comment: >
  
  Remember that planes are the most advanced method of travel, only operated by those with tens of thousands of hours of experienced, monitored and directed by a network of dedicated watchers who do nothing but make sure everything is working, and the planes can basically fly themselves when given permission to do so.
  Flying is beyond safe.
  What's dangerous is getting into a line of distracted, tired,  unmonitored, annoyed and angry humans directing two or three tons of unmaintained steel and rubber who haven't been provided active training or assessment since they were unable to vote.
  It's a miracle we get home safely from getting taco bell.
  In this case, the concern is that the plane's brakes went from being 100% reliable to 99% reliable. So to make sure that everyone stays safe the plane will have a full checkup done to get the reliability up to 100%.
context: Here's the article's description of what happened:
  
  The FAA said a Boeing 737 operated by Delta Air Lines stopped its takeoff around 8:45 p.m. when air traffic controllers noticed another American Airlines aircraft crossing the runway. The Delta flight “stopped its takeoff roll approximately 1,000 feet” from the point where the American Airlines Boeing 777 had crossed, according to the FAA’s preliminary analysis. >
  
  From another article on this story, the current information suggests Air Traffic Control instructed a plane to turn at a certain intersection, but they turned at the wrong one, which put them into the path of another plane beginning to take off. Traffic Control was able to get the pilots to stop, however. Quick and great work by all involved if accurate. >
  
  Well... All except for the pilot that turned at the wrong intersection. >
  
  I make a mistake at work, someone down stream is mildly inconvenienced for a few minutes. Pilots make a mistake, it's a headline. I'll take my spreadsheets please and thank you. >
  
  Right? Jesus lmao
  I don't understand what kind of fortitude it takes to do high risk/sensitive jobs where mistakes mean lives or other destruction. I certainly don't have it. >
  
  Agreed. That's why I asked my boss to stop telling me what my work is used for. >
  
  And the airlines are lobbying to get one pilot removed from every plane for cost cutting measures! What a great time to do that. >
  
  I can't imagine the public willing to fly on a plane with crew of one. About a month ago a pilot died shortly after takeoff and the plane returned to the airport safely. >
  
  But... but... 
  THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!!! >
  
  They were just trying to high five! >
  
  A couple of years ago my wife was coming into SFO and her plane had to pull up at the last minute because another plane was on the runway. She gets nervous flying now which I can understand. Seems pretty dangerous. >
  
  It’s not too uncommon for something like that to happen. As long as everyone was monitoring the situation it’s not a big deal.
  It the plane that landed in front of them “missed their turn” off of the runway, they have to “take the next exit”.  If that happens, the plane behind them will see if they exit the runway in time, with both The tower and your pilot monitoring the situation.  And you have to get past the line to be fully off the runway before the runway is considered “empty”. So they might have been physically clear, but not clear enough with some extra room for safety. 
  If the plane that missed their turn isn’t clear, your wife’s plane will go around, and there was never a reduction in safety. 
  I’ve done this in a little Cessna before.  I was thinking “I’ll probably be safe, the guy is starting to exit.”   Then i realized what what was drilled into my head, probably safe isn’t safe enough. “If in doubt, go around!”  And I did a go around. It’s a total non-event. >
  
  The airline industry has put it in reverse. They’re FUBAR !!! >
  
  Hard to take an article seriously that misquotes the ATC audio as “cancel takeoff plans.”  WTF. >
  
  Sounds more like "cancel takeoff clearance" doesn't it? >
  
  That’s exactly what was said.  Because that’s what they had… a takeoff clearance. >
  
  Yeah "plans" is not standard language. Journalists suck. >
  
  Some journalism for basic news articles is computer generated, probably most soon given AI >
  
  AA pilots fucked up. End of investigation. >
  
  So you're saying to boycott airlines because of a lack of focus on safety... in a post about a situation where safety measures prevented a collision and an investigation is about to be conducted by the relevant government agency? >
  
  A near miss of this caliber is serious. Did you miss the part where I said someone was sucked into a jet engine recently too? That's not a near miss. >
  
  Hence the investigation to figure out what went wrong, why it happened, and how to prevent in the future. >
  
  Here's the article's description of what happened:
  
  The FAA said a Boeing 737 operated by Delta Air Lines stopped its takeoff around 8:45 p.m. when air traffic controllers noticed another American Airlines aircraft crossing the runway. The Delta flight “stopped its takeoff roll approximately 1,000 feet” from the point where the American Airlines Boeing 777 had crossed, according to the FAA’s preliminary analysis. >
  
  From the story:
  "'The safety of our customers and crew is always Delta’s number one priority,' the representative said in a statement. 'Delta will work with and assist aviation authorities on a full review of flight 1943 on Jan. 13 regarding a successful aborted takeoff procedure at New York-JFK. We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay of their travels.'
  A spokesperson for American Airlines said the company will defer to the FAA for comment."
  I think we can tell the guilty party right there. >
  
  "We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay of their travels." The absolute money line lol - they know they did good and that customers were happier to stay alive, yet kept it kind of humble >
  
  I think I would have been happier if the crew took a moment to regroup and proceeded to take off >
  
  It's not just about the crew's nerves, that sort of rejected takeoff puts a lot of wear and stress on the aircraft's tires, brakes and all assorted systems in proximity (such as hydraulics, which also operate the aircraft's control systems). Going back to the gate and rebooking the passengers is the mechanically appropriate move. >
  
  So, you're telling me that an airplane stops suddenly but 1000 feet from the area it is trying to avoid and it can no longer be trusted to be mechanically sound? This is not helping my fear of flying at all.