|
KaiserBen posted:All that said: Can we pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top move on from the stupid loving class warfare bullshit and actually discuss safety? We've had plenty of actually interesting safety features mentioned; let's discuss one. I nominate mandatory ABS on motorcycles, arc-fault breakers in houses, or mandatory sprinkler systems in single-family homes. The derail was never about class warfare. It was about people like you trying to fearmonger about aviation hobbyists barely scraping by, and then reacting negatively when it was pointed out to you that flying is already pretty expensive so adding a small cost on top of it for increased safety probably isn't the end of the world. In trying to demonstrate how cheap flying was you then went on to completely screw over your whole point because you saw red over someone criticizing your privilege. So you guys started saying poo poo like "you can rent a plane! You can belong to a co-op!" which then led to the obvious conclusion that if the costs of the expensive aircraft can be split like that then so can the cost of safety equipment. Your claim is that this safety equipment is going to price hobbyists out of the market. That is your claim. It is up to you to back it up, and so far it's just been a bunch of anecdotes about what great deals you all got. Go find data and show that this cost is significant for aviation hobbyists. 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. Oh no! We're investing money in people not dying. The horror! What a terrible use of resources. ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Sep 9, 2014 |
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
on the left posted: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. 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. You're basically making the seat-belt law argument of, "I'm not hurting anyone but myself!" without realizing that's not actually true with regard to seat-belts nor is it true with regard to these parachutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
on the left posted: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. This is a strawman. I never advocated for a parachute on a Boeing 777. I read the thread. I know that parachutes are only good for small planes. The passengers I was referring to would be the 2-3 people who might be in the plane with the pilot. The pilot is also responsible for those people, and that means it's reasonable to expect him to pay for a certain level of safety equipment. Your second point here is a false dichotomy. A plane equipped with a parachute is still capable of gliding to the ground if it's able to do so and the pilot deems that to be a safe decision. The situation BRS is for is when the pilot is not able to control the plane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
on the left posted: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? 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?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
on the left posted: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. You have a citation for this? The description of BRS mentions it's useful in cases where the plane cannot be controlled, and the comments from the pilots that have used them don't seem to back you up. on the left posted: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. 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. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Training could be a lot more stringent, though, as it is in Canada I'm discovering. Looking at a US syllabus for a private pilot license course and regulations, it seems that, for example, VFR Over-The-Top and night flying are including in standard training whereas they'd be a separate, more in-depth rating in Canada, and the training to use instruments in an emergency only, so you can unfuck yourself if you've already screwed up seems to be limited to a single flight lesson, whereas it's two or three in Canada. I absolutely think more training is a more valuable place to spend money and other resources than BRSs. Is there some reason we can't do both? Paul MaudDib posted:Agreed, but that doesn't mean that this particular piece of safety equipment addresses the problems, or is sufficiently effective that it should be mandated as a retrofit. Is your contention here that those people deserved to die because they made a mistake? Your attitude is precious. It's the same "it won't happen to me," kind of thinking I hear from children. It's a lot of, "those people were bad drivers, but I'm a good driver so..." People are not computers. People make mistakes. Even if we increase licensing standards(something we probably should do), hobbyists are still going to make bad decisions simply because they don't have enough experience. I don't see why it's unreasonable to install a system to mitigate harm on light aircraft, the kind of planes that people who are more likely to make mistakes might be flying. You people were all QQ'ing about how installing a parachute would prevent so many people from flying somehow, but then a few pages later laying out that your solution is to prevent people from flying through stricter licensing requirements that will magically eliminate people making mistakes. MrChips posted:I love how everything I wrote ITT has been ignored by pretty much everybody making ill-informed arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority This is the internet. Do you not understand how it works? It's impossible to verify whether or not you actually are an expert, and so you have to make some kind of valid argument that's supported by logic and coherent with regard to reality. It's telling that your fallback position is, "I'M AN EXPERT! LISTEN TO ME!" For all you know, people in this thread arguing for more widespread usage of BRS are experts too. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Why would the pilot pull the chute if they felt like they had enough control to glide down? Once again, it's a false dichotomy. A plane with a chute is still a plane capable of gliding to the ground. It just also has a chute for the cases where it can't. There's nothing preventing a plane with a chute from gliding down, but you guys are sure talking like there is for some reason... I also enjoy the continued slippery slope safety arguments. We're on a course to a hellscape where planes become cars because they're too heavy to lift off the ground due to all the safety! This is a reasonable thing that has happened before elsewhere. I'm sure of it! ErIog fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:Actually, the increased weight of the parachute is going to affect the plane's ability to glide. The Increased wing-load is going to increase the descent rate, reducing the distance over the ground that the plane can travel and reducing the pilot's options for finding a safe landing spot. This is not what other aviators in this thread have been saying. The entire weight argument has always come down to, "I can't fit heavier passengers, overnight gear, or other cargo." So the weight argument in nearly every case in this thread has relied on the extra weight being used by the parachute being used by other cargo. Not a single person has suggested keeping that portion of payload empty to improve glide performance. I think you may have been one of those people who made this very argument with regard to cargo. My Q-Face posted:The problem I see in your argument is not that hypothetically this could help, but rather you can't produce a single non-hypothetical incident where it would have. It's almost like the people who are involved in aviation know what actual aviation mishaps look like because we don't just watch them on TV news, and so therefore we know that your hypothetical situations are very very far fetched and therefore the system is not worth the cost. "If it could save even one life, no matter the cost" is an absurd position to take. What's your upper limit? a Billion dollars to save one life? A Trillion? That life you save is eventually going to die anyway. Also, this right here is incredibly specious. We're not talking about some nebulous trillion dollar cost. We know what these parachutes cost. Whether or not you think that cost is worth it is an argument that could be made, but making a slippery slope argument out of it is just a way to dodge the question. Nobody here has argued for "no matter the cost." No data has been posted yet that shows the cost to be unreasonable. An attempt was made, but it failed pretty hilariously when that data also showed the average income for GA pilots was a significant multiple of the US median income. The parts of this that aren't specious are just insulting. You're demonstrating a tremendous amount of arrogance in assuming that there's no pilots here arguing against you, and you're falling back on argument from authority fallacies. No matter who you actually are, you have to actually make your case with data beyond, "my gut says..." People with experience in a field are not necessarily experts about their field on a macro level. A great example is how hard it is to get doctors to use checklists. It's a real simple thing that improves patient outcomes when you actually study it being used. Yet there's big pushback from doctors who have "gut feelings" about it. How do I know this isn't the same kind of issue? You haven't backed any of your anecdotes or gut feelings up with anything tangible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Keep circle-jerking with your giant plane boners. It definitely bolsters your argument. In terms of real content, you guys have still not managed to demonstrate your claims: 1) That it's cost prohibitive in comparison to the other costs associated with planes. 2) That it increases the weight of the plane beyond what is reasonable. 3) That it makes pilots worse through some, as yet unexplained, mechanism. I'm also not sure I'm actually for making chutes mandatory. So far you guys have just done a terrible job of backing anything up. Whenever you're asked to back up your claims you just retreat back to ad homs and arguments from authority. I also don't think anyone has really championed or fought for any kind of sweeping regulation changes to make them mandatory. The chutes seem like a real good idea, and so people wanted to hear why they might not be a good idea. That was met with some really bad arguments backed up with unsupported claims, and when people rightfully said, "wait a second, none of these arguments make logical sense" it was met with "Are you a pilot? Just trust me! I'm a pilot!" So I'm probably gonna wait to continue this discussion until you bother to back up your claims since it's pretty clear you're not really arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 15:44
|
|