In a moment of irony, I came across, just in the last few days, a recording of a radio talk show I hosted in Maryland ten or so years ago. This particular episode featured a round table conversation with a panel made up of regular folk and celebrities talking about any and all things on our radar at the moment.
At that particular moment, circa 2002, what was on our radar was a tragic crash at an air show that had killed or injured scores of spectators.
The gist of our round table chat centered on what we all agreed was a pretty "common sense" theme.
Why air shows don't simply make it a policy to have the fliers perform far enough away to allow spectators to enjoy the skills and thrills while minimizing any chance that a malfunctioning plane will come crashing down on those spectators.
The panel was a diverse group, all political and personal persuasions, both genders and pretty much all education and/or income levels.
To a guest, we all agreed that it was, at best, foolish and, at worst, criminal to choreograph these shows in a way that had the planes flying directly, or anywhere that could be defined as directly, over the heads of the lawn chairs filled with locals.
The only "devil's advocacy" any of us could offer was the pretty lame argument that the farther away you fly them, the "harder" it is to see them.
And we all agreed...
That was, in fact, a pretty lame argument.
The more obtuse, knee jerk rebuttal to that argument here usually goes something like this.
The roar of the engines and the proximity of the fly by is a large part of what makes these shows such a thrill.
Ten years ago, a nice group of people sat with me in a radio studio and agreed that, in that moment, circa 2002, there were a lot of friends, families and loved ones who would do anything to turn back time and do without some recently experienced thrills.
This weekend, another group of friends, families and loved ones are in the same boat.
Or plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment