|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
XK posted:In addition, they could save lives on the ground. A plane made an emergency landing on a beach this summer. It struck a man and his daughter, killed the man instantly, and his daughter died a day later. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/us/fl...lands-on-beach/ The pilot made a good emergency landing, and nobody on the plane was injured. If the pilot had another option, he wouldn't have had to attempt a landing where there may be people. Instead he could have popped an uncontrollable parachute and been subject to winds and ground obstacles and might have been blown inland from the beach into an area of heavy congestion, or out to sea where his passengers could have drowned (and the parachute could have either prevented any rescue attempt or dragged the aircraft under water faster than it would otherwise have gone). An airplane you have even minimal control of is better than a parachute you have no control of. Most aircraft accidents occur during take-off, landing, or otherwise under a minimum altitude for parachute deployment anyway. Kaal posted:I've never heard of these before. Is it possible to slow the propeller enough to allow the parachute and prop to be used simultaneously? This would presumably allow pilots some control over landing sites and prevent them from landing on people. If that's possible, then I'd be all for it due to the public safety benefits. If not, then it seems like a bit of a wash to me. It gives pilots an option to prevent violent crashes, but at the cost of increasing the overall number of crashes. Though on second thought, a slowly descending aircraft is easier to see and react to ... A slowly descending aircraft that is making no noise? I have seen idiots on actual active parachute landing areas almost get hit because they weren't looking up during active jump operations (i.e.: in a situation where you know that things are coming out of the sky and you should be looking up and alert and aware.) Also, a round chute like that wouldn't take kindly to being propelled by an engine. I don't see anybody making arguments for this except for people with no experience either parachuting or piloting, or people who stand to make money selling and installing them. How about we start looking at actual plane crash causes and statistics before we decide whether this is useful or not.
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:I like how the feasibility of the non-essential hobby of being a casual flyer is shown to be financially viable by saying that it's around the same cost as the car that is absolutely essential to surviving at all for most families. I'd like to know how you define Essential Hobby. I also like how the eat-the-rich brigade always comes out when people mention that not-rich people do things like own planes and own boats. It's the same poo poo as that guy who flipped his wig about a radio announcer saying that a man and his wife putting everything they had into their boat (which subsequently sunk, leaving them destitute and homeless at the time the story was airing) weren't rich. The amazing thing to me, in D-and-D of all places, is the cognitive dissonance whenever anybody mentions something that you people can't possibly believe because it doesn't align with your precious second hand facts and data. You know what? You're loving WRONG. Yes, there are people who have different priorities than you and your "average american". There are people who are actually willing to sacrifice things like internet and video games and television and eating out and going to the bar so they can reach a goal. There are people who make less than $30,000 per year who live in sub-50 sq.ft trailers just so that they can have money to fly. There are actually people who give up things in life like EVERYTHING ELSE so that they can focus on a goal and meet it without having to be rich. There's a gently caress-ton of them. Airline Transport Pilot certification requires 1500 hours of flight time before a person can fly for a major company. Every flight school out there provides only 250-300 hours of flight time before you've gotten every pre-requisite certificate to the ATP. How do you think people get those other 1200 hours that they MUST HAVE before flying a commercial passenger jet? Not to mention, a quick glance at trade-a-plane.com shows me more than 100 airplanes available for less than $20,000, which can be financed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
ErIog posted: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. Yes, because clearly either raising the money bar to entry or the safety bar to entry will prevent the same group of people from flying. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Why would the pilot pull the chute if they felt like they had enough control to glide down? Ask the pilot from the article in the OP. ErIog posted: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... 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. Kaal posted:http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608499/Small-plane-crashes-in-West-Jordan-park-3-injured.html?pg=all Passengers injured, nobody on the ground. Passengers injured, nobody on the ground. Pilot drowned. This is the same incident as the two links above. Still only the people in the plane who were hurt. Only the people in the aircraft were killed (not by the crash but by the resulting fire, something else a parachute does nothing to stop) in a situation where a lot more people could have died: "So what probably happened is that in a loss of power and finding a place to put it down, she stalled it out pretty much perfectly in the only spot she possibly could have" Only the Passenger is "seriously" injured, nobody outside the plane is. quote:http://www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel-county/plane-down-in-maryland-city-area/21031450 Only the pilot was injured, and also the incident occurred at take off so it's a terrible example of where the parachute might have done anything. This is the only one where somebody on the ground was hurt or killed from the aircraft crashing through a mobile home. It could just as easily have crashed through the mobile home under a parachute. There's not one incident here where a parachute might have made any difference, and at least one where it definitely would have made things worse. 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. You make the argument that it's like Smart Guns and Gun Safes and Trigger locks, and that it's just a case of the Aviators being stubborn and stupid like the NRA. Do you know when the NRA went off the rails? It was right around the time that Ted Kennedy introduced legislation to ban any and all ammunition that could penetrate police body armor. Because people who know gently caress-all about a thing should be the ones legislating it.
My Q-Face fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
ErIog posted: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. You made the assumption that a plane equipped with the parachute would still be able to glide and the parachute wouldn't affect that ability. I was simply pointing out that yes, in fact it would. Of course if you have heavier passengers or cargo that would also affect the plane's ability to glide but that is not what you stated or what I was addressing. quote: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. One particularly selective piece of data which ignored other data that was also presented. quote: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. An Argument from authority would be "I am a Pilot therefore I just know", not "I am a person who reads professional journals and incident reports and they say X". I even said outright "We get our information from the official incident reports and not from the news". Perhaps the NTSB would be authority enough for you: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/month.aspx You'll find that 30% of accidents occur on take-off and initial climb, and 46% occur during approach and landing. That means that this system is useless for more than 75% of all accidents.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 18:07
|
|