Printable View
While they're still good for a laugh - these have been doing the rounds for many years (probably at least 20) and did not originate from Qantas. Pretty sure that when I first saw them, they were claimed to have come from United Airlines - but even that you'd have to take with a pinch of salt. Could have come from anywhere - but definitely from someone with a sense of humour. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
it wouldn't be united they dont have a sense of humor:D
Taxiing down the tarmac, the Qantas 747 ( :angel: :p )abruptly stopped, turned around and returned to the gate. After a two hour delay, it finally took off.
Barry, a worried passenger asked the steward, 'What was the problem?'
'The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine', explained the flight attendant, 'and it took us a while to find a new pilot.'
I remember reading in a Russian newspaper how the passengers of an airflot flight refused to let the pilot and co pilot into the cockpit. because they were drunk.
The interesting thing was not that they were drunk but that the passengers didn’t accept drunken pilots
Why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by clean32
Most ordinary human beings wouldn't accept drunk pilots.
And last time looked, Russians are ordinary human beings.
That;s not to say that Russian pilots haven;t got a history of (or at least a reputation for) drunken-ness, just that most people don't accept it if they know about it.,
Here we go againQuote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
Firstly you would have to understand the total subservience to any authority real or perceived that the former CIS citizens had to endure. Even using the word endure is not correct, lets just say it just what they were used to. if a pilot can be singed off as fit to fly as were the 2 pilots in my above example, who are you to question that? Add in the believe that Aeroflot had the best and safest aircraft, best pilots and that every thing in the former CIS was better then in the west. 99% of the population believed what they were told and why not there was no other information.
To a drunk pilot was a rather normal thing, as is a drunk policeman, or a drunk president.
Though the article demonstrates that things are changing.
That's my point exactly clean! While they might ONCE have accepted it, now that they have a world view and more information they are no longer prepared to accept that sort of thing.
No need to say "here we go again". ! :rolleyes:
Forget about the Russians :D
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hL6nXfBhj0"]YouTube- Drunk Pilots[/nomedia]
Firstly, people wanting to know about airline safety should look at this site here.
www.avherald.com
Whenever something, or anything happens it goes up on that site. If you watch it for some time you'll see that stuff is happening all around the world all the time, and people are just working with it and doing their things. It is very rare for major airlines with well maintained planes to have total losses.
The vast majority (90+%) of people survive air crashes!
When choosing to fly somewhere as a passenger you only have three real inputs into the safety of your trip.
1. The destination. (some countries have real air safety issues - see Indonesia).
2. The time of the flight. Flights at night are not as safe as those during the day. If you are flying into a country where storms are common - or into areas where cold is a factor consider this if possible.
3. The Airline. With this choice you choose your pilots, and their equipment. The majority of crashes are caused by pilot error. Good pilots make less errors, and if they do cock up they usually recover better.
I fly Qantas because I believe the aircraft are generally well maintained, and the pilots are excellent. I equally have no issues with Virgin Blue, or Jetstar.
I thought that was funny:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro