zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
It's funny how if you are a major corporation with fat government contracts you can systematically destroy your engineering department, ostracize whistleblowers, and wind up killing hundreds of people and nobody gets punished and the FAA will even be on your side, like the Boeing thing.

but if you make a youtube stunt that hurts nobody you can get 20 years in prison and the FAA acts like you besmirched the stellar reputation of the aviation industry.

>>fatnec+Gt1
Both should suffer serious consequences IMO. Boeing more so.

>>jjalle+rx1
Yes, but 20 years for this dude is a bit excessive, no? Especially when nobody was killed or injured?

>>akudha+Wy1
If you intentionally light a building on fire with the potential to kill a bunch of people and destroy a bunch of property, how much lesser should the arson sentence be if someone puts the fire out quickly, preventing loss of life?

A plane crash can cause a wildfire.

>>goda90+FD1
No this is Hollywood making you think that. Car crashes and small plane crashes result in metal debris, not exploding balls of fire like Hollywood likes to depict.

In general the concept of starting a fire and a crashing small plane are orthogonal concepts. What happened with that plane is not arson at all.

>>byyyy+X52
You seem pretty hung up on this "exploding balls of fire" thing while ignoring that he's crashing a gas-powered vehicle, likely rupturing its fuel tanks and supply lines in close proximity to hot exhaust metal.

You don't need "exploding balls of fire" to create a disaster.

>>HeyLau+dm2
I'm hung up on it because it's true.

When's the last time you seen a car light up on fire during an accident? Never because the chances of it happening are basically negligible.

>>byyyy+7n2
Early March, I think? Sometime this year, anyway.

>>HeyLau+Fy2
Ok, but you get my point. It's rare. Most people haven't seen this ever.