4 ms·

The problems you described seem fairly easy to remedy through means other than an FAA ban. As a customer, I have zero interest in taking an excessively risky fl

by asift 11y ago

The problems you described seem fairly easy to remedy through means other than an FAA ban. As a customer, I have zero interest in taking an excessively risky flight. I would seek companies that provide internal safeguards, such as weather restrictions, that take this decision out of a pilot's hands.

diabeetusman 11y ago
How do you imagine they would implement these weather restrictions? Something automatic? Because that scares me more (the Algorithm says it's safe, therefore, you should fly!) than something manual. I'm not sure of a good way to handle this.
- asift 11y ago
  There are a myriad of ways companies could develop and implement internal controls. I have no particular knowledge that would make qualified to proclaim the single best way for handling these problems, but from a historical and empirical standpoint, the world is full of examples of companies solving complex problems previously thought to be too difficult by the majority of people. >Something automatic? You seem to be assuming pilots and passengers have no regard for their own well-being. Just like the discretion shown by the OP in their story about canceling a flight, pilots have strong incentives to not fly if there is an increased likelihood they can't do so safely. I would see the "automatic" aspect likely being conditions which prohibit flying while even further discretion still being available to pilots.
  - gamblor956 11y ago
    I have no particular knowledge that would make qualified to proclaim the single best way for handling these problems, but from a historical and empirical standpoint, the world is full of examples of companies solving complex problems previously thought to be too difficult by the majority of people. These companies already have internal processes and mechanisms for handling these problems, which they impose in addition to FAA procedures. The purpose of the FAA regulations and the ban in this case is to address pilots operating outside of this system. Essentially all commercial pilots employed on passenger flights have hundreds of hours of flight time, as an implicit condition of even getting such a job. The air taxi startup would have allowed pilots with almost no flight time (~40 hours) to take on passengers, which is an untenable safety hazard, given that new pilots are the cause of most accidents. It's not that these pilots have no regard for their own well-being; it's that they don't know enough to even know when it would be dangerous to fly.
    - asift 11y ago
      >they don't know enough to even know when it would be dangerous to fly 1. You do realize these pilots can already fly passengers, correct? 2. This is the type of problem companies help solve all of the time. The minimum wage worker making my burger has no idea when meat is safe for consumption, but a whole series of internal precautions allows him to serve me a burger in a safe manner.
      - msellout 11y ago
        > This is the type of problem companies help solve all of the time. In your example of food safety, I believe it's your state department of public health that solved the problem, not the restaurant.
        asift 11y ago
        Right...because before the state department came along companies had no interest in feeding their patrons safe food... People are incredibly unscientific when attributing success to governmental regulatory bodies.
        msellout 11y ago
        Unscientific? By "people" I take it you mean me. I didn't see you cite any research either. Obviously restaurants had an interest in food safety. You're being a little silly with your sarcasm. The question is whether food was as safe as we (citizens) wanted, and whether food safety would improve with government regulation. I suspect the answers were "No" and "Yes", respectively. Take recent issues at Chipotle for example. Without government intervention, they easily might decide that it's cheaper to pay marketers and public relations experts than to improve the safety of their supply chain and service.
      - mulmen 11y ago
        1) Providing commercial passenger service is not the same as giving someone a ride. In the case of commercial service your passengers are your customers and expect a certain level of service. This could motivate you to take additional risks that you would not otherwise take. Such as flying in questionable weather so as not to lose the fare or get a bad rating on the service causing you to miss out on future fares. 2) Flying an airplane is nothing like making a cheeseburger. I do not think it is a worthwhile goal to allow unskilled people to operate airplanes, especially if they are carrying passengers. Instead we should focus on making sure the operators of the planes are as capable as possible to first avoid dangerous situations and then deal with them when they are unavoidable. This is exactly what the FAA does. If you screw up a cheeseburger maybe someone gets sick, if you screw up in an airplane people die. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
dorfsmay 11y ago
Safeguards are known: - Instrument rated pilots - special, expensive, instruments (radars, etc...) - extra pair of skilled eyes (2 pilots) - n + 1 engines / APU - bigger planes that have less restrictions (more power which means you can bring more weight (more luggage), take off safely from higher altitude, manoeuvre in higher cross winds etc....) Those companies that fly those airplanes with those pilots already exists, there are known as air taxi and small air charters.
- acslater00 11y ago
  FWIW none of these things are actual commercial flight regulations. In particular, it's quite possible (though I'm guessing uncommon) to get a commercial license without an IFR, and it's definitely very common to run single-engine, single-pilot operations with plain vanilla instruments (avionics). I'm not familiar with air transport regulations, however, and some of these things may apply there.
  - pc86 11y ago
    You are correct. 14 CFR 61.133 (b)(1) states:[0] A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, “The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.” So you can technically get a commercial license without an instrument rating, but you won't be able to get a job until you do. My guess is it happens only in that someone is taking the courses for both and just happens to finish the commercial part first. In practice though I've never heard anyone who did that. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133
    - VLM 11y ago
      Crop dusters, and the guys who inspect power lines / pipelines. Also those guys who tow banners over the sportsball stadiums. None of them have much to do when its dark or cloudy.

by asift 11y ago

diabeetusman 11y ago

How do you imagine they would implement these weather restrictions? Something automatic? Because that scares me more (the Algorithm says it's safe, therefore, you should fly!) than something manual. I'm not sure of a good way to handle this.

asift 11y ago
There are a myriad of ways companies could develop and implement internal controls. I have no particular knowledge that would make qualified to proclaim the single best way for handling these problems, but from a historical and empirical standpoint, the world is full of examples of companies solving complex problems previously thought to be too difficult by the majority of people. >Something automatic? You seem to be assuming pilots and passengers have no regard for their own well-being. Just like the discretion shown by the OP in their story about canceling a flight, pilots have strong incentives to not fly if there is an increased likelihood they can't do so safely. I would see the "automatic" aspect likely being conditions which prohibit flying while even further discretion still being available to pilots.
- gamblor956 11y ago
  I have no particular knowledge that would make qualified to proclaim the single best way for handling these problems, but from a historical and empirical standpoint, the world is full of examples of companies solving complex problems previously thought to be too difficult by the majority of people. These companies already have internal processes and mechanisms for handling these problems, which they impose in addition to FAA procedures. The purpose of the FAA regulations and the ban in this case is to address pilots operating outside of this system. Essentially all commercial pilots employed on passenger flights have hundreds of hours of flight time, as an implicit condition of even getting such a job. The air taxi startup would have allowed pilots with almost no flight time (~40 hours) to take on passengers, which is an untenable safety hazard, given that new pilots are the cause of most accidents. It's not that these pilots have no regard for their own well-being; it's that they don't know enough to even know when it would be dangerous to fly.
  - asift 11y ago
    >they don't know enough to even know when it would be dangerous to fly 1. You do realize these pilots can already fly passengers, correct? 2. This is the type of problem companies help solve all of the time. The minimum wage worker making my burger has no idea when meat is safe for consumption, but a whole series of internal precautions allows him to serve me a burger in a safe manner.
    - msellout 11y ago
      > This is the type of problem companies help solve all of the time. In your example of food safety, I believe it's your state department of public health that solved the problem, not the restaurant.
      - asift 11y ago
        Right...because before the state department came along companies had no interest in feeding their patrons safe food... People are incredibly unscientific when attributing success to governmental regulatory bodies.
        msellout 11y ago
        Unscientific? By "people" I take it you mean me. I didn't see you cite any research either. Obviously restaurants had an interest in food safety. You're being a little silly with your sarcasm. The question is whether food was as safe as we (citizens) wanted, and whether food safety would improve with government regulation. I suspect the answers were "No" and "Yes", respectively. Take recent issues at Chipotle for example. Without government intervention, they easily might decide that it's cheaper to pay marketers and public relations experts than to improve the safety of their supply chain and service.
    - mulmen 11y ago
      1) Providing commercial passenger service is not the same as giving someone a ride. In the case of commercial service your passengers are your customers and expect a certain level of service. This could motivate you to take additional risks that you would not otherwise take. Such as flying in questionable weather so as not to lose the fare or get a bad rating on the service causing you to miss out on future fares. 2) Flying an airplane is nothing like making a cheeseburger. I do not think it is a worthwhile goal to allow unskilled people to operate airplanes, especially if they are carrying passengers. Instead we should focus on making sure the operators of the planes are as capable as possible to first avoid dangerous situations and then deal with them when they are unavoidable. This is exactly what the FAA does. If you screw up a cheeseburger maybe someone gets sick, if you screw up in an airplane people die. They aren't even remotely the same thing.

dorfsmay 11y ago

Safeguards are known: - Instrument rated pilots - special, expensive, instruments (radars, etc...) - extra pair of skilled eyes (2 pilots) - n + 1 engines / APU - bigger planes that have less restrictions (more power which means you can bring more weight (more luggage), take off safely from higher altitude, manoeuvre in higher cross winds etc....) Those companies that fly those airplanes with those pilots already exists, there are known as air taxi and small air charters.

acslater00 11y ago
FWIW none of these things are actual commercial flight regulations. In particular, it's quite possible (though I'm guessing uncommon) to get a commercial license without an IFR, and it's definitely very common to run single-engine, single-pilot operations with plain vanilla instruments (avionics). I'm not familiar with air transport regulations, however, and some of these things may apply there.
- pc86 11y ago
  You are correct. 14 CFR 61.133 (b)(1) states:[0] A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, “The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.” So you can technically get a commercial license without an instrument rating, but you won't be able to get a job until you do. My guess is it happens only in that someone is taking the courses for both and just happens to finish the commercial part first. In practice though I've never heard anyone who did that. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133
  - VLM 11y ago
    Crop dusters, and the guys who inspect power lines / pipelines. Also those guys who tow banners over the sportsball stadiums. None of them have much to do when its dark or cloudy.