3 ms·
Technically an overstatement but not by much. Correctly restated, its highly unlikely these actions were confusing pilots. It's as if you mistook flushing your
by 1970-01-01 1y ago
Technically an overstatement but not by much. Correctly restated, its highly unlikely these actions were confusing pilots. It's as if you mistook flushing your toilet twice when instead you wanted to turn on the lights in your bathroom.
- cjbprime 1y agoI don't agree with the "twice". A frequently performed manipulation like the fuel cutoff (usually performed after landing) collapses down to a single intention that is carried out by muscle memory, not two consciously selected actions.
- 1970-01-01 1y agoYour opinion is valid but definitely doesn't align with any evidence.
- panxyh 1y agoWhat a shallow, copy-paste response. His statement was about a certain, obviously real tendency in general, existence of which is reasonable to assume there is enough research about. He objected not to the unlikelihood of an accidental manipulation, but to the potential flaw in your comparison (which was at best a valid opinion).
- 1970-01-01 1y agoCan you elaborate on why you think I copied and pasted my response? There is no evidence of it existing anywhere other than my cerebrum: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Your+opinion+is+valid+but+definitely+doesn%27t+align+with+any+evidence.%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Your+opinion+is+valid+but... I think you're misarticulating my argument.
- account42 1y agoWell if we are going by "unlikely" equals "didn't happen" then we can conclude that the plane didn't crash.