I’m done. I’ll now sit and watch the thread with interest.