4 ms·

It's banned because the general public cannot assess the risk of private flights, and the flight is not under an AOC. The FAA maybe a lot of things, but they'r

It's banned because the general public cannot assess the risk of private flights, and the flight is not under an AOC. The FAA maybe a lot of things, but they're 100% right about this.

FussyZeus 11y ago
We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? It's travel via aircraft, I think John Q. Public can probably fairly well assess what might go wrong, and more to the point, it's none of the FFA's business. If I go on a plane and I die crashing into some guys house, we have legal frameworks in place to handle all of those events. Why do we need more on top?
- valarauca1 11y ago
  >We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? Yes. This is literally how public safety works.
  - asift 11y ago
    Empirically that isn't always the case. Often rent-seekers who stand to profit from various regulations have far more influence on public policy than "safety" does.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Then let's talk safety. Every pilot in the sky has spent thousands of dollars learning how to handle that craft, compared to most drivers have spent, what, $150, assuming they went for Driver's Ed. They then spent a magnitude more money on the plane, had it inspected so they could fly it, and will be piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination that everyone within a thousand miles can look up. Compare that to Uber or hell, even driving your own car and tell me which is safer.
    - pc86 11y ago
      > piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination Shall we compare the number of aircraft-angel collisions to the number of aircraft-aircraft collisions?
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        Sure, as long as you're willing to discount accidents involving air shows or other activities that involve planes flying intentionally close together. In normal flight circumstances, planes are intentionally kept miles apart and even when they do get close, communication between the vehicles to assure that doesn't happen is not only possible, your pilot in question would be fined if he weren't doing it.
sbuttgereit 11y ago
The general public cannot assess the risk of riding in a Taxi, bus, uber, etc. any better than taking a flight with a private pilot.
- vkou 11y ago
  Near-100% of the public owns a driver's license. 100% of the public has logged thousands of hours on the road, be it at the wheel, or in the passenger's seat. If you feel like your life is in danger, you can always ask your driver to stop, and let you out. Near-100% of the public wouldn't have the first clue about what it takes to fly a two-seater aircraft, how dangerous the conditions they are flying in are, and most definitely can't ask the pilot to pull over half-way through the flight. Your claim is farcical.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    I take issue with your claim that the majority of the populace knows how to drive. My experience differs strongly. All kidding aside, the numbers are a big issue. How many cars are on the road versus how many planes in the sky? Add to it the fact that in the sky you have three dimensions of completely free travel ability to evade accidents, where in a car, you typically have at most two and more commonly one completely safe area to "duck into" to avoid an accident. Plus, no one (at least in my mind) is advocating that anyone gets to FLY the plane, they're saying anyone should be able to fly IN a plane. You don't need to know shit about driving a car to know whether or not a car you're getting into is safe, and same goes for a plane. If the exhaust is dragging on the ground and a rear door is missing, you don't need to know anything about cars to know that's probably not the safest car ever.
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    Not a lot of of time to respond, but my first observations about your comment are: 1) How many pilots are actually unlicensed? I suspect given the relative difficulty of getting access to aircraft vs. cars that the more pilots in the air are of greater competence than the average driver by a long shot. Moreover, I'll bet that the examination standards for pilot licenses are somewhat more rigorous than the average drivers license. 2) Have you failed to assess that the greatest likely danger in a road trip is not the driver giving you a ride, but other drivers on the road? I use to commute between LA and the Bay Area every week for a couple of years. I guarantee you that not everyone you encounter is sane or competent to be on the road. And yeah, in the middle of nowhere on I-5 (or better still, I-15 between LA and Los Vegas close to Death Valley) you can ask to get out of the car if you are uncomfortable with the way the person is driving... but get out in the middle of nowhere and then what? The complexity of the driving environment and the relatively low barrier to entry for cars don't make the risk assessment as simple as you would like to believe. Finally, unless you are a pilot (you may be) seems like you're merely a member of that ignorant general public that can't make such assessments. If that's the case, how can you possibly be in a position to make a judgement? Or are you just better than everyone else and it's your paternalistic instincts taking over? EDIT: To be clear... I am not arguing that general aviation is safer than driving (last I looked it's not). But I am arguing that the risk assessment may not be a difficult as people here are making it out to be, especially in light of the complexity of driving on the road.
seansoutpost 11y ago
Then why allow PPL holders to have passengers at all. Why does it magically change when you split a tank of gas with me? I agree, I am skeptical of flying with low hours pilots. I AM a low hour pilot and I'm skeptical of flying myself! But it would be perfectly legal for me to take passengers as a PPL holder. It's also perfectly legal for me and others to share the flight costs down to a common destination. As long as I don't pay less than my fair share. I think saying that something is transformed when I say on a public forum "Hey guys, I'm going to New Orleans for the weekend. Anyone want to come down and split costs with me?" Is being dishonest. Either passengers can assess the danger, or they can't. Paying for half a tank of gas does not change that.

It's banned because the general public cannot assess the risk of private flights, and the flight is not under an AOC. The FAA maybe a lot of things, but they're 100% right about this.

FussyZeus 11y ago

We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? It's travel via aircraft, I think John Q. Public can probably fairly well assess what might go wrong, and more to the point, it's none of the FFA's business. If I go on a plane and I die crashing into some guys house, we have legal frameworks in place to handle all of those events. Why do we need more on top?

valarauca1 11y ago
>We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? Yes. This is literally how public safety works.
- asift 11y ago
  Empirically that isn't always the case. Often rent-seekers who stand to profit from various regulations have far more influence on public policy than "safety" does.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Then let's talk safety. Every pilot in the sky has spent thousands of dollars learning how to handle that craft, compared to most drivers have spent, what, $150, assuming they went for Driver's Ed. They then spent a magnitude more money on the plane, had it inspected so they could fly it, and will be piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination that everyone within a thousand miles can look up. Compare that to Uber or hell, even driving your own car and tell me which is safer.
  - pc86 11y ago
    > piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination Shall we compare the number of aircraft-angel collisions to the number of aircraft-aircraft collisions?
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Sure, as long as you're willing to discount accidents involving air shows or other activities that involve planes flying intentionally close together. In normal flight circumstances, planes are intentionally kept miles apart and even when they do get close, communication between the vehicles to assure that doesn't happen is not only possible, your pilot in question would be fined if he weren't doing it.

sbuttgereit 11y ago

The general public cannot assess the risk of riding in a Taxi, bus, uber, etc. any better than taking a flight with a private pilot.

vkou 11y ago
Near-100% of the public owns a driver's license. 100% of the public has logged thousands of hours on the road, be it at the wheel, or in the passenger's seat. If you feel like your life is in danger, you can always ask your driver to stop, and let you out. Near-100% of the public wouldn't have the first clue about what it takes to fly a two-seater aircraft, how dangerous the conditions they are flying in are, and most definitely can't ask the pilot to pull over half-way through the flight. Your claim is farcical.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  I take issue with your claim that the majority of the populace knows how to drive. My experience differs strongly. All kidding aside, the numbers are a big issue. How many cars are on the road versus how many planes in the sky? Add to it the fact that in the sky you have three dimensions of completely free travel ability to evade accidents, where in a car, you typically have at most two and more commonly one completely safe area to "duck into" to avoid an accident. Plus, no one (at least in my mind) is advocating that anyone gets to FLY the plane, they're saying anyone should be able to fly IN a plane. You don't need to know shit about driving a car to know whether or not a car you're getting into is safe, and same goes for a plane. If the exhaust is dragging on the ground and a rear door is missing, you don't need to know anything about cars to know that's probably not the safest car ever.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Not a lot of of time to respond, but my first observations about your comment are: 1) How many pilots are actually unlicensed? I suspect given the relative difficulty of getting access to aircraft vs. cars that the more pilots in the air are of greater competence than the average driver by a long shot. Moreover, I'll bet that the examination standards for pilot licenses are somewhat more rigorous than the average drivers license. 2) Have you failed to assess that the greatest likely danger in a road trip is not the driver giving you a ride, but other drivers on the road? I use to commute between LA and the Bay Area every week for a couple of years. I guarantee you that not everyone you encounter is sane or competent to be on the road. And yeah, in the middle of nowhere on I-5 (or better still, I-15 between LA and Los Vegas close to Death Valley) you can ask to get out of the car if you are uncomfortable with the way the person is driving... but get out in the middle of nowhere and then what? The complexity of the driving environment and the relatively low barrier to entry for cars don't make the risk assessment as simple as you would like to believe. Finally, unless you are a pilot (you may be) seems like you're merely a member of that ignorant general public that can't make such assessments. If that's the case, how can you possibly be in a position to make a judgement? Or are you just better than everyone else and it's your paternalistic instincts taking over? EDIT: To be clear... I am not arguing that general aviation is safer than driving (last I looked it's not). But I am arguing that the risk assessment may not be a difficult as people here are making it out to be, especially in light of the complexity of driving on the road.

seansoutpost 11y ago

Then why allow PPL holders to have passengers at all. Why does it magically change when you split a tank of gas with me? I agree, I am skeptical of flying with low hours pilots. I AM a low hour pilot and I'm skeptical of flying myself! But it would be perfectly legal for me to take passengers as a PPL holder. It's also perfectly legal for me and others to share the flight costs down to a common destination. As long as I don't pay less than my fair share. I think saying that something is transformed when I say on a public forum "Hey guys, I'm going to New Orleans for the weekend. Anyone want to come down and split costs with me?" Is being dishonest. Either passengers can assess the danger, or they can't. Paying for half a tank of gas does not change that.