fear of flying
Comments
-
European law would need to be changed completely.
You have a right to keep illness difficulties to yourself. Likewise you have confidentiality laws with medical staff.
Many people are depressed but don't drive into a crowd of people but if course at times, some people do.
I've no real idea about depression as I've not wxperienced family members or friends with it outside of the usual mourning process etc but it must be awful.
I don't think there are any winners in such a case, I would guess that even the co pilot is a victim due to his illness if that is the final finding of the evidence.Living MY dream.0 -
We live in generation easyjet unfortunately.
Where everyone wants to fly, 'and at the cheapest price', and pilots are probably less and less scrutinised.
The public do not seem to care about these things unless A/ it effects them directly, or B/ something like this happens.
This kind of thing did not happen in the 80's. We should have been less selfish and more thoughtful of what we changed.0 -
The problem isn't the pilot who has suffered from depression.
The problem is the crazy door locking mechanism and not having a policy of 2 people in the cockpit.0 -
coriordan wrote:mamba80 wrote:So somebody with a history of mental illness is allowed to be an airline pilot????? and can hide his mental illness from his employers by no more than simply not telling them? he is mentally ill, therefore incapable of making rational decisions.
should nt it be mandatory for the medical profession to inform employers of their employees medical history where it effects their job?
To me the regulatory authorities/Governments and the airlines have failed in their jobs.
What a total load of utter bollox.
Something like 1/4 people suffer depression at one point in their life. Think about the kind of person who has other lives in their hands:
Bus drivers
Lorry drivers (easily crush oncoming traffic)
Pilots
Doctors
Air traffic control
Train operators (guys who control intersections etc)
Just because you're depressed doesn't make you suicidal nor does it make you a murderer and vice versa. I'm not sorry for calling you an ignorant pig for such a thoughtless comment.
i said mental illness, NOT depression..... this guy was suffering from far more than that, he did not commit suicide, he murdered 149 people, nor did i say anywhere that someone suffering thus should be excluded from such jobs.
but the fact remains a very ill person flew a plane into a mountain, he hide his illness from his employers and his flight training was interrupted due to mental illness, Lufthansa were also aware of his history of illness.
it is unreasonable to expect an ill person to self refer their illness.
Rather than break all the rules of the forum, why dont you engage and say what you would do? all you ve done is get angry and name call.
for some employment, mandatory reporting of mental illness should be a requirement, i sometimes have to work in a nuclear area and if i was involved in any criminal prosecution, my SC would be withdrawn and i d lose my job, rehabilitation of offenders doesnt apply and i d probably never get it back.
why dont you speak to the relatives and convince them of his suitability to fly?0 -
frisbee wrote:The problem isn't the pilot who has suffered from depression.
The problem is the crazy door locking mechanism and not having a policy of 2 people in the cockpit.
Did your mother never tell you that prevention is better than cure?
Are you seriously saying we should have unsuitable people flying planes as long as we 'manage' them whilst they are up there?
You my friend, are a looney!
If you are happy with one clinically depressed pilot, how about two? :shock:
Or one with a metal bar rather than a locked door.
"Hey Charles, what's that light flashing over there behind you?" (wallop, crash, bang)!0 -
I agree with that in fact and i apologise for my comments earlier.
As to what to do? It's a hard decision. On the one hand you could make their medical records available to the airlines but then i imagine that's the start of a downward spiral regarding who else loses their right to patent doctor confidentiality.
Listening to the news last night I got the idea that there are pretty strict guidelines as to what degree of unless makes you unfit to fly and subsequently how long you need to have been without any recurrence of illness. That said, if you are able to hide symptoms, and, as noted above, if you are inherently unwilling to disclose you're illness due to it's very nature, then that takes me back to the former paragraph.
It is also an interesting point about access to the cabin. I think there are arguments for having only 2 flight crew but then recent events show that a third may have helped avoid such a situation.
To think of a scenario which would have a similar impact, what if a coach driver drove down a cliff driving to a ski trip?0 -
You do not have to look far for the reason that plane slammed into a mountain after 8 minutes of hell.
It's right here on this forum (door closing).0 -
There is far more to this than meets the eye.
Security really is bad if we get to the grass routes of things.
I've been flying for several years and I have NEVER even been questioned about my health at the flying club yet one had full checks done.
I could fly a small airplane into a school of shopping centre of that was my plan and what questions would be asked at a later date ?
Also in the UK you can fly a plane before you can drive a car.
I know this is far removed from an airliner but a plane is a plane and hits huge speed (220mph)Living MY dream.0 -
Carbonator wrote:frisbee wrote:The problem isn't the pilot who has suffered from depression.
The problem is the crazy door locking mechanism and not having a policy of 2 people in the cockpit.
Did your mother never tell you that prevention is better than cure?
Are you seriously saying we should have unsuitable people flying planes as long as we 'manage' them whilst they are up there?
You my friend, are a looney!
If you are happy with one clinically depressed pilot, how about two? :shock:
Or one with a metal bar rather than a locked door.
"Hey Charles, what's that light flashing over there behind you?" (wallop, crash, bang)!
So what magical powers are you going to use to weed out all the pilots that don't go to their GP and say "I'm depressed."? Are you going to prevent from piloting a plane every person who has suffered the death of a loved one or other traumatic event, just in case they suddenly decide I can't go on living?
What about all the other occupations that do anything that could harm another person?
I didn't say don't allow clinically depressed people to pilot planes, I said that wasn't the root problem.
<insert witty insert here> :roll:0 -
frisbee wrote:Carbonator wrote:frisbee wrote:The problem isn't the pilot who has suffered from depression.
The problem is the crazy door locking mechanism and not having a policy of 2 people in the cockpit.
Did your mother never tell you that prevention is better than cure?
Are you seriously saying we should have unsuitable people flying planes as long as we 'manage' them whilst they are up there?
You my friend, are a looney!
If you are happy with one clinically depressed pilot, how about two? :shock:
Or one with a metal bar rather than a locked door.
"Hey Charles, what's that light flashing over there behind you?" (wallop, crash, bang)!
So what magical powers are you going to use to weed out all the pilots that don't go to their GP and say "I'm depressed."? Are you going to prevent from piloting a plane every person who has suffered the death of a loved one or other traumatic event, just in case they suddenly decide I can't go on living?
What about all the other occupations that do anything that could harm another person?
I didn't say don't allow clinically depressed people to pilot planes, I said that wasn't the root problem.
<insert witty insert here> :roll:
You said the door was the problem, not the clinically depressed pilot.
I think its fair to assume you are referring in some way to what has just happened as, so far, the locked door has only been a problem with a clinically depressed pilot behind it :roll:
Fact is that if the door was not there (your answer) the people would probably still be dead, but if the pilot was not there (my answer) they would almost certainly still be alive.
Don't ask me for all the fine details of weeding out the pilots as its not my job, but at least (as proved above) its going in the right direction!
The door is there for other security reasons, but guessing there could be an answer to those.
Getting rid of the killer pilot negates that need a bit, or just (as is usually the best answer) do both.
Bringing up other occupations is not that relevant.
Are you really saying that just because a menopausal lollipop lady could whack a few kids over the head with her sign that we should just give up on sensible measures to prevent pilots committing mass murder?
The greater the risk, the more precautions you take IMO.
You should just take sensible precautions everywhere though surely?0 -
I cannot think of a single industry where one person has the means to kill so many people, what if he d decided to crash into a city?
the coach driver might well plunge down a ravine but there would likely be survivors, plane crashes tend to offer total "success"
I am not a big fan of the 2 in the cockpit rule, this guy was a fit strong 28 yo, easily capable of over powering an air hostess.
A secure door, but with a external means of contacting air traffic control who could overide the lock, might be a better bet.
I do sympathise with the view that medical records should if at al possible be kept confidential, as other wise, some one with a transient mental illness wont come fwd for treatment and that might make matters worse but surely someone presenting with extreme symptoms, requiring time off work, should be informed upon?
oh yes, Coriordan apology accepted
0 -
Thanks mamba.
I agree with those points. In this case the chap had been declared unfit to fly and had destroyed the evidence. I think in that case (that ALONE) should his medical records be shared with the employer/flight school etc.
Whether he is receiving treatment or therapy or drugs should remain confidential unless the above occurs, which means the doctor can also sign him off as fit to fly again, and confidentiality resume.
As someone mentioned before, if someone with mental illness isn't inclined to tell the doctor, let alone employer of an illness, its even more likely, as evidenced, that they will tell their employer that they are unfit to fly.0 -
not afraid of flying, but I was wait listed (and didn't get) on a flight that crashed on take off and killed a dozen or so people, including 7 or 8 from where I lived.0
-
I used to love flying. Sick of it now. The additional pretend "security measures", less leg room and perhaps reduced tolerance for crap has ruined it for me a bit.
I enjoy the scenery and the fact that for a few hours there's nothing else you can or should be doing except sitting there relaxing/sleeping/reading/thinking. I also enjoy a nice bit of turbulence but the discomfort of the passengers around me kinda ruins it - especially if any of them get air sick. Of course for maximum fun you really want to get out of the bus with wings and into a small sailplane or aerobatic plane which I've done several times but not recently
I did my post-grad in aerospace dynamics and I've designed, built and flown model airplanes since I was a kid (although it's gone by the wayside somewhat since I got into cycling and running) so I suppose I'm comfortable with how airplanes work. I feel a lot less safe as a passenger in a car or bus than I do on a plane. It only takes a second of error or a momentary suicidal impulse for a driver to kill you and there's all those other drivers around you who have the same power over you. I feel safer when I'm driving but that's an illusion too. I know I've nearly fallen asleep at the wheel once or twice which basically means I've nearly killed myself a couple of times. When you hear about, or even see, a car crash on your commute home from work do you pull over or panic? Any vehicle has an element of risk, generally due to the driver but also to a lesser degree to the engineering and regulations. Planes are about as safe as it gets.
I know this probably won't help anyone since fear of flying is generally more a phobia than a rational fear. Still try and bear in mind, that you really have little or no reason to fear the pilot. No more than you should fear everyone you walk past on the street. Any of them could turn around and shoot or stab you, but what are the chances? So, if you can, just do the maths, dismiss it the imagined danger and relax.....0 -
Ai_1 wrote:I know this probably won't help anyone since fear of flying is generally more a phobia than a rational fear. Still try and bear in mind, that you really have little or no reason to fear the pilot. No more than you should fear everyone you walk past on the street. Any of them could turn around and shoot or stab you, but what are the chances? So, if you can, just do the maths, dismiss it the imagined danger and relax.....
Your analogy is fair enough from a general fear of flying point, but could you have said that to the people on that flight when they were in the departure lounge? No.
The fear of flying is that you worry about being on the plane that crashes, not the 1000's that do not.
You certainly should fear the pilot is suicidal, probably more than if a suicide bomber gets on board!
Hopefully there are not many of them around on european airways, and as one has now killed himself we can rest a little easier I guess, but only at the immense suffering of others.
Reports that the pilot had been treated for suicidal thoughts/tendencies.
Do you guys still think that his medical records should be confidential?
He is not the real murderer. Its all the people who failed in protecting the passengers from him, and that includes anyone/everyone who agrees with the laws that put him in that cockpit.
I guess a lot of people just want the confidentiality laws and think 'oh dear' 'glad it was not me' :roll:
Hang on though. I was almost forgetting that the co-pilot was a 'victim' himself :shock:
Well that makes everything OK then I suppose :roll: and its no different to the plane having crashed due to a bird strike or severe weather.
Get a grip people!0 -
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.Living MY dream.0 -
To me flying is just like being up in the sky in a massive lump of metal propelled by jet engines.0
-
VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
Or
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work0 -
Yes, I could and would have been correct in doing so. They should not have feared the pilot/co-pilot unless they had some way to know there was a problem. The fact that something horrible did happen doesn't change the fact that they were right to get on the plane. It makes no sense to re-evaluate retrospectively.Carbonator wrote:Ai_1 wrote:I know this probably won't help anyone since fear of flying is generally more a phobia than a rational fear. Still try and bear in mind, that you really have little or no reason to fear the pilot. No more than you should fear everyone you walk past on the street. Any of them could turn around and shoot or stab you, but what are the chances? So, if you can, just do the maths, dismiss it the imagined danger and relax.....
Your analogy is fair enough from a general fear of flying point, but could you have said that to the people on that flight when they were in the departure lounge? No.
Should all those who were killed by the tsunami in 2004 have been worried? Nothing has changed so are all those who still live by or visit low lying coastal areas being irresponsible? You're aware that car accidents happen. Does that mean you should warn everyone off travelling by car?
Obviously. The point is that unless you have a solid reason to believe a particular plane is at massively higher than usual risk, this fear is irrational and should be ignored, if you can manage it.Carbonator wrote:The fear of flying is that you worry about being on the plane that crashes, not the 1000's that do not.
No, you shouldn't. Of course controls should be in place to guard against malicious or incompetent actions endangering aircraft but we shouldn't go around fearing everything we can't guarantee against. I'm pretty sure the statistical chances of being killed by an asteroid are higher than that for dying in an airplane crash. Do you worry about asteroids a lot? It's valid to try and figure out ways to detect and prevent danger from asteroid collisions but that doesn't mean we should spend our time fearing it.Carbonator wrote:You certainly should fear the pilot is suicidal, probably more than if a suicide bomber gets on board!
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Do you think he shouldn't have been there because he'd previously been depressed? Blanket rules like that would do far more damage than they would ever prevent.Carbonator wrote:Reports that the pilot had been treated for suicidal thoughts/tendencies.
Do you guys still think that his medical records should be confidential?
He is not the real murderer. Its all the people who failed in protecting the passengers from him, and that includes anyone/everyone who agrees with the laws that put him in that cockpit.
A sensible precaution would have been to have two or more crew members in the cockpit at any given time, which I had thought was already a worldwide requirement on airlines. Seems I was wrong and it's only been an internal rule on some airlines.
Correct. Reasonable precautions should be taken but not at the expense of reasonable individual rights.Carbonator wrote:I guess a lot of people just want the confidentiality laws and think 'oh dear' 'glad it was not me' :roll:"
It may make sense to periodically screen airline pilots, train drivers and bus drivers from a psychological perspective. But employers should not be entitled to more than pass/fail information. If you take away confidentiality you reduce the chances of people seeking help in the first place.
That's a nonsense comment and you know it.Carbonator wrote:Hang on though. I was almost forgetting that the co-pilot was a 'victim' himself :shock:
Well that makes everything OK then I suppose :roll: and its no different to the plane having crashed due to a bird strike or severe weather.
Get a grip people!
What does it matter if you think the co-pilot was a victim or fully rational and malicious? No one is claiming that makes it all okay either way. Are they?
I think so.Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:0 -
Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work
Your comment is in very poor taste considering 150 people died only a week ago. Maybe next time forget that you like to argue with me and think of others for a second.
I simply posted a factual comment. It was based on law and correct. I never suggested it was foolproof and that it is followed to the T.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work
Your comment is in very poor taste considering 150 people died only a week ago. Maybe next time forget that you like to argue with me and think of others for a second.
I simply posted a factual comment. It was based on law and correct. I never suggested it was foolproof and that it is followed to the T.
No its not poor taste! My comments are in support of them.
I have not argued with you much have I? I certainly did not quote you based on it being you.0 -
So what are you saying?Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
Or
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work
Anyone who's ever had any "mental issues" should be banned from any job where they could ever harm someone? Absurd and offensive. How rare do you think "mental issues" are?
I've had friends who've told me about having suicidal thoughts. They hold down very responsible jobs. Should they be tracked down by their employers and fired?
Unfortunate events have occured and will again. Sensible precautions should be taken where possible to reduce occurrences or mitigate the consequences. But blame based, reactionary, knee jerk reactions are unhelpful, often unfair and have a habit of backfiring.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
So what are you saying?Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
Or
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work
Anyone who's ever had any "mental issues" should be banned from any job where they could ever harm someone? Absurd and offensive. How rare do you think "mental issues" are?
I've had friends who've told me about having suicidal thoughts. They hold down very responsible jobs. Should they be tracked down by their employers and fired?
Unfortunate events have occured and will again. Sensible precautions should be taken where possible to reduce occurrences or mitigate the consequences. But blame based, reactionary, knee jerk reactions are unhelpful, often unfair and have a habit of backfiring.
I don't have all the answers (because its not my job) and I am not into knee jerk reactions either.
Much better to have sensible systems in place in the first place.
Not banned from any job, but some yes. Pilot sounds sensible to me.
Rude and offensive? I don't think so personally, but if it is then so be it.
I don't think you can fly if you have had heart surgery. Do heart OP patients find it rude and offensive to be told that?
My general feeling is that we try too hard to be overly 'fair' to everyone individually, when all that does is be unfair to others, and so overall, fairness is not achieved.0 -
I think many of these precautions are already in place. Some additional ones like making it mandatory to have two crew in the cockpit at all times (as already done by many airlines) should be implemented. It's worth considering options such as ground based intervention but these would be very tricky to get right and it may well be that this option is not sensible as it might increase, rather than reduce risk.Carbonator wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
So what are you saying?Carbonator wrote:VTech wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting that the laws already cover this.
Confidentiality laws cover people up until safety of others is concerned. Your doctor can not discuss your conditions with anyone but if he believes you are about to harm others he has a duty to inform the police.
Ahh, thats ok then :roll:
So is it:
A/ Loads of pilots have been treated for mental issues but doctors have got on the phone and saved us all most of the time.
Or
B/ There was only one such pilot and that system does not work
Anyone who's ever had any "mental issues" should be banned from any job where they could ever harm someone? Absurd and offensive. How rare do you think "mental issues" are?
I've had friends who've told me about having suicidal thoughts. They hold down very responsible jobs. Should they be tracked down by their employers and fired?
Unfortunate events have occured and will again. Sensible precautions should be taken where possible to reduce occurrences or mitigate the consequences. But blame based, reactionary, knee jerk reactions are unhelpful, often unfair and have a habit of backfiring.
I don't have all the answers (because its not my job) and I am not into knee jerk reactions either.
Much better to have sensible systems in place in the first place.
No matter what measures are taken, people will occasionally be killed. The rate of occurrence is already impressively low and continuous improvements based on crash investigations should help that rate continue to drop. And yet when there is an incident people get highly concerned and want to assign blame. I don't think that's really the point.
Yes, I would say anyone believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others should not pilot a plane in that state. That does not mean permission to fly should be withheld from anyone who's ever suffered from mental illness. The same goes for all other professions where a significant risk exists. Doctors, nurses, taxi drivers, bus drivers, train drivers, many roles in the military, police, air traffic control, to name but a few.Carbonator wrote:Not banned from any job, but some yes. Pilot sounds sensible to me.
Rude and offensive? I don't think so personally, but if it is then so be it.
I don't think you can fly if you have had heart surgery. Do heart OP patients find it rude and offensive to be told that?
The reason I objected to your earlier comments is that it seems to me you are willing to endorse big compromises in terms of individual confidentiality because you see it as a way to prevent a re-occurrence of this type of incident. That approach, even if restricted to airlines, would most certainly harm many thousands of people on the off-chance of protecting a couple of hundred. It's a bad deal already. Then consider that it may well have the opposite effect and actually increase the chances of a re-occurrence since the very people you are looking to protect us from would be the ones most inclined to avoid treatment if there was no confidentiality. More concerning still is the fact that this approach would spread and soon patient confidentially would become a joke and the harm done would far outweigh the benefits.Carbonator wrote:My general feeling is that we try too hard to be overly 'fair' to everyone individually, when all that does is be unfair to others and so overall, fairness is not achieved.
As a general rule, I believe fairness to the individual is fairness to the population as a whole and is beneficial to society. Once you start accepting the loss of rights to individuals based on a perceived general good, I think you have a society that's broken.0 -
It's a complicated issue. If doctors had the right or even worse a duty to report illnesses of patients in a position of responsibility to their employers, the former would probably avoid seeing a doctor in the first place, which could result in even worse scenarios... e.g. pilots having heart failure in flight and having even more chances of developing suicidal tendencies.
I think it's a tough one, but it has to be considered as a very rare occurrence and leave it like that.left the forum March 20230 -
Exactlyugo.santalucia wrote:It's a complicated issue. If doctors had the right or even worse a duty to report illnesses of patients in a position of responsibility to their employers, the former would probably avoid seeing a doctor in the first place, which could result in even worse scenarios... e.g. pilots having heart failure in flight and having even more chances of developing suicidal tendencies....0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
As a general rule, I believe fairness to the individual is fairness to the population as a whole and is beneficial to society. Once you start accepting the loss of rights to individuals based on a perceived general good, I think you have a society that's broken.
I dont really want to argue on this any more (not least because I generally agree with what you say and appreciate a lot of your point), but just to say that generally I feel the opposite of the above.
We have gone stupidly far down the individual rights road, and I feel we are quite a broken society that is just becoming more broken
0 -
Fair enough. Agree to disagree!Carbonator wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
As a general rule, I believe fairness to the individual is fairness to the population as a whole and is beneficial to society. Once you start accepting the loss of rights to individuals based on a perceived general good, I think you have a society that's broken.
I dont really want to argue on this any more (not least because I generally agree with what you say and appreciate a lot of your point), but just to say that generally I feel the opposite of the above.
We have gone stupidly far down the individual rights road, and I feel we are quite a broken society that is just becoming more broken0 -
I'm 42 now and when I was 10-15 we left home in a Saturday with our mates and dos a round of golf on the pitch and put and then got the bus and train to Solihull Tudor grange swimming baths.
We left around 8am and got back around 7pm and did this for years.
I've just been sat with some people we met here in Spain talking about kids going swimming and neither them not my wife would allow our kids to do the same. Both mothers thinking it wrong and dangerous.
I agree that bad things can happen but we are stopping kids from "learning the ropes" because of our fears.
I don't think modern times are more dangerous, I think the news is better at getting information to the masses which scares peolple.
I tend to take my kids to places and bring them back so I'm just as guilty but at the same time, when I think about it I feel it's a shame for them.Living MY dream.0 -
Unusually, I agree with you.VTech wrote:I'm 42 now and when I was 10-15 we left home in a Saturday with our mates and dos a round of golf on the pitch and put and then got the bus and train to Solihull Tudor grange swimming baths.
We left around 8am and got back around 7pm and did this for years.
I've just been sat with some people we met here in Spain talking about kids going swimming and neither them not my wife would allow our kids to do the same. Both mothers thinking it wrong and dangerous.
I agree that bad things can happen but we are stopping kids from "learning the ropes" because of our fears.
I don't think modern times are more dangerous, I think the news is better at getting information to the masses which scares peolple.
I tend to take my kids to places and bring them back so I'm just as guilty but at the same time, when I think about it I feel it's a shame for them.
The world has not become a more dangerous place. The statistics show that humans worldwide are, in general, better educated, more equal, longer lived and in less danger from violence or abuse than in the past. That's not to say everything is as we would wish it, but it's not so bad.
Nevertheless, you repeatedly hear people talking like the world has gotten much more dangerous with all the predators out there trying to get you, your kids, your country. Danger hasn't increased. "News" has.
News media rarely if ever reports normal activities or occurrences that will not evoke a response from listeners/viewers. The news is entertainment, not a reference work. It does not provide an accurate impression of reality since it is massively selective in the portion of reality that it conveys. On top of that, people respond much better to negative than positive news stories. If we hear about good things happening to others we envy them, feel left out and feel bad more so than we empathize and are happy for them. If something horrible happens to others, we're relieved it's not us. Schadenfreude (spelling?) is at the heart of news stories. News is not in the business of telling you what you need to know, it's about keeping you listening and is essentially entertainment. So what happens? We listen to the news and think the world is a horrible place. We're relieved our little bit seems better than most but we worry more and more about all the things that could go wrong. Most of the big ones, that really can or will go wrong never really get much attention but the really awful and scary stuff that thankfully is pretty unlikely for most of us, gets loads of airplay and is foremost in many people's minds. Air crashes and shark attacks for example kill such a minute proportion of the population it deserves almost zero airplay. Terrorist attacks similarly kill a tiny number in the big picture, although terrorism does does effect other aspects of world politics.
On average, children will not be harmed or die because you let them walk to school or disappear all day playing with their friends without supervision. They will however be harmed or die because they are unfit, overprotected & underdeveloped, and risk blind. They will also have lives much less worth living!
As with air travel. There are risks, but they are very small (not as small as air travel but still small) so I believe these risks can and should be accepted. Obviously, controls and mitigations that reduce the risks further are to be applauded but only IF they do not impose excessively on the worthwhile pursuit of living.0
