FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets • Hacker News Board

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#171

Post by morganvachon » Sun, Feb 04, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #144

morganvachon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> "Free climbers, astronauts and political dissidents must also be insane"

Wait, when did I accuse anyone of insanity?

> "I wouldn't smoke, ride without a helmet, etc, but who am I to say you are wrong for doing so?"

I never said anyone was wrong for anything. I think you meant to reply to person I replied to above; you and I seem to agree more or less.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#172

Post by dang » Sun, Feb 04, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

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.

> an anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day

Attacking another user like that is explicitly against HN's rules, and we ban accounts that do it. What kind of community are we if we insult new commenters just because we don't agree with what they say? Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#173

Post by dang » Sun, Feb 04, 2018, 5:09 AM UTC

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.

People have a right to create accounts to join in on discussion here without being accused of sinister shillage—the tiredest internet trope of them all. Pulling such accusations out of thin air (let alone some more internal place) is absolutely not ok here.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#174

Post by chx » Tue, Feb 06, 2018, 6:21 AM UTC

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…

> One of the benefits (for most people) of modern life is that you can hop in a car and drive places.

The price we pay for that is grimly high.