7 ms·
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the first rule that goes out the window when you're on a private jet.
by taejavu 10y ago
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the first rule that goes out the window when you're on a private jet.
- danaliv 10y agoAnd it's the number one way you're going to get injured. Keep your seatbelt buckled, even when the sign is off.
- umanwizard 10y agoFlying is already so incredibly torturously uncomfortable for me that the very slight risk of injury or death is worse it for the increased comfort of not having a seatbelt on.
- davrosthedalek 10y agoIt is worth the risk for the persons next to you or the row over when you get thrown through the plane and hit them in the head?
- umanwizard 10y agoSince I don't get upset when other people do things for their own comfort that make me extremely slightly less safe to a similar extent, the Golden Rule school of ethics suggests: "yes".
- silverdrake11 10y agoI wonder if your head would actually hit the cabin ceiling though because of the centrifugal force. The plane might have flipped too quickly for that to happen
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- M_Grey 10y agoThere's a reason that people with money and power don't always experience good outcomes. Sure, you can do what you like on your jet, and therefore expose yourself to risk that most people never experience. Likewise skiing off-piste or a number of other equally silly activities that you can do, but absolutely shouldn't.
- fulafel 10y agoProbably they have a different idea about risk management than more risk-averse people. Worrying a lot about very low probability events is not compatible with the risk-taking typically required to make a lot of money. After all millionaires are largely a "survivor club" filtered from high risk appetite workaholics.
- M_Grey 10y agoI don't know about that. I think mostly it has to do with having the power to pick and choose critical service providers, bully them, etc. If Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs had not been as wealthy and powerful as they had been, they would also both probably be alive. Neither has much to do with being risk-takers, although you might be right that a higher arousal threshold desensitized them to risk. It may also be that people used to winning, on some level, expect to keep winning. Either way, we're not just talking about Fortune 500 C-levels here, plenty of people with loads of money and power did nothing to get it, and have no special qualities associated with that ability to get it. They still often have bad outcomes.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoNever in my experience.
- xapata 10y agoPrivate planes also crash far more often than standard airline flights. Case in point: Chapecoense.
- geezerjay 10y agoIIRC, the Chapecoense flight was done by a private charter company which provided services to football teams. That was not a private jet incident at all.
- xapata 10y agocharter ~ jet No?
- Neliquat 10y agoCharter =/= Private To us it is the same, but to the person with a private jet, there is a substantial difference.
- xapata 10y agoAh, right. Like a weekly maid versus a live-in maid. Still, as far as I know, the safety of standard commercial airlines is much better than both charters and private planes. Without the regulators to monitor the maintenance and pilots, it turns out people take more risks.
- mikeash 10y agoIt's not even a rule on airliners, merely a suggestion. I'm sure silly people on private jets will keep their seat belt off when seated, but plenty of silly people do that on airliners too.