Aviators will now be looked at for ship command
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Bonhomme Richard fire
- Thread starter Treetop Flyer
- Start date
I know. I should've specified CRUDES.
An excellent ProPublica article on the USS Bonhomme Richard investigation: link.
(thanks to @FormerRecruitingGuru for jogging my memory)
(thanks to @FormerRecruitingGuru for jogging my memory)
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Throughout the article it makes a fatal flaw by implying that two investigations are at odds with each other when they aren't.
The command investigation didn't comment on the source of the blaze, and it blatantly says so in the report. It comments on a slew of factors that increased the severity of a fire after it started to burn.
The criminal investigation is an investigation into the actual cause of the fire.
Two things can simultaneously be true: it's possible that the initial cause of the BHR fire was arson, and that the total loss of the ship was due to poor damage control equipment maintenance and training.
Yeah, but that's a level of nuance the average American struggles with nowadays. They need to be spoon-fed who the hero and the villain are, so they can shriek about them on social media. And preferably have the hero be from their political party and the villain be from the other one.
FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
And just like that… all the 13XX’s on here are 1110s.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Okay. I was just pointing out that I wouldn't call it an 'excellent article' due to a major flaw in its central premise.
But this is the reporter's responsibility to thread that needle, and in so many of these stories (especially from ProPublica), they fail to do so. They did a story recently on sexual assault perps and why there isn't more pre-trial confinement. They take one or two worst-case anecdotes, then imply that those cases are broadly representative.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Perhaps I'm giving too much credit, but I'd go further than 'failed to do so.' I think that they are preying on fundamental misunderstandings of the application of law, and emotional desire to want to 'stick it to the man' paired with a perception that leaders/management too often 'gets away scott free.'
If you own a small business, and I light the building on fire by launching a bottle rocket into your door on the 4th of July, can I use the fact that your dryall wasn't up to fire code, that you had papers adrift, or that your fire extinguisher on site wasn't charged as a legal defense? No, no I cannot.
Last edited:
Agree. I don't know enough about the author to ascribe any particular motive other than what sells and will generate clicks for their parent company, though general themes of "government bad" do seem fairly pervasive. The guy who did the Fat Leonard podcast - who actually did do a fairly good job of telling the basic story, just couldn't help but dip into all of the themes you listed, and really overplayed the "scandalous" aspects of the story to make it more dramatic than it actually was.
Speaking of which… has that fat piece of shit been extradited from Venezuela yet?
Haven't you been paying attention? That hasn't just been the case. It has been so forever on AW and every Ready Room.
Oh, and airline pilots consider themselves better at running airlines than management.