It was immediately moved to IMHO for speculative answers by Colibri, I replied straight away that I hoped that this was a case where factual answers were possible. After all, catastrophic failure of an aircraft is a slim but real possibility so this must have come up at some point in real life, for once I’m not asking about bizarre time-travel hypothetical. It was inspired by this similar thread on aircraft emergencies, which seems to me to require the same amount of speculation yet is still in GQ.
Really don’t wanna make a big deal out of this as it isn’t, but two days ago I asked in the thread it be moved back, PM’d the mod who moved it then finally reported my own post so one of the IMHO mods could take a look, but have had no response. Two other posters have said that GQ would be a better fit. Can it be booted back?
As I thought might be the case, in 50+ posts, no actual factual answers have been provided on official airline policy or guidelines in such cases (as you implied you were looking for in the OP). Two anecdotal examples of actual emergency announcements were given. All the remaining replies have been speculation, anecdotes about non-emergency situations, and jokes. The other thread you cite doesn’t require speculation, but rather calculations based on the known properties of aircraft in emergencies, so was best placed in GQ. I would also note that giving a GQ thread a jokey title, as was the case here, tends to encourage non-serious answers.
I apologize for not replying to your PM, but I did reconsider the move, and after reviewing the thread still thought it was best suited to IMHO. As has been said before, a thread being in IMHO doesn’t prevent people from providing factual answers, it just allows greater leeway in responses.
Hmm, I see where you’re coming from Colibri but have a couple of thoughts on this; namely that as far as I know anecdotal examples in GQ are a-ok, I expected such answers as I imagine any official airline guidelines on this subject are hush-hush for obvious reasons, but thought I’d ask if anyone had extra info. I’ve also used plenty of jokey titles in GQ mainly so they’ll be less dry or in this case morbid, it’s never been a problem before as long as they’re descriptive. I would hope my thread wouldn’t require speculation without facts either, there must be a concrete answer as companies/pilots must have been confronted with this issue before.
Like I said I don’t want to fall out over it, but I wasn’t particularly interested in IMHO-type replies on the topic. It was moved immediately so I’m not sure what reviewing it after 50 replies tells you, as all of those were IMHO responses.
Like I said, being in IMHO doesn’t preclude posting factual information if it’s available. I think if people had real info they would have posted it by now, even in IMHO. While some anecdotes are expected in GQ, if the preponderance of responses are anecdotes IMHO is a better place for it.
I wouldn’t say “This is your captain speaking: AAAARGH!” is the most descriptive thread title I’ve ever seen. If it had been something like “Are there official guidelines for airline announcements in the case of a certain crash?” I would have been less likely to have moved it.
The bottom line is, if you really want factual answers and don’t want IMHO type answers, in my experience it’s best to ask your question straight up, without jokes or side commentary. The more leeway you allow in the OP, the more you’re going to get jokes and sidetracks.
If it had been something like “Are there official guidelines for airline announcements in the case of a certain crash?” I would have been less likely to have moved it.