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

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#131

Post by TeMPOraL »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #109
sk5t wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Cars are safe too - most of the traffic deaths happen because of the drivers, not because of the hardware.

I think when GP wrote "commercial airliners are safe... small private craft, not as much", they meant it from the POV of a passenger.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#132

Post by TeMPOraL »

ghaff wrote: post #119
chx wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I didn't downvote but I assume it's because you made IMO a pretty ridiculous, or at least completely unactionable statement. Life, including modern life, is all about balancing costs and benefits. One of the benefits (for most people) of modern life is that you can hop in a car and drive places. A strict training and licensing regime along with other rules and regulations similar to those that apply to pilots, especi…

> A strict training and licensing regime along with other rules and regulations similar to those that apply to pilots, especially commercial and military ones, is incompatible with that benefit.

The full set of regulations maybe, but I believe you could retain the "most adults can drive" level while making everyone go through much stricter training and licensing regime. Right now in Europe and US, the required training and examinations are ridiculously weak (amounts to basically explaining the UI of the car and going over the basic maneuvers until the point you no longer spectacularly fail at them). It only shows that as a society, we never grew the required respect for the driving. I think it's because back when the expectations set, there were much less cars on the road.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#133

Post by TeMPOraL »

Zhenya wrote: post #64

If I were tapjets, I would probably not want my legal counsel saying that tapjets is like airbnb and uber. 2 companies which continue to operate in sometimes murky legal areas. " Just like Uber, Airbnb, and other successful companies that changed the status-quo, TapJets Inc. is now facing push-back by government regulators," said Debra Fein, Corporate Counsel for TapJets, " TapJets denies any wrongdoing, denies all a…

Yup.

I find this to be a good litmus test. If someone takes pride in calling themselves "like Uber, AirBnB", then I personally will not do business with them. Both companies are primarily known for exploiting and breaking laws for a quick buck, and Uber in particular is also widely recognized as run by a bunch of antisocial assholes.

It's doubly stupid to call yourself that when you're responsible for the very lives of your customers, like in this case...

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#134

Post by yazr »

tialaramex wrote: post #56
mikestew wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial flights, yes, and that’s because we certify and license the crap out of such things. And thus we circle back around to parent’s point. I don’t have a source at hand, but IIRC flying a private plane is one of the better and more reliable ways to get yourself hurt or killed.

Yup. There are hundreds of fatal plane crashes in the US every year. Mostly private pilots, a few charters and other commercial but non-scheduled flights such as medical evacuation. People often say things like "Plane crashes are very rare" but they're (often unconsciously) conflating "Plane crash" with "Scheduled commercial aviation accident resulting in fatalities". _Plane crashes_ happen all the time, because peop…

Is this the accepted wisdom or your opinion?

What i mean - is the dominant cause human error, or is it just normal, random failures paired with a low margin environment ?!

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#135

Post by TeMPOraL »

acct1771 wrote: post #88
sidlls wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the kind of defense a guy caught at a massage parlor would use. "That tip is for the massage, not the sex."

Or "this is the fee to join our pot club, the weed comes free"? (If I'm not mistaken, this is how many of the first jurisdictions handled it). If the law is broken, fix it? The whole "spirit of the law" thing is what leads us to political attacks being made with laws. Either it's illegal, or it's not, and if we as a society should decide we want it to be, then it will be.

> If the law is broken, fix it? The whole "spirit of the law" thing is what leads us to political attacks being made with laws.

Reality doesn't work that way. In fact, the whole reason for the ballooning of regulations everywhere is an attempt to make things more about "the letter" than "the spirit".

Reality is fucking complicated, as every programmer who ever tried to model or simulate anything from real life should know (and if one didn't have that experience, I recommend reading [0], recently discussed on HN). "Letter of law" is like code - in attempt to capture all the relevant details, it gets fractal in handling corner cases to corner cases. But, the best thing about humans is that our intelligence allows us to comprehend the intent behind something even without understanding all the relevant details and corner cases. This is what "spirit of law" exploits, and why it's a great tool at reducing complexity.

Having everything run on "letter of law" is practically impossible today, and would definitely not be practically usable with laws in textual form.

(This is, incidentally, why "smart contracts as laws" are stupid - computers can't understand intent, so you're enshrining some hard rules that will always be buggy and full of loopholes.)

--

[0] - http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-...

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#136

Post by Karrot_Kream »

yazr wrote: post #134
tialaramex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. There are hundreds of fatal plane crashes in the US every year. Mostly private pilots, a few charters and other commercial but non-scheduled flights such as medical evacuation. People often say things like "Plane crashes are very rare" but they're (often unconsciously) conflating "Plane crash" with "Scheduled commercial aviation accident resulting in fatalities". _Plane crashes_ happen all the time, because peop…

Is this the accepted wisdom or your opinion? What i mean - is the dominant cause human error, or is it just normal, random failures paired with a low margin environment ?!

Aviation is a game of low margins but there's a _lot_ of training around how to handle those margins. Maximum wind speeds, maximum weight, distribution of weights, checklists for checking your engine and airframe and all that. Almost all aviation accidents are pilot error.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#137

Post by morganvachon »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #79
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?

Sometimes I forget the USA centric nature of forum until I read riding without helmet is legal... :0 I've see motorcycles without helmet last time I was down south in the fall and it scares the absolute beejesus bonkers out of me :/ (I've been riding for a decade, do occasional dirt trails, and have doing motorsport rallying a while back, but never enough of a daredevil to mount a bike without helmet and armour)

> Sometimes I forget the USA centric nature of forum until I read riding without helmet is legal... :0

It varies by state; this is one of those occasions where the federal government leaves it up to each state to mandate as they please. You might be surprised to learn that Georgia, a deeply Republican (i.e. anti-regulation) state, has strict requirements for motorcycle safety including mandatory helmets for any vehicle classed as a motorcycle.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#138

Post by morganvachon »

njarboe wrote: post #115
AluminiumPoint wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely insane, it is an irrational risk NOT to wear a helmet. Here are some cdc facts: * Helmets saved an estimated 1,772 lives in 2015. * If all motorcyclists would have worn helmets in 2015, 740 more could have been saved. * Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%. * Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/mc/index.html Wear your helmet. Do it for yourself and your f…

It is insane to ride a motorcycle. Once you decide that you want to risk riding a motorcycle for pleasure, maybe the increased pleasure of not wearing a helmet is worth it. Why would you ride a motorcycle at all for pleasure, if your philosophy of life is safety first?

Because safety and pleasure are not mutually exclusive. If your question was valid, skydivers wouldn't use parachutes and skiers would wear shorts and tank tops.

Just because one wants to enjoy a risky activity doesn't mean one has no common sense or self-preservation instinct.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#139

Post by tomohawk »

AluminiumPoint wrote: post #114
njarboe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Absolutely insane, it is an irrational risk NOT to wear a helmet. Here are some cdc facts: * Helmets saved an estimated 1,772 lives in 2015. * If all motorcyclists would have worn helmets in 2015, 740 more could have been saved. * Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%. * Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69% https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/mc/index.html Wear your helmet. Do it for yourself and your f…

It's just insane to ride a motorcycle in the more populated areas of the US - with or without a helmet. A friend of mine works in a skilled nursing facility. Most of the younger males who end up there are because motorcycles. While wearing helmets saved their lives, many of them will be disabled in some way the rest of their lives.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#140

Post by amptorn »

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.

> having someone who is not certified driving the car

You mean, someone who hasn't passed a driving test? Or someone who had their license revoked?

Post reply on HN