Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#101

Post by kj65557 »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #95
kj65557 wrote: post #92

There is no safety concern here, it's purely bureaucratic and political. Many GA planes are 100% legal and safe to be flown with one pilot. The question here is whether or not this was a commercial (part 91) operation or a charter (part 135) operation. If passengers (friends and family) were not paying, it seems sensible to treat this like any other general aviation (private) flight, but the FAA is notorious for not…

Pilot here. The FAA is overly bureaucratic in some ways, but the safety record of modern commercial air travel is incredible, and that bureaucracy is partly responsible. More to the point, there’s not enough information here to assess whether the FAA is overreacting, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt over an anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

> newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant part of the discussion.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#102

Post by kj65557 »

dweekly wrote: post #99
kj65557 wrote: post #92

There is no safety concern here, it's purely bureaucratic and political. Many GA planes are 100% legal and safe to be flown with one pilot. The question here is whether or not this was a commercial (part 91) operation or a charter (part 135) operation. If passengers (friends and family) were not paying, it seems sensible to treat this like any other general aviation (private) flight, but the FAA is notorious for not…

A few thoughts here, responding to a comment where nearly all of the facts stated are wrong and/or ignorant. Caveat 1: I'm not an aviation lawyer, or indeed licensed to practice law of any kind. Caveat 2: I am a licensed rotorcraft PPL, certified to fly helicopters non-commercially so I have a marginal amount of study of the FAR/AIM. Now, some background. There are three primary ways to accomplish a flight: A) Part 9…

Thanks for the correction on part 135 vs 131. I see your point but a perfect safety record doesn't preclude overreacting to fairly minor infractions.

I would be interested to know exactly what model of plane they we're flying with a student pilot in the right seat.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#103

Post by labcomputer »

userbinator wrote: post #85
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My life insurance policy specifically denies a claim if I'm flying general aviation (private plane). It is that much more dangerous than commercial (on par with driving in a car). https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pr... "The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, 94 percent of fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation. That category includes private…

on par with driving in a car ...which people in general seem to have no particular fear of.

From the user to whom you're replying:

> [...] show that general aviation aircraft average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines.

So the accident rate for GA is over 40 times higher than commercial.

On top of that, around three quarters of these fatal accidents are the result of what could be broadly categorized as pilot error... Which is why the FAA has such a stick up its butt about the licensing status of the TapJets pilots.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#104

Post by ajdlinux »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My life insurance policy specifically denies a claim if I'm flying general aviation (private plane). It is that much more dangerous than commercial (on par with driving in a car). https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pr... "The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, 94 percent of fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation. That category includes private…

Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the winter without three layers on?

I don't know about life insurance, but I know every travel insurance policy I've ever taken out specifically excludes skydiving and skiing unless you pay extra for a special policy.

Also, motorcycles without helmets!?!?!?!?!?!?!? America, I presume?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#105

Post by chx »

pliftkl wrote: post #14
Waterluvian wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help a layperson. Do you mean a company that competes by cutting corners with safety?

Not the person you are responding to, but as someone who probably feels the same way, I'm ok with someone disrupting my local taxi monopoly by having someone who is not certified driving the car that is taking me to the airport, because I can largely agree that most humans can drive a car. I'm much less ok with the person flying my airplane not being certified.

> I can largely agree that most humans can drive a car.

This is a society level agreement I am absolutely baffled by. Most people can't or at least not well and there are not studies I know into this. Reflexes, decision making processes etc are all lacking in case something bad happens.

Edit: thanks for the swift, numerous downvotes! Care to link a few studies so I can learn more where I am wrong?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#107

Post by biocomputation »

kj65557 wrote: post #101
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilot here. The FAA is overly bureaucratic in some ways, but the safety record of modern commercial air travel is incredible, and that bureaucracy is partly responsible. More to the point, there’s not enough information here to assess whether the FAA is overreacting, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt over an anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

> newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day. Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant part of the discussion.

> Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant part of the discussion.

Using the word 'sock puppet' implies that you are speaking for someone else and that you might have a hidden agenda. Thus, your tenure on HN is indeed relevant in this case.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#108

Post by Dylan16807 »

doodles526 wrote: post #78
eblanshey wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I am qualified to fly the aircraft safely. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

There is an extreme difference in the number of hours and required training between your SPL/PPL/CPL/ATPL. Eg: For fixed wing, you can get your PPL within 35 flight hours at a Part 141 School. Your ATP comes at a minimum of 1500 hours, and you are required to know much more about emergency recovery. The regs in place regarding minimum requirements for carrying passengers and performing commercial ops are there for ve…

That's very informative, but it doesn't quite answer the question.

Why are you allowed to have passengers with a PPL if it's so dangerous?

And why does that reason stop applying when the passengers pay?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#109

Post by jsmthrowaway »

sk5t wrote: post #36
saddlerustle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars

Well, commercial airliners are safe... small private craft, not as much.

General aviation aircraft are quite safe. I don’t have data on hand to back this up on mobile, but I’d wager more than half (honestly, more) of those GA incidents are pilot error, whether operationally or maintenance-related. Checklist culture and attention to detail is important, and has reasons for existing.

It’s a perfectly fine hobby if you respect it, and there’s no sense discouraging otherwise qualified folks from flying. GA is already in severe decline.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#110

Post by njarboe »

ajdlinux wrote: post #104
unethical_ban wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the winter without three layers on?

I don't know about life insurance, but I know every travel insurance policy I've ever taken out specifically excludes skydiving and skiing unless you pay extra for a special policy. Also, motorcycles without helmets!?!?!?!?!?!?!? America, I presume?

Many people ride motorcycles for pleasure in America. Motorcycles are a dangerous mode of transportation (more than cars, buses, etc.), even if you wear a helmet. If you are going for maximum pleasure/risk then, if the pleasure is much higher without a helmet, it is rational to not wear one, if you are riding for pleasure.

Commuting on a motorcycle, you should wear a helmet. Pleasure ride on the weekends, maybe not. Let the person make the decision. Seems good to me. America.

Post reply on HN