It's a tough listen and I don't begrudge your regret listening to it, however I think the pilot did a remarkable job of communication information about speed and bank angle right to the end which will indeed help this investigation and hopefully prevent future incidents.
The nice thing about all the tapes and recorders is that when you know you're completely fucked, you can be damn near assured that the last things you choose to say will be preserved. Whether you make it a last message to your family, or as many technical details as you can throw out that might help the investigation and keep someone else from dying the same way. In a way, documenting as much as you can of your impending death becomes your final task.
It's just hard on the soul. You hear someone professional, who we'd usually look to as the adult in the room, quickly unraveling.
She goes from the confident pilot speak to panicked reports to starting to scream and hyperventilate, while doing her best to recover and communicate what's happening to the tower. At some point you hear them acknowledge that it's too late and they're all going to die. And then one last scream before suddenly cutting out.
It's just that gut-wrenching empathy and feeling of helplessness.
I would personally say that people should listen to this stuff, though. Life is hard and fragile, and even though it's hard, empathizing with this suffering makes sure we understand the real costs of our mistakes.
I saw way too many dismiss a million deaths by COVID. So many people bat their eyes at 100 people dying in a plane crash now. If they heard the recordings of these kinds of last moments, I think we'd be at less risk of our (moral/procedural) standards slipping.
Yes i fully agree with you, because of the warnings i was very hesitant to listen to the audio and after learning it was a woman pilot i was even more hesitant. But i have now heard it and it was absolutely awful but not any worse than some of the other crash audio i have listened to. I believe its important for the living to carry the burden of the dead. The dead deserve to have their story told and listened to and the living owe at least that much to the dead.
If you have an ounce of empathy, hearing someone scream in terror and narrate their final moments will affect you negatively. The pilot is aware of the situation the entire time.
In every thread on this not a single person I have expressed anything other than regret for having heard it
Yeah, usually i listen to stuff like that. I watch a lot of those youtube videos where pilots break down plane crashes from their perspective and sometimes you hear the audio from inside the cockpit. Usually that stuff doesnt affect me too bad but im fighting to resist the urge to listen.
I think the worst crash i learned about was when maintenance let a rear stabilizer go 20 years without so much as a checkup and the screw that controls the positioning of the rear stabilizer ran out of lube and stripped all the threads off mid flight causing the plane to lose all pitch control.
You could really hear the emotion in the pilots voice as they realized they were now riding a terrifying rollercoaster with no control over their altitude.
I actually think they may have survived which is insane, they had to try to control the pitch of the plane with the engine throttles, if you start going down then increase engines until you start going up again and if you go up to fast then decrease throttle.
Absolute insanity, i think they lived but if that had happened in the middle of a thunder storm while the plane was covered in ice there would be no chance.
It seems i combined two different incidents in my memory, the one where the pilot controled the plane via engine throttle was united airlines flight 232, out of 285 passengers and 11 crew 175 passengers and 10 crew survived the crash landing.
The other incident with loss of rear stabilizer control was alaska airlines flight 261 and all 88 people on board died when the plane crashed in the pacific ocean.
It might also affect you positively. Trying to avoid all exposure to the realities of death is not only unhealthy but also futile since in the end it comes for us all. Memento mori.
> In every thread on this not a single person I have expressed anything other than regret for having heard it
That's because most people who don't feel the need to be overdramatic also don't need to feel the need to comment about it.
Big Oil has been an immense producer of _value_ to society. It is fossil fuels that has enabled so much of our modern world to be possible. Cheap, portable, effective and efficient production of energy at scale. My goodness. The ancients would be so jealous of what we have - and so confused by our reaction to what made it possible.
What an amazing achievement for the liberation of everyone.
Yes however that value was always temporary in nature. Like most things, new innovations seem good for a while until they’re outpaced, then they’re just bad. But we still do them because of inertia.
The oil companies should have shifted innovation and R&D to cleaner alternatives decades ago. When they had the capital and political sway. That would have ensured their long-term profits.
But they didn’t, because they figure doing the same thing forever will just work. It won’t, of course, and now they’re paying the cost.
The ultimate irony is that this isn’t even because of climate change. Even if climate change didn’t exist, this would happen. Already greener alternatives are getting cheaper and cheaper, and soon it will make zero economic sense to be a petroleum company. Like the coal companies before them.
And now, it’s too late. With each passing day the oil giants lose foothold, and now they don’t have the runway to pivot even if they wanted to. If they started in the 70s with the energy crisis, they would be more profitable today than ever. They would have ensured their place in the modern changing world. But they didn’t, and now they will die a slow death. Not because of climate change, but because of the nature of the free market.
I basically agree. I don't care for DJT, but I can see how getting his "second term" underway after his first one could have been better. His four years away allowed him to stew and plan and respond.
Shit, MIAX is just the old BATS/Cboe technology with some local flair. There are multiple derivatives of the old Island/INET tech stack, mainly in ATSs, but the iteration Nasdaq is operating on only diverges where extreme message volume factors in.
No one is silly enough to want the abomination of design that is Pillar, but the point still stands that technical differentiation isn’t really important in the way it was 15-20yr ago.
I've never quite understood the nature of this criticism. At best I'd describe it as deeply intellectualized tribalism. But I think I'm being a little too kind.
I (in good faith) don’t understand what you don’t understand. Western Sahara is basically a colony so if you’re opposed to colonialism it isn’t super weird to be opposed to making a movie in that colony, paying taxes etc to the colonizers and so on, no?
Because resources are extracted for the profit of the colonizers and not the locals, who are being suppressed and purposefully supplanted. Seriously man, this is not really very controversial, Morocco isn’t really behaving all that nicely down there.
Tell me again how the locals are suppressed and resources stolen from on the Falklands? What are we even talking about, grass and sheep?
what you described is that rich countries can have colonies because the colonized likes it but poor ones can't. I also forgot to mention Greenland in Europe (sic).
Many people do consider those colonies. However, the Falklands/Malvinas had no native population (plot twist: the French were there first). Northern Ireland's position raises questions about Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man.
I think Hawai'i is a better example than California. Hawai'i was a constitutional monarchy, with fully developed law courts etc. California was the fringe of Mexico and the Spanish Empire, and not so well organised. I have heard Puerto Rico described as a colony many times before. But again, I would say there is a better example: American Samoa.
As for the French, like the USA, they are pretty much in denial about colonies. There were people in France who considered Algeria an integral part of France right up until the end.
All of those regions are colonies or former colonies. The main difference is that Western Sahara is being actively colonized right now whereas all of those regions were colonized 100+ years ago. Falklands were uninhabited before European settlement btw
reply