3 ms·
It may not say it directly but the implication is clear, in that uncontrolled re-entry is dangerous to anything that might cross its path, including people, inf
by speedylight 4y ago
It may not say it directly but the implication is clear, in that uncontrolled re-entry is dangerous to anything that might cross its path, including people, infrastructure, planes, and pigeons if they’re really unlucky.
- pfdietz 4y agoThat's not a sufficient argument. Something can be dangerous without being sufficiently dangerous to warrant any personal action. In this case, I believe if you calculate you will find the chance of an aircraft being damaged was so extremely slight that it wasn't worth delaying any flight.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]