The second is a “favorite” only because of a story. My company was doing some work in the offices of Terrafugia, a street legal aircraft. We were at one side of the warehouse/factory, trying to figure out some construction for the offices. At the far end was a prototype, hooked up for testing. After a short but very loud test, the man running it yelled across the warehouse, telling us we should have our safety glasses on. (It’s true, there were signs saying they should be worn in the “factory”, but we were in and out of the offices and the guide showing us didn’t seemed too concerned with this when we started. We were finished so we left.
Afterwards, I puzzled about this. Yes, safety glasses were important – that wasn’t the objection. But – if a part of a fully running aircraft engine flew off, thrown 100+ feet away to hit me, my eyes wouldn’t be the only thing I’d be worrying about!
I did have mixed feelings about these “flying automobiles” – they were promised long before I was born. Since I’m sure the non-disclosure agreement has lapsed and details are fuzzy, I guess I could say they were two-seaters vehicles that would be useful in more open areas than the Boston suburbs. I certainly would have doubts driving one on 128, or any Boston streets, though it is the size of a small car. A person I knew then would have bought it to skip most of the rush hour traffic (she was a small-plane pilot), jumping from a small grass airport near her house to a suburban airport, then drive the rest of the way into Boston.
But the safety glasses? That was not looking at the big picture thinking.