2 ms·
I agree. But this article describes thoroughly and repeatedly that no one said "Ah, it's fine." You said, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail str
by greggyb 4y ago
I agree. But this article describes thoroughly and repeatedly that no one said "Ah, it's fine."
You said, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I was pointing out that the thing they described multiple times did not sound like downplaying to me, as a layperson. "They immediately landed," sounds serious. "They grounded the fleet," sounds serious. "The planes required inspection before being allowed to fly," sounds serious. Nothing in the article reads to me, as a layperson, as if they were saying a tail strike is not serious.
- geocrasher 4y agoI just re-read the thread and I realize that I took your comment "seemed pretty severe to me" incorrectly. I thought you were saying that it was an overreaction, but rather you were saying that it was a strong enough reaction and that my assessment of them not taking the tail strikes seriously was incorrect. In that case, we're both right about different things. I was referring to the article, and you were referring to the airline. The airline absolutely did the right thing and took the tail strikes seriously. As for the article, it focused on the strong reaction to the error in the software. The article did not discuss the serious consequences of a tail strike. Considering that multiple aircraft (and many lives) have been lost due to tail strikes, I was surprised that it was not mentioned.