Plane Crashes

GT_TDI_150

Is there a conscious attempt to desensitize people to plane crashes / disappearances by referring to crashed / missing planes by their flight numbers?

Just noticed this as a trend, not sure if this was always the case or did they get referred to as the flight from A to B or the flight that crashed at C rather than just flight ABC123?

mahoganygas

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Is there a conscious attempt to desensitize people to plane crashes / disappearances by referring to crashed / missing planes by their flight numbers?

Just noticed this as a trend, not sure if this was always the case or did they get referred to as the flight from A to B or the flight that crashed at C rather than just flight ABC123?

By whom?

GT_TDI_150

Press. Gov. Press Agencies, Airlines ...

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

The Backwards Man

It's always been that way.

Most people could tell you which incident involved Pan Am 103 but very few could tell you where it was headed. Or even where it came from.

syklops

They don't want to refer to plane crashes like Friends episodes. The one with the Malaysian plane in the sea, the one that disappeared over knock, The one where the wings fell off. etc The planes have numbers. The numbers are unique, it makes absolute sense to refer to the crashes by the flight number.

There is no conspiracy.

Timberrrrrrrr

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Is there a conscious attempt to desensitize people to plane crashes / disappearances by referring to crashed / missing planes by their flight numbers?

Just noticed this as a trend, not sure if this was always the case or did they get referred to as the flight from A to B or the flight that crashed at C rather than just flight ABC123?

What should they call them? Accident 4? Terrorist act 7? Planey McCrashface?

jmayo

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Is there a conscious attempt to desensitize people to plane crashes / disappearances by referring to crashed / missing planes by their flight numbers?

Just noticed this as a trend, not sure if this was always the case or did they get referred to as the flight from A to B or the flight that crashed at C rather than just flight ABC123?

In aviation flight numbers together with airline abbreviation and date distinguishes a particular flight and indeed aircraft.

It can be used as call sign to ATC, rather than a tail number which would be used by non commerical non airline type traffic.

So why not use the airline industry's way of distinguishing these flights that crash.

It is easier to say EgyptAir Flight MS103 rather than EgyptAir flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport to Cairo aiport.

It is not some conspiracy.

bodhrandude

So what thread are we sticking with here the Paris Cairo one or this.

The Backwards Man

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It's always been that way.

Most people could tell you which incident involved Pan Am 103 but very few could tell you where it was headed. Or even where it came from.

Not sure that's a great example. Certainly in these islands that is "the Lockerbie bombing" far more often than 'Pan Am 103'. Say the word Lockerbie and everyone knows what you are talking about.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure that's a great example. Certainly in these islands that is "the Lockerbie bombing" far more often than 'Pan Am 103'. Say the word Lockerbie and everyone knows what you are talking about.

That's because the plane landed on Lockerbie. Same 9-11 is called that instead of the plane numbers.

jmayo

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Is there a conscious attempt to desensitize people to plane crashes / disappearances by referring to crashed / missing planes by their flight numbers?

Just noticed this as a trend, not sure if this was always the case or did they get referred to as the flight from A to B or the flight that crashed at C rather than just flight ABC123?

Some flight incidents are so memorable and unique and thus distinguishable by location or Airline.
e.g Lockerbie disaster which was Pan Am Flight 103
Hudson River landing which was US Airways 1549
Air India disaster which was Air India Flight 182.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's because the plane landed on Lockerbie. Same 9-11 is called that instead of the plane numbers.

I know. Just saying it's a funny example, because of all plane crashes (other than 9-11) that's the one with a widely accepted name that isn't a flight number.

Surely it's so that relatives/friends/whoever else can quickly know whether the flight their relatives/friends/whoever were on was the one that crashed.

tomwaterford

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Press. Gov. Press Agencies, Airlines ...

Why would they be trying to desensitise people to plane crashes

GT_TDI_150

tomwaterford wrote: »

Why would they be trying to desensitise people to plane crashes

So there isnt a growth in people with a fear of flying? Fecked if i know

tomwaterford

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

So there isnt a growth in people with a fear of flying? Fecked if i know

Strange that they'd try desensitise people.....if that was the plan there'd be more of cover up IMO




***it should be said I fcuking hate flying...every thing about it

Spanish Eyes

Where is the plane that disappeared, Malaysian Airlines.

That is the most bizarre thing ever.

In this day and age of everyone following everyone else, and National Intelligence Agencies, and Air Traffic Control, and oh dear, whatever else.... this plane just plain disappeared off the face of the earth.

Sad for those who died.

But aliens must have been involved at this stage.

Totally bizarre. Does anyone else agree?

bodhrandude

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Where is the plane that disappeared, Malaysian Airlines.

That is the most bizarre thing ever.

In this day and age of everyone following everyone else, and National Intelligence Agencies, and Air Traffic Control, and oh dear, whatever else.... this plane just plain disappeared off the face of the earth.

Sad for those who died.

But aliens must have been involved at this stage.

Totally bizarre. Does anyone else agree?

You'll never know perhaps they ended up on an island. :pac:

Spanish Eyes

bodhrandude wrote: »

You'll never know perhaps they ended up on an island. :pac:

Woops!

But you know what I mean.

Totally unreal in this day and age of everything being tracked.

Or so we think!

Sorry, it is very sad for the relatives of those who are missing. Not making light of it.

It is just so STRANGE!

bodhrandude

I can imagine realistically that that Malaysian plane is probably in the depths of some ocean, when you think of the size of a plane and the size of a mass of water, its only a pinprick really.

Spanish Eyes

bodhrandude wrote: »

I can imagine realistically that that Malaysian plane is probably in the depths of some ocean, when you think of the size of a plane and the size of a mass of water, its only a pinprick really.

True, but it still resonates with me that (supposedly) there are tracking devices all over the world.

But maybe not for planes.

Could be that the Malaysian plane was a tester for others to come. Weird though really isn't it?

BoatMad

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Where is the plane that disappeared, Malaysian Airlines.

That is the most bizarre thing ever.

In this day and age of everyone following everyone else, and National Intelligence Agencies, and Air Traffic Control, and oh dear, whatever else.... this plane just plain disappeared off the face of the earth.

Sad for those who died.

But aliens must have been involved at this stage.

Totally bizarre. Does anyone else agree?

70% of the world is covered in water
I've sailed the Atlantic , you Have 1000s of square miles of open water , it's a staggering big area of nothingness

Radar only covers certain areas , traffic control have very limited coverage

Security services only focus on selected targets. They can't and don't track everything


However
What's nuts , is that plain old ships are required to broadcast identification signals , giving course speed, destination ,ID number and Gps location , such signals , known as AIS are mandatory and can now be picked up worldwide by satellite ,

Yet aircraft are not required to have such systems or to log information remotely.

It's trivially technically to supplement the black box and have Aircraft stream key data including GPS location via satellite systems.

The engines on the Mh109 had this feature but the airline in question has refused to pay the satellite fees and the service was disconnected

A simple change of laws in the major destination countries could solve this problem in a heart beat

Spanish Eyes

BoatMad wrote: »

70% of the world is covered in water
I've sailed the Atlantic , you Have 1000s of square miles of open water , it's a staggering big area of nothingness

Radar only covers certain areas , traffic control have very limited coverage

Security services only focus on selected targets. They can't and don't track everything


However
What's nuts , is that plain old ships are required to broadcast identification signals , giving course speed, destination ,ID number and Gps location , such signals , known as AIS are mandatory and can now be picked up worldwide by satellite ,

Yet aircraft are not required to have such systems or to log information remotely.

It's trivially technically to supplement the black box and have Aircraft stream key data including GPS location via satellite systems.

The engines on the Mh109 had this feature but the airline in question has refused to pay the satellite fees and the service was disconnected

A simple change of laws in the major destination countries could solve this problem in a heart beat

Yup, what you say makes sense. But sorry I don't know anything about the feasability of it.

But as you say, marine craft have to do it, so why not air craft?

Thanks for the insight.

Shannon757

Is this AH or the conspiracy theory forum?

scamalert

in general its only in last couple years that adds to the crashes that makes it seem more common occurance,but if you were to take away ukraine one where it was shot down,german one that on purpose crashed it,egypt before this one smth to do with russians/and whoever is fighting there if remember correctly, then its pretty safe compared how many ppl everyday end up wrapped around trees in cars-also its more geographical location that adds to poorer countries having bad rep- thus not so strict rules,for checking/maintenance etc that adds another factor,and while they give flight number details theres tons of work that have to be done afterwards so no point in doing conclusions until black boxes and else are analyzed,but media always puts twist to it.

diomed

I'm getting a bit desensetized to your username GT_TDI_150.

liam7831

Sounds like some type of False Flag operation to me

Spanish Eyes

liam7831 wrote: »

Sounds like some type of False Flag operation to me

Get away now with your conspiracy theories.

With due respect to those who died.

Still, it's early days for the reasons for it. Who knows?

Strumms

Imagine if a news agency just reported a crash of a BA aircraft travelling from London Heathrow to NewYork JFK. There are several flights from this airport to this destination by this carrier daily. In fact just a quick glance at the FR24 APP shows me 6 currently in the air at least. So to avoid putting the ****s up the literally thousands of loved ones of those on the flights they quite correctly report the specifics. ie. BAXXX a Boeing 747-400 which departed LHR at 1500 this afternoon etc....... There is no conspiracy. It's accurate factual reporting.

Bio Mech

I think they are doing it on purpose. The aim is to make us so desensitised that when the lizard people land their ships we won't even notice because they are all numbered and we are so desensitised to numbered craft.

And it will be easier for them to move among us then. Obey.

Maireadio

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It's always been that way.

Most people could tell you which incident involved Pan Am 103 but very few could tell you where it was headed. Or even where it came from.

Huh? I think most people would know it was New York-bound and took off from London. Or some people might think it was vice versa. I think more people would know this than the flight number.

OP, using the flight number is just more professional.

KERSPLAT!

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What should they call them? Accident 4? Terrorist act 7? Planey McCrashface?

Laptop destroyed with tea

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Imagine if a news agency just reported a crash of a BA aircraft travelling from London Heathrow to NewYork JFK... BAXXX a Boeing 747-400 which departed LHR at 1500 this afternoon etc...

If it was flying to Topeka, Kansas it would be the TK Baxx disaster...

Kiwi in IE

I don't really understand how referring to flights by their flight numbers after an accident is going to 'desensitize' people to plane crashes. As someone who flies reasonably often, I refer to flights by their flight numbers frequently. I would tell my mother 'I'm arriving at 1500 on EK418'. It is clearer and less confusing than saying 'I arrive at 1500 on the Emirates flight from Sydney'. It tells whoever is picking you up exactly what to look for on the arrivals board, without them having to work out airlines and places of origin. I would either refer to a flight by its number or call it 'The Dubai Sydney flight'. It makes perfect sense that they are referred to by their numbers in an official capacity.

They are also referred to by number on itinaries, therefore making it less confusing for panicked family members trying to work out if their loved on was in that flight.

knucklehead6

Just thinking back over well known crashes it seems to depend.

Pan Am 103 will always be better known as Lockerbie, same as Cactus 1549 will always be the Hudson Rivwr landing. If I said Air France 4590, not too many people would know what I'm referring to. If I said the Concorde crash in Paris, most would know what I'm referring to.

Someone mentioned Air India 182, but I've only ever heard of it mentioned as the Air India Disaster/Bombing.

It's not a new thing either. I've only ever seen the shootdown of the Korean Airlines plane in the 80's be referred to as KAL007

It seems if a flight crashes on land it'll predominately be known as where the impact is. Lost at sea and it'll be the flight number

marymary1984

Handy to check flight numbers on teletex too. Am I the only one who still does this!
Think people are smart enough to know a crash is a bad thing - using a number does not make it less bad.

You know what really made me shudder? Seeing where the plane crashed approximately. The one yesterday. The map was zoomed in and it took a lot of zooming out before you saw any land. Imagine surviving a plane crash and being that far in the water. You can't swim, too far. Just have to grab on to whatever you can ...

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what really made me shudder? Seeing where the plane crashed approximately. The one yesterday. The map was zoomed in and it took a lot of zooming out before you saw any land. Imagine surviving a plane crash and being that far in the water. You can't swim, too far. Just have to grab on to whatever you can ...

nobody survives a crash descent from 37,000 feet !!


I Once witnessed a yacht stumble across a man threading water in the middle of an ocean , that had been thrown overboard as a stowaway

knucklehead6

BoatMad wrote: »

nobody survives a crash descent from 37,000 feet !!


I Once witnessed a yacht stumble across a man threading water in the middle of an ocean , that had been thrown overboard as a stowaway

There are reports that 3 of the Lockerbie victims survived the explosion and crash/fall and possibly COULD have survived if they'd gotten medical attention on time

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

nobody survives a crash descent from 37,000 feet !!


I Once witnessed a yacht stumble across a man threading water in the middle of an ocean , that had been thrown overboard as a stowaway

This woman might disagree with you.

Captain Chaos

syklops wrote: »

. The numbers are unique, it makes absolute sense to refer to the crashes by the flight number.
.

The numbers are not unique at all they are re used to refer to certain links every few days. They are coded to airlines, that number tells them the time and destination of regular flights.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

This woman might disagree with you.

these are freak situations, they do not disprove what I said .

smurfjed

However
What's nuts , is that plain old ships are required to broadcast identification signals , giving course speed, destination ,ID number and Gps location , such signals , known as AIS are mandatory and can now be picked up worldwide by satellite , Yet aircraft are not required to have such systems or to log information remotely.

I'm assuming that you havent heard of ADS-B, or even ADS-C? We also have aircraft that log information remotely, some do it at the end of each flight due to the costs associated with transmission, some do it immediately whenever an event is recognised using ACARS.