<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_0613244</id>
	<title>Lost Northwest Pilots Were Trying Out New Software</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256646000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that two Northwest Airlines pilots who flew about 110 miles past their destination to the skies over Wisconsin as more than a dozen air-traffic controllers in three locations tried to get the plane's attention had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit, a violation of airline policy, so <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27plane.html">the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system</a> put in place by Delta Air Lines, which acquired Northwest last fall. 'Both said they lost track of time,' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering <a href="http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/10/did\_nwa\_pilots.php">theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit</a>. 'Using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots' command of the aircraft during flight,' said a statement from Delta Airlines, 'is strictly against the airline's flight deck policies and violations of that policy will result in termination.' Industry executives and analysts said the pilots' behavior was a striking lapse for such veteran airmen who have a total of 31,000 flying hours of experience between them. In the case of Flight 188, 'Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position until a <a href="http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/091026.html">flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land</a> and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,' the interim report said."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that two Northwest Airlines pilots who flew about 110 miles past their destination to the skies over Wisconsin as more than a dozen air-traffic controllers in three locations tried to get the plane 's attention had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit , a violation of airline policy , so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines , which acquired Northwest last fall .
'Both said they lost track of time, ' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit .
'Using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots ' command of the aircraft during flight, ' said a statement from Delta Airlines , 'is strictly against the airline 's flight deck policies and violations of that policy will result in termination .
' Industry executives and analysts said the pilots ' behavior was a striking lapse for such veteran airmen who have a total of 31,000 flying hours of experience between them .
In the case of Flight 188 , 'Neither pilot was aware of the airplane 's position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival, ' the interim report said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that two Northwest Airlines pilots who flew about 110 miles past their destination to the skies over Wisconsin as more than a dozen air-traffic controllers in three locations tried to get the plane's attention had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit, a violation of airline policy, so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines, which acquired Northwest last fall.
'Both said they lost track of time,' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit.
'Using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots' command of the aircraft during flight,' said a statement from Delta Airlines, 'is strictly against the airline's flight deck policies and violations of that policy will result in termination.
' Industry executives and analysts said the pilots' behavior was a striking lapse for such veteran airmen who have a total of 31,000 flying hours of experience between them.
In the case of Flight 188, 'Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,' the interim report said.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882509</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TV news said DHS greeted them when they landed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TV news said DHS greeted them when they landed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TV news said DHS greeted them when they landed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882417</id>
	<title>I guess neither one of them...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will need to know how to use the new scheduling system now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will need to know how to use the new scheduling system now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will need to know how to use the new scheduling system now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883039</id>
	<title>Re:Complete overreaction</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1256654340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think any airline would hire them after this?</p><p>Anyway I think the FAA (or whoever is responsible) would cancel thier pilots licence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think any airline would hire them after this ? Anyway I think the FAA ( or whoever is responsible ) would cancel thier pilots licence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think any airline would hire them after this?Anyway I think the FAA (or whoever is responsible) would cancel thier pilots licence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1256650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were raiding in WoW, I would imagine.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>"Tutoring in the new scheduling software", my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were raiding in WoW , I would imagine .
; - ) " Tutoring in the new scheduling software " , my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were raiding in WoW, I would imagine.
;-)"Tutoring in the new scheduling software", my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892889</id>
	<title>sleep depravation</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1256659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/dead-tired" title="crooksandliars.com">sleep deprivation</a> [crooksandliars.com] is a problem for pilots, air traffic controllers and truckers, among others.  And why is it a problem?  Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours.  Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.</p><p>One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it's easier to keep a high level of alertness.  But Reagan fixed that little union problem, and now ATC's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts.  If there's two groups of people we <i>don't</i> want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops (like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building), it's pilots and air traffic controllers.</p><p>The wonder of the free market in action....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap , sleep deprivation [ crooksandliars.com ] is a problem for pilots , air traffic controllers and truckers , among others .
And why is it a problem ?
Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours .
Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80 's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it 's easier to keep a high level of alertness .
But Reagan fixed that little union problem , and now ATC 's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts .
If there 's two groups of people we do n't want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops ( like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building ) , it 's pilots and air traffic controllers.The wonder of the free market in action... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap, sleep deprivation [crooksandliars.com] is a problem for pilots, air traffic controllers and truckers, among others.
And why is it a problem?
Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours.
Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it's easier to keep a high level of alertness.
But Reagan fixed that little union problem, and now ATC's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts.
If there's two groups of people we don't want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops (like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building), it's pilots and air traffic controllers.The wonder of the free market in action....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</id>
	<title>Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision</title>
	<author>dangle</author>
	<datestamp>1256651040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision. Some of the controls were on a glass panel display, and there was also a laptop that distracted them. Apparently, as they were clicking around on stuff, they shut off their transponder.</p><p><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air\_crash200901" title="vanityfair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air\_crash200901</a> [vanityfair.com]</p><p>Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed. Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss. Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision .
Some of the controls were on a glass panel display , and there was also a laptop that distracted them .
Apparently , as they were clicking around on stuff , they shut off their transponder.http : //www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air \ _crash200901 [ vanityfair.com ] Even more concerning , was the author 's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed .
Historically , even if two planes ended up at the same flight level , headed towards each other , the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss .
Now , with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath , the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision.
Some of the controls were on a glass panel display, and there was also a laptop that distracted them.
Apparently, as they were clicking around on stuff, they shut off their transponder.http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air\_crash200901 [vanityfair.com]Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed.
Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss.
Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883091</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1256654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It happens in a few movies. Snakes On A Plane was another. Heh, I just found this: <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91580&amp;sectionid=351020406" title="presstv.ir">http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91580&amp;sectionid=351020406</a> [presstv.ir]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens in a few movies .
Snakes On A Plane was another .
Heh , I just found this : http : //www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx ? id = 91580&amp;sectionid = 351020406 [ presstv.ir ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens in a few movies.
Snakes On A Plane was another.
Heh, I just found this: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91580&amp;sectionid=351020406 [presstv.ir]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891825</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256650440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.</p></div><p>Two aircraft collided over Brazil <strong>because</strong> of a collision avoidance system? That must be one really shitty system, if it succeeds at doing the exact opposite of what it is designed to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an automatic system called TCAS ( Traffic Collision and Avoiding System ) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft .
This system is mandatory ( at least in Europe ) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.Two aircraft collided over Brazil because of a collision avoidance system ?
That must be one really shitty system , if it succeeds at doing the exact opposite of what it is designed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft.
This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.Two aircraft collided over Brazil because of a collision avoidance system?
That must be one really shitty system, if it succeeds at doing the exact opposite of what it is designed to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889695</id>
	<title>I am baffled ...</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1256639940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. that we are in 2009 and airplane software cannot tell that the plane is off course and alert pilot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. that we are in 2009 and airplane software can not tell that the plane is off course and alert pilot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. that we are in 2009 and airplane software cannot tell that the plane is off course and alert pilot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885411</id>
	<title>Re:I hate journalism</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1256665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes.  A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed.  It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land.  A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes .
A large aircraft does n't go from runway to runway at top speed .
It takes a long time to climb out , then to slow down , descend and land .
A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes.
A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed.
It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land.
A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883751</id>
	<title>This is not slashdot worthy</title>
	<author>Maione</author>
	<datestamp>1256658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this has anything to do with the theme of this website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this has anything to do with the theme of this website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this has anything to do with the theme of this website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355</id>
	<title>Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>At todays fear of terrorism levels, they are lucky its just job termination - if they had flown over some sensitive and/or military area they could have been shot down...  or not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>At todays fear of terrorism levels , they are lucky its just job termination - if they had flown over some sensitive and/or military area they could have been shot down... or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At todays fear of terrorism levels, they are lucky its just job termination - if they had flown over some sensitive and/or military area they could have been shot down...  or not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889863</id>
	<title>Pilots do fall asleep at control.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256640480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both pilots in a passenger airliner did fall asleep a few years ago.  An Aloha Air (?) flying from one Hawaiian island to another went past the destination.  Control couldn't reach them and than eventually the 2 pilots that had dozed off woke up and turned their plane around.</p><p>It's happened before.  They fell asleep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both pilots in a passenger airliner did fall asleep a few years ago .
An Aloha Air ( ?
) flying from one Hawaiian island to another went past the destination .
Control could n't reach them and than eventually the 2 pilots that had dozed off woke up and turned their plane around.It 's happened before .
They fell asleep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both pilots in a passenger airliner did fall asleep a few years ago.
An Aloha Air (?
) flying from one Hawaiian island to another went past the destination.
Control couldn't reach them and than eventually the 2 pilots that had dozed off woke up and turned their plane around.It's happened before.
They fell asleep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29888685</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"5. There is an automatic system called TCAS "

Yep, and it's there to assist/aid in traffic avoidance, it does NOT absolve the pilots of responsibility.

"9. Firing them is a bit excessive"

I call bullshit. They are responsible for the lives of dozens of passengers. The PICs primary job is safety of the flight. Period. Go read the FARs you make your living by again. Your job is to do everything within your power to not kill me and anybody else in your aircraft. Having EVERYBODY in the cocpit fucking around with their "toys," ignoring radio calls and paying no attention to where the aircraft they are responsible for is and relying on technology to do their fucking job for them is inexcusable. That's GROSS negligence. The fact that they were luck enough for nothing to go completely wrong while they were playing/arguing/sucking each other off is immaterial.

The mentality of "it's ok if i screw with my cell phone, if anything goes wrong there's airbags and a seatbelt to save me" is a bullshit attitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 5 .
There is an automatic system called TCAS " Yep , and it 's there to assist/aid in traffic avoidance , it does NOT absolve the pilots of responsibility .
" 9. Firing them is a bit excessive " I call bullshit .
They are responsible for the lives of dozens of passengers .
The PICs primary job is safety of the flight .
Period. Go read the FARs you make your living by again .
Your job is to do everything within your power to not kill me and anybody else in your aircraft .
Having EVERYBODY in the cocpit fucking around with their " toys , " ignoring radio calls and paying no attention to where the aircraft they are responsible for is and relying on technology to do their fucking job for them is inexcusable .
That 's GROSS negligence .
The fact that they were luck enough for nothing to go completely wrong while they were playing/arguing/sucking each other off is immaterial .
The mentality of " it 's ok if i screw with my cell phone , if anything goes wrong there 's airbags and a seatbelt to save me " is a bullshit attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"5.
There is an automatic system called TCAS "

Yep, and it's there to assist/aid in traffic avoidance, it does NOT absolve the pilots of responsibility.
"9. Firing them is a bit excessive"

I call bullshit.
They are responsible for the lives of dozens of passengers.
The PICs primary job is safety of the flight.
Period. Go read the FARs you make your living by again.
Your job is to do everything within your power to not kill me and anybody else in your aircraft.
Having EVERYBODY in the cocpit fucking around with their "toys," ignoring radio calls and paying no attention to where the aircraft they are responsible for is and relying on technology to do their fucking job for them is inexcusable.
That's GROSS negligence.
The fact that they were luck enough for nothing to go completely wrong while they were playing/arguing/sucking each other off is immaterial.
The mentality of "it's ok if i screw with my cell phone, if anything goes wrong there's airbags and a seatbelt to save me" is a bullshit attitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887557</id>
	<title>win7</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256674500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>has to be win 7 on vm 3 on a macbook!</htmltext>
<tokenext>has to be win 7 on vm 3 on a macbook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has to be win 7 on vm 3 on a macbook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884981</id>
	<title>Re:They were working, after all</title>
	<author>JD-1027</author>
	<datestamp>1256663640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !</p></div><p>Good point. I really should land this plane sometime soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep this in mind , all of you reading slashdot at work ! Good point .
I really should land this plane sometime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !Good point.
I really should land this plane sometime soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</id>
	<title>Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256651040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is really no excuse for both pilots completely losing situational awareness like this.  They're both toast, and deserve to be.<br>
<br>
As for the scheduling system they were going over - actually, that is probably the 'news for nerds' part.  The old airline schedules were built in two units - 'pairings' and 'lines of time'.  A pairing is a group of flights, typically from 1 to 6 days long, that begun and ended in a pilot domicile.  The word 'pairing' was to indicate that an entire crew was 'paired' together that whole time.  A line of time (or simply a line) was a month-long group of those pairings.  There is a long list of legal requrements (min rest, max flight time, union contractual obligations, aircraft mx requirements, etc.) that these schedules had to meet.<br>
<br>
Ultimately, from the pilot's point of view, these lines were published each month for the next month.  Bidding was very straightforward.  If you were the number 1 senior pilot in that base (technically, domicile, aircraft and status (capt. or F/O), you picked your line, and that was that.  If you were #2, you picked your schedule, and got it.... unless the number 1 guy already got it, in which case you got your second choice.  If you were number #300.... well, picking 300 schedules in the order you want them was a time consuming task, but the outcome was perfectly transparent.  The line awards were public, so you could verify that the schedules you didn't get really did go to senior people.  You can debate whether such a system is 'fair', but at least it is clear how it works, both globally and month to month.<br>
<br>
Then, with the advent of more powerful computers, a system called 'PBS' was born - Preferential Bidding System.  These systems, instead of having hard, published lines you bid from, instead only published the pairings.  You expressed your 'Preferences' through a computer language.  A computer program then ran, taking everybodys preferences, seniority, system constraints, etc. into account and generated schedules.<br>
<br>
In theory, PBS sounds great.  A pilot's preferences generally don't change that much month to month, so you could file your bid away and let it run automatically each month with little or no tweaking.<br>
<br>
In practice, it's usually been highly disruptive and caused great angst for a year or two after being implemented, for many reasons:<br>
1) The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers, not the users.<br>
2) The results can be, to put it mildly, unexpected.  When you have pre-published schedules, you have a pretty good idea ahead of time what to expect.<br>
3) There are no month-to-month conflicts that generate additional days off, resulting in more work per pilot, a reason the airlines like them and pilots don't, on average.<br>
4) Non-computer savvy older pilots (Captians) have a harder time getting it than younger pilots (F/O's), on average.  It takes a vastly important piece of your life (when are you working?  Where are you going?  28 hours in HNL or 32 hours in XNA?), and makes it tied to your comfort with learning, essentially, a primitive computer language.<br>
<br>
I cringe when I see this, because I've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS.  So have many other F/O's.  You just prioritize it where it belongs - below aviating, navigating and communicating.  These guys made everyone else look bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is really no excuse for both pilots completely losing situational awareness like this .
They 're both toast , and deserve to be .
As for the scheduling system they were going over - actually , that is probably the 'news for nerds ' part .
The old airline schedules were built in two units - 'pairings ' and 'lines of time' .
A pairing is a group of flights , typically from 1 to 6 days long , that begun and ended in a pilot domicile .
The word 'pairing ' was to indicate that an entire crew was 'paired ' together that whole time .
A line of time ( or simply a line ) was a month-long group of those pairings .
There is a long list of legal requrements ( min rest , max flight time , union contractual obligations , aircraft mx requirements , etc .
) that these schedules had to meet .
Ultimately , from the pilot 's point of view , these lines were published each month for the next month .
Bidding was very straightforward .
If you were the number 1 senior pilot in that base ( technically , domicile , aircraft and status ( capt .
or F/O ) , you picked your line , and that was that .
If you were # 2 , you picked your schedule , and got it.... unless the number 1 guy already got it , in which case you got your second choice .
If you were number # 300.... well , picking 300 schedules in the order you want them was a time consuming task , but the outcome was perfectly transparent .
The line awards were public , so you could verify that the schedules you did n't get really did go to senior people .
You can debate whether such a system is 'fair ' , but at least it is clear how it works , both globally and month to month .
Then , with the advent of more powerful computers , a system called 'PBS ' was born - Preferential Bidding System .
These systems , instead of having hard , published lines you bid from , instead only published the pairings .
You expressed your 'Preferences ' through a computer language .
A computer program then ran , taking everybodys preferences , seniority , system constraints , etc .
into account and generated schedules .
In theory , PBS sounds great .
A pilot 's preferences generally do n't change that much month to month , so you could file your bid away and let it run automatically each month with little or no tweaking .
In practice , it 's usually been highly disruptive and caused great angst for a year or two after being implemented , for many reasons : 1 ) The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers , not the users .
2 ) The results can be , to put it mildly , unexpected .
When you have pre-published schedules , you have a pretty good idea ahead of time what to expect .
3 ) There are no month-to-month conflicts that generate additional days off , resulting in more work per pilot , a reason the airlines like them and pilots do n't , on average .
4 ) Non-computer savvy older pilots ( Captians ) have a harder time getting it than younger pilots ( F/O 's ) , on average .
It takes a vastly important piece of your life ( when are you working ?
Where are you going ?
28 hours in HNL or 32 hours in XNA ?
) , and makes it tied to your comfort with learning , essentially , a primitive computer language .
I cringe when I see this , because I 've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS .
So have many other F/O 's .
You just prioritize it where it belongs - below aviating , navigating and communicating .
These guys made everyone else look bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is really no excuse for both pilots completely losing situational awareness like this.
They're both toast, and deserve to be.
As for the scheduling system they were going over - actually, that is probably the 'news for nerds' part.
The old airline schedules were built in two units - 'pairings' and 'lines of time'.
A pairing is a group of flights, typically from 1 to 6 days long, that begun and ended in a pilot domicile.
The word 'pairing' was to indicate that an entire crew was 'paired' together that whole time.
A line of time (or simply a line) was a month-long group of those pairings.
There is a long list of legal requrements (min rest, max flight time, union contractual obligations, aircraft mx requirements, etc.
) that these schedules had to meet.
Ultimately, from the pilot's point of view, these lines were published each month for the next month.
Bidding was very straightforward.
If you were the number 1 senior pilot in that base (technically, domicile, aircraft and status (capt.
or F/O), you picked your line, and that was that.
If you were #2, you picked your schedule, and got it.... unless the number 1 guy already got it, in which case you got your second choice.
If you were number #300.... well, picking 300 schedules in the order you want them was a time consuming task, but the outcome was perfectly transparent.
The line awards were public, so you could verify that the schedules you didn't get really did go to senior people.
You can debate whether such a system is 'fair', but at least it is clear how it works, both globally and month to month.
Then, with the advent of more powerful computers, a system called 'PBS' was born - Preferential Bidding System.
These systems, instead of having hard, published lines you bid from, instead only published the pairings.
You expressed your 'Preferences' through a computer language.
A computer program then ran, taking everybodys preferences, seniority, system constraints, etc.
into account and generated schedules.
In theory, PBS sounds great.
A pilot's preferences generally don't change that much month to month, so you could file your bid away and let it run automatically each month with little or no tweaking.
In practice, it's usually been highly disruptive and caused great angst for a year or two after being implemented, for many reasons:
1) The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers, not the users.
2) The results can be, to put it mildly, unexpected.
When you have pre-published schedules, you have a pretty good idea ahead of time what to expect.
3) There are no month-to-month conflicts that generate additional days off, resulting in more work per pilot, a reason the airlines like them and pilots don't, on average.
4) Non-computer savvy older pilots (Captians) have a harder time getting it than younger pilots (F/O's), on average.
It takes a vastly important piece of your life (when are you working?
Where are you going?
28 hours in HNL or 32 hours in XNA?
), and makes it tied to your comfort with learning, essentially, a primitive computer language.
I cringe when I see this, because I've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS.
So have many other F/O's.
You just prioritize it where it belongs - below aviating, navigating and communicating.
These guys made everyone else look bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882979</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>bmatt17</author>
	<datestamp>1256654040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah cause putting your trust to the hundreds of people you share the road with daily is much safer than the 1 or 2 you have to trust to fly the plane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah cause putting your trust to the hundreds of people you share the road with daily is much safer than the 1 or 2 you have to trust to fly the plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah cause putting your trust to the hundreds of people you share the road with daily is much safer than the 1 or 2 you have to trust to fly the plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883143</id>
	<title>Does Their Story Hold Water?</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1256654880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were on laptops for over a hour?  They said they were being notified by a special transponder system that sounds an alert in the cockpit - they didn't hear that?</p><p>And doesn't the system they were using need to access online schedules?  Were they connected?</p><p>I still think they were getting some nappie-poo time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were on laptops for over a hour ?
They said they were being notified by a special transponder system that sounds an alert in the cockpit - they did n't hear that ? And does n't the system they were using need to access online schedules ?
Were they connected ? I still think they were getting some nappie-poo time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were on laptops for over a hour?
They said they were being notified by a special transponder system that sounds an alert in the cockpit - they didn't hear that?And doesn't the system they were using need to access online schedules?
Were they connected?I still think they were getting some nappie-poo time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885545</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1256666160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed</p></div></blockquote><p>There was some crappy TV show on recently that showed how to survive a disaster.  What if something happened to the pilots (or if terrorists got into the cockpit).  Some crappy scenario where someone in the passenger space needed to get into the pilot space because of an emergency.</p><p>They suggested taking the drink cart, and loading it up with absolutely as much stuff as you could.  If two carts are available, take advantage of both of them.  Canned drinks are heavy when you have a few hundred of them on a cart.  A good running start, and (they suggested) the door would give way.</p><p>I don't really suggest trying it.  I'd think it would be more practical to get the fat guy who's taking up 3 seats to rush the door.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated , you 're pretty much screwedThere was some crappy TV show on recently that showed how to survive a disaster .
What if something happened to the pilots ( or if terrorists got into the cockpit ) .
Some crappy scenario where someone in the passenger space needed to get into the pilot space because of an emergency.They suggested taking the drink cart , and loading it up with absolutely as much stuff as you could .
If two carts are available , take advantage of both of them .
Canned drinks are heavy when you have a few hundred of them on a cart .
A good running start , and ( they suggested ) the door would give way.I do n't really suggest trying it .
I 'd think it would be more practical to get the fat guy who 's taking up 3 seats to rush the door .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwedThere was some crappy TV show on recently that showed how to survive a disaster.
What if something happened to the pilots (or if terrorists got into the cockpit).
Some crappy scenario where someone in the passenger space needed to get into the pilot space because of an emergency.They suggested taking the drink cart, and loading it up with absolutely as much stuff as you could.
If two carts are available, take advantage of both of them.
Canned drinks are heavy when you have a few hundred of them on a cart.
A good running start, and (they suggested) the door would give way.I don't really suggest trying it.
I'd think it would be more practical to get the fat guy who's taking up 3 seats to rush the door.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256654460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320) so will bite and explain some items...</p><p>1. there are loudspeakers in the cockpit, usually the volume is at mid-level, but you choose the volume you want<br>2. it takes about 10m to fly 80 miles, so 110miles of course would mean they were engaged in the discussion for some 25m (10m from Top of Descent plus the 110m after destination)<br>3. You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio, but sometimes you just might miss it. I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...<br>4. Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops?? Come on...... It's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention, Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....<br>5. There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.<br>6. In what regards to fuel, you take fuel to fly to destination + fuel to fly from destination to alternate landing + 30m holding at alternate + whatever your airline policy sees fit + whatever captain decision sees fit. They probably landed short on fuel to fly to destination, but there are procedures in place for this.<br>7. Normally there are allways 2 radion frequencies in use, the area you are in and the emergency frequency. Also, some airplanes have HF frequencies and can be called over HF. This will sound a buzzer in the cockpit and is quite loud.I doubt ATC called them over HF....<br>8. Autopilot was obviously on, but it doesn't beep when reaching Top of Descent...<br>9. Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken. Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD, so it is not immediate to find a replacement. Also it is easy to just appoint blame, but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job. There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future.....</p><p>B</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot ( currently flying Airbus A320 ) so will bite and explain some items...1. there are loudspeakers in the cockpit , usually the volume is at mid-level , but you choose the volume you want2 .
it takes about 10m to fly 80 miles , so 110miles of course would mean they were engaged in the discussion for some 25m ( 10m from Top of Descent plus the 110m after destination ) 3 .
You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio , but sometimes you just might miss it .
I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...4 .
Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops ? ?
Come on...... It 's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention , Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....5 .
There is an automatic system called TCAS ( Traffic Collision and Avoiding System ) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft .
This system is mandatory ( at least in Europe ) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.6 .
In what regards to fuel , you take fuel to fly to destination + fuel to fly from destination to alternate landing + 30m holding at alternate + whatever your airline policy sees fit + whatever captain decision sees fit .
They probably landed short on fuel to fly to destination , but there are procedures in place for this.7 .
Normally there are allways 2 radion frequencies in use , the area you are in and the emergency frequency .
Also , some airplanes have HF frequencies and can be called over HF .
This will sound a buzzer in the cockpit and is quite loud.I doubt ATC called them over HF....8 .
Autopilot was obviously on , but it does n't beep when reaching Top of Descent...9 .
Firing them is a bit excessive , but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken .
Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD , so it is not immediate to find a replacement .
Also it is easy to just appoint blame , but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job .
There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of " you erred , you 're fired " will cause problems in the future.....B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320) so will bite and explain some items...1. there are loudspeakers in the cockpit, usually the volume is at mid-level, but you choose the volume you want2.
it takes about 10m to fly 80 miles, so 110miles of course would mean they were engaged in the discussion for some 25m (10m from Top of Descent plus the 110m after destination)3.
You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio, but sometimes you just might miss it.
I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...4.
Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops??
Come on...... It's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention, Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....5.
There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft.
This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.6.
In what regards to fuel, you take fuel to fly to destination + fuel to fly from destination to alternate landing + 30m holding at alternate + whatever your airline policy sees fit + whatever captain decision sees fit.
They probably landed short on fuel to fly to destination, but there are procedures in place for this.7.
Normally there are allways 2 radion frequencies in use, the area you are in and the emergency frequency.
Also, some airplanes have HF frequencies and can be called over HF.
This will sound a buzzer in the cockpit and is quite loud.I doubt ATC called them over HF....8.
Autopilot was obviously on, but it doesn't beep when reaching Top of Descent...9.
Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.
Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD, so it is not immediate to find a replacement.
Also it is easy to just appoint blame, but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job.
There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future.....B</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717</id>
	<title>I hate journalism</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1256652420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A320" title="wikipedia.org">Airbus A320</a> [wikipedia.org]has a cruising speed of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A320#Specifications" title="wikipedia.org">mach 0.78</a> [wikipedia.org] and a max speed of mach 0.82. <a href="http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&amp;source=hp&amp;q=mach+0.78+in+mph&amp;btnG=Google-s\%C3\%B6kning&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=mach+0.78+in+mph&amp;fp=72c746df1d66c98" title="google.se">Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph</a> [google.se] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes. If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes. Not so amazing now is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Airbus A320 [ wikipedia.org ] has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 [ wikipedia.org ] and a max speed of mach 0.82 .
Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph [ google.se ] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes .
If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes .
Not so amazing now is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Airbus A320 [wikipedia.org]has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 [wikipedia.org] and a max speed of mach 0.82.
Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph [google.se] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes.
If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes.
Not so amazing now is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885409</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1256665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was a dumb thing, for sure, but think about it from a pilot's perspective; even a little screwup will land you on the news across the nation.</p><p>Kinda reminds me of this quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>Goaltender is a normal job. Sure. How would you like it if at your job, every time you made the slightest mistake a little red light went on over your head and 18,000 people stood up and screamed at you?" - Jaques Plante</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a dumb thing , for sure , but think about it from a pilot 's perspective ; even a little screwup will land you on the news across the nation.Kinda reminds me of this quote : Goaltender is a normal job .
Sure. How would you like it if at your job , every time you made the slightest mistake a little red light went on over your head and 18,000 people stood up and screamed at you ?
" - Jaques Plante</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a dumb thing, for sure, but think about it from a pilot's perspective; even a little screwup will land you on the news across the nation.Kinda reminds me of this quote:Goaltender is a normal job.
Sure. How would you like it if at your job, every time you made the slightest mistake a little red light went on over your head and 18,000 people stood up and screamed at you?
" - Jaques Plante
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884949</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1256663460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight.</p></div><p>Oh, that's all? Well now you put it like that it seems AOK. I suppose that some people do not consider "where the plane goes" to be a minor detail of the flight. As nit picky as that might seem to you, I think we have to cater to those people too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight.Oh , that 's all ?
Well now you put it like that it seems AOK .
I suppose that some people do not consider " where the plane goes " to be a minor detail of the flight .
As nit picky as that might seem to you , I think we have to cater to those people too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight.Oh, that's all?
Well now you put it like that it seems AOK.
I suppose that some people do not consider "where the plane goes" to be a minor detail of the flight.
As nit picky as that might seem to you, I think we have to cater to those people too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882961</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1256653860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79ptx\_un-trader-qui-joue-a-wow\_news" title="dailymotion.com" rel="nofollow">trade</a> [dailymotion.com] while playing WoW. I can't see why you couldn't fly a plane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can trade [ dailymotion.com ] while playing WoW .
I ca n't see why you could n't fly a plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can trade [dailymotion.com] while playing WoW.
I can't see why you couldn't fly a plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883889</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1256658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at these two of your points together:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio, but sometimes you just might miss it. I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...<br>4. Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops?? Come on...... It's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention, Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....</p></div><p>You say termination was excessive.  I disagree.</p><p>If I was on-duty, and in one of those situations where I "really must have full attention", and instead, I totally blew off and ignored my boss at that critical time (and an additional 30 minutes or 78 minutes or however long)... if I didn't have a really darn good reason for acting so unprofessionally, I would expect to be terminated.  And I don't even fly around big, expensive machines with hundreds of people on-board depending on me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at these two of your points together : 3 .
You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio , but sometimes you just might miss it .
I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...4 .
Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops ? ?
Come on...... It 's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention , Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....You say termination was excessive .
I disagree.If I was on-duty , and in one of those situations where I " really must have full attention " , and instead , I totally blew off and ignored my boss at that critical time ( and an additional 30 minutes or 78 minutes or however long ) ... if I did n't have a really darn good reason for acting so unprofessionally , I would expect to be terminated .
And I do n't even fly around big , expensive machines with hundreds of people on-board depending on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at these two of your points together:3.
You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio, but sometimes you just might miss it.
I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...4.
Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops??
Come on...... It's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention, Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....You say termination was excessive.
I disagree.If I was on-duty, and in one of those situations where I "really must have full attention", and instead, I totally blew off and ignored my boss at that critical time (and an additional 30 minutes or 78 minutes or however long)... if I didn't have a really darn good reason for acting so unprofessionally, I would expect to be terminated.
And I don't even fly around big, expensive machines with hundreds of people on-board depending on me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883567</id>
	<title>Your sig</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1256657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Jesus Christ, I hate those Christians?"  I guess there's no danger of your plane crashing when the rapture comes, huh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  (For the record, I don't believe in the rapture...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Jesus Christ , I hate those Christians ?
" I guess there 's no danger of your plane crashing when the rapture comes , huh ?
: ) ( For the record , I do n't believe in the rapture... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Jesus Christ, I hate those Christians?
"  I guess there's no danger of your plane crashing when the rapture comes, huh?
:)  (For the record, I don't believe in the rapture...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882811</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Cloud K</author>
	<datestamp>1256653020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly agree that nobody should be fired for a genuine, simple mistake, and with the idea that people will learn from their mistakes and become better at their jobs as a result.</p><p>Nor do I particularly like to see people lose their jobs and therefore a lot of their chances of getting another, leading to what could be a very bad impact on their livelihood (and possibly the family's).</p><p>But there's a difference between a genuine mistake and neglect.  Hearing things on the radio but ignoring it, falls firmly into the neglect category IMO. And that's where they unfortunately but quite rightly shouldn't be trusted to fly again.  Mistakes are a learning experience, but neglect is a personality problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly agree that nobody should be fired for a genuine , simple mistake , and with the idea that people will learn from their mistakes and become better at their jobs as a result.Nor do I particularly like to see people lose their jobs and therefore a lot of their chances of getting another , leading to what could be a very bad impact on their livelihood ( and possibly the family 's ) .But there 's a difference between a genuine mistake and neglect .
Hearing things on the radio but ignoring it , falls firmly into the neglect category IMO .
And that 's where they unfortunately but quite rightly should n't be trusted to fly again .
Mistakes are a learning experience , but neglect is a personality problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly agree that nobody should be fired for a genuine, simple mistake, and with the idea that people will learn from their mistakes and become better at their jobs as a result.Nor do I particularly like to see people lose their jobs and therefore a lot of their chances of getting another, leading to what could be a very bad impact on their livelihood (and possibly the family's).But there's a difference between a genuine mistake and neglect.
Hearing things on the radio but ignoring it, falls firmly into the neglect category IMO.
And that's where they unfortunately but quite rightly shouldn't be trusted to fly again.
Mistakes are a learning experience, but neglect is a personality problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882579</id>
	<title>Hypno Porn!</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1256651520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuff Said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuff Said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuff Said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887191</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256673060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>&ldquo;Both said they lost track of time,&rdquo; the report stated. It also said that the pilots <b>had heard voices</b> over their cockpit radios but ignored them. </em> </p></div><p>So either:</p><p>

1) they're used to ignoring air traffic control and "winging it",<br>
2) they hear tiny voices telling them to do things all the time,<br>
3) that was the most amazing, most engrossing scheduling application on the face of the Earth.</p><p>

If 1) or 2), then it's good they not fly planes. If 3), we give the program's UI designer a raise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   Both said they lost track of time ,    the report stated .
It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them .
So either : 1 ) they 're used to ignoring air traffic control and " winging it " , 2 ) they hear tiny voices telling them to do things all the time , 3 ) that was the most amazing , most engrossing scheduling application on the face of the Earth .
If 1 ) or 2 ) , then it 's good they not fly planes .
If 3 ) , we give the program 's UI designer a raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> “Both said they lost track of time,” the report stated.
It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them.
So either:

1) they're used to ignoring air traffic control and "winging it",
2) they hear tiny voices telling them to do things all the time,
3) that was the most amazing, most engrossing scheduling application on the face of the Earth.
If 1) or 2), then it's good they not fly planes.
If 3), we give the program's UI designer a raise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884877</id>
	<title>Nice troll / reality distortion!</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256663160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ALMOST believable. Pays may have been slashed, but these numbers are just too ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ALMOST believable .
Pays may have been slashed , but these numbers are just too ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ALMOST believable.
Pays may have been slashed, but these numbers are just too ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885429</id>
	<title>next time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try contacting them over IMs or just drop them a facebook message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try contacting them over IMs or just drop them a facebook message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try contacting them over IMs or just drop them a facebook message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882657</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>chance2105</author>
	<datestamp>1256652120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or having another kind of raid.  These guys were having sex with each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or having another kind of raid .
These guys were having sex with each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or having another kind of raid.
These guys were having sex with each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882991</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1256654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~</i></p><p>Yeah... just FYI, but accidentally deleting your home directory isn't exactly the same thing as flying a hundred miles off course and not paying attention to ground control, thus potentially endangering the lives of a hundred or more people.</p><p>For one, believe it or not, you can't restore people from backups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me when I first started working .
I was cleaning out my old backup files .
so I meant to do a rm -f * ~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~ Yeah... just FYI , but accidentally deleting your home directory is n't exactly the same thing as flying a hundred miles off course and not paying attention to ground control , thus potentially endangering the lives of a hundred or more people.For one , believe it or not , you ca n't restore people from backups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me when I first started working.
I was cleaning out my old backup files.
so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~Yeah... just FYI, but accidentally deleting your home directory isn't exactly the same thing as flying a hundred miles off course and not paying attention to ground control, thus potentially endangering the lives of a hundred or more people.For one, believe it or not, you can't restore people from backups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882937</id>
	<title>Autopilot...</title>
	<author>Ba1der</author>
	<datestamp>1256653740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no pilot, nor flight-tech, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but modern passenger and cargo planes is capable of automatic take off, course corrections and landing, right? In my eyes, this is a good time to start discussing taking the human factor out of flying? Let the planes fly themself from takeoff to landing and keep the pilots along only as backup/supervisors, and only until peoples paranoia for autopilots has gone away. At least, start with the cargoplanes and test until deemed safe and then move to the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no pilot , nor flight-tech , so please correct me if I 'm wrong , but modern passenger and cargo planes is capable of automatic take off , course corrections and landing , right ?
In my eyes , this is a good time to start discussing taking the human factor out of flying ?
Let the planes fly themself from takeoff to landing and keep the pilots along only as backup/supervisors , and only until peoples paranoia for autopilots has gone away .
At least , start with the cargoplanes and test until deemed safe and then move to the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no pilot, nor flight-tech, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but modern passenger and cargo planes is capable of automatic take off, course corrections and landing, right?
In my eyes, this is a good time to start discussing taking the human factor out of flying?
Let the planes fly themself from takeoff to landing and keep the pilots along only as backup/supervisors, and only until peoples paranoia for autopilots has gone away.
At least, start with the cargoplanes and test until deemed safe and then move to the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883025</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1256654220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?  Tell me, how long have you worked in the airline business?

Pilots flying little short-hop regional jets like RJs might make 20k when they first start out, but pilots flying across the continent are making more like 50-60k a year.  Oh, and get this: they only get paid when they fly.  They fly for 3-4 days a week and are off the rest of the week, and they are still making this much money.  This doesnt even include the fact that most commercial airline pilots start out in the military, so they are drawing money from that as well(this also bumps up their pay significantly).  They have plenty of time in which they can learn how the new scheduling system works, whether during layovers, on call, or the hours they spend at the airport before they even start their flight.

These 2 pilots themselves will still have to go through several review boards and discussions with the union before termination procedures can even be started.  There are pilots out there who have failed qualifications 2-3 times that still cannot be fired due to union regulations.

And before anyone asks, my mom has worked for an airline since the early 80s, and her job now deals with pilot compliance(training, medical records, etc).  I have worked for an airline for the past 4 years while in school myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Tell me , how long have you worked in the airline business ?
Pilots flying little short-hop regional jets like RJs might make 20k when they first start out , but pilots flying across the continent are making more like 50-60k a year .
Oh , and get this : they only get paid when they fly .
They fly for 3-4 days a week and are off the rest of the week , and they are still making this much money .
This doesnt even include the fact that most commercial airline pilots start out in the military , so they are drawing money from that as well ( this also bumps up their pay significantly ) .
They have plenty of time in which they can learn how the new scheduling system works , whether during layovers , on call , or the hours they spend at the airport before they even start their flight .
These 2 pilots themselves will still have to go through several review boards and discussions with the union before termination procedures can even be started .
There are pilots out there who have failed qualifications 2-3 times that still can not be fired due to union regulations .
And before anyone asks , my mom has worked for an airline since the early 80s , and her job now deals with pilot compliance ( training , medical records , etc ) .
I have worked for an airline for the past 4 years while in school myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Tell me, how long have you worked in the airline business?
Pilots flying little short-hop regional jets like RJs might make 20k when they first start out, but pilots flying across the continent are making more like 50-60k a year.
Oh, and get this: they only get paid when they fly.
They fly for 3-4 days a week and are off the rest of the week, and they are still making this much money.
This doesnt even include the fact that most commercial airline pilots start out in the military, so they are drawing money from that as well(this also bumps up their pay significantly).
They have plenty of time in which they can learn how the new scheduling system works, whether during layovers, on call, or the hours they spend at the airport before they even start their flight.
These 2 pilots themselves will still have to go through several review boards and discussions with the union before termination procedures can even be started.
There are pilots out there who have failed qualifications 2-3 times that still cannot be fired due to union regulations.
And before anyone asks, my mom has worked for an airline since the early 80s, and her job now deals with pilot compliance(training, medical records, etc).
I have worked for an airline for the past 4 years while in school myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883827</id>
	<title>We All Know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . they were re-enacting scenes from their favorite gladiator movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
they were re-enacting scenes from their favorite gladiator movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
they were re-enacting scenes from their favorite gladiator movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884687</id>
	<title>Re:Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed. Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss. Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not a new observation - I first saw it bandied about in the <a href="http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks" title="ncl.ac.uk">RISKS Digest</a> [ncl.ac.uk] back in the late 90's as GPS was just then starting to come into wide use.<br>
&nbsp; <br>[Side note: I've heard that William Langewiesche wants to be/is thought of as the next John McPhee.  If so, he's moving away from the target - the writing in that article was really bad.]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more concerning , was the author 's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed .
Historically , even if two planes ended up at the same flight level , headed towards each other , the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss .
Now , with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath , the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.It 's not a new observation - I first saw it bandied about in the RISKS Digest [ ncl.ac.uk ] back in the late 90 's as GPS was just then starting to come into wide use .
  [ Side note : I 've heard that William Langewiesche wants to be/is thought of as the next John McPhee .
If so , he 's moving away from the target - the writing in that article was really bad .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed.
Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss.
Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.It's not a new observation - I first saw it bandied about in the RISKS Digest [ncl.ac.uk] back in the late 90's as GPS was just then starting to come into wide use.
  [Side note: I've heard that William Langewiesche wants to be/is thought of as the next John McPhee.
If so, he's moving away from the target - the writing in that article was really bad.
]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882585</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256651520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I can understand that they didnt hear the ATC because they didnt have headsets/radio on, wouldnt the GPS navigation system alert them with beeps that the next waypoint is coming up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I can understand that they didnt hear the ATC because they didnt have headsets/radio on , wouldnt the GPS navigation system alert them with beeps that the next waypoint is coming up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I can understand that they didnt hear the ATC because they didnt have headsets/radio on, wouldnt the GPS navigation system alert them with beeps that the next waypoint is coming up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883599</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1256657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because nobody's ever been killed by other drivers of passenger cars texting, talking on cellphones, or doing other crazy things behind the wheel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because nobody 's ever been killed by other drivers of passenger cars texting , talking on cellphones , or doing other crazy things behind the wheel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because nobody's ever been killed by other drivers of passenger cars texting, talking on cellphones, or doing other crazy things behind the wheel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</id>
	<title>pushed?  not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless?</i></p><p>Would have to assume they took off the headphones so they could hear each other as they discussed the computer app.  I don't think there's a speaker in the cockpit from the tower.</p><p>Two questions come to mind:</p><p>1) what sort of urgency was placed on learning this new system?  Were they being rushed?  Did anyone suggest they hurry up and get each other up to speed on the app ("as soon as possible"/"whenever you get a chance"?) and they simply didn't have any personal time left to do it? (things like this tend to get pushed to be done on personal, rather than paid, time)<br>2) 110 miles in a jet?  really?  <b>big</b> detour?  How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?  This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?  For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.  Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are <i>on time</i>) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.  But still, seems like its being overblown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless ? Would have to assume they took off the headphones so they could hear each other as they discussed the computer app .
I do n't think there 's a speaker in the cockpit from the tower.Two questions come to mind : 1 ) what sort of urgency was placed on learning this new system ?
Were they being rushed ?
Did anyone suggest they hurry up and get each other up to speed on the app ( " as soon as possible " / " whenever you get a chance " ?
) and they simply did n't have any personal time left to do it ?
( things like this tend to get pushed to be done on personal , rather than paid , time ) 2 ) 110 miles in a jet ?
really ? big detour ?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles ?
This extended the flight what , a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time ?
For a jet that 's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180 .
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects , like passengers missing connecting flights ( which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time ) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel .
But still , seems like its being overblown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless?Would have to assume they took off the headphones so they could hear each other as they discussed the computer app.
I don't think there's a speaker in the cockpit from the tower.Two questions come to mind:1) what sort of urgency was placed on learning this new system?
Were they being rushed?
Did anyone suggest they hurry up and get each other up to speed on the app ("as soon as possible"/"whenever you get a chance"?
) and they simply didn't have any personal time left to do it?
(things like this tend to get pushed to be done on personal, rather than paid, time)2) 110 miles in a jet?
really?  big detour?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?
This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?
For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.
But still, seems like its being overblown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29888329</id>
	<title>They were busy playing...</title>
	<author>brendank310</author>
	<datestamp>1256634600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft Flight Simulator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Flight Simulator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Flight Simulator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882505</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>&ldquo;Both said they lost track of time,&rdquo; the report stated. It also said that the pilots <b>had heard voices</b> over their cockpit radios but ignored them. </em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Both said they lost track of time ,    the report stated .
It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> “Both said they lost track of time,” the report stated.
It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</id>
	<title>Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car</p><p>- Subway/metro driver using cellphone rear-ends another train in D.C. - kills several passengers</p><p>- Airplane drivers using laptops - fortunately nothing happened but it could have.  A few years ago the same event caused a plane to miss a runway and killed most of the passengers.</p><p>I prefer to have my own car, with my own hands on the wheel, because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger.  I'll take an airplane if it's long-distance, but if it's within 1-2 day's drive (Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore) then I'll just do it myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car- Subway/metro driver using cellphone rear-ends another train in D.C. - kills several passengers- Airplane drivers using laptops - fortunately nothing happened but it could have .
A few years ago the same event caused a plane to miss a runway and killed most of the passengers.I prefer to have my own car , with my own hands on the wheel , because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger .
I 'll take an airplane if it 's long-distance , but if it 's within 1-2 day 's drive ( Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore ) then I 'll just do it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car- Subway/metro driver using cellphone rear-ends another train in D.C. - kills several passengers- Airplane drivers using laptops - fortunately nothing happened but it could have.
A few years ago the same event caused a plane to miss a runway and killed most of the passengers.I prefer to have my own car, with my own hands on the wheel, because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger.
I'll take an airplane if it's long-distance, but if it's within 1-2 day's drive (Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore) then I'll just do it myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883149</id>
	<title>Gay sex</title>
	<author>whoda</author>
	<datestamp>1256654940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The head of one pilot was in the lap of the other pilot.<br>
How obvious does it have to be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The head of one pilot was in the lap of the other pilot .
How obvious does it have to be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The head of one pilot was in the lap of the other pilot.
How obvious does it have to be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883283</id>
	<title>Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1256655660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait, that's me. Fsck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , that 's me .
Fsck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, that's me.
Fsck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883191</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) 110 miles in a jet?  really?  <b>big</b> detour?  How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?  This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?  For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.  Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are <i>on time</i>) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.  But still, seems like its being overblown.</p></div><p>110 miles is a LONG way out of their defined flight path. Which is, you know, the path through which there is any guarantee of not HITTING ANOTHER PLANE.</p><p>Its not about time, money, fuel or inconvenience.</p><p>Its about gross negligence and a very real risk of causing an in-air collision. (and killing <b>2</b> planes full of people)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) 110 miles in a jet ?
really ? big detour ?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles ?
This extended the flight what , a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time ?
For a jet that 's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180 .
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects , like passengers missing connecting flights ( which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time ) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel .
But still , seems like its being overblown.110 miles is a LONG way out of their defined flight path .
Which is , you know , the path through which there is any guarantee of not HITTING ANOTHER PLANE.Its not about time , money , fuel or inconvenience.Its about gross negligence and a very real risk of causing an in-air collision .
( and killing 2 planes full of people )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) 110 miles in a jet?
really?  big detour?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?
This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?
For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.
But still, seems like its being overblown.110 miles is a LONG way out of their defined flight path.
Which is, you know, the path through which there is any guarantee of not HITTING ANOTHER PLANE.Its not about time, money, fuel or inconvenience.Its about gross negligence and a very real risk of causing an in-air collision.
(and killing 2 planes full of people)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883341</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. staff quoting Michael Moore?  *sigh* Is it time to stop reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
staff quoting Michael Moore ?
* sigh * Is it time to stop reading / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
staff quoting Michael Moore?
*sigh* Is it time to stop reading /.
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29893949</id>
	<title>Obviously.......</title>
	<author>eyendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the pilots were checking-out Google Earth maps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the pilots were checking-out Google Earth maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the pilots were checking-out Google Earth maps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883537</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1256657040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were out of radio contact for 78 minutes; they went off the air long before overshooting their destination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were out of radio contact for 78 minutes ; they went off the air long before overshooting their destination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were out of radio contact for 78 minutes; they went off the air long before overshooting their destination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883697</id>
	<title>I wouldn't say they weren't in ANY danger</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1256657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This was incredibly dumb, and deserves termination or at least a very, VERY strong reprimand, but at no time were the passengers in any danger.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If there was some crazy emergency - like another aircraft with distracted pilots on a collision course - they would not have responded appropriately since they were ignoring the radio. I suppose there may be a collision warning system they *might* have heard... I don't mind if a pilot takes a break, so long as the other guy is paying attention, but for both to just geek-out at a laptop for 20 minutes is not something I'd consider "safe".<br> <br>
If they do keep these guys, maybe they should be required to fly without the autopilot for a few months<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was incredibly dumb , and deserves termination or at least a very , VERY strong reprimand , but at no time were the passengers in any danger .
If there was some crazy emergency - like another aircraft with distracted pilots on a collision course - they would not have responded appropriately since they were ignoring the radio .
I suppose there may be a collision warning system they * might * have heard... I do n't mind if a pilot takes a break , so long as the other guy is paying attention , but for both to just geek-out at a laptop for 20 minutes is not something I 'd consider " safe " .
If they do keep these guys , maybe they should be required to fly without the autopilot for a few months : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was incredibly dumb, and deserves termination or at least a very, VERY strong reprimand, but at no time were the passengers in any danger.
If there was some crazy emergency - like another aircraft with distracted pilots on a collision course - they would not have responded appropriately since they were ignoring the radio.
I suppose there may be a collision warning system they *might* have heard... I don't mind if a pilot takes a break, so long as the other guy is paying attention, but for both to just geek-out at a laptop for 20 minutes is not something I'd consider "safe".
If they do keep these guys, maybe they should be required to fly without the autopilot for a few months :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883379</id>
	<title>The X-Files angle</title>
	<author>|Hatter|</author>
	<datestamp>1256656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unexplained communications blackout?  I&rsquo;d love to hear what the passengers and support crew experienced during this time.  The flight crew runs these routes multiple times a day and you know that they are just watching the clock until lunch at the terminal.</p><p>And yeah &ndash; I&rsquo;ve seen every episode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unexplained communications blackout ?
I    d love to hear what the passengers and support crew experienced during this time .
The flight crew runs these routes multiple times a day and you know that they are just watching the clock until lunch at the terminal.And yeah    I    ve seen every episode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unexplained communications blackout?
I’d love to hear what the passengers and support crew experienced during this time.
The flight crew runs these routes multiple times a day and you know that they are just watching the clock until lunch at the terminal.And yeah – I’ve seen every episode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882785</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1256652840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through.</p></div><p>Flying a Jet isn't *exactly* like Star Trek; there are no Hailing Frequencies and there was (I assume) no dry-witted, multicultural communications officer standing by to recognize the request.  They wear headsets for radio comms, took the headsets off, and as such radio comms were useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum , and hopefully any voices would come through.Flying a Jet is n't * exactly * like Star Trek ; there are no Hailing Frequencies and there was ( I assume ) no dry-witted , multicultural communications officer standing by to recognize the request .
They wear headsets for radio comms , took the headsets off , and as such radio comms were useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through.Flying a Jet isn't *exactly* like Star Trek; there are no Hailing Frequencies and there was (I assume) no dry-witted, multicultural communications officer standing by to recognize the request.
They wear headsets for radio comms, took the headsets off, and as such radio comms were useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882817</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Needless to say I learned to backup more <b>freaklently</b></p> </div><p>The evolution of the English language is a fascinating thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently The evolution of the English language is a fascinating thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently The evolution of the English language is a fascinating thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256651880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  A shootdown would have been nearly impossible in this situation.  This was stupid, and both pilots should and probably will be terminated over it, but the passengers were never in any real danger.</p><p>The initial theory at ATC on this was probably that they had a radio failure.  Radios fail, so there are procedures to deal with it.  110 mile overshoot at aircraft speeds probably means they were out of radio contact for 15-20 minutes of flight time after passing their destination.  ATC was probably still working down through their checklist while dealing with the rest of the radio traffic at the same time.  The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regs, and the plane was following its assigned flight path (a little longer than scheduled, but it wasn't going whacko, so the assumption might have been that the crew had a radio or other mechanical issue and were trying to deal with it).</p><p>ATC obviously verified that their flight path was clear, which put a tad more load on them, but they were at cruising altitude and there's plenty of room up in Class A airspace.  And if they had flown over something sensitive enough to have a restricted zone up at 37,000 feet (which would be exceptionally rare, most MOAs only extend up to class A airspace, not into it), the military would have scrambled a couple of fighters to pay them a visit.  If they didn't notice the fighters themselves, I'm sure some passenger would alert a stewardess and the pilots would have jumped on the emergency band in a big fat effing hurry, or if they really had a radio out watched for the wings to waggle and followed them to a runway.  It's hard to miss a fighter 20 feet off your nose, and those guys are pretty damned good at getting close enough to be noticed without inducing turbulence.</p><p>I imagine a few people at ATC were just starting to get worried, since it could also be crew incapacitation (fun facts to know and tell - if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed - no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives - just simple fuel starvation and uncontrolled descent into terrain).  I'm sure there was the sound of a few strained sphincters unclenching when Dumb and Dumber got on the horn and acknowledged that they were simply distracted.</p><p>This was incredibly dumb, and deserves termination or at least a very, VERY strong reprimand, but at no time were the passengers in any danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
A shootdown would have been nearly impossible in this situation .
This was stupid , and both pilots should and probably will be terminated over it , but the passengers were never in any real danger.The initial theory at ATC on this was probably that they had a radio failure .
Radios fail , so there are procedures to deal with it .
110 mile overshoot at aircraft speeds probably means they were out of radio contact for 15-20 minutes of flight time after passing their destination .
ATC was probably still working down through their checklist while dealing with the rest of the radio traffic at the same time .
The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regs , and the plane was following its assigned flight path ( a little longer than scheduled , but it was n't going whacko , so the assumption might have been that the crew had a radio or other mechanical issue and were trying to deal with it ) .ATC obviously verified that their flight path was clear , which put a tad more load on them , but they were at cruising altitude and there 's plenty of room up in Class A airspace .
And if they had flown over something sensitive enough to have a restricted zone up at 37,000 feet ( which would be exceptionally rare , most MOAs only extend up to class A airspace , not into it ) , the military would have scrambled a couple of fighters to pay them a visit .
If they did n't notice the fighters themselves , I 'm sure some passenger would alert a stewardess and the pilots would have jumped on the emergency band in a big fat effing hurry , or if they really had a radio out watched for the wings to waggle and followed them to a runway .
It 's hard to miss a fighter 20 feet off your nose , and those guys are pretty damned good at getting close enough to be noticed without inducing turbulence.I imagine a few people at ATC were just starting to get worried , since it could also be crew incapacitation ( fun facts to know and tell - if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated , you 're pretty much screwed - no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives - just simple fuel starvation and uncontrolled descent into terrain ) .
I 'm sure there was the sound of a few strained sphincters unclenching when Dumb and Dumber got on the horn and acknowledged that they were simply distracted.This was incredibly dumb , and deserves termination or at least a very , VERY strong reprimand , but at no time were the passengers in any danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
A shootdown would have been nearly impossible in this situation.
This was stupid, and both pilots should and probably will be terminated over it, but the passengers were never in any real danger.The initial theory at ATC on this was probably that they had a radio failure.
Radios fail, so there are procedures to deal with it.
110 mile overshoot at aircraft speeds probably means they were out of radio contact for 15-20 minutes of flight time after passing their destination.
ATC was probably still working down through their checklist while dealing with the rest of the radio traffic at the same time.
The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regs, and the plane was following its assigned flight path (a little longer than scheduled, but it wasn't going whacko, so the assumption might have been that the crew had a radio or other mechanical issue and were trying to deal with it).ATC obviously verified that their flight path was clear, which put a tad more load on them, but they were at cruising altitude and there's plenty of room up in Class A airspace.
And if they had flown over something sensitive enough to have a restricted zone up at 37,000 feet (which would be exceptionally rare, most MOAs only extend up to class A airspace, not into it), the military would have scrambled a couple of fighters to pay them a visit.
If they didn't notice the fighters themselves, I'm sure some passenger would alert a stewardess and the pilots would have jumped on the emergency band in a big fat effing hurry, or if they really had a radio out watched for the wings to waggle and followed them to a runway.
It's hard to miss a fighter 20 feet off your nose, and those guys are pretty damned good at getting close enough to be noticed without inducing turbulence.I imagine a few people at ATC were just starting to get worried, since it could also be crew incapacitation (fun facts to know and tell - if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed - no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives - just simple fuel starvation and uncontrolled descent into terrain).
I'm sure there was the sound of a few strained sphincters unclenching when Dumb and Dumber got on the horn and acknowledged that they were simply distracted.This was incredibly dumb, and deserves termination or at least a very, VERY strong reprimand, but at no time were the passengers in any danger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891931</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256651220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently</p></div><p>When it comes to backups, that's the wrong way to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklentlyWhen it comes to backups , that 's the wrong way to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklentlyWhen it comes to backups, that's the wrong way to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883717</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future...</p></div></blockquote><p>What these pilots did was gross negligence and indicated they lack the self-control to pilot a passenger jet. The mentality of "you always have a second chance" continues to cause problems in the present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of " you erred , you 're fired " will cause problems in the future...What these pilots did was gross negligence and indicated they lack the self-control to pilot a passenger jet .
The mentality of " you always have a second chance " continues to cause problems in the present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future...What these pilots did was gross negligence and indicated they lack the self-control to pilot a passenger jet.
The mentality of "you always have a second chance" continues to cause problems in the present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884155</id>
	<title>Their Explanations Don't Matter</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1256659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether they were sleeping, or arguing, or playing with their computers hardly matters.  They must be fired in any case.</p><p>Why such harsh punishment?  Because, their actions and the resulting publicity will to more to harm the flying public's confidence in the safety of air travel than just about anything else in recent years.</p><p>I wager that even a crash killing hundreds of people does less to rattle public confidence than a news story of drunken or negligent pilots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether they were sleeping , or arguing , or playing with their computers hardly matters .
They must be fired in any case.Why such harsh punishment ?
Because , their actions and the resulting publicity will to more to harm the flying public 's confidence in the safety of air travel than just about anything else in recent years.I wager that even a crash killing hundreds of people does less to rattle public confidence than a news story of drunken or negligent pilots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether they were sleeping, or arguing, or playing with their computers hardly matters.
They must be fired in any case.Why such harsh punishment?
Because, their actions and the resulting publicity will to more to harm the flying public's confidence in the safety of air travel than just about anything else in recent years.I wager that even a crash killing hundreds of people does less to rattle public confidence than a news story of drunken or negligent pilots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884077</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1256659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they did shows a basic lack of discipline and situational awareness which is completely incompatible with their job.  Flying any aircraft is an unforgiving activity, and requires the ability to focus your attention on several boring tasks at once for hours on end.  Laptops with scheduling software are not on that list.</p><p>
I've made your kind of mistake before, and I sure wouldn't want to get fired for it either.  However, you were paying attention, noticed that something was wrong and aborted the errant command.  These guys weren't paying attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they did shows a basic lack of discipline and situational awareness which is completely incompatible with their job .
Flying any aircraft is an unforgiving activity , and requires the ability to focus your attention on several boring tasks at once for hours on end .
Laptops with scheduling software are not on that list .
I 've made your kind of mistake before , and I sure would n't want to get fired for it either .
However , you were paying attention , noticed that something was wrong and aborted the errant command .
These guys were n't paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they did shows a basic lack of discipline and situational awareness which is completely incompatible with their job.
Flying any aircraft is an unforgiving activity, and requires the ability to focus your attention on several boring tasks at once for hours on end.
Laptops with scheduling software are not on that list.
I've made your kind of mistake before, and I sure wouldn't want to get fired for it either.
However, you were paying attention, noticed that something was wrong and aborted the errant command.
These guys weren't paying attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885451</id>
	<title>Internet Reception?</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1256665800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most pilot/flight scheduling software is on a mainframe with a web front end. How were the pilots getting internet reception to be able to log in??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most pilot/flight scheduling software is on a mainframe with a web front end .
How were the pilots getting internet reception to be able to log in ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most pilot/flight scheduling software is on a mainframe with a web front end.
How were the pilots getting internet reception to be able to log in?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885327</id>
	<title>Laptop obscured instruments</title>
	<author>jonesxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1256665200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I spoke to a commercial pilot recently who told me that his aircraft has a sort of fold down shelf just in front of him where he can position his laptop. He commented that when he opened the laptop it completely obscured the aircraft instruments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spoke to a commercial pilot recently who told me that his aircraft has a sort of fold down shelf just in front of him where he can position his laptop .
He commented that when he opened the laptop it completely obscured the aircraft instruments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spoke to a commercial pilot recently who told me that his aircraft has a sort of fold down shelf just in front of him where he can position his laptop.
He commented that when he opened the laptop it completely obscured the aircraft instruments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29934521</id>
	<title>Oh, delicious.</title>
	<author>MoeDrippins</author>
	<datestamp>1257003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They lost track of time playing with new time scheduling software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They lost track of time playing with new time scheduling software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They lost track of time playing with new time scheduling software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1256651400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.  Each control zone has a unique frequency.</p><p>However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM, Twitter, or email they would have probably been alright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
Each control zone has a unique frequency.However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM , Twitter , or email they would have probably been alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
Each control zone has a unique frequency.However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM, Twitter, or email they would have probably been alright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884323</id>
	<title>Don't be fooled...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1256660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit...  theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit.</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...they couldn't see the instruments over the soft mood lighting in the cockpit and couldn't hear the radio chatter over the sweet sounds of "bow chicka wow wow" playing in the background.  Now, I don't know exactly what was going on, but they looked pretty relaxed when they landed...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit... theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit .
...they could n't see the instruments over the soft mood lighting in the cockpit and could n't hear the radio chatter over the sweet sounds of " bow chicka wow wow " playing in the background .
Now , I do n't know exactly what was going on , but they looked pretty relaxed when they landed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit...  theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit.
...they couldn't see the instruments over the soft mood lighting in the cockpit and couldn't hear the radio chatter over the sweet sounds of "bow chicka wow wow" playing in the background.
Now, I don't know exactly what was going on, but they looked pretty relaxed when they landed...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890473</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1256643000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Said as a true non-pilot.</p><p>Being out of contact with ATC is how the vast majority of flights are done in the US. And there are very, very, very few midair collisions.</p><p>Nontheless, at those altitudes, EVERYONE is under ATC, so ATC is not going to route someone else into the path of the airplane. ATC assumes that you're going to do what you confirmed you are going to do, until such time as you confirm something different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Said as a true non-pilot.Being out of contact with ATC is how the vast majority of flights are done in the US .
And there are very , very , very few midair collisions.Nontheless , at those altitudes , EVERYONE is under ATC , so ATC is not going to route someone else into the path of the airplane .
ATC assumes that you 're going to do what you confirmed you are going to do , until such time as you confirm something different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Said as a true non-pilot.Being out of contact with ATC is how the vast majority of flights are done in the US.
And there are very, very, very few midair collisions.Nontheless, at those altitudes, EVERYONE is under ATC, so ATC is not going to route someone else into the path of the airplane.
ATC assumes that you're going to do what you confirmed you are going to do, until such time as you confirm something different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884087</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many pilots take second jobs. Some are on food stamps [michaelmoore.com]:</p></div><p>Oh, come on! Michael Moore is <i>not</i> the most accurate, reliable, and truthful person out there to use for a source for anything important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many pilots take second jobs .
Some are on food stamps [ michaelmoore.com ] : Oh , come on !
Michael Moore is not the most accurate , reliable , and truthful person out there to use for a source for anything important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many pilots take second jobs.
Some are on food stamps [michaelmoore.com]:Oh, come on!
Michael Moore is not the most accurate, reliable, and truthful person out there to use for a source for anything important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883119</id>
	<title>Brilliant business plan!</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1256654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: buy out another airline, and start looking for ways to "eliminate redundancies".<br>Step 2: force the workers to spend work time learning a byzantine new management system.<br>Step 3: fire anyone who makes errors at work as a result.<br>Step 4: Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : buy out another airline , and start looking for ways to " eliminate redundancies " .Step 2 : force the workers to spend work time learning a byzantine new management system.Step 3 : fire anyone who makes errors at work as a result.Step 4 : Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: buy out another airline, and start looking for ways to "eliminate redundancies".Step 2: force the workers to spend work time learning a byzantine new management system.Step 3: fire anyone who makes errors at work as a result.Step 4: Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883407</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (<b>currently flying Airbus A320</b>) so will bite and explain some items...</p></div><p>Wow, that's even worse, that guy is writing slashdot comments while flying an A320!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot ( currently flying Airbus A320 ) so will bite and explain some items...Wow , that 's even worse , that guy is writing slashdot comments while flying an A320 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320) so will bite and explain some items...Wow, that's even worse, that guy is writing slashdot comments while flying an A320!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882643</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1256652000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see what you're saying, however, you deleting your files may hurt your employers bottom line and potentially yours \_at worst\_, pilots losing awareness can mean hundreds of deaths.</p><p>Now I'm not saying they should be fired, but I can easily see why they would be.  Airlines and pilots are held to very strict standards by the government.</p><p>Could additional "training" and a heavy penalty/fine resolve the issue and create two better pilots?  Possibly and potentially even likely.  But if the punishment for potentially putting hundreds of lives in risk is a slap on the wrist, do you really think all the thousands of other pilots are really going to take notice?  I have a feeling being fired in this case shows all the other pilots to simply only consider being distracted if you want to lose your job.  In short, it appears any "big" mistake ends in termination simply to make examples of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you 're saying , however , you deleting your files may hurt your employers bottom line and potentially yours \ _at worst \ _ , pilots losing awareness can mean hundreds of deaths.Now I 'm not saying they should be fired , but I can easily see why they would be .
Airlines and pilots are held to very strict standards by the government.Could additional " training " and a heavy penalty/fine resolve the issue and create two better pilots ?
Possibly and potentially even likely .
But if the punishment for potentially putting hundreds of lives in risk is a slap on the wrist , do you really think all the thousands of other pilots are really going to take notice ?
I have a feeling being fired in this case shows all the other pilots to simply only consider being distracted if you want to lose your job .
In short , it appears any " big " mistake ends in termination simply to make examples of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you're saying, however, you deleting your files may hurt your employers bottom line and potentially yours \_at worst\_, pilots losing awareness can mean hundreds of deaths.Now I'm not saying they should be fired, but I can easily see why they would be.
Airlines and pilots are held to very strict standards by the government.Could additional "training" and a heavy penalty/fine resolve the issue and create two better pilots?
Possibly and potentially even likely.
But if the punishment for potentially putting hundreds of lives in risk is a slap on the wrist, do you really think all the thousands of other pilots are really going to take notice?
I have a feeling being fired in this case shows all the other pilots to simply only consider being distracted if you want to lose your job.
In short, it appears any "big" mistake ends in termination simply to make examples of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883279</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably shouldn't be on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ while you are piloting your Airbus A320 dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably should n't be on ./ while you are piloting your Airbus A320 dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably shouldn't be on ./ while you are piloting your Airbus A320 dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886011</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1256668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also practice landing planes. Just in case.</p></div><p>Mythbusters showed that completely untrained people can be guided into safely landing the plane.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also practice landing planes .
Just in case.Mythbusters showed that completely untrained people can be guided into safely landing the plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also practice landing planes.
Just in case.Mythbusters showed that completely untrained people can be guided into safely landing the plane.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886355</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1256669760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your points about the problems with automation - I avoid driving much with cruise control for the same reason - having to micro-manage my speed helps keep me alert.  Sure, I could pay more attention to other things without having to do it, but in reality I'd pay less attention.</p><p>I'm not sure that firing pilots who fall asleep is going to help either.</p><p>I liked something I saw for airport security screeners - who face similar problems (they screen thousands of packages and 99.99999\% of the time there is nothing to see).  It was an x-ray machine that would add in images of contraband for the operator to spot - if an operator didn't hit a button when one was spotted then it would alert a supervisor.  It gave the operator something to actually do, and thus it kept them alert.</p><p>Maybe the plane needs to trigger a random simulated failure (caution light or whatever) that requires a button to be hit to clear the condition (FMS would avoid triggering it at critical moments, and the operator would have plenty of time to deal with other stuff first).  Or, maybe the cockpit should have officially-sanctioned ways to do things like check email/etc which will do things like pop up occasional messages to do a visual scan and which will blank the screen the instant an alert of some kind occurs.  Or, maybe there is some task the crew could perform that is more mentally stimulating than staring out the window at blue sky.</p><p>The human brain is a machine - a complex one, but a machine nonetheless.  It has certain limitations.  In particular, it gets bored if you don't give it something to do.  This is biology, and simply telling pilots not to be bored doesn't fix the problem.  Likewise, the human brain requires sleep, and if people are overworked they won't get enough of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your points about the problems with automation - I avoid driving much with cruise control for the same reason - having to micro-manage my speed helps keep me alert .
Sure , I could pay more attention to other things without having to do it , but in reality I 'd pay less attention.I 'm not sure that firing pilots who fall asleep is going to help either.I liked something I saw for airport security screeners - who face similar problems ( they screen thousands of packages and 99.99999 \ % of the time there is nothing to see ) .
It was an x-ray machine that would add in images of contraband for the operator to spot - if an operator did n't hit a button when one was spotted then it would alert a supervisor .
It gave the operator something to actually do , and thus it kept them alert.Maybe the plane needs to trigger a random simulated failure ( caution light or whatever ) that requires a button to be hit to clear the condition ( FMS would avoid triggering it at critical moments , and the operator would have plenty of time to deal with other stuff first ) .
Or , maybe the cockpit should have officially-sanctioned ways to do things like check email/etc which will do things like pop up occasional messages to do a visual scan and which will blank the screen the instant an alert of some kind occurs .
Or , maybe there is some task the crew could perform that is more mentally stimulating than staring out the window at blue sky.The human brain is a machine - a complex one , but a machine nonetheless .
It has certain limitations .
In particular , it gets bored if you do n't give it something to do .
This is biology , and simply telling pilots not to be bored does n't fix the problem .
Likewise , the human brain requires sleep , and if people are overworked they wo n't get enough of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your points about the problems with automation - I avoid driving much with cruise control for the same reason - having to micro-manage my speed helps keep me alert.
Sure, I could pay more attention to other things without having to do it, but in reality I'd pay less attention.I'm not sure that firing pilots who fall asleep is going to help either.I liked something I saw for airport security screeners - who face similar problems (they screen thousands of packages and 99.99999\% of the time there is nothing to see).
It was an x-ray machine that would add in images of contraband for the operator to spot - if an operator didn't hit a button when one was spotted then it would alert a supervisor.
It gave the operator something to actually do, and thus it kept them alert.Maybe the plane needs to trigger a random simulated failure (caution light or whatever) that requires a button to be hit to clear the condition (FMS would avoid triggering it at critical moments, and the operator would have plenty of time to deal with other stuff first).
Or, maybe the cockpit should have officially-sanctioned ways to do things like check email/etc which will do things like pop up occasional messages to do a visual scan and which will blank the screen the instant an alert of some kind occurs.
Or, maybe there is some task the crew could perform that is more mentally stimulating than staring out the window at blue sky.The human brain is a machine - a complex one, but a machine nonetheless.
It has certain limitations.
In particular, it gets bored if you don't give it something to do.
This is biology, and simply telling pilots not to be bored doesn't fix the problem.
Likewise, the human brain requires sleep, and if people are overworked they won't get enough of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883337</id>
	<title>Re:Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers, not the users.</p></div><p>I'll say it again;<br>Engineers make the worst software developers.</p><p>I can just about guarantee this software was written or designed by an engineer (or engineers) turned programmer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers , not the users.I 'll say it again ; Engineers make the worst software developers.I can just about guarantee this software was written or designed by an engineer ( or engineers ) turned programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers, not the users.I'll say it again;Engineers make the worst software developers.I can just about guarantee this software was written or designed by an engineer (or engineers) turned programmer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885043</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1256664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job. Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career.  I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected  As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one.  Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.</p></div><p>An honest mistake is something like dialing up the wrong ATC frequency when handed off between sectors.  After noticing that the radio is quiet for a couple of minutes, you can either look up the correct frequency or go back to the previous one and make contact.  Things like this are easily caught and corrected and cause minimal disruption.</p><p>There are other mistakes like deviating from a cleared course without a good reason (i.e. an emergency) which, depending on severity, may get you a temporary suspension of your license and a black mark.</p><p>This, however, is a pretty egregious mistake.  The pilots lost situational awareness and didn't even notice until the cabin crew alerted them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job .
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career .
I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected As they know the severity of their mistake , and are extra careful not to make an other one .
Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job , and will be likely to make their first mistake.An honest mistake is something like dialing up the wrong ATC frequency when handed off between sectors .
After noticing that the radio is quiet for a couple of minutes , you can either look up the correct frequency or go back to the previous one and make contact .
Things like this are easily caught and corrected and cause minimal disruption.There are other mistakes like deviating from a cleared course without a good reason ( i.e .
an emergency ) which , depending on severity , may get you a temporary suspension of your license and a black mark.This , however , is a pretty egregious mistake .
The pilots lost situational awareness and did n't even notice until the cabin crew alerted them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job.
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career.
I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected  As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one.
Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.An honest mistake is something like dialing up the wrong ATC frequency when handed off between sectors.
After noticing that the radio is quiet for a couple of minutes, you can either look up the correct frequency or go back to the previous one and make contact.
Things like this are easily caught and corrected and cause minimal disruption.There are other mistakes like deviating from a cleared course without a good reason (i.e.
an emergency) which, depending on severity, may get you a temporary suspension of your license and a black mark.This, however, is a pretty egregious mistake.
The pilots lost situational awareness and didn't even notice until the cabin crew alerted them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883485</id>
	<title>Uh, what about joining the Mile High Club?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if they decided to join the mile high club, but in the afterglow, they realized that they had missed radio calls.  They knew that the CVR might give them away.  They needed to kill 30 + xx minutes.  Deciding that the easiest way would be to leave it on autopilot at FL37 until they 'ran out the clock'.  Then played like they were distracted, until one of the flight attendants banged on the door.</p><p>It took them a few tries to get the story straight once they landed, first: 'we argued', next 'we lost track of time', next: 'we were using computers'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if they decided to join the mile high club , but in the afterglow , they realized that they had missed radio calls .
They knew that the CVR might give them away .
They needed to kill 30 + xx minutes .
Deciding that the easiest way would be to leave it on autopilot at FL37 until they 'ran out the clock' .
Then played like they were distracted , until one of the flight attendants banged on the door.It took them a few tries to get the story straight once they landed , first : 'we argued ' , next 'we lost track of time ' , next : 'we were using computers'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if they decided to join the mile high club, but in the afterglow, they realized that they had missed radio calls.
They knew that the CVR might give them away.
They needed to kill 30 + xx minutes.
Deciding that the easiest way would be to leave it on autopilot at FL37 until they 'ran out the clock'.
Then played like they were distracted, until one of the flight attendants banged on the door.It took them a few tries to get the story straight once they landed, first: 'we argued', next 'we lost track of time', next: 'we were using computers'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891257</id>
	<title>I'll be the first one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but not the first to think it:</p><p>They were having gay sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but not the first to think it : They were having gay sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but not the first to think it:They were having gay sex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1256652540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives</em>

<br> <br>

Nitpick: it wasn't Patrick Swayze, it was Kurt Russell and the movie was Executive Decision.

<br> <br>

Unless you were thinking of another movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives Nitpick : it was n't Patrick Swayze , it was Kurt Russell and the movie was Executive Decision .
Unless you were thinking of another movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives

 

Nitpick: it wasn't Patrick Swayze, it was Kurt Russell and the movie was Executive Decision.
Unless you were thinking of another movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882947</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>murphyd311</author>
	<datestamp>1256653800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I don't think there's a speaker in the cockpit from the tower</p></div><p>From the last link the TFS (emphasis mine):</p><p>
<i>At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using <b>cockpit speakers</b> to listen to radio communications, not their headsets.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's a speaker in the cockpit from the towerFrom the last link the TFS ( emphasis mine ) : At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications , not their headsets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't think there's a speaker in the cockpit from the towerFrom the last link the TFS (emphasis mine):
At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications, not their headsets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885075</id>
	<title>Texting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and we thought texting while driving is dangerous....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and we thought texting while driving is dangerous... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we thought texting while driving is dangerous....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885915</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1256667660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but if it's within 1-2 day's drive (Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore)...</p></div><p>Having been to Baltimore, this sure sounds like hours of boredom followed with moments of sheer terror to me...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but if it 's within 1-2 day 's drive ( Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore ) ...Having been to Baltimore , this sure sounds like hours of boredom followed with moments of sheer terror to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but if it's within 1-2 day's drive (Example Oklahoma City to Baltimore)...Having been to Baltimore, this sure sounds like hours of boredom followed with moments of sheer terror to me...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883111</id>
	<title>"This is Aero"...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256654640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"It'll come up any minute now..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 'll come up any minute now... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"It'll come up any minute now..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883299</id>
	<title>Do airlines really need pilots?</title>
	<author>siriuskase</author>
	<datestamp>1256655780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This incident is proof positive that human pilots are not necessary for safe operation of aircraft during routine situations (like flying over the midwest).  All airlines need are alert stewardesses to check a GPS every once in awhile, and maybe flip a switch on the autopilot, if the flight controller can't do it remotely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This incident is proof positive that human pilots are not necessary for safe operation of aircraft during routine situations ( like flying over the midwest ) .
All airlines need are alert stewardesses to check a GPS every once in awhile , and maybe flip a switch on the autopilot , if the flight controller ca n't do it remotely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This incident is proof positive that human pilots are not necessary for safe operation of aircraft during routine situations (like flying over the midwest).
All airlines need are alert stewardesses to check a GPS every once in awhile, and maybe flip a switch on the autopilot, if the flight controller can't do it remotely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885331</id>
	<title>Stating the obvious...</title>
	<author>Bitbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1256665260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is no one complaining about having electronics on during flight and so near the avionics?  Shall we also assume a pilot who can't figure out scheduling software knows how to disable his laptop's WiFi transmitter?</p><p>I completely trust that the government and airlines have nothing but my best interest in mind and are completely honest with me about electronics aboard planes.  Usually I get this feeling when they tell me to turn off my i-Pod and offer some $10.00 headphones to listen to their piped-in music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is no one complaining about having electronics on during flight and so near the avionics ?
Shall we also assume a pilot who ca n't figure out scheduling software knows how to disable his laptop 's WiFi transmitter ? I completely trust that the government and airlines have nothing but my best interest in mind and are completely honest with me about electronics aboard planes .
Usually I get this feeling when they tell me to turn off my i-Pod and offer some $ 10.00 headphones to listen to their piped-in music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is no one complaining about having electronics on during flight and so near the avionics?
Shall we also assume a pilot who can't figure out scheduling software knows how to disable his laptop's WiFi transmitter?I completely trust that the government and airlines have nothing but my best interest in mind and are completely honest with me about electronics aboard planes.
Usually I get this feeling when they tell me to turn off my i-Pod and offer some $10.00 headphones to listen to their piped-in music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29893075</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256662380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a very junior sysadmin I accidentally modified a database to point all the system's users mail stores to one user's mailbox.  (mistyped the 'where' clause in the SQL query)</p><p>We provided free webmail with around 2 million email accounts at the time.</p><p>Restoring the old values was not trivial as each user's mail store could be on several different storage volumes with no real rhyme or reason, and the data was not backed up in a good way.</p><p>Fortunately my boss was a good childhood friend and covered for me admirably, and I continued to work there for another 2 years.</p><p>It took him a week or two of cleanup to patch up the mess I made.</p><p>I don't think I've ever really repayed him for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a very junior sysadmin I accidentally modified a database to point all the system 's users mail stores to one user 's mailbox .
( mistyped the 'where ' clause in the SQL query ) We provided free webmail with around 2 million email accounts at the time.Restoring the old values was not trivial as each user 's mail store could be on several different storage volumes with no real rhyme or reason , and the data was not backed up in a good way.Fortunately my boss was a good childhood friend and covered for me admirably , and I continued to work there for another 2 years.It took him a week or two of cleanup to patch up the mess I made.I do n't think I 've ever really repayed him for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a very junior sysadmin I accidentally modified a database to point all the system's users mail stores to one user's mailbox.
(mistyped the 'where' clause in the SQL query)We provided free webmail with around 2 million email accounts at the time.Restoring the old values was not trivial as each user's mail store could be on several different storage volumes with no real rhyme or reason, and the data was not backed up in a good way.Fortunately my boss was a good childhood friend and covered for me admirably, and I continued to work there for another 2 years.It took him a week or two of cleanup to patch up the mess I made.I don't think I've ever really repayed him for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882865</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256653320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks.  I wasn't sure of the movie.  I only saw the end while channel surfing one day, where he landed a big plane in a teeny airstrip that was WAY too short for the aircraft and smashed up a bunch of Cessnas and Pipers in the process.  I had no interest in watching the rest.  I was laughing too hard at what I did see.  LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
I was n't sure of the movie .
I only saw the end while channel surfing one day , where he landed a big plane in a teeny airstrip that was WAY too short for the aircraft and smashed up a bunch of Cessnas and Pipers in the process .
I had no interest in watching the rest .
I was laughing too hard at what I did see .
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
I wasn't sure of the movie.
I only saw the end while channel surfing one day, where he landed a big plane in a teeny airstrip that was WAY too short for the aircraft and smashed up a bunch of Cessnas and Pipers in the process.
I had no interest in watching the rest.
I was laughing too hard at what I did see.
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882603</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>clemdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1256651760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't have been the first (spying, terrorism, whatever), although one would assume American authorities to be more reluctant to shoot down an American plane over American soil than some politburo apparatschik.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_Air\_Lines\_Flight\_007" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_Air\_Lines\_Flight\_007</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't have been the first ( spying , terrorism , whatever ) , although one would assume American authorities to be more reluctant to shoot down an American plane over American soil than some politburo apparatschik .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean \ _Air \ _Lines \ _Flight \ _007 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't have been the first (spying, terrorism, whatever), although one would assume American authorities to be more reluctant to shoot down an American plane over American soil than some politburo apparatschik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_Air\_Lines\_Flight\_007 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883237</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1256655420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That explains the "brb, have to land a plane" comment in raid chat...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That explains the " brb , have to land a plane " comment in raid chat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That explains the "brb, have to land a plane" comment in raid chat...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883821</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SEE!!  This is what happens when you have WiFi available in-flight !!!   Another "Good Idea: Bad Idea"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SEE ! !
This is what happens when you have WiFi available in-flight ! ! !
Another " Good Idea : Bad Idea "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SEE!!
This is what happens when you have WiFi available in-flight !!!
Another "Good Idea: Bad Idea"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884069</id>
	<title>Re:Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision</title>
	<author>protodevilin</author>
	<datestamp>1256659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an ex-air traffic controller, and I can tell you that we prefer such systems to be as accurate as possible.  "Inherant sloppiness" in autopilot systems only offers an unpredictable margin that we'd rather do without, especially in urgent/emergent air traffic situations.

The best medicine is a pair of competent pilots who PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIO and comply with control instructions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an ex-air traffic controller , and I can tell you that we prefer such systems to be as accurate as possible .
" Inherant sloppiness " in autopilot systems only offers an unpredictable margin that we 'd rather do without , especially in urgent/emergent air traffic situations .
The best medicine is a pair of competent pilots who PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIO and comply with control instructions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an ex-air traffic controller, and I can tell you that we prefer such systems to be as accurate as possible.
"Inherant sloppiness" in autopilot systems only offers an unpredictable margin that we'd rather do without, especially in urgent/emergent air traffic situations.
The best medicine is a pair of competent pilots who PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIO and comply with control instructions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883009</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1256654160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Autopilots don't just "do everything", they don't make decisions or navigate themselves.  The <b>pilots</b> input the desired course, the <b>pilots</b> monitor and arm/disarm the autopilot, the <b>pilots</b> make all of the decisions.  Autopilots are not do-all AIs; they're more like a glorified cruise control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't know what the hell you 're talking about .
Autopilots do n't just " do everything " , they do n't make decisions or navigate themselves .
The pilots input the desired course , the pilots monitor and arm/disarm the autopilot , the pilots make all of the decisions .
Autopilots are not do-all AIs ; they 're more like a glorified cruise control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Autopilots don't just "do everything", they don't make decisions or navigate themselves.
The pilots input the desired course, the pilots monitor and arm/disarm the autopilot, the pilots make all of the decisions.
Autopilots are not do-all AIs; they're more like a glorified cruise control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885187</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320)</p></div><p>  I suggest you get off your laptop before you get yourself in trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot ( currently flying Airbus A320 ) I suggest you get off your laptop before you get yourself in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320)  I suggest you get off your laptop before you get yourself in trouble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29900269</id>
	<title>Sometimes it's the AutoPilot that gets distracted</title>
	<author>kahealani</author>
	<datestamp>1256756880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Civilian autopilots are not immune to interference from classified sources:

<a href="http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/haarp/Haarp.ra" title="cyberspaceorbit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/haarp/Haarp.ra</a> [cyberspaceorbit.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Civilian autopilots are not immune to interference from classified sources : http : //www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/haarp/Haarp.ra [ cyberspaceorbit.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civilian autopilots are not immune to interference from classified sources:

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/haarp/Haarp.ra [cyberspaceorbit.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882681</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>LurkerXXX</author>
	<datestamp>1256652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like unknown to the pilot emergencies that might be communicated to him by a traffic controller, such as change your altitude, you are on a collision course with x-other plane?</p><p>A pilot ignoring traffic controllers for over an hour is NOT a non-event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like unknown to the pilot emergencies that might be communicated to him by a traffic controller , such as change your altitude , you are on a collision course with x-other plane ? A pilot ignoring traffic controllers for over an hour is NOT a non-event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like unknown to the pilot emergencies that might be communicated to him by a traffic controller, such as change your altitude, you are on a collision course with x-other plane?A pilot ignoring traffic controllers for over an hour is NOT a non-event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887037</id>
	<title>Re:In an airplane</title>
	<author>nelsonal</author>
	<datestamp>1256672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They knew the risks, they bought their tickets, I say let them crash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They knew the risks , they bought their tickets , I say let them crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They knew the risks, they bought their tickets, I say let them crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885681</id>
	<title>Re:Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymouss Cowherd</author>
	<datestamp>1256666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They made a mistake and no one was harmed.

I'd be fine flying with anyone with 13,000 hours of experience and training.

Should be reprimanded, not grounded. You can bet they would not do this again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They made a mistake and no one was harmed .
I 'd be fine flying with anyone with 13,000 hours of experience and training .
Should be reprimanded , not grounded .
You can bet they would not do this again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made a mistake and no one was harmed.
I'd be fine flying with anyone with 13,000 hours of experience and training.
Should be reprimanded, not grounded.
You can bet they would not do this again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884463</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1256661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sullenberger is just pimping for his union. He's a good man, doing so, but you're also a bit simple for falling for it. Let me put it another way, the salaries of the autoworkers who screw together the vehicle you drive every day at a high rate of speed have also been massively slashed and many laid off. Is this not a safety issue?</p><p>But they don't have a hero pilot out making the talk show rounds.</p><p>It's a market economy. If people would rather pay $99 for a cheap light than $399 for a deluxe flight, then the airline have to adapt and cut costs. Same as when people would rather buy cheaper (and at times better, especially two decades ago) cars built in Japan or now Korea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sullenberger is just pimping for his union .
He 's a good man , doing so , but you 're also a bit simple for falling for it .
Let me put it another way , the salaries of the autoworkers who screw together the vehicle you drive every day at a high rate of speed have also been massively slashed and many laid off .
Is this not a safety issue ? But they do n't have a hero pilot out making the talk show rounds.It 's a market economy .
If people would rather pay $ 99 for a cheap light than $ 399 for a deluxe flight , then the airline have to adapt and cut costs .
Same as when people would rather buy cheaper ( and at times better , especially two decades ago ) cars built in Japan or now Korea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sullenberger is just pimping for his union.
He's a good man, doing so, but you're also a bit simple for falling for it.
Let me put it another way, the salaries of the autoworkers who screw together the vehicle you drive every day at a high rate of speed have also been massively slashed and many laid off.
Is this not a safety issue?But they don't have a hero pilot out making the talk show rounds.It's a market economy.
If people would rather pay $99 for a cheap light than $399 for a deluxe flight, then the airline have to adapt and cut costs.
Same as when people would rather buy cheaper (and at times better, especially two decades ago) cars built in Japan or now Korea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883877</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken. Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD, so it is not immediate to find a replacement. Also it is easy to just appoint blame, but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job. There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future.....</p><p>B</p></div><p>No. it's not "you erred, you're fired". It's: "You fucked up, your ass is grounded."  The rules of no distractions in the cockpit are there for a reason. They didn't just inconvenience their passengers for 15 minutes, they delayed the landing by over an hour, causing missed flights, a grounded plane, and a grounded flight crew. They stopped talking to ATC an hour before the plane was scheduled to land, dozens of ATC members tried to get a hold of them and in this paranoid day they were damn lucky they didn't receive an escort from a couple of F-16's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firing them is a bit excessive , but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken .
Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD , so it is not immediate to find a replacement .
Also it is easy to just appoint blame , but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job .
There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of " you erred , you 're fired " will cause problems in the future.....BNo .
it 's not " you erred , you 're fired " .
It 's : " You fucked up , your ass is grounded .
" The rules of no distractions in the cockpit are there for a reason .
They did n't just inconvenience their passengers for 15 minutes , they delayed the landing by over an hour , causing missed flights , a grounded plane , and a grounded flight crew .
They stopped talking to ATC an hour before the plane was scheduled to land , dozens of ATC members tried to get a hold of them and in this paranoid day they were damn lucky they did n't receive an escort from a couple of F-16 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.
Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD, so it is not immediate to find a replacement.
Also it is easy to just appoint blame, but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job.
There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future.....BNo.
it's not "you erred, you're fired".
It's: "You fucked up, your ass is grounded.
"  The rules of no distractions in the cockpit are there for a reason.
They didn't just inconvenience their passengers for 15 minutes, they delayed the landing by over an hour, causing missed flights, a grounded plane, and a grounded flight crew.
They stopped talking to ATC an hour before the plane was scheduled to land, dozens of ATC members tried to get a hold of them and in this paranoid day they were damn lucky they didn't receive an escort from a couple of F-16's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</id>
	<title>Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>Iskender</author>
	<datestamp>1256650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless? I'm guessing they had their headphones off (if such are even used), but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through. If nothing else, they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.</p><p>It seems to me something is either designed wrong, or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.</p><p>Any pilots or other I am a somethings around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless ?
I 'm guessing they had their headphones off ( if such are even used ) , but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum , and hopefully any voices would come through .
If nothing else , they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.It seems to me something is either designed wrong , or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.Any pilots or other I am a somethings around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless?
I'm guessing they had their headphones off (if such are even used), but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through.
If nothing else, they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.It seems to me something is either designed wrong, or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.Any pilots or other I am a somethings around?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1256651940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This all seems to be true, in general, of most industries these days.</p><p>Folks are generally expected to work longer than 40 hours, but not actually compensated for it.  Your workload will virtually necessitate coming into the office early, or working through lunch, or staying late...  They'll roll out new procedures or tools or toys, but there's no time allotted for training - you're expected to learn it before or after actual work hours.  And the pay for those 40 hours that you are compensated for, is going down.  Maybe not literally...  Maybe you didn't actually take a pay cut (though plenty of people are)...  But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.</p><p>This isn't only true in the airline industry.  I'm seeing it in my own little corner of the IT world - not just my own job and work hours, but those of my co-workers as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This all seems to be true , in general , of most industries these days.Folks are generally expected to work longer than 40 hours , but not actually compensated for it .
Your workload will virtually necessitate coming into the office early , or working through lunch , or staying late... They 'll roll out new procedures or tools or toys , but there 's no time allotted for training - you 're expected to learn it before or after actual work hours .
And the pay for those 40 hours that you are compensated for , is going down .
Maybe not literally... Maybe you did n't actually take a pay cut ( though plenty of people are ) ... But your wages are n't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.This is n't only true in the airline industry .
I 'm seeing it in my own little corner of the IT world - not just my own job and work hours , but those of my co-workers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This all seems to be true, in general, of most industries these days.Folks are generally expected to work longer than 40 hours, but not actually compensated for it.
Your workload will virtually necessitate coming into the office early, or working through lunch, or staying late...  They'll roll out new procedures or tools or toys, but there's no time allotted for training - you're expected to learn it before or after actual work hours.
And the pay for those 40 hours that you are compensated for, is going down.
Maybe not literally...  Maybe you didn't actually take a pay cut (though plenty of people are)...  But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.This isn't only true in the airline industry.
I'm seeing it in my own little corner of the IT world - not just my own job and work hours, but those of my co-workers as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887507</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1256674260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I prefer to have my own car, with my own hands on the wheel, because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger. </p></div><p>Who do you think the bus driver rear ended? People like you! thats who who get squished by the bus. You are not safe anywhere. But the bus passengers were safe, and the "I am in charge of my own destiny" car driver got crushed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car ... I prefer to have my own car , with my own hands on the wheel , because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger .
Who do you think the bus driver rear ended ?
People like you !
thats who who get squished by the bus .
You are not safe anywhere .
But the bus passengers were safe , and the " I am in charge of my own destiny " car driver got crushed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car ... I prefer to have my own car, with my own hands on the wheel, because I trust myself more than I trust some underpaid stranger.
Who do you think the bus driver rear ended?
People like you!
thats who who get squished by the bus.
You are not safe anywhere.
But the bus passengers were safe, and the "I am in charge of my own destiny" car driver got crushed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29894879</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~</p><p>I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long. However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work. Plus my personal documents. Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.</p></div><p>How about the value of a good alias?<br><tt>alias purge='rm *~'</tt><br>And why do you have tilde files that aren't writable, anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was cleaning out my old backup files .
so I meant to do a rm -f * ~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~ I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long .
However , I cleared out about 2 weeks of work .
Plus my personal documents .
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.How about the value of a good alias ? alias purge = 'rm * ~ 'And why do you have tilde files that are n't writable , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was cleaning out my old backup files.
so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long.
However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work.
Plus my personal documents.
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.How about the value of a good alias?alias purge='rm *~'And why do you have tilde files that aren't writable, anyway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659</id>
	<title>They were working, after all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256652120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines</p></div><p>If this is really the case (which is still to be confirmed), then they were at least <b>working</b> for their company, making the best use of what they (incorrectly) thought was "available" time.

<br> <br>Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air LinesIf this is really the case ( which is still to be confirmed ) , then they were at least working for their company , making the best use of what they ( incorrectly ) thought was " available " time .
Keep this in mind , all of you reading slashdot at work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air LinesIf this is really the case (which is still to be confirmed), then they were at least working for their company, making the best use of what they (incorrectly) thought was "available" time.
Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891119</id>
	<title>They have lost their licenses</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to CNN, their <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/airliner.fly.by/" title="cnn.com">licenses have been revoked</a> [cnn.com] Way to piss away your careers, wankers... I hear McDonald's is hiring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to CNN , their licenses have been revoked [ cnn.com ] Way to piss away your careers , wankers... I hear McDonald 's is hiring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to CNN, their licenses have been revoked [cnn.com] Way to piss away your careers, wankers... I hear McDonald's is hiring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883875</id>
	<title>Re:Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I cringe when I see this, because I've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS.</p></div><p>At first I thought it was a typo. Now I'm curious if Captian is actually a slang term for computer illiterate pilots. It should be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I cringe when I see this , because I 've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS.At first I thought it was a typo .
Now I 'm curious if Captian is actually a slang term for computer illiterate pilots .
It should be : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cringe when I see this, because I've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS.At first I thought it was a typo.
Now I'm curious if Captian is actually a slang term for computer illiterate pilots.
It should be :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645</id>
	<title>Complete overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256652060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you know what happens to a captain (or any pilot, for that matter) when they are terminated? They start at the bottom of any airline that hires them. Yes, seniority is only on a per-airline basis. The only thing that matters in seniority is how long you've been at THAT airline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know what happens to a captain ( or any pilot , for that matter ) when they are terminated ?
They start at the bottom of any airline that hires them .
Yes , seniority is only on a per-airline basis .
The only thing that matters in seniority is how long you 've been at THAT airline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know what happens to a captain (or any pilot, for that matter) when they are terminated?
They start at the bottom of any airline that hires them.
Yes, seniority is only on a per-airline basis.
The only thing that matters in seniority is how long you've been at THAT airline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884497</id>
	<title>Cockpit cameras</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My question is at what point are airlines going to put cameras in the cockpit for "flight safety"?  I mean, seriously.  It wouldn't be very difficult to tie a stream into the flight recording system.  This would prevent a whole lot of misconduct on planes, and answer a lot of questions when things go wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is at what point are airlines going to put cameras in the cockpit for " flight safety " ?
I mean , seriously .
It would n't be very difficult to tie a stream into the flight recording system .
This would prevent a whole lot of misconduct on planes , and answer a lot of questions when things go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is at what point are airlines going to put cameras in the cockpit for "flight safety"?
I mean, seriously.
It wouldn't be very difficult to tie a stream into the flight recording system.
This would prevent a whole lot of misconduct on planes, and answer a lot of questions when things go wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883117</id>
	<title>Re:Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision</title>
	<author>jp102235</author>
	<datestamp>1256654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>well, there actually has been a mid air collision of two planes off the coast of africa, a C-141 and another cargo plane &lt;URL:http://www.c141heaven.com/65/pic\_65\_9405.html&gt;, the accuracies of the flight control systems put them on exact paths and... well, the big sky theory &lt;URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_sky\_theory&gt; was proven wrong once again... there are fundamental flaws in the current design of the airspace system, and the fact that we use walkie talkies to communicate in this digital age is rediciulous... I know there are some messaging systems out there (I have used them)... but in general.. we use 1950's tech to do our most critical communication (tower/approach, etc) - I don't even wanna think of the other safety concerns such an old system has such as hacking, or jamming of those comm systems during a critical phase of flight.<br><br>a similar incident happened over hawaii as well: &lt;URL:http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/02/sleeping-pilots.html&gt;<br><br>JP<br>Commercial Multi Engine Pilot</htmltext>
<tokenext>well , there actually has been a mid air collision of two planes off the coast of africa , a C-141 and another cargo plane , the accuracies of the flight control systems put them on exact paths and... well , the big sky theory was proven wrong once again... there are fundamental flaws in the current design of the airspace system , and the fact that we use walkie talkies to communicate in this digital age is rediciulous... I know there are some messaging systems out there ( I have used them ) ... but in general.. we use 1950 's tech to do our most critical communication ( tower/approach , etc ) - I do n't even wan na think of the other safety concerns such an old system has such as hacking , or jamming of those comm systems during a critical phase of flight.a similar incident happened over hawaii as well : JPCommercial Multi Engine Pilot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, there actually has been a mid air collision of two planes off the coast of africa, a C-141 and another cargo plane , the accuracies of the flight control systems put them on exact paths and... well, the big sky theory  was proven wrong once again... there are fundamental flaws in the current design of the airspace system, and the fact that we use walkie talkies to communicate in this digital age is rediciulous... I know there are some messaging systems out there (I have used them)... but in general.. we use 1950's tech to do our most critical communication (tower/approach, etc) - I don't even wanna think of the other safety concerns such an old system has such as hacking, or jamming of those comm systems during a critical phase of flight.a similar incident happened over hawaii as well: JPCommercial Multi Engine Pilot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884651</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1256662020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (<b>currently flying</b> Airbus A320)</p></div><p>Dude, did you learn nothing from this story? Don't post to slashdot when you're flying!It'll get you in trouble!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot ( currently flying Airbus A320 ) Dude , did you learn nothing from this story ?
Do n't post to slashdot when you 're flying ! It 'll get you in trouble !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320)Dude, did you learn nothing from this story?
Don't post to slashdot when you're flying!It'll get you in trouble!
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892775</id>
	<title>Re:Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>William Langewiesche is a reasonably interesting writer, but his father got the aviation-expert gene in the family and did NOT pass it on to his children. William's account of that crash is execrable. Essentially, he made up most of that story, and was rightly excoriated in the aviation world for doing so. The NTSB, the world's most respected aviation accident-investigation body, laid the blame for the crash entirely at the feet of Brazilian ATC. When you're 37,000 feet in the air, you don't have good visual references for whether another airplane is at your altitude, 1000' higher, or 1000' lower, though the ability to differentiate does improve somewhat with experience. Even if the two crews had seen each other before the last second, it's hard to say whether they would have realised they were on a collision course until too late anyway.</p><p>Read these if you want to know what really happened:</p><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html<br>http://joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/search?q=langewiesche</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>William Langewiesche is a reasonably interesting writer , but his father got the aviation-expert gene in the family and did NOT pass it on to his children .
William 's account of that crash is execrable .
Essentially , he made up most of that story , and was rightly excoriated in the aviation world for doing so .
The NTSB , the world 's most respected aviation accident-investigation body , laid the blame for the crash entirely at the feet of Brazilian ATC .
When you 're 37,000 feet in the air , you do n't have good visual references for whether another airplane is at your altitude , 1000 ' higher , or 1000 ' lower , though the ability to differentiate does improve somewhat with experience .
Even if the two crews had seen each other before the last second , it 's hard to say whether they would have realised they were on a collision course until too late anyway.Read these if you want to know what really happened : http : //www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.htmlhttp : //joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/search ? q = langewiesche</tokentext>
<sentencetext>William Langewiesche is a reasonably interesting writer, but his father got the aviation-expert gene in the family and did NOT pass it on to his children.
William's account of that crash is execrable.
Essentially, he made up most of that story, and was rightly excoriated in the aviation world for doing so.
The NTSB, the world's most respected aviation accident-investigation body, laid the blame for the crash entirely at the feet of Brazilian ATC.
When you're 37,000 feet in the air, you don't have good visual references for whether another airplane is at your altitude, 1000' higher, or 1000' lower, though the ability to differentiate does improve somewhat with experience.
Even if the two crews had seen each other before the last second, it's hard to say whether they would have realised they were on a collision course until too late anyway.Read these if you want to know what really happened:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.htmlhttp://joesharkeyat.blogspot.com/search?q=langewiesche</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885323</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1256665140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you entirely -- but I think such policies are a natural result of the 'zero tolerance' craze, itself a byproduct of our increasingly nannied culture. It is now assumed that no one is mature enough to make judgment calls, so we get childlike everything-must-be-black-or-white decision making instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you entirely -- but I think such policies are a natural result of the 'zero tolerance ' craze , itself a byproduct of our increasingly nannied culture .
It is now assumed that no one is mature enough to make judgment calls , so we get childlike everything-must-be-black-or-white decision making instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you entirely -- but I think such policies are a natural result of the 'zero tolerance' craze, itself a byproduct of our increasingly nannied culture.
It is now assumed that no one is mature enough to make judgment calls, so we get childlike everything-must-be-black-or-white decision making instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884597</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1256661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.</p></div><p>Um...the cost of living is (officially) <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html" title="ssa.gov">down</a> [ssa.gov].  Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone <i>down</i> since last year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But your wages are n't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.Um...the cost of living is ( officially ) down [ ssa.gov ] .
Matter of fact , that 's been the source of a minor political argument : people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.Um...the cost of living is (officially) down [ssa.gov].
Matter of fact, that's been the source of a minor political argument: people whining that they deserve an automatic raise in their SS cheques despite the fact that the cost of living has gone down since last year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892761</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>sabre307</author>
	<datestamp>1256658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on! You know they were surfing some Pr0n, or rating girls on fyr.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on !
You know they were surfing some Pr0n , or rating girls on fyr.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on!
You know they were surfing some Pr0n, or rating girls on fyr.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882573</id>
	<title>Recipe for disaster?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No check-ins...  no access by the crew..  if the pilot becomes incapacitated, they are screwed:
</p><p> <em>Flight attendants have not had keys to open a plane&rsquo;s cockpit door since the 2001 terrorist attacks, and there is no procedure in which they regularly check on pilots. The cabin crew communicates by phone or through chimes that can be heard in the passenger cabin.</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No check-ins... no access by the crew.. if the pilot becomes incapacitated , they are screwed : Flight attendants have not had keys to open a plane    s cockpit door since the 2001 terrorist attacks , and there is no procedure in which they regularly check on pilots .
The cabin crew communicates by phone or through chimes that can be heard in the passenger cabin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No check-ins...  no access by the crew..  if the pilot becomes incapacitated, they are screwed:
 Flight attendants have not had keys to open a plane’s cockpit door since the 2001 terrorist attacks, and there is no procedure in which they regularly check on pilots.
The cabin crew communicates by phone or through chimes that can be heard in the passenger cabin. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884013</id>
	<title>Not a simple mistake</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1256659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FIRST rule is that somebody has to fly the airplane. Even if that means turn on the autopilot and kick back listening to the radio and looking around. The computers are not to be delegated *everything*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FIRST rule is that somebody has to fly the airplane .
Even if that means turn on the autopilot and kick back listening to the radio and looking around .
The computers are not to be delegated * everything * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FIRST rule is that somebody has to fly the airplane.
Even if that means turn on the autopilot and kick back listening to the radio and looking around.
The computers are not to be delegated *everything*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884343</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256660760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) This is complete crap.  Even if they were expected to "do this on their own time", which is possible, that doesn't imply do it while they're flying... which isn't their own time.  Even busy people have way more "personal time" than they admit.  But who the hell wants to do this kind of crap in their personal time?  I suspect there was training time made available that the pilot either couldn't or didn't make use of for whatever reason and didn't want to reschedule official training time.</p><p>2) The detour isn't what people are making a big deal about, it happens all the time for various reasons.  The <i> <b>only</b> </i> reason people are making a big deal is the fact that the pilots were blatantly ignoring safety rules that are there for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is complete crap .
Even if they were expected to " do this on their own time " , which is possible , that does n't imply do it while they 're flying... which is n't their own time .
Even busy people have way more " personal time " than they admit .
But who the hell wants to do this kind of crap in their personal time ?
I suspect there was training time made available that the pilot either could n't or did n't make use of for whatever reason and did n't want to reschedule official training time.2 ) The detour is n't what people are making a big deal about , it happens all the time for various reasons .
The only reason people are making a big deal is the fact that the pilots were blatantly ignoring safety rules that are there for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is complete crap.
Even if they were expected to "do this on their own time", which is possible, that doesn't imply do it while they're flying... which isn't their own time.
Even busy people have way more "personal time" than they admit.
But who the hell wants to do this kind of crap in their personal time?
I suspect there was training time made available that the pilot either couldn't or didn't make use of for whatever reason and didn't want to reschedule official training time.2) The detour isn't what people are making a big deal about, it happens all the time for various reasons.
The  only  reason people are making a big deal is the fact that the pilots were blatantly ignoring safety rules that are there for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882597</id>
	<title>Re:Cockpit voice recorder</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1256651700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except there was no crash to turn it off, so it will have just kept recording and it is on a 30 minute loop. So chances are it doesn't include any of that time period - and if there was something incriminating on it they would have just made sure to take 30 minutes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there was no crash to turn it off , so it will have just kept recording and it is on a 30 minute loop .
So chances are it does n't include any of that time period - and if there was something incriminating on it they would have just made sure to take 30 minutes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there was no crash to turn it off, so it will have just kept recording and it is on a 30 minute loop.
So chances are it doesn't include any of that time period - and if there was something incriminating on it they would have just made sure to take 30 minutes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883505</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Walter White</author>
	<datestamp>1256656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>9. Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.</p></div><p>The article says they ignored air traffic control for 90 minutes. I am not a pilot, but it seems that would fall under the category of egregious disregard for their responsibilities.</p><p>What are the possible safety consequences of ignoring ATC and other radio communication for that long? Does the ATC pass any safety related information to the cockpit crew?</p><p>Perhaps they should not be fired, but I would certainly not expect them to fly a commercial passenger flight again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>9 .
Firing them is a bit excessive , but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.The article says they ignored air traffic control for 90 minutes .
I am not a pilot , but it seems that would fall under the category of egregious disregard for their responsibilities.What are the possible safety consequences of ignoring ATC and other radio communication for that long ?
Does the ATC pass any safety related information to the cockpit crew ? Perhaps they should not be fired , but I would certainly not expect them to fly a commercial passenger flight again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9.
Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken.The article says they ignored air traffic control for 90 minutes.
I am not a pilot, but it seems that would fall under the category of egregious disregard for their responsibilities.What are the possible safety consequences of ignoring ATC and other radio communication for that long?
Does the ATC pass any safety related information to the cockpit crew?Perhaps they should not be fired, but I would certainly not expect them to fly a commercial passenger flight again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884731</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1256662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed"</p><p>As I recall, those doors are secured by 6-pin Medeco Biaxials (disclaimer: I haven't flown in about a decade). Very hard to pick, but doable (and usually easier to bypass). So if everyone would just buy some picks and start practicing, we'll be in good shape. Also practice landing planes. Just in case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated , you 're pretty much screwed " As I recall , those doors are secured by 6-pin Medeco Biaxials ( disclaimer : I have n't flown in about a decade ) .
Very hard to pick , but doable ( and usually easier to bypass ) .
So if everyone would just buy some picks and start practicing , we 'll be in good shape .
Also practice landing planes .
Just in case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed"As I recall, those doors are secured by 6-pin Medeco Biaxials (disclaimer: I haven't flown in about a decade).
Very hard to pick, but doable (and usually easier to bypass).
So if everyone would just buy some picks and start practicing, we'll be in good shape.
Also practice landing planes.
Just in case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884123</id>
	<title>The obvious explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that nobody has offered is that they were having sex. Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that nobody has offered is that they were having sex .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that nobody has offered is that they were having sex.
Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883525</id>
	<title>Re:I hate journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another 40 minutes or so and they would have violated Canadian air space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another 40 minutes or so and they would have violated Canadian air space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another 40 minutes or so and they would have violated Canadian air space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882819</id>
	<title>hahahaha!</title>
	<author>drmitch</author>
	<datestamp>1256653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit. They were abducted or something equally strange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
They were abducted or something equally strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
They were abducted or something equally strange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884225</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256660220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>110 miles in a jet? really? big detour? How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles? This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time? For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180. Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel. But still, seems like its being overblown.</p></div></blockquote><p>Its not about the distance, its about the time.<br>
&nbsp; <br>When the time between life and death (to respond to an emergency communication from ATC) can be measured in as little as seconds...  Not listening to ATC for forty five minutes can hardly be overblown.<br>
&nbsp; <br>On top of that, if they were concentrating that hard on their laptops for that long they could easily have missed a minor problem on the aircraft that was trending into a major problem.  Etc... etc...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>110 miles in a jet ?
really ? big detour ?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles ?
This extended the flight what , a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time ?
For a jet that 's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180 .
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects , like passengers missing connecting flights ( which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time ) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel .
But still , seems like its being overblown.Its not about the distance , its about the time .
  When the time between life and death ( to respond to an emergency communication from ATC ) can be measured in as little as seconds... Not listening to ATC for forty five minutes can hardly be overblown .
  On top of that , if they were concentrating that hard on their laptops for that long they could easily have missed a minor problem on the aircraft that was trending into a major problem .
Etc... etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>110 miles in a jet?
really? big detour?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?
This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?
For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.
But still, seems like its being overblown.Its not about the distance, its about the time.
  When the time between life and death (to respond to an emergency communication from ATC) can be measured in as little as seconds...  Not listening to ATC for forty five minutes can hardly be overblown.
  On top of that, if they were concentrating that hard on their laptops for that long they could easily have missed a minor problem on the aircraft that was trending into a major problem.
Etc... etc...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883431</id>
	<title>Re:Complete overreaction</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1256656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were that senior, then they know better and repercussions should happen.  These two know better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were that senior , then they know better and repercussions should happen .
These two know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were that senior, then they know better and repercussions should happen.
These two know better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884373</id>
	<title>FAR = Crash and Burn Violation</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1256660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't see that big a deal huh. Yet this is one of the FAA <b>"Crash and Burn"</b> Regs that was violated and do you know why they're called Crash and Burn? Simply because breaking them means mandantory loss of license. That's how big a deal the FAA considers this to be. So these two idiots are going to be Groundlings for the rest of their lives as they wont even be able to fly a Cessna after this kind of screwup.</p><p>As to the Disciplinary Action, that's going to come down from the FAA who issued their Licenses so No the Airline doesn't have to fire/discipline them. As to the Cost, Forget the Fucking cost of training. It's got no bearing on this as the cost of the Aircraft is 10x that at the minimum plus the potential "loss of Life" which runs far higher. I'm sorry but if you think that poorly about your fellow Humans, then you need to be grounded permanently to prevent you even having the possible opurtunity to pull an duplicate of the 9/11 attack somewhere else and it's the reason the FAA requires Psyc Evals as part of the annual physical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't see that big a deal huh .
Yet this is one of the FAA " Crash and Burn " Regs that was violated and do you know why they 're called Crash and Burn ?
Simply because breaking them means mandantory loss of license .
That 's how big a deal the FAA considers this to be .
So these two idiots are going to be Groundlings for the rest of their lives as they wont even be able to fly a Cessna after this kind of screwup.As to the Disciplinary Action , that 's going to come down from the FAA who issued their Licenses so No the Airline does n't have to fire/discipline them .
As to the Cost , Forget the Fucking cost of training .
It 's got no bearing on this as the cost of the Aircraft is 10x that at the minimum plus the potential " loss of Life " which runs far higher .
I 'm sorry but if you think that poorly about your fellow Humans , then you need to be grounded permanently to prevent you even having the possible opurtunity to pull an duplicate of the 9/11 attack somewhere else and it 's the reason the FAA requires Psyc Evals as part of the annual physical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't see that big a deal huh.
Yet this is one of the FAA "Crash and Burn" Regs that was violated and do you know why they're called Crash and Burn?
Simply because breaking them means mandantory loss of license.
That's how big a deal the FAA considers this to be.
So these two idiots are going to be Groundlings for the rest of their lives as they wont even be able to fly a Cessna after this kind of screwup.As to the Disciplinary Action, that's going to come down from the FAA who issued their Licenses so No the Airline doesn't have to fire/discipline them.
As to the Cost, Forget the Fucking cost of training.
It's got no bearing on this as the cost of the Aircraft is 10x that at the minimum plus the potential "loss of Life" which runs far higher.
I'm sorry but if you think that poorly about your fellow Humans, then you need to be grounded permanently to prevent you even having the possible opurtunity to pull an duplicate of the 9/11 attack somewhere else and it's the reason the FAA requires Psyc Evals as part of the annual physical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887237</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256673240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM, Twitter, or email they would have probably been alright.</p></div><p>@twoguysinaplane Check your headset.</p><p>
@twoguysinaplane Seriously, WTF?</p><p>
@twoguysinaplane Don't make us come up there!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM , Twitter , or email they would have probably been alright .
@ twoguysinaplane Check your headset .
@ twoguysinaplane Seriously , WTF ?
@ twoguysinaplane Do n't make us come up there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM, Twitter, or email they would have probably been alright.
@twoguysinaplane Check your headset.
@twoguysinaplane Seriously, WTF?
@twoguysinaplane Don't make us come up there!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882977</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>zeda</author>
	<datestamp>1256654040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an event, it just occurs at a higher level than you consider.</p><p>The autopilot can't fix the errors of the people programming it.</p><p>In this case the emergency was that the emergency that the autopilot can't handle reliably wasn't handled.</p><p>The biggest responsibility of the human pilots is to be human, i.e. be situationally aware, to ask the "Why?" that the autopilot can't ask.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an event , it just occurs at a higher level than you consider.The autopilot ca n't fix the errors of the people programming it.In this case the emergency was that the emergency that the autopilot ca n't handle reliably was n't handled.The biggest responsibility of the human pilots is to be human , i.e .
be situationally aware , to ask the " Why ?
" that the autopilot ca n't ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an event, it just occurs at a higher level than you consider.The autopilot can't fix the errors of the people programming it.In this case the emergency was that the emergency that the autopilot can't handle reliably wasn't handled.The biggest responsibility of the human pilots is to be human, i.e.
be situationally aware, to ask the "Why?
" that the autopilot can't ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883601</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1256657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re your point 3, again, as I said above, they were out of radio contact for 78 minutes. Which also means that they didn't start at top of descent, just that they started much earlier and "cruised" through it without noticing. 78 minutes. *78* minutes. I suspect that might also change your opinion about firing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re your point 3 , again , as I said above , they were out of radio contact for 78 minutes .
Which also means that they did n't start at top of descent , just that they started much earlier and " cruised " through it without noticing .
78 minutes .
* 78 * minutes .
I suspect that might also change your opinion about firing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re your point 3, again, as I said above, they were out of radio contact for 78 minutes.
Which also means that they didn't start at top of descent, just that they started much earlier and "cruised" through it without noticing.
78 minutes.
*78* minutes.
I suspect that might also change your opinion about firing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882883</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1256653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On of the linked articles said that they headphones off, with RT on the flight deck audio. They were aware of the audio, but not listening to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On of the linked articles said that they headphones off , with RT on the flight deck audio .
They were aware of the audio , but not listening to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On of the linked articles said that they headphones off, with RT on the flight deck audio.
They were aware of the audio, but not listening to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885127</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>Flying Weezel</author>
	<datestamp>1256664420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on most airliners, there is no beeping when you cross a waypoint in the FMS.  that would get real annoying when the waypoints are under a minute apart (departures and approaches) and i'm trying to concentrate on hand-flying the plane.</p><p>almost all airliners designed in the last 30 years are centered on the "Dark &amp; Quiet" flight deck concept.  if everything is normal, and all systems are as they should be, then there will be no lights on over/inside switches &amp; buttons, and there will be no noises.  this way, when something does go wrong, we know about it immediately.  if we get a caution message, there's a "ding" and the master caution light that's right in front of my face blinks amber at me till i cancel it.  then i look to see what the message was, and run the appropriate checklist.</p><p>in my airplane, if we pass the last waypoint in the FMS, we will get the "ding" and caution light, as the computer has no where else to go, so drops out of LNAV mode into ROLL mode.  all roll mode does is, ironically, keep the wings level and on the selected altitude.</p><p>its really easy to see why they went 100 miles past the airport, as they were made away about 5 minutes before passing the field.  it'll take about 15 minutes to figure out what the proper frequency is for the altitude and location you're at, then establish communications with the controller, and get re-sequenced back into the arrival streams.  and at the standard cruise speed of ~500kts, you cover a mile every 8 seconds or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on most airliners , there is no beeping when you cross a waypoint in the FMS .
that would get real annoying when the waypoints are under a minute apart ( departures and approaches ) and i 'm trying to concentrate on hand-flying the plane.almost all airliners designed in the last 30 years are centered on the " Dark &amp; Quiet " flight deck concept .
if everything is normal , and all systems are as they should be , then there will be no lights on over/inside switches &amp; buttons , and there will be no noises .
this way , when something does go wrong , we know about it immediately .
if we get a caution message , there 's a " ding " and the master caution light that 's right in front of my face blinks amber at me till i cancel it .
then i look to see what the message was , and run the appropriate checklist.in my airplane , if we pass the last waypoint in the FMS , we will get the " ding " and caution light , as the computer has no where else to go , so drops out of LNAV mode into ROLL mode .
all roll mode does is , ironically , keep the wings level and on the selected altitude.its really easy to see why they went 100 miles past the airport , as they were made away about 5 minutes before passing the field .
it 'll take about 15 minutes to figure out what the proper frequency is for the altitude and location you 're at , then establish communications with the controller , and get re-sequenced back into the arrival streams .
and at the standard cruise speed of ~ 500kts , you cover a mile every 8 seconds or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on most airliners, there is no beeping when you cross a waypoint in the FMS.
that would get real annoying when the waypoints are under a minute apart (departures and approaches) and i'm trying to concentrate on hand-flying the plane.almost all airliners designed in the last 30 years are centered on the "Dark &amp; Quiet" flight deck concept.
if everything is normal, and all systems are as they should be, then there will be no lights on over/inside switches &amp; buttons, and there will be no noises.
this way, when something does go wrong, we know about it immediately.
if we get a caution message, there's a "ding" and the master caution light that's right in front of my face blinks amber at me till i cancel it.
then i look to see what the message was, and run the appropriate checklist.in my airplane, if we pass the last waypoint in the FMS, we will get the "ding" and caution light, as the computer has no where else to go, so drops out of LNAV mode into ROLL mode.
all roll mode does is, ironically, keep the wings level and on the selected altitude.its really easy to see why they went 100 miles past the airport, as they were made away about 5 minutes before passing the field.
it'll take about 15 minutes to figure out what the proper frequency is for the altitude and location you're at, then establish communications with the controller, and get re-sequenced back into the arrival streams.
and at the standard cruise speed of ~500kts, you cover a mile every 8 seconds or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884489</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Flying Weezel</author>
	<datestamp>1256661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, but while your work day might be tiring after being there 10 or 14hrs, your office isn't being bounced up and down, you aren't literally strapped to your desk, and it doesn't take the coordination of your entire team for you to get up to pee.  oh, lets not forget that if you screw up and your code is wrong, you get an error message and try again.  i screw up, 80 people die and i turn a $40 million  airliner into a smoking hole in the ground.</p><p>and think about the last time you traveled all day to get somewhere.  remember how tired you were? that's every day for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , but while your work day might be tiring after being there 10 or 14hrs , your office is n't being bounced up and down , you are n't literally strapped to your desk , and it does n't take the coordination of your entire team for you to get up to pee .
oh , lets not forget that if you screw up and your code is wrong , you get an error message and try again .
i screw up , 80 people die and i turn a $ 40 million airliner into a smoking hole in the ground.and think about the last time you traveled all day to get somewhere .
remember how tired you were ?
that 's every day for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, but while your work day might be tiring after being there 10 or 14hrs, your office isn't being bounced up and down, you aren't literally strapped to your desk, and it doesn't take the coordination of your entire team for you to get up to pee.
oh, lets not forget that if you screw up and your code is wrong, you get an error message and try again.
i screw up, 80 people die and i turn a $40 million  airliner into a smoking hole in the ground.and think about the last time you traveled all day to get somewhere.
remember how tired you were?
that's every day for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882905</id>
	<title>Re:Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a person who has actually written a PBS, my experience from talking with airline workers is that PBS generates MUCH higher satisfaction rates than traditional bidline systems.  Bidline works okay for the top few members of each group, but does very little for juniors because there are only a few lines left to choose as you go through seniority (if there are 500 people, there might be 400 lines, so the person with seniority 300 has only 100 choices of lines, all of which usually suck)</p><p>It's true that the bids can be a little bit complex, but we did try to make an effort to make the bidding syntax logical and as simple as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a person who has actually written a PBS , my experience from talking with airline workers is that PBS generates MUCH higher satisfaction rates than traditional bidline systems .
Bidline works okay for the top few members of each group , but does very little for juniors because there are only a few lines left to choose as you go through seniority ( if there are 500 people , there might be 400 lines , so the person with seniority 300 has only 100 choices of lines , all of which usually suck ) It 's true that the bids can be a little bit complex , but we did try to make an effort to make the bidding syntax logical and as simple as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a person who has actually written a PBS, my experience from talking with airline workers is that PBS generates MUCH higher satisfaction rates than traditional bidline systems.
Bidline works okay for the top few members of each group, but does very little for juniors because there are only a few lines left to choose as you go through seniority (if there are 500 people, there might be 400 lines, so the person with seniority 300 has only 100 choices of lines, all of which usually suck)It's true that the bids can be a little bit complex, but we did try to make an effort to make the bidding syntax logical and as simple as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892831</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't even begin to address all the ways your post is wrong, but I'll have a go at it anyway.</p><p> <i>This is a non-event.</i> </p><p>No, this is very much an event, as another poster noted. Being out of communication with ATC over a third of the United States or for a time period of anything over about 10 minutes is a pretty serious breakdown in the system. There's a reason airspace above 18,000' in the US is referred to as "positive-control airspace" -- the aircraft in it are operating under the ostensible *control* of ATC, which has the authority to tell them to turn, climb, descend, etc. as needed to maintain separation (i.e., prevent midair collisions). ATC has to be able to communicate with them in order to maintain the integrity of the airspace.</p><p> <i>The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft.</i> </p><p>No. The autopilot may be capable of handling the flying duties in all phases of flight (except takeoffs, which are always performed manually), but someone has to tell it what to do, including making altitude changes. That someone would be the pilot. An autopilot, like any other computer system, is only as smart as its operator.</p><p> <i>In Airbus aircraft, it can even take off and land.</i> </p><p>No, again, autopilots are incapable of handling takeoffs. While the technology certainly exists to design an auto-flight system that is capable of taxiing the airplane on the ground and performing a takeoff, no manufacturer has certified such a system, nor is such a system a good idea IMO. An aborted takeoff is not something an automated system should be handling on its own, especially if the reason for the abort is some sort of control problem (for example, a blown tire).</p><p>And just to be nitpicky, Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, Bombardier, and Embraer all have or had auto-land systems available on various airliners as well. Auto-land is by no means an Airbus invention.</p><p> <i>The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that cannot be handled reliably by autopilot.</i> </p><p>As noted above, the autopilot is a tool, nothing more. Heck, most autopilots can't even initiate a climb or descent without pilot input immediately preceding the altitude change. The autopilot does not have judgement or experience. It cannot see weather up ahead that would best be avoided, weather that isn't showing up on radar because the radar antenna in the airplane is woefully undersized. It cannot see -- and, by extension, avoid -- other aircraft. It does not know that you're following a 757 on a visual approach and need to fly a dot high on the glidepath to avoid the wake turbulence. It doesn't even know what a 757 or wake turbulence IS. It does not know that the winds aloft are blowing directly across the approach course at 35 knots and therefore, wake turbulence is unlikely to be an issue.</p><p> <i>Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies.</i> </p><p>Please, tell me what I spent five weeks of ground school learning, then, before we ever discussed one single emergency? Oh, right, that would be aircraft systems.</p><p>You get partial credit here because the majority of <em>simulator</em> time is spent practising various emergency procedures, primarily because the real world offers so few opportunities to practise them and we pilots have to stay sharp somehow. (Of course, if they were common in the real world, they wouldn't be emergencies, would they?)</p><p> <i>In fact, some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy.</i> </p><p>As was memorably stated by the authors of a journal article several years ago, "This assertion is incompatible with reality". You made this up. Admit it.</p><p>Really, it's not true in any way, shape, or form, and cannot be true for various reasons stated above. Airlines generally require their pilots to be comfortable with *all* levels of automation in the aircraft. The only time the autopilot is required to be engaged is by regulatory mandate -- not airline policy -- in RVSM airsp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't even begin to address all the ways your post is wrong , but I 'll have a go at it anyway .
This is a non-event .
No , this is very much an event , as another poster noted .
Being out of communication with ATC over a third of the United States or for a time period of anything over about 10 minutes is a pretty serious breakdown in the system .
There 's a reason airspace above 18,000 ' in the US is referred to as " positive-control airspace " -- the aircraft in it are operating under the ostensible * control * of ATC , which has the authority to tell them to turn , climb , descend , etc .
as needed to maintain separation ( i.e. , prevent midair collisions ) .
ATC has to be able to communicate with them in order to maintain the integrity of the airspace .
The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft .
No. The autopilot may be capable of handling the flying duties in all phases of flight ( except takeoffs , which are always performed manually ) , but someone has to tell it what to do , including making altitude changes .
That someone would be the pilot .
An autopilot , like any other computer system , is only as smart as its operator .
In Airbus aircraft , it can even take off and land .
No , again , autopilots are incapable of handling takeoffs .
While the technology certainly exists to design an auto-flight system that is capable of taxiing the airplane on the ground and performing a takeoff , no manufacturer has certified such a system , nor is such a system a good idea IMO .
An aborted takeoff is not something an automated system should be handling on its own , especially if the reason for the abort is some sort of control problem ( for example , a blown tire ) .And just to be nitpicky , Boeing , Lockheed , McDonnell-Douglas , Bombardier , and Embraer all have or had auto-land systems available on various airliners as well .
Auto-land is by no means an Airbus invention .
The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that can not be handled reliably by autopilot .
As noted above , the autopilot is a tool , nothing more .
Heck , most autopilots ca n't even initiate a climb or descent without pilot input immediately preceding the altitude change .
The autopilot does not have judgement or experience .
It can not see weather up ahead that would best be avoided , weather that is n't showing up on radar because the radar antenna in the airplane is woefully undersized .
It can not see -- and , by extension , avoid -- other aircraft .
It does not know that you 're following a 757 on a visual approach and need to fly a dot high on the glidepath to avoid the wake turbulence .
It does n't even know what a 757 or wake turbulence IS .
It does not know that the winds aloft are blowing directly across the approach course at 35 knots and therefore , wake turbulence is unlikely to be an issue .
Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies .
Please , tell me what I spent five weeks of ground school learning , then , before we ever discussed one single emergency ?
Oh , right , that would be aircraft systems.You get partial credit here because the majority of simulator time is spent practising various emergency procedures , primarily because the real world offers so few opportunities to practise them and we pilots have to stay sharp somehow .
( Of course , if they were common in the real world , they would n't be emergencies , would they ?
) In fact , some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy .
As was memorably stated by the authors of a journal article several years ago , " This assertion is incompatible with reality " .
You made this up .
Admit it.Really , it 's not true in any way , shape , or form , and can not be true for various reasons stated above .
Airlines generally require their pilots to be comfortable with * all * levels of automation in the aircraft .
The only time the autopilot is required to be engaged is by regulatory mandate -- not airline policy -- in RVSM airsp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't even begin to address all the ways your post is wrong, but I'll have a go at it anyway.
This is a non-event.
No, this is very much an event, as another poster noted.
Being out of communication with ATC over a third of the United States or for a time period of anything over about 10 minutes is a pretty serious breakdown in the system.
There's a reason airspace above 18,000' in the US is referred to as "positive-control airspace" -- the aircraft in it are operating under the ostensible *control* of ATC, which has the authority to tell them to turn, climb, descend, etc.
as needed to maintain separation (i.e., prevent midair collisions).
ATC has to be able to communicate with them in order to maintain the integrity of the airspace.
The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft.
No. The autopilot may be capable of handling the flying duties in all phases of flight (except takeoffs, which are always performed manually), but someone has to tell it what to do, including making altitude changes.
That someone would be the pilot.
An autopilot, like any other computer system, is only as smart as its operator.
In Airbus aircraft, it can even take off and land.
No, again, autopilots are incapable of handling takeoffs.
While the technology certainly exists to design an auto-flight system that is capable of taxiing the airplane on the ground and performing a takeoff, no manufacturer has certified such a system, nor is such a system a good idea IMO.
An aborted takeoff is not something an automated system should be handling on its own, especially if the reason for the abort is some sort of control problem (for example, a blown tire).And just to be nitpicky, Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, Bombardier, and Embraer all have or had auto-land systems available on various airliners as well.
Auto-land is by no means an Airbus invention.
The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that cannot be handled reliably by autopilot.
As noted above, the autopilot is a tool, nothing more.
Heck, most autopilots can't even initiate a climb or descent without pilot input immediately preceding the altitude change.
The autopilot does not have judgement or experience.
It cannot see weather up ahead that would best be avoided, weather that isn't showing up on radar because the radar antenna in the airplane is woefully undersized.
It cannot see -- and, by extension, avoid -- other aircraft.
It does not know that you're following a 757 on a visual approach and need to fly a dot high on the glidepath to avoid the wake turbulence.
It doesn't even know what a 757 or wake turbulence IS.
It does not know that the winds aloft are blowing directly across the approach course at 35 knots and therefore, wake turbulence is unlikely to be an issue.
Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies.
Please, tell me what I spent five weeks of ground school learning, then, before we ever discussed one single emergency?
Oh, right, that would be aircraft systems.You get partial credit here because the majority of simulator time is spent practising various emergency procedures, primarily because the real world offers so few opportunities to practise them and we pilots have to stay sharp somehow.
(Of course, if they were common in the real world, they wouldn't be emergencies, would they?
) In fact, some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy.
As was memorably stated by the authors of a journal article several years ago, "This assertion is incompatible with reality".
You made this up.
Admit it.Really, it's not true in any way, shape, or form, and cannot be true for various reasons stated above.
Airlines generally require their pilots to be comfortable with *all* levels of automation in the aircraft.
The only time the autopilot is required to be engaged is by regulatory mandate -- not airline policy -- in RVSM airsp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884061</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>thenet411</author>
	<datestamp>1256659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a Network Engineer and a private pilot working toward ATP and I hear what you're saying with all 9 of your points. The pilots honestly expect us to believe that they took out their laptops and were so distracted by what they were doing that they lost track of time. No, sir. I don't buy it. This simply does not happen. Pilots are some of the most methodical and anal retentive people on the face of the planet. Taking time away from the duty of flying the aircraft (especially a large airliner with over 100 people onboard) simply doesn't happen unless the pilots are incapacitated. Yes, computers do much of the mundane work but the pilots are responsible for always triple-checking the aircraft's computers with respect to navigation, fuel state, engine performance, and a host of other factors that keep them busy. Even if one of the pilots took out his laptop for some reason (Showing off Windows 7?) the other pilot never would have done the same. As for missing the radio calls, you know as well as I do that not long after the flight is airborne, the non-PIC has trained their hearing to pick out his/her flight number from the ATC traffic like it was their mother's name. No sir, they were asleep. We all know the problems commercial pilots face. Long hours, little pay, waking up at 3:30am to open Starbucks and then jumping into the cockpit of an RJ at 9am. Pilot fatigue is reaching a critical stage and I believe this is just the beginning of events like this. Granted, both pilots falling asleep is going to be rare, but having at least one pilot taking a power nap in the cockpit is fairly common.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Network Engineer and a private pilot working toward ATP and I hear what you 're saying with all 9 of your points .
The pilots honestly expect us to believe that they took out their laptops and were so distracted by what they were doing that they lost track of time .
No , sir .
I do n't buy it .
This simply does not happen .
Pilots are some of the most methodical and anal retentive people on the face of the planet .
Taking time away from the duty of flying the aircraft ( especially a large airliner with over 100 people onboard ) simply does n't happen unless the pilots are incapacitated .
Yes , computers do much of the mundane work but the pilots are responsible for always triple-checking the aircraft 's computers with respect to navigation , fuel state , engine performance , and a host of other factors that keep them busy .
Even if one of the pilots took out his laptop for some reason ( Showing off Windows 7 ?
) the other pilot never would have done the same .
As for missing the radio calls , you know as well as I do that not long after the flight is airborne , the non-PIC has trained their hearing to pick out his/her flight number from the ATC traffic like it was their mother 's name .
No sir , they were asleep .
We all know the problems commercial pilots face .
Long hours , little pay , waking up at 3 : 30am to open Starbucks and then jumping into the cockpit of an RJ at 9am .
Pilot fatigue is reaching a critical stage and I believe this is just the beginning of events like this .
Granted , both pilots falling asleep is going to be rare , but having at least one pilot taking a power nap in the cockpit is fairly common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Network Engineer and a private pilot working toward ATP and I hear what you're saying with all 9 of your points.
The pilots honestly expect us to believe that they took out their laptops and were so distracted by what they were doing that they lost track of time.
No, sir.
I don't buy it.
This simply does not happen.
Pilots are some of the most methodical and anal retentive people on the face of the planet.
Taking time away from the duty of flying the aircraft (especially a large airliner with over 100 people onboard) simply doesn't happen unless the pilots are incapacitated.
Yes, computers do much of the mundane work but the pilots are responsible for always triple-checking the aircraft's computers with respect to navigation, fuel state, engine performance, and a host of other factors that keep them busy.
Even if one of the pilots took out his laptop for some reason (Showing off Windows 7?
) the other pilot never would have done the same.
As for missing the radio calls, you know as well as I do that not long after the flight is airborne, the non-PIC has trained their hearing to pick out his/her flight number from the ATC traffic like it was their mother's name.
No sir, they were asleep.
We all know the problems commercial pilots face.
Long hours, little pay, waking up at 3:30am to open Starbucks and then jumping into the cockpit of an RJ at 9am.
Pilot fatigue is reaching a critical stage and I believe this is just the beginning of events like this.
Granted, both pilots falling asleep is going to be rare, but having at least one pilot taking a power nap in the cockpit is fairly common.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887721</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since you are only training, you must have an accurate view on what all experienced pilots are like. Not explaining what acronyms are doesn't make you an expert, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since you are only training , you must have an accurate view on what all experienced pilots are like .
Not explaining what acronyms are does n't make you an expert , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since you are only training, you must have an accurate view on what all experienced pilots are like.
Not explaining what acronyms are doesn't make you an expert, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885271</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1256665020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What these pilots have proved is that with them in the cockpit there are situations in which they WILL completely ignore their aircraft for 30 min or more.
<p>Fire them.</p><p>
Then nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What these pilots have proved is that with them in the cockpit there are situations in which they WILL completely ignore their aircraft for 30 min or more .
Fire them .
Then nuke them from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What these pilots have proved is that with them in the cockpit there are situations in which they WILL completely ignore their aircraft for 30 min or more.
Fire them.
Then nuke them from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882739</id>
	<title>Was it</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1256652540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A WoW Raid scheduling system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A WoW Raid scheduling system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A WoW Raid scheduling system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883151</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Launch Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256654940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were having a Windows 7 Launch Party!!</p><p>Unfortunately the video didn't cover this situation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were having a Windows 7 Launch Party !
! Unfortunately the video did n't cover this situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were having a Windows 7 Launch Party!
!Unfortunately the video didn't cover this situation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29905183</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1256739540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>2) 110 miles in a jet? really? big detour? How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles? This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time? For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180. Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel. But still, seems like its being overblown.</i><br>IIRC There was a crash where the pilots accidently disengaged the autopilot while arguing over a lightbulb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) 110 miles in a jet ?
really ? big detour ?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles ?
This extended the flight what , a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time ?
For a jet that 's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180 .
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects , like passengers missing connecting flights ( which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time ) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel .
But still , seems like its being overblown.IIRC There was a crash where the pilots accidently disengaged the autopilot while arguing over a lightbulb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) 110 miles in a jet?
really? big detour?
How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles?
This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time?
For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180.
Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel.
But still, seems like its being overblown.IIRC There was a crash where the pilots accidently disengaged the autopilot while arguing over a lightbulb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884335</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>astat</author>
	<datestamp>1256660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5. There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. <b>This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.</b></p> </div><p>Not quite working as intended then, ary they?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
There is an automatic system called TCAS ( Traffic Collision and Avoiding System ) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft .
This system is mandatory ( at least in Europe ) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago .
Not quite working as intended then , ary they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft.
This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.
Not quite working as intended then, ary they?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885239</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1256664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that the problem for the pilots is it's been a slow news week.  A lot of Pilots and Flight Attendants said in the beginning these guys wouldn't get fired.  I think a lot of that is based on past experience with these situations.  Most people don't understand that this isn't the first time something like this has happened.  The problem is these issues are usually internal matters.  Maybe the purser finds a crew member asleep.  It's taken care of internally.</p><p>This is a big international news story that just won't die.  And it's likely the pilots will be terminated because of it.</p><p>I will disagree with cost to the airline.  Delta has made so many route reductions, mainline to barbie-jet shifts, reduction in cycles, etc that they have Pilots to spare.  If they needed to find a replacement they have had a fair number of lay-offs over the last few years and likely still have Pilots they could recall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that the problem for the pilots is it 's been a slow news week .
A lot of Pilots and Flight Attendants said in the beginning these guys would n't get fired .
I think a lot of that is based on past experience with these situations .
Most people do n't understand that this is n't the first time something like this has happened .
The problem is these issues are usually internal matters .
Maybe the purser finds a crew member asleep .
It 's taken care of internally.This is a big international news story that just wo n't die .
And it 's likely the pilots will be terminated because of it.I will disagree with cost to the airline .
Delta has made so many route reductions , mainline to barbie-jet shifts , reduction in cycles , etc that they have Pilots to spare .
If they needed to find a replacement they have had a fair number of lay-offs over the last few years and likely still have Pilots they could recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that the problem for the pilots is it's been a slow news week.
A lot of Pilots and Flight Attendants said in the beginning these guys wouldn't get fired.
I think a lot of that is based on past experience with these situations.
Most people don't understand that this isn't the first time something like this has happened.
The problem is these issues are usually internal matters.
Maybe the purser finds a crew member asleep.
It's taken care of internally.This is a big international news story that just won't die.
And it's likely the pilots will be terminated because of it.I will disagree with cost to the airline.
Delta has made so many route reductions, mainline to barbie-jet shifts, reduction in cycles, etc that they have Pilots to spare.
If they needed to find a replacement they have had a fair number of lay-offs over the last few years and likely still have Pilots they could recall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887939</id>
	<title>Re:Complete overreaction</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares?!  Seriously, pilots who neglect their jobs and the rules such as these two did deserve to lose their seniority and their jobs!  We're not talking about misfiling a report somewhere, we're talking about negligently ignoring basic flight safety rules and then ignoring radio comms.  Missing some comms is one thing, but ignoring them for over an hour is another matter entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ? !
Seriously , pilots who neglect their jobs and the rules such as these two did deserve to lose their seniority and their jobs !
We 're not talking about misfiling a report somewhere , we 're talking about negligently ignoring basic flight safety rules and then ignoring radio comms .
Missing some comms is one thing , but ignoring them for over an hour is another matter entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?!
Seriously, pilots who neglect their jobs and the rules such as these two did deserve to lose their seniority and their jobs!
We're not talking about misfiling a report somewhere, we're talking about negligently ignoring basic flight safety rules and then ignoring radio comms.
Missing some comms is one thing, but ignoring them for over an hour is another matter entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884105</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, because of that mistake you learned an important lesson: before hitting enter after typing an rm -f * or other wildcard command, let alone the ultimate (rm -rf *), you pause, stare at it for a long time, press it, and if you are really smart, you have included a -v so you can monitor it as it destroys files and can break it if things go wrong.  Also: backups.</p><p>In the case of a pilot, you don't have a second chance if you crash the plane and kill yourself and everyone else aboard.  It can't be a learning experience if you're dead.  rm -f * ~ doesn't compare.  I'm struggling to think of a computer analogy.  Maybe if you accidentally flipped a "do not touch" switch in the server room that could, rarely, cause the whole place to burst into flames and burn to the ground with you and your co-workers it might compare.  Even if the chances of that outcome are very low it is still a stupid thing to flip that switch, especially if the company policy explicitly states "If you flip this switch you will be terminated -- one way or the other."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , because of that mistake you learned an important lesson : before hitting enter after typing an rm -f * or other wildcard command , let alone the ultimate ( rm -rf * ) , you pause , stare at it for a long time , press it , and if you are really smart , you have included a -v so you can monitor it as it destroys files and can break it if things go wrong .
Also : backups.In the case of a pilot , you do n't have a second chance if you crash the plane and kill yourself and everyone else aboard .
It ca n't be a learning experience if you 're dead .
rm -f * ~ does n't compare .
I 'm struggling to think of a computer analogy .
Maybe if you accidentally flipped a " do not touch " switch in the server room that could , rarely , cause the whole place to burst into flames and burn to the ground with you and your co-workers it might compare .
Even if the chances of that outcome are very low it is still a stupid thing to flip that switch , especially if the company policy explicitly states " If you flip this switch you will be terminated -- one way or the other .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, because of that mistake you learned an important lesson: before hitting enter after typing an rm -f * or other wildcard command, let alone the ultimate (rm -rf *), you pause, stare at it for a long time, press it, and if you are really smart, you have included a -v so you can monitor it as it destroys files and can break it if things go wrong.
Also: backups.In the case of a pilot, you don't have a second chance if you crash the plane and kill yourself and everyone else aboard.
It can't be a learning experience if you're dead.
rm -f * ~ doesn't compare.
I'm struggling to think of a computer analogy.
Maybe if you accidentally flipped a "do not touch" switch in the server room that could, rarely, cause the whole place to burst into flames and burn to the ground with you and your co-workers it might compare.
Even if the chances of that outcome are very low it is still a stupid thing to flip that switch, especially if the company policy explicitly states "If you flip this switch you will be terminated -- one way or the other.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883395</id>
	<title>Still not doing the job properly</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1256656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work the phone for support.  If I spend one or two hours reading tech articles trying to increase my knowledge of my job when I was scheduled to be taking calls from customers, I'm not doing my job.  If I go to my boss and schedule time to read those articles when I'm not supposed to be taking calls, that's the right way to handle that.</p><p>When you are a piloting an airplane, your job is to pilot the airplane!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work the phone for support .
If I spend one or two hours reading tech articles trying to increase my knowledge of my job when I was scheduled to be taking calls from customers , I 'm not doing my job .
If I go to my boss and schedule time to read those articles when I 'm not supposed to be taking calls , that 's the right way to handle that.When you are a piloting an airplane , your job is to pilot the airplane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work the phone for support.
If I spend one or two hours reading tech articles trying to increase my knowledge of my job when I was scheduled to be taking calls from customers, I'm not doing my job.
If I go to my boss and schedule time to read those articles when I'm not supposed to be taking calls, that's the right way to handle that.When you are a piloting an airplane, your job is to pilot the airplane!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883487</id>
	<title>Re:Just say no to poorly judging risk</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256656680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...</p><p><b>Yes but *per trip* the car is safer.    </b>   I want to know what are my odds of dying every time I sit inside a car, train, or plane.  The odds for the car *for each trip* is lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Funny , then , that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...Yes but * per trip * the car is safer .
I want to know what are my odds of dying every time I sit inside a car , train , or plane .
The odds for the car * for each trip * is lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...Yes but *per trip* the car is safer.
I want to know what are my odds of dying every time I sit inside a car, train, or plane.
The odds for the car *for each trip* is lower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885415</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1256665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a separate common frequency that it's (generally) inexcusable to not be monitoring at all times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a separate common frequency that it 's ( generally ) inexcusable to not be monitoring at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a separate common frequency that it's (generally) inexcusable to not be monitoring at all times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925</id>
	<title>Just say no to poorly judging risk</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1256653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...  I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions.  From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk.  Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , then , that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you * personally * but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions .
From what type of travel to choose , to what kind of medical treatment to choose , we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk .
Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics , we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...  I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions.
From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk.
Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884199</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The HF buzzer you refer to is presumably Selcal, which assumes they were tuned to company frequency on one radio. I thought the A320 generated a MCDU message to check flight plan when the aircraft deviated from its route, though IIRC the message and attention getting light are purely visual, and under the circumstances gentle visual reminders weren't going to do much.</p><p>They didn't do their job, instead preferring to do what flight crew do 90\% of their time - discuss rotas and pay and try and work out if they could squeeze another allowance. Firing them isn't excessive at all. You mentioned TCAS - how quickly do you think these two could have reacted to a TCAS RA, when they have already ignored radio traffic, the  MCDU warning prompt and had no positional awareness at all.</p><p>In a broader context, perhaps this is a sign of a deeper malaise. Airbus aircraft (with Boeing not far behind) are increasingly automated, with the flight crew purely monitoring for much of their time. Monitoring is boring, and maybe that's the real reason this happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The HF buzzer you refer to is presumably Selcal , which assumes they were tuned to company frequency on one radio .
I thought the A320 generated a MCDU message to check flight plan when the aircraft deviated from its route , though IIRC the message and attention getting light are purely visual , and under the circumstances gentle visual reminders were n't going to do much.They did n't do their job , instead preferring to do what flight crew do 90 \ % of their time - discuss rotas and pay and try and work out if they could squeeze another allowance .
Firing them is n't excessive at all .
You mentioned TCAS - how quickly do you think these two could have reacted to a TCAS RA , when they have already ignored radio traffic , the MCDU warning prompt and had no positional awareness at all.In a broader context , perhaps this is a sign of a deeper malaise .
Airbus aircraft ( with Boeing not far behind ) are increasingly automated , with the flight crew purely monitoring for much of their time .
Monitoring is boring , and maybe that 's the real reason this happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HF buzzer you refer to is presumably Selcal, which assumes they were tuned to company frequency on one radio.
I thought the A320 generated a MCDU message to check flight plan when the aircraft deviated from its route, though IIRC the message and attention getting light are purely visual, and under the circumstances gentle visual reminders weren't going to do much.They didn't do their job, instead preferring to do what flight crew do 90\% of their time - discuss rotas and pay and try and work out if they could squeeze another allowance.
Firing them isn't excessive at all.
You mentioned TCAS - how quickly do you think these two could have reacted to a TCAS RA, when they have already ignored radio traffic, the  MCDU warning prompt and had no positional awareness at all.In a broader context, perhaps this is a sign of a deeper malaise.
Airbus aircraft (with Boeing not far behind) are increasingly automated, with the flight crew purely monitoring for much of their time.
Monitoring is boring, and maybe that's the real reason this happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882401</id>
	<title>In an airplane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines, which acquired Northwest last fall.</p> </div><p>Shirley you'll agree that these men should be punished for endangering the over 144 passengers. I don't think it matters if it was a laptop, them arguing, sleeping pilots, or them practicing their jive talk. It's just plain dangerous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines , which acquired Northwest last fall .
Shirley you 'll agree that these men should be punished for endangering the over 144 passengers .
I do n't think it matters if it was a laptop , them arguing , sleeping pilots , or them practicing their jive talk .
It 's just plain dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines, which acquired Northwest last fall.
Shirley you'll agree that these men should be punished for endangering the over 144 passengers.
I don't think it matters if it was a laptop, them arguing, sleeping pilots, or them practicing their jive talk.
It's just plain dangerous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883439</id>
	<title>Re:Luck not shot down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regs</p></div></blockquote><p>I was wondering about this given the cost pressures on airlines these days. The FAA website says this:</p><p><em>A.  Required Fuel Supplies for Flights with Alternate Airports. When the Regulations require an alternate airport for the destination to be designated on the release, the aircraft must have the following types and increments of fuel on board at takeoff:</em> </p><ol><li>En Route Fuel. That fuel necessary for a flight to reach the airport to which it is released and then to conduct one instrument approach and a possible missed approach.</li><li>Alternate Fuel. That fuel necessary for a flight to fly from the point of completion of the missed approach at the destination airport to the most distant alternate airport, make an IFR approach (if the forecast indicates such conditions will exist), and then complete a landing.</li><li>International Reserve Fuel. That fuel necessary in addition the en route and alternate fuel increments for the flight thereafter to fly for 30 minutes.</li><li>En Route Reserve. The additional fuel necessary for the flight thereafter, to fly 15\% of the total time required to fly at normal cruising fuel consumption to the airports specified in previous subparagraphs 1) and 2) or to fly for 90 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption (whichever is less).</li><li>Contingency Fuel. That increment of fuel necessary for the flight to compensate for any known traffic delays and to compensate for any other condition that may delay the landing of the flight.</li></ol><p>So they need enough additional fuel to fly 15\% of the time required to reach the furthest alternate airport taking into account traffic delays and other factors that might delay the landing.</p><p>I think it's safe to say that they'd have plenty of fuel in this jaunt, where they extended the flight by 300 miles (round trip). Still, if alternate airports were relatively close, and had they not been disturbed by that member of cabin crew, I guess it's possible they could have been landing on a rural strip that doesn't see many A320s?</p><p>Any pilots able to tell us just how far they could get if they had been carrying the minimum fuel allowed by law?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regsI was wondering about this given the cost pressures on airlines these days .
The FAA website says this : A. Required Fuel Supplies for Flights with Alternate Airports .
When the Regulations require an alternate airport for the destination to be designated on the release , the aircraft must have the following types and increments of fuel on board at takeoff : En Route Fuel .
That fuel necessary for a flight to reach the airport to which it is released and then to conduct one instrument approach and a possible missed approach.Alternate Fuel .
That fuel necessary for a flight to fly from the point of completion of the missed approach at the destination airport to the most distant alternate airport , make an IFR approach ( if the forecast indicates such conditions will exist ) , and then complete a landing.International Reserve Fuel .
That fuel necessary in addition the en route and alternate fuel increments for the flight thereafter to fly for 30 minutes.En Route Reserve .
The additional fuel necessary for the flight thereafter , to fly 15 \ % of the total time required to fly at normal cruising fuel consumption to the airports specified in previous subparagraphs 1 ) and 2 ) or to fly for 90 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption ( whichever is less ) .Contingency Fuel .
That increment of fuel necessary for the flight to compensate for any known traffic delays and to compensate for any other condition that may delay the landing of the flight.So they need enough additional fuel to fly 15 \ % of the time required to reach the furthest alternate airport taking into account traffic delays and other factors that might delay the landing.I think it 's safe to say that they 'd have plenty of fuel in this jaunt , where they extended the flight by 300 miles ( round trip ) .
Still , if alternate airports were relatively close , and had they not been disturbed by that member of cabin crew , I guess it 's possible they could have been landing on a rural strip that does n't see many A320s ? Any pilots able to tell us just how far they could get if they had been carrying the minimum fuel allowed by law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regsI was wondering about this given the cost pressures on airlines these days.
The FAA website says this:A.  Required Fuel Supplies for Flights with Alternate Airports.
When the Regulations require an alternate airport for the destination to be designated on the release, the aircraft must have the following types and increments of fuel on board at takeoff: En Route Fuel.
That fuel necessary for a flight to reach the airport to which it is released and then to conduct one instrument approach and a possible missed approach.Alternate Fuel.
That fuel necessary for a flight to fly from the point of completion of the missed approach at the destination airport to the most distant alternate airport, make an IFR approach (if the forecast indicates such conditions will exist), and then complete a landing.International Reserve Fuel.
That fuel necessary in addition the en route and alternate fuel increments for the flight thereafter to fly for 30 minutes.En Route Reserve.
The additional fuel necessary for the flight thereafter, to fly 15\% of the total time required to fly at normal cruising fuel consumption to the airports specified in previous subparagraphs 1) and 2) or to fly for 90 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption (whichever is less).Contingency Fuel.
That increment of fuel necessary for the flight to compensate for any known traffic delays and to compensate for any other condition that may delay the landing of the flight.So they need enough additional fuel to fly 15\% of the time required to reach the furthest alternate airport taking into account traffic delays and other factors that might delay the landing.I think it's safe to say that they'd have plenty of fuel in this jaunt, where they extended the flight by 300 miles (round trip).
Still, if alternate airports were relatively close, and had they not been disturbed by that member of cabin crew, I guess it's possible they could have been landing on a rural strip that doesn't see many A320s?Any pilots able to tell us just how far they could get if they had been carrying the minimum fuel allowed by law?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883413</id>
	<title>Cut 'em some slack...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1256656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first time <i>I</i> encountered that damned ribbon menu it took me a long time to get anything done, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I encountered that damned ribbon menu it took me a long time to get anything done , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I encountered that damned ribbon menu it took me a long time to get anything done, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883023</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1256654220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can say a lot of things, but those captains F/O are certainly NOT underpaid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can say a lot of things , but those captains F/O are certainly NOT underpaid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can say a lot of things, but those captains F/O are certainly NOT underpaid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883609</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>jefu</author>
	<datestamp>1256657340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I did the same thing (essentially), but noticed and killed the "rm" process before it deleted too much stuff.    Managed to recover all user files (it was a multi-user machine), and to restore system files without a complete os reinstall.    25 years ago or such and I still remember it.   I suspect that most admins (or users who have root/administrator capabilities do something this bad at least once, and I think that it is sometimes a good experience in that it teaches you to double check potentially harmful commands.
</p><p>
On the whole it was a good learning experience, nothing important was lost and I gained from it.   I think I agree that I'd rather these guys don't get fired, but instead they should spend some time on the ground thinking about what could have happened and they're likely to be much more careful in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the same thing ( essentially ) , but noticed and killed the " rm " process before it deleted too much stuff .
Managed to recover all user files ( it was a multi-user machine ) , and to restore system files without a complete os reinstall .
25 years ago or such and I still remember it .
I suspect that most admins ( or users who have root/administrator capabilities do something this bad at least once , and I think that it is sometimes a good experience in that it teaches you to double check potentially harmful commands .
On the whole it was a good learning experience , nothing important was lost and I gained from it .
I think I agree that I 'd rather these guys do n't get fired , but instead they should spend some time on the ground thinking about what could have happened and they 're likely to be much more careful in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I did the same thing (essentially), but noticed and killed the "rm" process before it deleted too much stuff.
Managed to recover all user files (it was a multi-user machine), and to restore system files without a complete os reinstall.
25 years ago or such and I still remember it.
I suspect that most admins (or users who have root/administrator capabilities do something this bad at least once, and I think that it is sometimes a good experience in that it teaches you to double check potentially harmful commands.
On the whole it was a good learning experience, nothing important was lost and I gained from it.
I think I agree that I'd rather these guys don't get fired, but instead they should spend some time on the ground thinking about what could have happened and they're likely to be much more careful in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885155</id>
	<title>Re:Bad. Real Bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So essentially you're saying the airline was screwing around with its pilots and this was just one of the results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially you 're saying the airline was screwing around with its pilots and this was just one of the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially you're saying the airline was screwing around with its pilots and this was just one of the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892583</id>
	<title>Re:Autopilot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256657460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm no pilot, nor flight-tech, </p></div><p>
And let's just stop there.  You left off some of the most important things that you are not, namely FAA Policy Analyst, Aircraft Configuration Manager, Airline CFO, etc.  Getting a plane from Point A to Point B involves a lot more than just a working machine and a control element, there is the entire National Airspace (NAS) to consider (that's the infrastructure in the US that makes it possible for planes to safely share airspace).  This infrastructure is a complex puzzle of regulations, aircraft equippage mandates, airline lobbyists, and a little actual technology (RADARs, ATC workstations, communications networks, etc.).  Making even a simple change often requires upgrades to the entire ground infrastructure (equipment and procedures) in a given region plus the equippage of a large number of aircraft.  The costs of the aircraft side alone will typically be millions of dollars per aircraft (hardware/software, integration and testing work, and certification for each aircraft configuration), which adds up fast when you're dealing with fleets of hundreds of aircraft.  As you would expect, airlines don't like having to upgrade their systems (which would be necessary for a system like you describe, regardless of what is currently on any given plane, since the current equippage is not designed to operate safely in the mode you describe and the FAA would probably mandate changes even if it were).
</p><p>
Now we get into the standards development process, which is a joint effort between the FAA, the airlines (passenger, cargo, and the DoD), the communications providers (primarily ARINC), and the avionics manufacturers.  You can probably imagine how well that works.  Oh, and by the way, other regions of the world will be working on similar systems, so there's the added fun of synchronizing efforts globally so airlines won't get hit with conflicting or duplicate mandates (see also: every differing US-EU standard ever).
</p><p>
Did I mention the unions?  They usually have issues with any NAS upgrades, just look at how much lobbying the controllers' union has been doing against ADS-B.  Any changes can't be allowed to make employees redundant, so have fun making any improvements.
</p><p>
Oh, right, security.  You don't want to know.  Let's just say that you want to keep a human in the loop at all times when safety of flight is involved.  Automating flight control to the extent you are suggesting would be a phenomenally bad idea under the current communications infrastructure (and good luck getting THAT upgraded).
</p><p>
Now add another 15 years and you have an idea how this all works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no pilot , nor flight-tech , And let 's just stop there .
You left off some of the most important things that you are not , namely FAA Policy Analyst , Aircraft Configuration Manager , Airline CFO , etc .
Getting a plane from Point A to Point B involves a lot more than just a working machine and a control element , there is the entire National Airspace ( NAS ) to consider ( that 's the infrastructure in the US that makes it possible for planes to safely share airspace ) .
This infrastructure is a complex puzzle of regulations , aircraft equippage mandates , airline lobbyists , and a little actual technology ( RADARs , ATC workstations , communications networks , etc. ) .
Making even a simple change often requires upgrades to the entire ground infrastructure ( equipment and procedures ) in a given region plus the equippage of a large number of aircraft .
The costs of the aircraft side alone will typically be millions of dollars per aircraft ( hardware/software , integration and testing work , and certification for each aircraft configuration ) , which adds up fast when you 're dealing with fleets of hundreds of aircraft .
As you would expect , airlines do n't like having to upgrade their systems ( which would be necessary for a system like you describe , regardless of what is currently on any given plane , since the current equippage is not designed to operate safely in the mode you describe and the FAA would probably mandate changes even if it were ) .
Now we get into the standards development process , which is a joint effort between the FAA , the airlines ( passenger , cargo , and the DoD ) , the communications providers ( primarily ARINC ) , and the avionics manufacturers .
You can probably imagine how well that works .
Oh , and by the way , other regions of the world will be working on similar systems , so there 's the added fun of synchronizing efforts globally so airlines wo n't get hit with conflicting or duplicate mandates ( see also : every differing US-EU standard ever ) .
Did I mention the unions ?
They usually have issues with any NAS upgrades , just look at how much lobbying the controllers ' union has been doing against ADS-B .
Any changes ca n't be allowed to make employees redundant , so have fun making any improvements .
Oh , right , security .
You do n't want to know .
Let 's just say that you want to keep a human in the loop at all times when safety of flight is involved .
Automating flight control to the extent you are suggesting would be a phenomenally bad idea under the current communications infrastructure ( and good luck getting THAT upgraded ) .
Now add another 15 years and you have an idea how this all works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no pilot, nor flight-tech, 
And let's just stop there.
You left off some of the most important things that you are not, namely FAA Policy Analyst, Aircraft Configuration Manager, Airline CFO, etc.
Getting a plane from Point A to Point B involves a lot more than just a working machine and a control element, there is the entire National Airspace (NAS) to consider (that's the infrastructure in the US that makes it possible for planes to safely share airspace).
This infrastructure is a complex puzzle of regulations, aircraft equippage mandates, airline lobbyists, and a little actual technology (RADARs, ATC workstations, communications networks, etc.).
Making even a simple change often requires upgrades to the entire ground infrastructure (equipment and procedures) in a given region plus the equippage of a large number of aircraft.
The costs of the aircraft side alone will typically be millions of dollars per aircraft (hardware/software, integration and testing work, and certification for each aircraft configuration), which adds up fast when you're dealing with fleets of hundreds of aircraft.
As you would expect, airlines don't like having to upgrade their systems (which would be necessary for a system like you describe, regardless of what is currently on any given plane, since the current equippage is not designed to operate safely in the mode you describe and the FAA would probably mandate changes even if it were).
Now we get into the standards development process, which is a joint effort between the FAA, the airlines (passenger, cargo, and the DoD), the communications providers (primarily ARINC), and the avionics manufacturers.
You can probably imagine how well that works.
Oh, and by the way, other regions of the world will be working on similar systems, so there's the added fun of synchronizing efforts globally so airlines won't get hit with conflicting or duplicate mandates (see also: every differing US-EU standard ever).
Did I mention the unions?
They usually have issues with any NAS upgrades, just look at how much lobbying the controllers' union has been doing against ADS-B.
Any changes can't be allowed to make employees redundant, so have fun making any improvements.
Oh, right, security.
You don't want to know.
Let's just say that you want to keep a human in the loop at all times when safety of flight is involved.
Automating flight control to the extent you are suggesting would be a phenomenally bad idea under the current communications infrastructure (and good luck getting THAT upgraded).
Now add another 15 years and you have an idea how this all works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</id>
	<title>It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the pilots should have paid more attention, but I suspect the reason they were trying to squeeze in a little extra work is that they weren't going to get paid to learn the scheduling system on their own time.

</p><p>Pilots go through years of expensive schooling and have to repay their student loans like everyone else. Their salaries start around <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/03/20/askthepilot313/index.html" title="salon.com" rel="nofollow">$20,000</a> [salon.com] if they can get hired in a very competitive market.

</p><p>Remember the hero pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson, saving Flight 1549 and <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/ci\_13551006" title="mercurynews.com" rel="nofollow">155 people's lives?</a> [mercurynews.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>the last talk [Capt. Sullenberger] had with his wife, Lorrie, before the crash... was about money.
</p><p>Like thousands of airline workers, his salary had been cut in half and he lost most of his pension. At 58, the 29-year veteran faced having to find work outside the industry and possibly having to sell his house.</p></div><p>Many pilots take second jobs. Some are on <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/mikes-blog-1-pilots-food-stamps" title="michaelmoore.com" rel="nofollow">food stamps</a> [michaelmoore.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>He took home $405 this week. My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.
</p><p>I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated). In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year. For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps. Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.
</p><p>"I have a second job!," the two pilots said in unison. One is a substitute teacher. The other works in a coffee shop.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the pilots should have paid more attention , but I suspect the reason they were trying to squeeze in a little extra work is that they were n't going to get paid to learn the scheduling system on their own time .
Pilots go through years of expensive schooling and have to repay their student loans like everyone else .
Their salaries start around $ 20,000 [ salon.com ] if they can get hired in a very competitive market .
Remember the hero pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson , saving Flight 1549 and 155 people 's lives ?
[ mercurynews.com ] the last talk [ Capt .
Sullenberger ] had with his wife , Lorrie , before the crash... was about money .
Like thousands of airline workers , his salary had been cut in half and he lost most of his pension .
At 58 , the 29-year veteran faced having to find work outside the industry and possibly having to sell his house.Many pilots take second jobs .
Some are on food stamps [ michaelmoore.com ] : He took home $ 405 this week .
My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he 's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza .
I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated ( using pilots as only one example of how people 's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated ) .
In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $ 17,000 last year .
For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps .
Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker .
" I have a second job ! , " the two pilots said in unison .
One is a substitute teacher .
The other works in a coffee shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the pilots should have paid more attention, but I suspect the reason they were trying to squeeze in a little extra work is that they weren't going to get paid to learn the scheduling system on their own time.
Pilots go through years of expensive schooling and have to repay their student loans like everyone else.
Their salaries start around $20,000 [salon.com] if they can get hired in a very competitive market.
Remember the hero pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson, saving Flight 1549 and 155 people's lives?
[mercurynews.com] the last talk [Capt.
Sullenberger] had with his wife, Lorrie, before the crash... was about money.
Like thousands of airline workers, his salary had been cut in half and he lost most of his pension.
At 58, the 29-year veteran faced having to find work outside the industry and possibly having to sell his house.Many pilots take second jobs.
Some are on food stamps [michaelmoore.com]:He took home $405 this week.
My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.
I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated).
In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year.
For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps.
Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.
"I have a second job!," the two pilots said in unison.
One is a substitute teacher.
The other works in a coffee shop.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882841</id>
	<title>Re:This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft.</p></div></blockquote><p> Including collision avoidance and generating an endless supply of fuel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft .
Including collision avoidance and generating an endless supply of fuel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft.
Including collision avoidance and generating an endless supply of fuel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886849</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>BlindSpot</author>
	<datestamp>1256671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way.  Mistakes that can or do cost lives <b>cannot</b> be left to pass.  Obviously there are huge financial and legal concerns from doing so, but to me it comes down to something much more basic:  If we start equating the nerd in his parents' basement who goofs and wipes out his HD full of porn with the pilot in the air who goofs and kills 300 people (or 30, or 3, or even 0 if it still put lives at risk) then we effectively say those lives don't matter.  In other words, we have clearly lost all regard for life, no matter how much we may claim to value it.</p><p>The only way to show we care about life is to never allow a second chance to those who have failed when entrusted with the responsibilities of safety, no matter how accidental the violation.  If we claim to value life above all else then the risk of doing is simply too great.</p><p>And getting fired does not mean you stop living.  If it truly was an innocent mistake then these pilots can be permitted to continue to live and work freely elsewhere just like anybody else, except never again can they be trusted with anyone's safety.</p><p>Forgiveness is fine on a personal level, but as a society we simply don't have the luxury.</p><p>P.S. I've been saying for years we need to start treating motor vehicle operation the same way as flying for exactly the same reason:  lives are constantly at risk!  The number of lives involved may be less at any given time but the responsibility is just as great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way .
Mistakes that can or do cost lives can not be left to pass .
Obviously there are huge financial and legal concerns from doing so , but to me it comes down to something much more basic : If we start equating the nerd in his parents ' basement who goofs and wipes out his HD full of porn with the pilot in the air who goofs and kills 300 people ( or 30 , or 3 , or even 0 if it still put lives at risk ) then we effectively say those lives do n't matter .
In other words , we have clearly lost all regard for life , no matter how much we may claim to value it.The only way to show we care about life is to never allow a second chance to those who have failed when entrusted with the responsibilities of safety , no matter how accidental the violation .
If we claim to value life above all else then the risk of doing is simply too great.And getting fired does not mean you stop living .
If it truly was an innocent mistake then these pilots can be permitted to continue to live and work freely elsewhere just like anybody else , except never again can they be trusted with anyone 's safety.Forgiveness is fine on a personal level , but as a society we simply do n't have the luxury.P.S .
I 've been saying for years we need to start treating motor vehicle operation the same way as flying for exactly the same reason : lives are constantly at risk !
The number of lives involved may be less at any given time but the responsibility is just as great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way.
Mistakes that can or do cost lives cannot be left to pass.
Obviously there are huge financial and legal concerns from doing so, but to me it comes down to something much more basic:  If we start equating the nerd in his parents' basement who goofs and wipes out his HD full of porn with the pilot in the air who goofs and kills 300 people (or 30, or 3, or even 0 if it still put lives at risk) then we effectively say those lives don't matter.
In other words, we have clearly lost all regard for life, no matter how much we may claim to value it.The only way to show we care about life is to never allow a second chance to those who have failed when entrusted with the responsibilities of safety, no matter how accidental the violation.
If we claim to value life above all else then the risk of doing is simply too great.And getting fired does not mean you stop living.
If it truly was an innocent mistake then these pilots can be permitted to continue to live and work freely elsewhere just like anybody else, except never again can they be trusted with anyone's safety.Forgiveness is fine on a personal level, but as a society we simply don't have the luxury.P.S.
I've been saying for years we need to start treating motor vehicle operation the same way as flying for exactly the same reason:  lives are constantly at risk!
The number of lives involved may be less at any given time but the responsibility is just as great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884995</id>
	<title>Re:Do airlines really need pilots?</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1256663700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Engine failure, hydraulic failure, structural damage, landing gear failure...the list of things that an autopilot is worthless for goes on and on.  If a real pilot doesn't fly the airplane when any of those situations occur, everyone on board dies.</p><p>FD: I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engine failure , hydraulic failure , structural damage , landing gear failure...the list of things that an autopilot is worthless for goes on and on .
If a real pilot does n't fly the airplane when any of those situations occur , everyone on board dies.FD : I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engine failure, hydraulic failure, structural damage, landing gear failure...the list of things that an autopilot is worthless for goes on and on.
If a real pilot doesn't fly the airplane when any of those situations occur, everyone on board dies.FD: I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885459</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No to publci transport</title>
	<author>Avalain</author>
	<datestamp>1256665860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a car</p></div><p>So does that make you the car that the bus driver rear-ends?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a carSo does that make you the car that the bus driver rear-ends ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Bus driver texting rear-ends a carSo does that make you the car that the bus driver rear-ends?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887865</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or fapping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or fapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or fapping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882513</id>
	<title>Cockpit voice recorder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if they were discussing this new piece of software and using laptops, presumably you can hear all that on the cockpit voice recorder.  As opposed to say, sleeping, which may or may not sound like snoring or nothing at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if they were discussing this new piece of software and using laptops , presumably you can hear all that on the cockpit voice recorder .
As opposed to say , sleeping , which may or may not sound like snoring or nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if they were discussing this new piece of software and using laptops, presumably you can hear all that on the cockpit voice recorder.
As opposed to say, sleeping, which may or may not sound like snoring or nothing at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882697</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are new here...it is well known that using electronic equipments on an aircraft interfers with onboard communication system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are new here...it is well known that using electronic equipments on an aircraft interfers with onboard communication system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are new here...it is well known that using electronic equipments on an aircraft interfers with onboard communication system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890975</id>
	<title>They were probably sleeping</title>
	<author>Haxx</author>
	<datestamp>1256645520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The simplest explanation is usually the answer.</p><p>These 2 pilots failed to answer around 10 different air traffic controllers as they were flying through different ATC zones, over a time period of 77 minutes. Either they had the comm turned off, they were out of the cockpit or they were sleeping. Either way the real answer will probably get them fired so they will never admit to it. At first they said that they were arguing over NTSB policy which is a comical excuse, so they changed it to the laptop excuse. The laptop excuse might be plausible for a one pilot plane, but it is not believable for 2 pilots approaching a destination and flying right by it. My guess is that they were sleeping. Because the pilots are the only ones who know what occurred in the cockpit that day, they probably won't ever admit the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>      The simplest explanation is usually the answer.These 2 pilots failed to answer around 10 different air traffic controllers as they were flying through different ATC zones , over a time period of 77 minutes .
Either they had the comm turned off , they were out of the cockpit or they were sleeping .
Either way the real answer will probably get them fired so they will never admit to it .
At first they said that they were arguing over NTSB policy which is a comical excuse , so they changed it to the laptop excuse .
The laptop excuse might be plausible for a one pilot plane , but it is not believable for 2 pilots approaching a destination and flying right by it .
My guess is that they were sleeping .
Because the pilots are the only ones who know what occurred in the cockpit that day , they probably wo n't ever admit the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
      The simplest explanation is usually the answer.These 2 pilots failed to answer around 10 different air traffic controllers as they were flying through different ATC zones, over a time period of 77 minutes.
Either they had the comm turned off, they were out of the cockpit or they were sleeping.
Either way the real answer will probably get them fired so they will never admit to it.
At first they said that they were arguing over NTSB policy which is a comical excuse, so they changed it to the laptop excuse.
The laptop excuse might be plausible for a one pilot plane, but it is not believable for 2 pilots approaching a destination and flying right by it.
My guess is that they were sleeping.
Because the pilots are the only ones who know what occurred in the cockpit that day, they probably won't ever admit the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883923</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Student loans?  No..  more like paying for certifications..  Single engine, multi, commercial, CFI (certified flight instructor), instrument, airline transport.   Each is atleast $10k.</p><p>You'll find a lot of airline pilots are ex-military.  Half went the civilian route.. and only a few actually went to a "college" like Embry Riddle.</p><p>So you start as a flight instructor, getting paid peanuts.. then fly some cargo or corporate jets.. and then at somepoint get hired by JetBlue for $40k/yr.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Student loans ?
No.. more like paying for certifications.. Single engine , multi , commercial , CFI ( certified flight instructor ) , instrument , airline transport .
Each is atleast $ 10k.You 'll find a lot of airline pilots are ex-military .
Half went the civilian route.. and only a few actually went to a " college " like Embry Riddle.So you start as a flight instructor , getting paid peanuts.. then fly some cargo or corporate jets.. and then at somepoint get hired by JetBlue for $ 40k/yr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Student loans?
No..  more like paying for certifications..  Single engine, multi, commercial, CFI (certified flight instructor), instrument, airline transport.
Each is atleast $10k.You'll find a lot of airline pilots are ex-military.
Half went the civilian route.. and only a few actually went to a "college" like Embry Riddle.So you start as a flight instructor, getting paid peanuts.. then fly some cargo or corporate jets.. and then at somepoint get hired by JetBlue for $40k/yr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</id>
	<title>I am surprised</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256651220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job. Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career.  I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected  As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one.  Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.</p><p>It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~</p><p>I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long.  However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work. Plus my personal documents. Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.<br>But If I were to get fired after that mistake and forced to switch careers then I wouldn't be able to apply my new learned methods.</p><p>That is why I cringe whenever there is a big mistake and people go well I hope that guy gets fired. Because the guy who did the mistake and especially if he was honest about it, would probably be so much more careful the nest time around. Who I would be more worried about is the guy who fired him.  As part of the mistake is on him too. For not making sure they are safe guard in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job .
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career .
I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected As they know the severity of their mistake , and are extra careful not to make an other one .
Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job , and will be likely to make their first mistake.It reminds me when I first started working .
I was cleaning out my old backup files .
so I meant to do a rm -f * ~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~ I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long .
However , I cleared out about 2 weeks of work .
Plus my personal documents .
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.But If I were to get fired after that mistake and forced to switch careers then I would n't be able to apply my new learned methods.That is why I cringe whenever there is a big mistake and people go well I hope that guy gets fired .
Because the guy who did the mistake and especially if he was honest about it , would probably be so much more careful the nest time around .
Who I would be more worried about is the guy who fired him .
As part of the mistake is on him too .
For not making sure they are safe guard in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job.
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career.
I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected  As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one.
Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.It reminds me when I first started working.
I was cleaning out my old backup files.
so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long.
However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work.
Plus my personal documents.
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.But If I were to get fired after that mistake and forced to switch careers then I wouldn't be able to apply my new learned methods.That is why I cringe whenever there is a big mistake and people go well I hope that guy gets fired.
Because the guy who did the mistake and especially if he was honest about it, would probably be so much more careful the nest time around.
Who I would be more worried about is the guy who fired him.
As part of the mistake is on him too.
For not making sure they are safe guard in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890929</id>
	<title>Re:Radio Reception?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't the pilots being inattentive, it was the same powerful redirection of focus effect that makes texting and cell phone use while driving so dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't the pilots being inattentive , it was the same powerful redirection of focus effect that makes texting and cell phone use while driving so dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't the pilots being inattentive, it was the same powerful redirection of focus effect that makes texting and cell phone use while driving so dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889391</id>
	<title>Re:Just say no to poorly judging risk</title>
	<author>31415926535897</author>
	<datestamp>1256638800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...  I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions.  From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk.  Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.</p></div><p>The number of deaths per hour driving is the same as the number of deaths per hour flying.  What was that about statistics and risk judgment you were saying?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , then , that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you * personally * but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions .
From what type of travel to choose , to what kind of medical treatment to choose , we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk .
Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics , we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.The number of deaths per hour driving is the same as the number of deaths per hour flying .
What was that about statistics and risk judgment you were saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled...  I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions.
From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk.
Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.The number of deaths per hour driving is the same as the number of deaths per hour flying.
What was that about statistics and risk judgment you were saying?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883167</id>
	<title>Re:I hate journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A320" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Airbus A320</a> [wikipedia.org]has a cruising speed of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A320#Specifications" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">mach 0.78</a> [wikipedia.org] and a max speed of mach 0.82. <a href="http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&amp;source=hp&amp;q=mach+0.78+in+mph&amp;btnG=Google-s\%C3\%B6kning&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=mach+0.78+in+mph&amp;fp=72c746df1d66c98" title="google.se" rel="nofollow">Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph</a> [google.se] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes. If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes. Not so amazing now is it?</p></div><p>It is when you consider that the descent to the airport usually starts 30 minutes before landing...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Airbus A320 [ wikipedia.org ] has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 [ wikipedia.org ] and a max speed of mach 0.82 .
Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph [ google.se ] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes .
If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes .
Not so amazing now is it ? It is when you consider that the descent to the airport usually starts 30 minutes before landing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Airbus A320 [wikipedia.org]has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 [wikipedia.org] and a max speed of mach 0.82.
Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph [google.se] and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes.
If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes.
Not so amazing now is it?It is when you consider that the descent to the airport usually starts 30 minutes before landing...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887999</id>
	<title>I heard this in my high school class today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I go to high school in a small town about an hour south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota. My teacher said that one of his other students has a parent who works in Northwest headquarters here, and the word on the street is that both pilots are gay, and that that possibly could of had something to do with it. Just thought I'd mention that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I go to high school in a small town about an hour south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota .
My teacher said that one of his other students has a parent who works in Northwest headquarters here , and the word on the street is that both pilots are gay , and that that possibly could of had something to do with it .
Just thought I 'd mention that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go to high school in a small town about an hour south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota.
My teacher said that one of his other students has a parent who works in Northwest headquarters here, and the word on the street is that both pilots are gay, and that that possibly could of had something to do with it.
Just thought I'd mention that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885817</id>
	<title>Re:I am surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job. Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career. </p></div><p>The issue here is not that they made a mistake.  The were in blatant violation of policy (using personal laptops (at the same time no less)).  Then, after the incident, they lied about it.  Presumably trying to cover up said policy violation.</p><p>If it were a simple mistake, if they had come clean, and they had shown willingness to be corrected, then I would agree.  In this case they should be fired.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job .
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career .
The issue here is not that they made a mistake .
The were in blatant violation of policy ( using personal laptops ( at the same time no less ) ) .
Then , after the incident , they lied about it .
Presumably trying to cover up said policy violation.If it were a simple mistake , if they had come clean , and they had shown willingness to be corrected , then I would agree .
In this case they should be fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job.
Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career.
The issue here is not that they made a mistake.
The were in blatant violation of policy (using personal laptops (at the same time no less)).
Then, after the incident, they lied about it.
Presumably trying to cover up said policy violation.If it were a simple mistake, if they had come clean, and they had shown willingness to be corrected, then I would agree.
In this case they should be fired.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885285</id>
	<title>The Times is Full of Crap...</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1256665020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Airline pilots don't simply forget to descend or ignore the center due to a distraction like a laptop.  This is a bunch of bullshit.  They were either asleep or getting a Bill Clinton from a flight attendant.  Still, even then that wouldn't be enough of a distraction to warrant their lack of communication.  I say they were napping with earplugs in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Airline pilots do n't simply forget to descend or ignore the center due to a distraction like a laptop .
This is a bunch of bullshit .
They were either asleep or getting a Bill Clinton from a flight attendant .
Still , even then that would n't be enough of a distraction to warrant their lack of communication .
I say they were napping with earplugs in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airline pilots don't simply forget to descend or ignore the center due to a distraction like a laptop.
This is a bunch of bullshit.
They were either asleep or getting a Bill Clinton from a flight attendant.
Still, even then that wouldn't be enough of a distraction to warrant their lack of communication.
I say they were napping with earplugs in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882711</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>Cloud K</author>
	<datestamp>1256652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sympathise with the difficulty of your employer expecting you to do things while you're not being paid, and therefore attempting to squeeze it in during times when they were.</p><p>However I hardly thing that it justifies putting passengers' lives at risk. (If putting lives at risk sounds out of proportion, consider that they could have eventually ended up too short on fuel to safely land, or other things that could happen that they were cheerfully ignoring).  If they feel that strongly about it, they could just not find time to learn it.  When the management asks why they haven't, say they haven't had time.  When they ask why they didn't use their free time, say "because it's my FREE time".  Standing up to the management &gt;&gt;&gt; putting lives in danger<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sympathise with the difficulty of your employer expecting you to do things while you 're not being paid , and therefore attempting to squeeze it in during times when they were.However I hardly thing that it justifies putting passengers ' lives at risk .
( If putting lives at risk sounds out of proportion , consider that they could have eventually ended up too short on fuel to safely land , or other things that could happen that they were cheerfully ignoring ) .
If they feel that strongly about it , they could just not find time to learn it .
When the management asks why they have n't , say they have n't had time .
When they ask why they did n't use their free time , say " because it 's my FREE time " .
Standing up to the management &gt; &gt; &gt; putting lives in danger : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sympathise with the difficulty of your employer expecting you to do things while you're not being paid, and therefore attempting to squeeze it in during times when they were.However I hardly thing that it justifies putting passengers' lives at risk.
(If putting lives at risk sounds out of proportion, consider that they could have eventually ended up too short on fuel to safely land, or other things that could happen that they were cheerfully ignoring).
If they feel that strongly about it, they could just not find time to learn it.
When the management asks why they haven't, say they haven't had time.
When they ask why they didn't use their free time, say "because it's my FREE time".
Standing up to the management &gt;&gt;&gt; putting lives in danger :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29899695</id>
	<title>Re:pushed? not a big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with you all the way, I agree more when you said "overblown". Oh and better is the explanation in the letter to the pilots from FAA - "You do not have the qualifications necessary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...". Qualification? So, how can they explain the 31000 flight hours - the pilots' instructors from school were in the child-seat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you all the way , I agree more when you said " overblown " .
Oh and better is the explanation in the letter to the pilots from FAA - " You do not have the qualifications necessary ... " .
Qualification ? So , how can they explain the 31000 flight hours - the pilots ' instructors from school were in the child-seat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you all the way, I agree more when you said "overblown".
Oh and better is the explanation in the letter to the pilots from FAA - "You do not have the qualifications necessary ...".
Qualification? So, how can they explain the 31000 flight hours - the pilots' instructors from school were in the child-seat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883267</id>
	<title>I hate know it  alls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256655600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh, we are so impressed by your arithmetic skills.  Try reading the article next time, genius.  It's more like 30 minutes.  It turns out you have to start descending some distance before actually reaching the airport.</p><p>In the case of Flight 188, &ldquo;neither pilot was aware of the airplane&rsquo;s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,&rdquo; the report said. By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , we are so impressed by your arithmetic skills .
Try reading the article next time , genius .
It 's more like 30 minutes .
It turns out you have to start descending some distance before actually reaching the airport.In the case of Flight 188 ,    neither pilot was aware of the airplane    s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival ,    the report said .
By that time , the plane , which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier , was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, we are so impressed by your arithmetic skills.
Try reading the article next time, genius.
It's more like 30 minutes.
It turns out you have to start descending some distance before actually reaching the airport.In the case of Flight 188, “neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,” the report said.
By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883085</id>
	<title>Re:It's a tough job</title>
	<author>TheTrollToll</author>
	<datestamp>1256654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The second you reference michael moore you immediately lose all credibility.. sorry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second you reference michael moore you immediately lose all credibility.. sorry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second you reference michael moore you immediately lose all credibility.. sorry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563</id>
	<title>This is a non-event.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256651400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a non-event. The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft. In Airbus aircraft, it can even take off and land. The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that cannot be handled reliably by autopilot. Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies.

As you can tell, with combined 30k hours of flight time between them, this is the STANDARD (albeit unofficial) procedure in any airline. Flying is very boring to the crew in the time between take-off and landing &mdash; the two biggest responsibilities of the human pilots. In fact, some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy. Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a non-event .
The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft .
In Airbus aircraft , it can even take off and land .
The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that can not be handled reliably by autopilot .
Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies .
As you can tell , with combined 30k hours of flight time between them , this is the STANDARD ( albeit unofficial ) procedure in any airline .
Flying is very boring to the crew in the time between take-off and landing    the two biggest responsibilities of the human pilots .
In fact , some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy .
Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a non-event.
The autopilot takes care of everything in a modern aircraft.
In Airbus aircraft, it can even take off and land.
The pilot-in-command is there for EMERGENCIES that cannot be handled reliably by autopilot.
Almost all of the training of a commercial/airline pilot is related to emergencies.
As you can tell, with combined 30k hours of flight time between them, this is the STANDARD (albeit unofficial) procedure in any airline.
Flying is very boring to the crew in the time between take-off and landing — the two biggest responsibilities of the human pilots.
In fact, some airlines do not allow human pilots to fly the aircraft because autopilot is a lot better on fuel economy.
Their biggest mistake was not programming the autopilot correctly for that flight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29900269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29899695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29894879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29905183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29893075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29888685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_0613244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29905183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29899695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883067
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885187
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884061
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887721
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884651
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891825
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885271
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29888685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884373
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885239
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883279
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884199
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29900269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884731
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882865
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29890473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29889695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29887865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_0613244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29883609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29892889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29894879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29893075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29886849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29891931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29882811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29884013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_0613244.29885323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
