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

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#161

Post by NikolaNovak »

rz2k wrote: post #117
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)

Riding without a helmet is not universally legal in the US. In the past there was pressure from the federal government on state governments to enact more universal laws about wearing helmets. Now many states only require that young riders wear helmets and a handful don't have any rule. Here is an overview with a map, too: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse/mapmotorcycle...

Thanks! Appreciate the further info! :>

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#162

Post by ryanwaggoner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #100
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when you apply, they ask if you do or plan to do any of these things. If so, they may decline to offer a policy, or offer one with a rider that excludes those activities. I’m a low-time pilot and my life insurance won’t cover me for plane crashes either.

If you’re interested, AOPA has partnered with providers who will extend life insurance with no GA exclusions. Check out their website for more info.

Yeah, I've looked at AOPA and others but I'm a bit too low-time to get favorable rates, and now I'm a lapsed pilot who hasn't flown in a few years, so it's on the backburner for now. Thanks though!

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#163

Post by Marazan »

rlkf wrote: post #122
gumby wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the next step in airline unbundling: Pay extra for a seatbelt! For a floatation device! And take the business-class flights that features actual trained pilots!

You may say this in jest, but RyanAir actually applied for permission to do flights with unseated passengers. Fortunately, we still have an aviation authority (in Norway) wise enough to throw it out, sneering.

No they didn't. It was pure media hogwash from Ryanair that got them lots of column inches of free advertising.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#164

Post by njarboe »

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…

I agree. I have been in a pretty serious motorcycle "accident". Broke my wrist and banged up my ankle pretty bad. Full helmet (with a big scrape on it where I hit the ground), leather jacket (again, nice scrape on the back), jeans, and high boots. Glad I was wearing them. But I have ridden without a helmet (legal in NM at the time) a few times when the weather was right and I'm on a shortish, easy joy ride. Worth the risk for me in those few instances. It is also great to be able to give someone else a short ride on a whim and let them wear your helmet, while you go without. Not a big plus for me to live in a place where everything that the majority thinks is imprudent is illegal.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#166

Post by cmurf »

phkahler wrote: post #145
cmurf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pi…

Pretty much it's about sharing expenses. But if I go by myself from A to B, neither expense sharing or common purpose applies. But then B to A is taking my mom/friend as well as myself back home. So that voyage is common purpose and if there are two people the cost of that direction can be split 50/50 (or I can pay a bigger share, I just can't pay less).

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#167

Post by kj65557 »

biocomputation wrote: post #107
kj65557 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm long time HN news lurker and student pilot. My only conflict of interest is that I find the FAA a pain in the ass (and seeing this article encouraged me to finally post something).

I didn't even know about TapJets until yesterday but find it amusing that people think I'm a sockpuppet.

Does US airspace have a good safety record? Yes. Is that mutually exclusive from the FAA overreacting? No.

I think they 100% should be investigated but unless something legitimately risky is happening then I really just have to roll my eyes at this emergency order. FAA policy is heavily influenced by airlines so it would be unsurprising if this was more politically motivated than anything, but until I hear more specifics about the models of plane used I'll wait and see.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#168

Post by kj65557 »

biocomputation wrote: post #111
kj65557 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I see your point but a perfect safety record doesn't preclude overreacting to fairly minor infractions. But is it overreacting? All systems of regulations are imperfect, but FAA regulations are the product of decades of work by very, very smart people. As a whole, FAA regulations are hugely concerned with what seem like 'minor infractions' because 'minor infractions' are often enough to start a chain of events that…

If they were flying planes not certified for single pilot operation, I'd completely agree with you. However that would be problematic under both part 91 and part 135. If their actions were completely legal under part 91 and friends/family were not compensating them, I take serious issue with treating the test flights like a 135 operation.

The FAA does have very smart individuals, but they are also heavily lobbied by airlines and are subject to conflicts of interest just like cities with Uber/Lyft.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#169

Post by kj65557 »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #148
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.

They don't specify the type of plane used. Some require two, some require only one. If it was the type that requires two, then yes, it was unsafe.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#170

Post by kj65557 »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #149
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…

I hate to break it to you, but many planes are flown by one pilot- Even some small jets are certified for this and it happens all the time... Possibly above your house.
Post reply on HN