|
Trent posted:Reading that a safety feature is bad because it might make some people reckless made me feel like I was back in the vaccine idiots thread. Would you buy a safety device for a car that took up one seat and only really worked for 20% of crashes? Your two-seater car would become a one-seater, and so on and so forth, which is massively inconvenient. Weight is a big deal in aviation, and an even bigger deal when it comes to small airplanes only have a few hundred extra pounds of payload capacity.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
ErIog posted:If those are safety features you're mentioning are a good idea then I think we should do that. This whole thing about the tyranny of too much safety is childish. There's such a thing as diminishing returns, and it definitely applies when people are asking you to sacrifice a large portion of your payload to deadweight. Pilots are trained in understanding risks, they should be free to kill themselves if they want.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The pilot and plane do not exist in a vacuum. Pilots frequently have passengers. When planes crash they have a chance of crashing on top of poo poo and injuring/killing people. If the parachutes help mitigate the damage to other people who are not the pilot when incidents occur then they are worthwhile no matter how the pilot feels about it. Planes that carry any appreciable number of passengers are essentially impossible to attach a parachute to. Parachutes are limited to extremely lightweight aircraft. The parachutes also remove the ability of the pilot to steer a falling aircraft away from people on the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What prevents this argument from being used against basically every safety system in existence? Safety systems, rules, and regulations exist primarily because people who were aware of the risks and really ought to have known better ended up loving up and killing themselves, often endangering others as well. This safety system is extremely heavy and negates a lot of the purpose of a small aircraft. Main Paineframe posted:And no, you're not free to kill yourself in a burning heap of metal and aviation fuel. If you crash your plane, firefighters and paramedics will have to try to drag your dumb rear end out of the plane and attempt to save your life, and then someone will have to clean up the wreckage of your goddamn mess that's all over someone else's property, and the authorities and/or insurance companies will probably have to conduct an investigation. It's like complaining about heavy fireworks restrictions or street racing bans - if it's too much of a gigantic burden to carry out your dumb suicidal hobby in a safe manner, you don't get to have your hobby. This safety system has no positive effect on a crash other than ensuring that the airframe probably doesn't disintegrate on contact with the ground. With the parachute, you are still going to fall to the ground, but it will be uncontrolled, allowing the wind to carry you wherever it wants. Main Paineframe posted:if it's too much of a gigantic burden to carry out your dumb suicidal hobby in a safe manner, you don't get to have your hobby. Funny how you never see people on the left making this argument for drugs or alcohol. Also, the people advocating for safe practices are also the first to complain when police start enforcing the laws. on the left fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Drifting around in the wind isn't ideal, but it's still better than a ballistic landing. Accidents where a pilot is just flying along and the wings fall off the plane seem to be extremely uncommon. Why should pilots give up 100lbs+ of payload for a parachute?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
ErIog posted:So what's your answer for the few hundred people who were able to return to the ground safely because their plane was equipped with a parachute? Were they better off maimed or dead because 100+ pounds of payload is more important? The situations in which a parachute is useful are also typically situations where a landing you walk away from can be made through careful control. And yes, people should have the right to kill themselves and limited numbers of passengers by forgoing safety equipment of limited benefit. Otherwise, we could dramatically save lives and tons of fuel by forcing every automobile to be limited to 30mph. No honest man needs to travel faster than 30mph, and crashes become much more survivable lower than those speeds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this honestly your question? If the system isn't mandatory than the answer is "Because they think it is worth the extra safety". If the system is mandatory the answer is "Because the government will fine or arrest them otherwise". In either scenario, I can't imagine anyone really gives a poo poo about convincing pilots, it's either effective or not, it's either cost efficient or not. Pilots' feelings doesn't have anything to do with it. In no scenario is "This effective, cost-efficient safety device prevents me from cramming an extra passenger in my flying device" a reasonable argument. Yes, but the argument is that the safety device is not all that useful, since the lion's share of crashes take place proximal to takeoff and landing where the parachute wouldn't work. The design seems to be based on the idea that planes randomly falling out of the sky while cruising is a common occurrence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Nobody claimed it's a "common occurrence," and your straw man of the point or your gut feeling about how useful it would actually be don't actually matter. The statistics from the 30,000+ systems in use right now show that they've been useful for about 1% of the install base. I bet seat belts and airbags don't have that kind of record. From the article in the OP, there are about 4800 planes with the system, and there have been 23 pulls. Of those 23 pulls, 5 of them still resulted in injuries or fatalities. So if you pull the parachute, you are still looking at a 20-25% chance of still having a bad crash.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Trent posted:If anything, this is about building in this feature to new planes, where it won't amount to a loss of cargo capacity, it will simply be part of the plane. Planes don't work like that. If you look at how planes are ordered, even options that add only a few pounds of weight have their installed weight prominently advertised. The weight budget on a small plane is incredibly tight. Even on Cirruses website, they list the weight of computer upgrades that add only 8-12 pounds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 03:28
|
|