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

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#111

Post by biocomputation »

kj65557 wrote: post #102
dweekly wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 leads to major accidents. This is especially true as experience increases because experienced people are so much less likely to make major mistakes that they have to be concerned with the small chinks in the armor of safety.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#112

Post by unethical_ban »

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?

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.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#113

Post by yread »

saddlerustle wrote: post #31
pliftkl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

per passenger mile yes, but not per trip

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#114

Post by AluminiumPoint »

njarboe wrote: post #110
ajdlinux wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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 family, and never tell anyone NOT to wear a helmet. Seriously!

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#115

Post by njarboe »

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 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?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#116

Post by rhplus »

aphextron wrote: post #11
JohnTHaller wrote: post #5

According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it. And it's a side of their business they don't engage in anymore, acting more as an Uber/Airbnb matching agent: https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-recent-...

>According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it That changes nothing, and makes it no less reckless. Airline regulations are written in blood.

...during development of the app to test it

Money may not have changed hands, but that sounds a lot like a business related activity.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#117

Post by rz2k »

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)

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...

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#118

Post by ajdlinux »

unethical_ban wrote: post #112
ajdlinux wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 motorbike helmet laws are a bad thing.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#119

Post by ghaff »

chx wrote: post #105
pliftkl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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, especially commercial and military ones, is incompatible with that benefit. There are various laws and rules but they're deliberately set at a "most adults can drive" level.

You may not like that tradeoff but most people disagree.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#120

Post by jakobegger »

njarboe wrote: post #110
ajdlinux wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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, motorcycling is dangerous, but your clothes make a huge difference.

Post reply on HN