Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
You still don't get it then. The point was trying to show specious argument and causation does not show correlation graphs. Ok, we admit having 1500 hrs is better than 250. But you can't show a graph showing all crashes of 1990-2009 and then one for 2010-present and say we don't have crashes because of this new rule, whereas we had 1,100 deaths in crashes before the safety ATP rule. Rudder hardovers twice, TWA blowing up due to CWT explosion, AA 587, Alaska 261 Ocean Chalks wing snap off, ALL of these crashes had absolutely nothing to do with the ATP rule, 1500 hrs, or stall safety changes.
I get it just fine. I even said I don't agree with ALPAs argument as biblical fact. I do believe, however, that while 1500 hours hasn't eliminated all current and future accidents, it has greatly reduced risk which can be attributed to a reduction in the rate of accidents. To say it hasn't is missing the point.