Really? So I implied the crash was amusing or not serious?
It was a crash I knew about although the jet in question was different than the poster said (727 vs. 737) but it did have an impact on aircraft separation rules. I didn’t make any comment other than giving a reference the poster may be looking for so what did I write that got you so bothered?
I am quite mystified why anyone thought Saint Cad was being funny.
I’ve be perusing this thread for a few days now and I too don’t get where someone thought there was a bad joke made… 
That misinterpretation was my fault.
There was nothing about that accident that had anything to do with ATC procedural or wake turbulence separation (the immediately previous discussion topic). Absolutely nothing about wake turbulence separation was changed as a result of that accident.
Knowing that, *I *misinterpreted his comment as being essentially a joke that separation between the colliding aircraft had reduced itself to zero, which was clearly too close together for safety. IOW, I thought his message was “keep airplanes farther apart or this (link to accident article) is what happens.”
If that’s not what he meant I apologize to him and all others confused by my comments.
LSLGuy and Morgenstern are the same member?
You read a lot more into my post than I put there. I even admitted in my post that the large plane in question was different than the poster put BUT the San Diego crash is pretty infamous AND is obliquely related to some rule changes about separation (admittedly for visual rather than turbulence wake related reasons) and I put it up thinking “Maybe he is talking about this one and misremembered some of the details. At least it’s worth a shot.” I’m very offended that you would think I would joke about any plane crash - especially one that killed children.