3 ms·

Agreed. I don't see how this article serves anyone's interests other than LA Times traffic numbers. It offers nothing but further rampant speculation on top o

Agreed. I don't see how this article serves anyone's interests other than LA Times traffic numbers. It offers nothing but further rampant speculation on top of the usual news cycle on airline crashes. Worse, it offers zero closure to the families of the crash victims nor relief to the air crews and passengers of the 100s Airbus A330s now flying on a daily basis. At least it's labeled as "opinion" and the author clearly demarcates this line of reasoning as pure speculation. That's far more disclosure than most "professional" journalists do these days.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
From the concluding paragraph: This is pure -- and premature -- speculation. But it is not speculative to observe that some vertical fins are weaker than they should be, and that this is because of the regulations that govern how airplanes are built. The FAA, together with its international counterparts, should amend certification requirements for future aircraft to restore to the maneuvering speed the safety status that pilots always believed it had. The rules that govern the structural integrity of airliners should not include asterisks. Peter Garrison has a long history of writing and editing aviation pieces. He's written a fair number of accident reports for the aviation community. He understands the nature of premature speculation. He made the call that this issue is important enough to use the crash as a vehicle to bring up. I agree. The purpose is not to speculate on the crash, provide closure to the crash victims or relief to the air crews. The purpose is to bring up a regulatory issue that needs further attention. In this case, I think it's a worthwhile cause. In 99% of the other stories, I did not. In fact, I blogged about how terrible it was to use a crash just to drive traffic. http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/06/funeral-home-bl.php http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/06/funeral-home-...

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

From the concluding paragraph: This is pure -- and premature -- speculation. But it is not speculative to observe that some vertical fins are weaker than they should be, and that this is because of the regulations that govern how airplanes are built. The FAA, together with its international counterparts, should amend certification requirements for future aircraft to restore to the maneuvering speed the safety status that pilots always believed it had. The rules that govern the structural integrity of airliners should not include asterisks. Peter Garrison has a long history of writing and editing aviation pieces. He's written a fair number of accident reports for the aviation community. He understands the nature of premature speculation. He made the call that this issue is important enough to use the crash as a vehicle to bring up. I agree. The purpose is not to speculate on the crash, provide closure to the crash victims or relief to the air crews. The purpose is to bring up a regulatory issue that needs further attention. In this case, I think it's a worthwhile cause. In 99% of the other stories, I did not. In fact, I blogged about how terrible it was to use a crash just to drive traffic. http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/06/funeral-home-bl.php http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/06/funeral-home-...