Talk:Failing badly

Merge

Disagree - this article stands well enough on its own, especially in its contrast of failing well / failing badly. Full disclosure, I wrote this article. MadMaxDog 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Armored (or Armoured if you prefer) cockpit doors

They don't exactly fail well if a hijacker/suicide pilot is already IN the cockpit. Or if the cockpit loses pressure and the pilots go unconscious. In both cases the cabin crew and passengers are doomed, thanks to the armored door. It would cover failing well from the point of airport security, but if the cockpit is somehow already compromised, then that would be more of a failing badly. The Phool (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but that example is actually from the original article (I thought I remembered it, and just checked - yes) and so I'm reluctant to remove or qualify it - it may only work as an example in certain circumstances, but as the article was written primarily from a security viewpoint, it makes sense. Ingolfson (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) what does this mean? I ask nothing of you but to tell me. Plese!

example

an interesting,but tragic, example that could be added is the way that the cellars were modified in Dresden. instead of having isolated cellars under buildings, they were interconnected and separated by only thin walls. the idea was that if one building collapsed or started compromizing the shelter under it, the refugees could destroy a wall and flee to an adjacent building. the thought was probably that if one compartment failed, we can fail well, by letting the inhabitants escape. unfortunately this led to spreading of fire and panic when refugees fled their collapsing shelters into adjacent cellars, and in the end, large quantities of victims were found when they eventually succumbed to flames, lack of oxygen or being simply trampled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.241.43 (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)