TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: I'm SO Old

  1. #76
    New Member
    Registered: Oct 2017
    I'm resurrecting this thread because of recent conversations with people of my son's generation. I'd noticed that they are very much more risk averse than people of my age, perhaps because we'd spent many years half expecting to be bombed (WW2) or nuked (cold war).
    It's a good job everyone gave up Nuclear Weapons and there aren't Rogue states like North Korea and Iran wanting to nuke the Yanks.

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    @ffox: Not wanting to die on your job isn't overly risk averse. Especially since they got lots of other options today. Which options did you have?

  3. #78
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Honestly, there have always been foolhardy people and cowards, and they tend to congregate. If your sample set is jet fighter wannabes, you're going to get a skewed perspective. Meanwhile, the now-PotUS was finding a doctor willing to diagnose him with bone spurs.

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    Yes, it would be a skewed perspective, but the general population didn't regard it as being an unacceptable risk. Many applicants were turned away.

    @Kolya: If you were educated there was a wide choice of jobs available. Excitement, pay and glamour were important to us; a graduate engineer was paid about 500 pa but a qualified pilot got twice that. (Average house price was 2,200.) For some reason the girls seemed to like us too.

    @Craeftig: I reckon you are more in danger of being shot by a fellow citizen, or failing that being caught in a terrorist attack. The risk of being nuked is largely in the hands of POTUS (so yes, it's a possibilty).

    I've noticed an exception to the risk-averse attitude, which is riding bicycles in town. That's much more dangerous than being a pilot imho.

    I'm a lot more careful these days now I have one foot in the grave and the other on a bar of soap. But there is still a good chance that I'll be killed by a fast silent bicycle in Cambridge, ridden by a student on their mobile phone.

  5. #80
    New Member
    Registered: Oct 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by ffox View Post
    @Craeftig: I reckon you are more in danger of being shot by a fellow citizen, or failing that being caught in a terrorist attack. The risk of being nuked is largely in the hands of POTUS (so yes, it's a possibilty).
    Surely you mean PUTIN? Apparently he has an invisible hand resting on the brain of the POTUS pushing the right squidgy parts to make him to do and say their right things.

  6. #81
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    "The general population" has very little comprehension of relative risk probabilities.

  7. #82
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2001
    Location: uk
    Quote Originally Posted by ffox View Post
    Yes, it would be a skewed perspective, but the general population didn't regard it as being an unacceptable risk. Many applicants were turned away.
    You had awesome shiny things to fly back then and lots of them, if someone offered me the chance to fly those I wouldn't stop to ask how safe they aren't. (Though looking at your list a lot of those sound like the traditional "pilot did something stupid")

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    From the responses it seems that my younger relations are more risk-averse than most!

    Back on topic (prompted by "awesome shiny things"), one of my first aircraft was the de Havilland Vampire Mk 5.

    The canopy had a nasty habit of jiggling open by sliding back in mild turbulence, which was very noisy and uncomfortable. The engineers fitted a disc with holes drilled in it and welded a peg onto the end of the winding handle. Before getting airborne the pilot wound the canopy tight shut and pushed the peg into the nearest hole to stop the jiggle. This worked OK unless there was severe turbulence, which caused the peg to jump out of the hole! Undefeated, they then attached a length of bungee cord (strong elastic) to the instrument panel with a loop at the end which was stretched over the winding handle. Success at last!

    Part of the engine fuel system was the barostat, which modified the fuel flow to cope with variations in altitude and airspeed. Unfortunately a valve occasionally got jammed by a bit of grit or similar; the result of this was a noticeable lack of power. The cure was a weight shaped like a hockey puck attached to a strong spring, bent back and latched in position. There was a button marked "barostat hammer" at the base of the instrument panel. When pushed, the latch was released and the hammer gave the barostat housing a hearty thump. This nearly always worked.

    It may have appeared awesome and shiny from the outside, but was severely bodged on the inside. Things ain't what they used to be.

  9. #84
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2001
    Location: uk
    Even so, it's awesome and shiny in pretty much every respect compared to what I fly

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Looks like a car engine mounted on top of something that Lawnchair Larry built in his backyard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •