4 ms·

Thought experiment: private individual exercises negligence and permits a 75-metre-long aerostat to break free and drift through controlled airspace. How long

Thought experiment: private individual exercises negligence and permits a 75-metre-long aerostat to break free and drift through controlled airspace. How long before the FAA would have him / her in court? This sort of dual-class system is why the drone registration initiative annoys me. Truly one law for us and another for Them.

beeboop 11y ago
How long before they are sued by multiple cities and businesses for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and lost revenue?
- slantedview 11y ago
  A drop in the bucket compared to the Billions (yes Billions with a B) they spent to build these blimps.
brandon272 11y ago
Not only did it drift through airspace but it crash landed and caused 35,000 people to lose power and classes to be cancelled at the local university. If it were a private citizen I can imagine they'd be taken to jail.
- djrogers 11y ago
  If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic. There would be civil liability to deal with, which would be handled through lawsuits and insurance companies, but there's no reason for jail. As far as the government having different 'rules' than private citizens - yeah, that happens. Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it makes perfect sense. For example, suing the federal government for punitive damages for negligence is generally unproductive. Any damages awarded would only be punitive to the tax paying populace as the source of said money.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic. Friendly reminder: we live in a country where a brown kid got arrested for bringing a clock to school. So yes, it is entirely possible for the hypothetical blimp pilot to face serious charges, up to and including terrorism, depending on his race and religion.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    If the taxpayers support a negligent government, they deserve to be punished as compensation to those who were wronged.
infinotize 11y ago
This is a pointless strawman. This is like saying an F-15 on a training exercise crashed and that it's unfair the pilot/crew/USAF wouldn't be treated the same as some random who flew a drone with a gopro over an airport.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I don't think you know what a strawman is - parent was making a (perfectly legitimate, IMO) point about how misconduct/negligence/accidents on the part of the government result in few to no penalties (worst case: someone may lose their job), while same behavior on the part of citizens can result in life-ruining, throw-the-book-at-him consequences. It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!
- ryanlol 11y ago
  That's a terrible example, why can't it be some random crashing a F-15? In which case I don't see why some random and an USAF pilot should be treated differently. Assuming both had proper permits, of course.
rhino369 11y ago
How do you know it was negligence? Plus your whole argument ignores that defending the airspace of the USA is the governments job. Of course we will have different rules because of that. And you can sue the government for negligence.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  If it wasn't negligence, then they crashed into heavily used power lines on purpose, which is way worse.

beeboop 11y ago

How long before they are sued by multiple cities and businesses for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and lost revenue?

slantedview 11y ago
A drop in the bucket compared to the Billions (yes Billions with a B) they spent to build these blimps.

brandon272 11y ago

Not only did it drift through airspace but it crash landed and caused 35,000 people to lose power and classes to be cancelled at the local university. If it were a private citizen I can imagine they'd be taken to jail.

djrogers 11y ago
If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic. There would be civil liability to deal with, which would be handled through lawsuits and insurance companies, but there's no reason for jail. As far as the government having different 'rules' than private citizens - yeah, that happens. Sometimes it's stupid, and sometimes it makes perfect sense. For example, suing the federal government for punitive damages for negligence is generally unproductive. Any damages awarded would only be punitive to the tax paying populace as the source of said money.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  >>If a private citizen, company, or institution were properly permitted and licensed to have such a blimp aloft and it got loose, there's no way they'd be thrown in jail - that's overly dramatic. Friendly reminder: we live in a country where a brown kid got arrested for bringing a clock to school. So yes, it is entirely possible for the hypothetical blimp pilot to face serious charges, up to and including terrorism, depending on his race and religion.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  If the taxpayers support a negligent government, they deserve to be punished as compensation to those who were wronged.

infinotize 11y ago

This is a pointless strawman. This is like saying an F-15 on a training exercise crashed and that it's unfair the pilot/crew/USAF wouldn't be treated the same as some random who flew a drone with a gopro over an airport.

Karunamon 11y ago
I don't think you know what a strawman is - parent was making a (perfectly legitimate, IMO) point about how misconduct/negligence/accidents on the part of the government result in few to no penalties (worst case: someone may lose their job), while same behavior on the part of citizens can result in life-ruining, throw-the-book-at-him consequences. It's pretty hard to misrepresent an opponent's argument when there have been no opposing arguments made yet!
ryanlol 11y ago
That's a terrible example, why can't it be some random crashing a F-15? In which case I don't see why some random and an USAF pilot should be treated differently. Assuming both had proper permits, of course.

rhino369 11y ago

How do you know it was negligence? Plus your whole argument ignores that defending the airspace of the USA is the governments job. Of course we will have different rules because of that. And you can sue the government for negligence.

oldmanjay 11y ago
If it wasn't negligence, then they crashed into heavily used power lines on purpose, which is way worse.