Posted on 12/27/2001 6:15:18 AM PST by Elkiejg
Back off Jack - she's one of us - If you dont like it, find another thread.
You are pretty thin skinned for a down-stater. CGEB is entitled and if you dont like it - I suggest you drop JR an email and suggest he limit how creative some people get with html -
try some cruex - the chafe is all to apparent from here
I am reminded of a flight some 10 years ago, when the captain came on the PA after we were all seated. "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Captain speaking. We're going to experience a short delay on departure because we've got an instrument lamp that's supposed to be on and it's not. Either the gizmo the lamp tells us about is not working OR the lamp is burned out. Either way, we'll find out which it is and replace it. We should be on our way in about 20 minutes." Sure enough, we pushed back 20 minutes later. But you'd never hear such honesty today. No, the Captain would merely announce an unstated technical problem that should be fixed momentarily.
Fast forward to 2001. Atlanta. Boeing 767, first flight for the a/c of the day - nonstop ATL to MAD. Flight crew arrives and finds that one of the seat latches on the captain's seat is broken, and rather than try to fix it, the ground crew opts to just replace the seat and fix the old one later. But did the gate crew tell us that? No WAY.
"Ladies and gentlemen, there's going to be a short departure delay while crews replace a piece of cockpit equipment. Estimated departure time (originally scheduled for 9:30am) is 10:00 am."
It doesn't take long to swap out a captain's seat. Unbold is about 3-4 minutes, rebolt another 3-4. Wrestling the beast out of the cockpit and a new one in takes about 20 minutes total. Soon, the new seat was installed. But the gate agent continued to describe the situation as "under repair." WHY?
According to an extra flight crew at the gate (waiting for us to clear so they could fly another flight), the seat replacement is on the list of procedures that mandate an FAA inspection every time it's done. So, even though the new seat was in, we had to wait for the inspector. It's Sunday morning, and it's Atlanta.
The gate agent continued to push back the expected departure time, and continued to state that repairs were under way, even though they were done an hour ago. Finally, an inspector rolls up, checks a bolt or two, and signs off. We board. No mention thruout that we were waiting for an FAA inspector. I'm sure that every pax on the flight would have WANTED the procedure inspected, but Delta apparently didn't want to risk the ire of appearing to point a finger at a lazy FAA inspector on a Sunday morning. BTW, there are all kinds of maintenance procedures that require an inspector sign-off that you normally wouldn't think of. Such as those embedded safety light strips on the floor. Bad segment need replacing? Has to be inspected. But don't count on Delta to tell you.
This attitude continues at each and every business that serves the public - any time there's anything technical wrong. TV station airs wrong footage during weekend newscast? A benign slide says, "Sorry, technical problems. Please Stand By." It would be a lot more effective if the announcer came on and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we're sorry, but our inexpreienced and incompetent weekend video switcher doesn't seem to know which button to press to make Cynthia appear on the air. We'll have him straightened out in a moment. And we'll continue as soon as we've notified his next of kin." Things like this would work wonders. Hit the right button or they call your mother.
Law Enforcement is the worst. While there are a good many reasons for keeping many details as close to the vest as possible, there are also interminable examples of information being kept secret for the self-aggrandizement of the officers keeping the secrets. They know something you don't, and they want you to be well aware of this fact. They all hide behind the catchall "Our investigation is ongoing," even in the face of the most obvious, glaring evidence easily seen by the public. Take one I saw last night. A small single-engine private aircraft had a shorter-than-planned flight when it ploughed into a flagpole near the airport and became entangled in the flag chains, leaving it suspended 50 feet off the ground. Investigators on the scene, totally ignoring the obvious, said only that their "investigation was ongoing." I giess that won't get anyone fired, but he could also just has easily have said, "Well, it ought to be pretty plain to anyone what happened here. The pilot lost control, wound up flying his plane at the same altitude as the stationary flagpole and in the same physical location. The plane hit the flagpole and it's hanging by the flag chains. The pilot's still aboard, he's OK, and we'll get him out." Most investigators, however, would have referred to the guy behind the stick as "the alleged pilot."
Of course, we could go on and on about language...especially the overused weasel word, "Alleged." "Alleged" is used to remove liability from a news org. when a reporter says that a perp "allegedly" shot his victim in the fracas. This means that someone TOLD the reporter that this is what happened. BUT, if you say, "Witnesses told us that the perp shot Ms. Daniels..." then you don't have to use "allegedly" because you've id'd who made the claim. However, news guys still never learn and overuse "allegedly."
And then there's police-speak. My fave is "at a high rate of speed." No one ever talks like that, except a cop or someone who works at a PD. You don't call up Papa John's Pizza and tell them you want your double pooperoni delivered "at a high rate of speed." You say, "Get it here as quick as you can." Not the cops, though. Reminds me of my first traffic accident with the family car as a kid. My mom showed up and asked the cop what happened. "Well, maam, your son was speeding, came around this curve, couldn't handle it, plowed thru this lady's geraniums, then shot back across the street and landed on that concrete block wall (where the car still sat)." "Are you going to put that in your report?"
"Oh, no maam. I'm going to say that his rate of speed was too fast for conditions (it was a clear dry night), that he misnegotiated this curb, hit some vegetation and came to rest on that planter wall. No charges recommended. Of course, you're looking at some tie-rod damage that I'm sure he'll be eager to assist you with..."
Maybe it IS OK sometimes if they don't ALWAYS tell all of the truth.
Michael
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.