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

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#141

Post by wallace_f »

morganvachon wrote: post #137
NikolaNovak wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vehic…

Republican has come to mean more "anti-authority" with respect to regulations, and not even necessarily less, but just less ones which hurt private profits. It does not really any longer mean 'against ones which hurt individual liberties.'

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#142

Post by phkahler »

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 ?!

It isn't simply accepted wisdom or opinion. Every fatal aircraft accident is investigated by the federal government until they find a root cause (and some non-fatal accidents). They don't just blame the pilot because it's convenient to blame the dead human either. Running out of fuel ranks near the top and is easy to verify. Failure to follow procedures is often a contributing factor if not a direct cause. Approach stalls are far too common, and that's simply pilot error - sorry, there's no other way to explain that. Mechanical failures happen too and are often a result of improper maintenance.

IMHO electric planes should be more reliable and easier on the pilot, but they may never really be a thing without a major breakthrough in batteries.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#143

Post by wallace_f »

ajdlinux wrote: post #118
unethical_ban wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are helmets a legal requirement in your country (Australia, I see)? As a former and future rider, I always wear a full helmet, but people have the legal right to ride without one. If we were going for maximum safety for transportation, uncaged motor transport would be prohibited.

Yes. It's also a legal requirement to wear helmets when riding a pushbike too, which is something far more controversial as there's research to suggest that the effect those laws have on reducing cycling participation has a more negative impact on visibility and safety of cyclists. But I don't think I've ever heard someone say that mandatory motor bike helmet laws are a bad thing.

The problem with your presumption that authority is good, is that it assumes the authority is somehow better at making decisions for an individual than the individual is.

There is research which shows that the trend towards higher vehicular weight is caused by drivers desire to be, or at least feel, safer. Yet this makes less economically fortunate drivers less safe, has adverse impact on the environment, and doesn't improve human welfare.

Why do we regulate helmets and not vehicular weight? It might have less to do with improving welfare and more to do with individual politics. I fear people have more of a tendency to want to be an authority over personal liberties than of unwarranted aggressions. For example, how long have people protested gay relationships, but allowed sexual harassment to persist?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#144

Post by wallace_f »

morganvachon wrote: post #138
njarboe wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free climbers, astronauts and political dissidents must also be insane, and not understand this, either? Or their utility function is simply maximized at a place where yours is not.

I wouldn't smoke, ride without a helmet, etc, but who am I to say you are wrong for doing so? There are many people who would not sign up for a trip to Mars, but I would. Who are they to tell me I am wrong for a wanting this?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#145

Post by phkahler »

cmurf wrote: post #62
IIAOPSW wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually does make a difference. The main difference between a Private Pilots License (PPL) and a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) is that you cannot fly customers for profit on a PPL (but you can fly people as favors and be reimbursed for expenses). Its hard to tell just how serious these accusations are. For instance >the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate Presumably the f…

It is not correct that a private pilot can be reimbursed for expenses. Pilots are permitted to share expenses for a common purpose. The long standing (~30 years) rule is the pilot's share can't be less than their proportionally equal share, based on the total number of people in the aircraft. The pilot can't walk away from a private flight with a net $0 cost or it isn't really a private flight, the pilot is being com…

>> ergo it cannot just be about transporting people from A to B if the pilot has no need himself to go from point A to point B.

Is that true even if there is no money involved? If your friend needs a ride from A to B and you were looking for an excuse to go flying that should be alright assuming you're not compensated for it. Or is that not right? Your parents are in another state and want to come visit, so you go pick them up via plane. That's certainly alright. I've never heard of it being an issue unless money was involved or a business trip.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#146

Post by Piskvorrr »

raverbashing wrote: post #127
userbinator wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Majority of car accidents are minor. You might end with some bruises or some damage to the car, but nothing too bad Plane accidents are much more likely to result in fatalities

[Citation-needed].

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#147

Post by philipwhiuk »

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'm sorry but you're an idiot. If you haven't got a license to drive a car you shouldn't be driving on the road without close supervision by qualified driver, much less taking paying passengers.

Qualified drivers are dangerous. Unqualified unsupervised drivers are a lethality to everyone.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#148

Post by philipwhiuk »

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 plane without a qualified pilot is ipso facto unsafe.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#149

Post by philipwhiuk »

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…

> The TapJets case hasn't even gone to court and the FAA has already punished them and issued a public statement before TapJets was even able to argue their case. They are guilty until proven innocent.

They are the regulator. They have the power to put in place temporary measures. Much like police can confiscate your driving license.

Sorry but I don't want my house squashed by a TapJet plane because the pilot got ill and the student pilot had no clue how to land the plane.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#150

Post by jrs235 »

jakobegger wrote: post #120
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.…

I’ve been to a couple of motorcycle accidents (I worked as an ambulance driver), and I was surprised how little they got hurt. Most people here only drive with full protective gear, and it helps a lot. Kids driving on mopeds, on the other hand, is a different story. Even though they only drive at low speeds, they get hurt really badly even in minor accidents because they don’t wear protective clothing. Yes, motorcycl…

Mopeds with people riding with flip flops or sandals. Shutter.
Post reply on HN