"EUPHOBIA" - Fear of hearing good news -

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Its a fact, look it up. Nothing to do with 'EUY2K' web site, merely coincidence that the definition is somewhat similar.

Locally our forum decided to tell the newspapers nothing about the utilities Year 2000 readiness, except by way of paid adverts.

Radio on the otherhand is being told everything, and they change nothing to achieve sensationalism. They don't need to have screaming headlines in order to sell newspapers.

Regards to all......James

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Answers

James,

The frequency of radio is much higher than newspaper. Maybe nobody is waiting to hear screaming headlines from the radio, It's a different audience.

News is something a group wants to hear. Good news is for sport. Bad news is for almost everything else.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Everything is being taken care of. No Big Problem. Two or Three Day Storm.

That's what the newspapers in the USA are saying. I guess the "screaming headlines" must be confined to SA newspapers.

Or... thanks for the laugh. Whatever.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


James,

You have already made it quite clear that you are personally doing nothing special to prepare yourself or your family for Y2k problems. So that is your "mindset". You don't seem to believe there are any serious infrastructure problems facing your own area. This flies in the face of reports that are circulating here from responsible sources that say South African businesses are in deep trouble as a result of not taking this matter seriously for the last few years. Financial planners are expecting a significant retreat from foreign investment in South Africa as a result of this data. Apparently, you disagree with those reports. Good luck to you.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Too often, the technical topics and analysis that we discuss in this forum(news pieces and other stuff) don't receive the level of discussion that I'd like. And certainly, most media, including the internet, is focused on reaching a general audience rather than subject matter experts. One of the nice things about this particular online forum is that we have a cross section of non-industry interested parties and industry folks discussing technical issues.

Even in this forum, we can't possibly cover all of the technical implications of a post like the recent post from Malcolm regarding the nature of large, resistive loads and "black start" implications. Goodness, discussion of the implications of that thread alone could occupy a two day seminar.

I think what all of the participants in this forum try to do, in their own small way, is contribute to a greater understanding of a technical problem that has very long and interconnected tentacles. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we miss the mark. On the whole, I don't think anyone here would look away or try to negate truly good news that's bounded by sound technical basis.

Some of the folks posting here (industry pro's and non-industry alike) need to examine why we accept, for instance, Malcolm's "good news", and why we don't accept some of the other "good news" at face value. I think it has to do with perceived credibility of the source, which (IMHO) stems from the technical explanations provided by the source, coupled with acknowledgement that Y2K is not, and never has been, a non-issue. (Woooo - triple negative there...)

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Rick,

I think you are on target as to why this is such a good forum.

Some of what has gone on here has been analysis of the source of information, such as GAO, NERC, etc., (not to mention individuals who post here), and the motivations behind them, which have all sorts of interconnected tentacles as well.

Either way, I notice that we, at this forum, keep returning to the sound technical basis of our individual and collective thoughts, or those of us who are non-technical, industry outsiders, wait for you and other professionals to take us back home.

Percieved credibility of the source of information, good or bad, certainly sways how we accept information. However; I don't necessarily agree that our acceptance always stems from the technical explanations provided by the source.

A lot about a person is communicated in their posts here. Especially if they post regularly. I've read posts here from worried people, helpful and concerned people, arrogant people, calm intelligent people, abbrasive people, dilligent people, and more. (Great group, great cross section of society, great representations of emotions we all go through as well). Another reason this is such a fine forum.

I don't wish to go off on a metaphysical tangent here but I expect I am not alone when I say I have a sense of who many of the persons who post here are. Some are naturally easier to accept any kind of information from, good, bad or indifferent. Some are simply abbrasive and I don't wish to connect with them.

It seems obvious that how the information is presented is as important as the information.

Serve up a steak dinner on a dirty garbage can lid and not many people will accept it. Offer a peanut butter sandwich on a paper napkin and you'll likely get a

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999



You'll likely get a lot of takers.

Hope that gets through this time.

Why do the messages get cut off?

Steve

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Steve - are you using a Mac by any chance, with IE 4.X or greater? Same thing seems to happen to me now and then when I post from my Mac.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

As I read Jame's topic line, my first thought was, "Why, when I hear info on Y2K, do I tend to view the upbeat, no-problems news with a very jaundiced eye and then nod, affirmatively, as I read the news about the problems?"

Although generally optimistic, I must admit I have learned to view many things these days with skepticism. I read spin reports that sing, "Don't worry, be happy." And then I read info from other reports and talk to folks in the industry (off the record, of course) that don't sing such a happy tune.

The media (with a few exceptions) have done nothing or, (as in the case of the recent PBS special) have been highly irresponsible. What happened to investigative reporting? Since when do we simply read from a press release issued by the industry in question?

Perhaps, come New Year's Day - the Superbowl will be on, the phone will be ringing and all of my friends and relatives will be calling me to taunt me because I was SO WRONG. I hope so - because so many of thse people I care about have not prepared, and will not believe because "no one else is talking about it." But, in the meantime, I'll just keep preparing and becoming more and more skeptical to happy talk as the days wind down.

Is my perception way off base? How do you folks feel about "Euphobia"?

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


James,

Who wants to hear how everything worked exactly as planned and the administrative meeting will be held in room 17-b-1a as planned. Let's hear about the edge of your seat, world hanging by a thread, down to the wire suspense, etc, etc story. While we are on the topic, James, how's that sprinkler system of yours doing?

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


P.S. I didn't mean to single out Malcolm to the exclusion of our other electric industry contributors. I respect all of the opinions offered in this forum, and particularly when those opinions are the result of direct experience with working the Y2k issue. I may take occasional exception to the message or method of delivery, but never to the messenger. ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Rick,

Yep. Mac, IE 4.5

Steve

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


I guess we all have our way of looking at this Y2k and electric utility situation. For me, this forum is something like a community meeting that was called to discuss electric power predictions for the Y2k rollover and beyond. I envision this forum just like an auditorium full of people with many questions and opinions, some vocal, some not, and moderated by Rick to attempt to keep some order and direction.

Now, if there were no problems or probability of problems beyond the normal ones each year, then we would be wasting our time to be here. And Rick would be wasting his time to put such a meeting together. The presumption is that there are some problems and we need to talk about it, and that is why most of us are here.

When someone like Malcolm gets up to speak, he acknowledges the problem, agrees that it can and has caused problems already at his own plant, and goes on to give us details of what they have done and plan to do for the future. He neither minimizes nor exagerates the situation. He admits that he is talking primarily hydro power, and that nuke power is not one of his areas of special experience. As he talks, we listen, because he makes good sense. When he sits down we feel we have heard something worthwhile and worth thinking about. We are encouraged to dig a little deeper, ask a little more, and learn a little more about some details of this marvelous energy source.

But, sometimes, someone gets up and says they don't think there *is* any big problem in their company, or the entire country for that matter. He says he is so unconcerned about Y2k that he will do nothing extra in preparation because nothing extra is called for. We get no details. We get no reasoning. We get an optimistic opinion and little more. When that person sits down we don't feel we have heard anything worthwhile. Personally I feel a little insulted by his way of presenting his opinion. It insinuates that we are all just gathered here under some misguided belief that the infrastructure is in danger. I end up wondering why he says what he does, in the way that he does. Rather than feeling encouraged by his statements, I feel distracted and uneasy. His statements seem to be made not so much to inform, as to control, the direction of the discussion. And the direction he wants it to go in is that there is no real problem coming.

Is it any wonder that this group, gathered to talk about a problem that we believe is real, would become impatient with someone who tries to tell us we are all going off the deep end. We have heard that opinion plenty, from friends, to government, to media spin reports. We have seen common sense shredded by official reports. We think this is something worth examining and dealing with. If someone gets up and offers us the opinion that we are all going "kooky" over a minor matter, well, I think that person will be rejected, pure and simple.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


On the subject of newspapers, I really must speak out! Our local paper, "The Estevan Mercury" has been excellent in letting the public know what's going on in our area. They just ran a 4 page article on Y2K that states the facts regarding readiness in our area. The fire department has purchased a new generator so that they will be prepared. It is clearly stated that power disruptions are not expected, but people should have extra water on hand and plans to visit a neighbor with a fireplace or woodstove should there be a power outage. There is also information on how to wrap pipes, as well as concerns relating to fire safety e.g. storing fuel, etc. We also have another publication in our area called "Lifestyles" which ONLY prints positive news - there has been the odd article on Y2K - nothing negative. And, no I don't own the newspaper (chuckle!) Many people I talk to have extra grub on hand, alternative heat or a place to go if necessary. Hey, this is Saskatchewan - brrrrr!! By the way, it snowed yesterday! Heck, I got mega back up, so my neighbors and I can stay toasty, and I'm getting to the point where I'm feeling pretty confident about the power situation in my area. But that statement from the Canadian Federal Government just keeps ringing in my ears, "And there COULD be some surprises!"

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

James,

I took your suggestion, and *tried* to look up euphobia in my thick Webster's Dictionary. Having a problem though. I found euphorbia, but that is something about a medicinal spurge. I found euphoria, which is "a feeling of vigor, well-being, or high spirits." Somehow I don't think you had that in mind for us either. But no euphobia. Are you sure that EUPHOBIA isn't one of those new names for some old African state or territory? I know they keep changing the names over there.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999


Gordon, mental disorders are diagnosed using the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) We use very few of the "phobia" titles now. Agoraphobia is one we still use. Now we use the diagnosis "Simple Phobia" (essential feature of this disorder is a persistent fear of a circumcribed stimulus, {object or situation} other than fear of having a panic attack {as in Panic Disorder} or of humiliation or embarrassment in certain social situations.) If there is sufficient anxiety associated with a Simple Phobia, the additional diagnosis of "Anxiety Disorder" may be added.

A person only gets the label of Simple Phobia if there is no basis for the phobia and the disorder is sufficient that it is disrupting the person's ability to function normally (can't go to work, can't sleep, normal eating affected, etc.)

You would not get a Simple Phobia label because there is evidence to support why you do not automatically believe certain "good news" and you are continuing to function without a major disruption in your life tasks.

Now, if you thought you had to store all the food in the world and you couldn't function in everyday life due to buying all the food in the world, we might have to add the diagnosis of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" to the "Simple Phobia Disorder."

Generally, the question is, is this reasonable behavior based on the evidence and can the person reasonably function?

Your family and friends may think you are nuts if you store water, food, fuel, however you will not be determined to have a mental disorder.

If a diagnosis was made by family and friends I would have been put away some time ago.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999



Marcella,

Thanks for that primer on mental disfunction and the DSM. That could explain the reference made by James and why I couldn't find it in the common usage Webster's. I guess James keeps one of those DSM manuals around and when recently referring to it saw that term. Then, he thought of us here, and just had to drop that porcupine in some other lap.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999


James,

It's not that we fear good news; it's just that often we do not trust the source. For years we in the United States have been routinely lied to by Presidents of both political parties. Our business institutions, including electric utilities, are primarily concerned with maximizing their profits and stock prices, not truthful disclosure of possible problems.

So when an organization like NERC, which written minutes show planned in 1998 to report all U.S. electric utilities ready by June 30, 1999, announces on June 30, 1999, that all U.S. electric utilities are ready, can you understand if we don't receive this 'good news' with unrestrained joy and relief? Please remember, the well-being of our families is at stake. If we are to err, it needs to be on the side of being 'over' prepared for any problems that might occur, not unprepared or underprepared.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999


Well this is getting far afield, but ... Steadman's Medical Dictionary has no definition of euphobia, I don't have the DSM handy, but I will attest this is not a specified, defined Axis II disorder (other than Phobic disorder), my english language dictionary doesn't list euphobia. So-called "Euphobia" may be "a fact" in South Africa it is not one in the United States. Sorry James don't mean to sound confrontational but I have no idea what you are talking about.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Paul,

So, maybe EUPHOBIA *is* a place in Africa after all, where the natives are so distrustful of political statements and promises, no matter how good they may sound, that they now have a reputation of being confirmed doubters. And maybe this is such an irritation to the spinmeisters that they now refer to anyone who doubts official statements as someone with a EUPHOBIA problem, or suffering from EUPHOBIA. James may have picked up on this local usage and is just passing it on to us so that we can be more cognizant of such terminology, obscure though it may be. He didn't really say enough about it to clue us in to his motives and thinking, but he *has* passed on other generic information in the past you know. Perhaps James is a South African version of a FactFinder and just enjoys offering up a tidbit now and then.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999


James,

As you can see, I am hoping for some clarification from you on this EUPHOBIA matter. While you are at it, maybe you could answer a few more things that are not too clear in your original posting. Who owns the newspaper that you advertise in, but won't talk to about Y2k otherwise? Who owns the radio station that you do talk to and who then pass on your story without so much as a change in wording? I think that's what you were getting at above. But the part about the screaming headlines is really puzzling. It seems as if you are saying that your *radio* doesn't need screaming headlines to sell *newspapers*. Is that it? It sounds like a strange sort of media relationship and since it doesn't work that way here, could you be a little more detailed for us?

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999


Fred L. Holtz, PhD,Psychologist defines Euphobia as a fear of good news. See: http://www.therapy-now.com/TherapyNowANXPHOBIAS.htm

Now, I could stop there, and this would suffice as the quality of research many of you do (i.e., find a negative y2k story, rumor, and immediately accept it as truth, like the Beach bug thing). Or I could let you know that my search reveals "euphobia" to be on many unofficial phobia lists, but appears not to be a real word or medical term as Marianne indicates.

Still, the word does seem rather appropriate...am picturing "Euphobia - fear of good news" in the encyclopedia with a pcture of SOME of you ...yes, Lane of course, but a few others as well! ;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Went to "therapy-now." Dr. Fred (I loved that) wants everyone to send in another phobia to go on his list. You just take the root of a word and add phobia to it (some are not roots of the word but the word itself as "telephonephobia" or some such thing.)

In my career I psychologically tested hundreds of mental patients and hundreds of "normal" patients. I tested and counseled career criminals, the learning disabled, mentally retarded, you name it. I would have been laughed out of business if I had used any of 99.999% of those words in a diagnosis. There were only a very small number of those "phobia" words that I could have used. Using Dr. Fred's method, just make up a fear and "phobiatize" it, like euy2kphobia, Rickphobia, Factfinderphobia, gosh, I'm on a roll.

I may have left a wrong impression in my prior post - Euphobia is not in my DSM and it is not in my Dorland's Medical Dictionary and for good reason. Just for you psychological people, my book is a DSMIII, I think we are up to a DSMV, or maybe DSMVI by now. Since I am retired I don't buy the latest book, but I am sure Gordonpobia is not in any of them.

I am going to quit this thread before I render a diagnosis for Factfinder without having personally tested him. That would be a big no-no in my profession. You see, we have to have the facts before making serious decisions like that.

Let's see now, electricwirephobia, generatorphobia, embeddedchipphobia, hydrophobia, nuclearplantphobia, coalplantphobia, tankerphobia, crudeoilphobia, refineryphobia - By Jove, I think I've got it!

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Marcella, sorry for my incorrect reference to you in the earlier post. And thanks for not making an unofficial diagnosis of me, lol. FYI, working in the power industry, I have did have an unauthorized treatment of "shock therapy" years ago...;)

I myself am a bit of an amateur psychologist, and feel quite compentent in this field of pseudo-science (Ref. Dr. Fred). But like you, I like to get to the facts before making a diagnosis. Being technically inclined however, I prefer brain tissue samples - diagnosis, anyone?

I like Dr. Fred's methodology for classifying these diseases however! I would also like to add to his list:

Y2kmythophobia - Fear of Paula Gordon writing more silly and technically inept letters to political leaders about the "embedded systems crisis". (Case Example: I must confess, sigh, I have this "disorder")

Nercophobia - Fear of that lying, happy faced NERC organization.

Technophobia - Fear of technical issues not understood - computers, y2k, etc.

Armegdophobia - Fear of Armegeddon. Those having this disorder hasten it's arrival by claiming it to be coming at the millenium, similar to those who, having a fear of heights, have the urge to jump...

Chipbilopobia - Fear of those 50 billion embedded chips.

Interconnectophobia = Everthing is connected - computers, data, humans. As in, "Oh, the interconnectedness of it all!" (Ennunciated in the same shrieking manner as the Hindenberg disaster radio broadcast - "the humanity of it all")

Please, feel free to add to this list...

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Once again, Pollyannas reveal that they have no desire to comprehend any position that isn't the No Problem party line. That they would rather distort and misrepresent than try to understand. That is merely a sign of their inability or unwillingess to think.

I state over and over again in my writings that MANY, MANY COMPANIES ARE DONE -- I accept that, I rejoice in that, HALLELUJAH!!!!! Take no notice of that, though: I wouldn't want anybody to actually have to think instead of sneering.

But many companies are botching the job, many companies are not going to be done, and many companies are doing nothing at all.

Those who "fear" bad news -- who outnumber those who "fear" good news by probably 10 million to one -- pay no attention whatever to these necessary distinctions.

Fear not! The sun will shine next year, and the birds will still sing. So, No Problem. LOL. :-)

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


FactFinder,

So then, Euphobia is not a fact, after all? It's just a "made up" word or term? Not officially recognized by the Psy profession as denoting anything meaningful? Kind of like "tinfoils", flying pigs, and other such terms made up by your Polly buddies. Wonder why James jumped on it then? Maybe just another area that he needs to research a bit more. He seemed to think it was a "fact", but what kind of fact is it? Hope he gets back to us to clear this up, and other questions as well.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


I have looked to this thread for reliable information and enjoy the posts of everyone here. (Including you Factfinder)

I don't fear good news at all. I look for good news but find so much bad news in the process.

98% It seems absolutely absurd to me that we are not hearing/reading that the whole dang world is 100% Y2k ready/compliant. I think I am going to have a fit if I keep hearing the (what has become standard 98% ready/compliant. Seems there are tons of organizations that are 98% complete. Seems that many of them have been 98% complete for MONTHS.

FACTFINDER Can you even admit that it is absolutely ridiculous that we have come so close to seeing the world as we know it really screwed up? We who are doomers or partial doomers wouldn't even be here for you to pester if it wasn't for the fact that this very serious problem was (and is) being addressed so late. The fact that Y2K wasn't put on the front burner for so many organizations until a couple of years ago (or less) is ....... well sickening.

We shouldn't even have to wonder if the lights will stay on. At least in the light of Y2K.

Governments and organizations have only themselves to blame for doomers being all over them.

Y2K SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Norm: "FACTFINDER Can you even admit that it is absolutely ridiculous that we have come so close to seeing the world as we know it really screwed up?"

Yes Norm, I do admit that it is absolutely ridiculous that we have come so close having serious problems in our computerized society, primarily in business software, but also to a more limited degree, embedded systems.

Norm: "Governments and organizations have only themselves to blame for doomers being all over them."

A good point. I will try to keep that in mind. Norm: "Y2K SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE."

This is true, but unfortunately, a reflection of how our society works in general. As a society, we always seem to react late to any given problem. Build new residential and business developments, then build new roads years later to deal with the increased traffic problems. Fix only what has to be fixed now, we don't have the money to fix a problem five years down the road.

Even after the millenium, we will still have potential date problems down the road unless an international date programming standard that is good for tens of thousands of years is adopted.

In the US, its called bureaucracy and capitalism. In Russia, its called bureaucracy and communism.

Lane: "Fear not! The sun will shine next year, and the birds will still sing. So, No Problem. LOL. :-)"

I agree in part, Lane :) The sun WILL shine. The birds WILL sing. But there is a Y2k computer problem. Like all computer problems, this one can and is being fixed good enough to ensure that society will not be significantly impacted. I look forward to the next millenium, and the birds, and the sun, and fishing...and life in general...I have one thing in common with the "survivalist" types, I too like to get away from the falsities of modern civilization to the "real world" of the nature that God has created. In doing so, I always see just how artificial a view of the world we make for ourselves in the cities. The Y2K "crisis" ends in just two months...enjoy it while its here...;)

Regards,

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Fact Finder,

I'm impressed. Those were very good answers and they were very well put. I really liked the way they came across.

Your communication skills have improved markedly. Keep up the good work.

Steve

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999


Highy, highly entertaining, I'm in awe of the twists and turns of the post. I've realized that the original question here is both an excellent one and one that disturbs me. Why don't I trust good news? Well, let's start with the government. 1) The President is in contempt of court for lying under oath. 2) The Vice President believes he invented the internet. Big Business, they lied about the Pinto, they'll lie about Y2K if they feel they need to. But why should I believe the bad news more then the good. What first got me worried was watching the Senate hearings. Here were career people, experts in their fields, what they said was bad and how they said it was worse. Since then I in my fallible judgment have found the arguements for great caution in approaching this problem far more convincing then the Don't worry arguements. Finally, it is getting to the point where my personal experiences are contradicting the "non- event" proclaimers. This is anecdotal but it explains why I remain cautious or perhaps pesimisstically hopeful. The e-mail bulletins at work. For example, some months ago Bretyllium (about the 3rd or 4th drug given in a cardiac ressusitation algorithm) became unavailable neccessitating "code carts" to remain stocked with technically outdated brytellium, quite honestly no big deal. Well, this week the pharmacy sends out an e-mail circular stating that Pfizer pharmaceuticals (the only FDA approved source) will no longer be making intravenous penicillin ... Hello. Yes, there are probably 20 newer antibiotics used more frequently, however, IV penicillin (Penicillin G) is still the "first line" drug for some life threatening conditions such as adult pneumococcal menningitis. The Pharmacy said they had 80 million units on hand (enough for about one patient for a week or two) and were looking for an alternate supplier. Again it may have nothing to do with Y2K but IV penicillin is no longer legally manufactured in the United States, why is this not in the news, excuse the french but unbe$%^&leivable. I would ask, if she gets a minute Ann in healthcare to give her pharmacy a call and reiterate this. Okay Y2K contradictions, Computer support will be unavailable for anything but emergencies because they WILL BEGIN replacing non-compliant PCs on Nov 1st. Expected to take 4 - 6 weeks but any IT emergencies will pull personnell off the replacement team, Whoah Nellie. Finally, of course this can't be Y2K, but new healthcare providers are "invisible" to the third party insurance group and should e-mail if their clinic slots are not full (If I were an intern, the last thing I would do is look for ways to fill up my time) so there haven't been too many responses, but a curious coinicidence. To sum up, 1) government and business have a track record of lying especially when it is in their perceived interests, 2) the people raising warning signals about Y2K appear to be established career experts in their fields without blatent conflicts of interest and in my subjective judgement are attempting to arrive at honest conclusions 3) Y2K is already something other than a non- event at my workplace and if the cause of certain work related problems is in fact Y2K related it is at this moment a real threat to health and safety. Thannks for excellent question James.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

James,

Thanks for your personal email to me with your thoughts. I am writing this last post as a parting commentary to this thread. As some here know, I spent my professional career in the flying business, commercial aviation, and so I will offer an analogy based on actual experience in that arena.

Suppose we all were on a very long overwater flight, bound for an airport like JFK that literally sits on the coast. Suppose that we were somewhere in the middle of the flight, just past the "equal time point." That's the point at which it takes as much time to return as to continue on to our destination. And let's say that a fuel line had ruptured and was leaking a lot of fuel into the air, but we didn't notice that for quite a while. By the time we did realize that some gauges were showing way too low it was also too late to do much more than shut off the fuel supply from that tank. This would now create an unusual circumstance, no longer a routine flight plan.

Suppose that our calculations, which can never be perfect, suggested that we might just have enough to make it, but maybe not. We know it will be a close call. At this point, if we do make it, we won't have the reserves to linger at all. We must get priority for a straight-in approach and landing. We also might not make it at all, close, very close, but could flame out while still over the ocean.

Now, what do we do? Do we alert our own company to this matter? Of course. Do we alert the airport to have emergency equipment standing by in case we are attempting to glide in for a landing if the engines flame out? Of course we do. Do we alert the flight attendants to our situation and have them brief and prepare the passengers for a possible ditching at sea and/or crash landing? Of course we do.

What it seems that you are constantly saying is that "it will be OK, it will be OK, no need to alarm a lot of people about this." But, telling the truth at this point *is* going to alarm a lot of people. That's the ugly facts behind our desire to do all that is possible to make it to the final landing. I am aware that you did at one point feel concerned about Y2k, but now you do not. That is your privilege. Others "in command" do not share your optimistic position. In the flight mentioned above, I certainly would not let you, or others like you, minimize the dangers of the close call we are facing. That is all I am saying. If you wish to personally believe that it is all going to turn out just fine, go ahead. But don't try to get others to minimize it, and don't try to stop emergency contingency planning, just because it will *alarm* a lot of people. And lastly, don't make fun of those who see a serious danger ahead, even if you do not.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ