4 ms·

There's no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks -- just like they've overblown the risk of cell phone use for years. Even if there's one chance in a milli

There's no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks -- just like they've overblown the risk of cell phone use for years. Even if there's one chance in a million of a cell phone affecting avionics or a small drone damaging a plane, the FAA's job is to minimize that risk. They aren't responsible for cost or inconvenience to anyone outside of the aviation industry. They wouldn't mandate that Boeing install expensive and complicated parachutes in every plane due to the huge cost to the industry and dubious benefit, but there's really no drawback to the FAA for imposing a drone ban.

kylehotchkiss 11y ago
genuinely curious (not trying to pick at your point at all), how many USA plane crashes could have been prevented if a parachute was present and working? (The amount of instant drag that parachute deploying would product at a jet's stall speed (> 150mph) is probably more than a fuselage would handle well, given the lightweight engineering.)
- artmageddon 11y ago
  Depends; are we talking about small engine planes or big jet liners? Some Cirrus aircraft have them, but that's only one particular brand. As for larger aircraft, I'll refer to this link below [0]: "taking into consideration the added complexity of design, installing and maintaining an emergency parachute system for a typical passenger jet, the amount of revenue lost by carrying at least 40-45 fewer passengers to compensate for installing such a heavy system, and the extremely unlikelihood such a recovery ever would be required, I can't see trying to scale up a parachute recovery capability for airliner use." https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-airplanes-have-giant-parachutes-attached-to-them-to-save-the-plane-and-its-passengers-in-times-of-emergency https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-airplanes-have-giant-parachut...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >how many USA plane crashes could have been prevented if a parachute was present and working? None! But it could potentially have prevented a lot of the fatalities.
- throwaway60453 11y ago
  Parachutes actually increase the number of crashes, since instead of attempting a landing, the plane hits the ground. Parachutes increase the cost of ownership, as they have to be replaced every 10 years or so. A lot of the people buying Cirrus airplanes are taking off into marginal weather and just assume the parachute will save them when their luck runs out.
melling 11y ago
Anytime someone gives you the one in a million argument, ask them to do a little math. 100,000 flights per day. 200 people per flight making cell phone calls? How many potential avionics issues are we talking about? What's the most years we've gone without a major airline accident? Wasn't there a 10 year period at one point?
- ghaff 11y ago
  The question was really about electronic devices during takeoff and landing. They were very conservative, though I can't really fault them for it--however annoying it was to both passengers and flight crews. But given the number of electronic devices--including phones--that you know weren't actually turned off or put into airplane mode, it became pretty obvious that there wasn't a systematic problem with having devices on.
CPAhem 11y ago
There is a big threat to the lower end of the aviation industry (crop dusters, news choppers etc) from drones. The threat is not physical but of them being replaced by drones. It is similar to the threat of Uber to the Taxi industry. Expect much more fear-mongering about drones, and lobbying from the existing aviation industry. This is why much drone research takes place outside the ol' US of A.
wyager 11y ago
>There's no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks Huh? There obviously is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment There are probably tens of millions of dollars (at least) of lost productivity every year due to the FAA's excessive heavy-handed rules on electronics use during taxi/takeoff/landing. Banning cell phones during certain parts of flight is essentially just as nonsensical as the example in your last paragraph. >but there's really no drawback to the FAA for imposing a drone ban. That is extremely myopic. The most obvious downsides of excessive regulation of UAVs is the suppression of innovation and experimentation with cutting edge vehicle tech. And, of course, most people put some stock in the value of having fun.
- aparadja 11y ago
  You might have misread the parent comment. It said "no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks" and "no drawback to the FAA for imposing a drone ban". I think the point was that FAA does useless and harmful things because they don't have to pay the price themselves.
the_ancient 11y ago
Ofcourse there is a downside... The loss of liberty being the most basic and obvious. The FAA regulating, or banning something is them taking a liberty from me. In a free society in order to take my liberty it must only be done after all other avenues of solving the perceived problem have been explored and eliminated. It damn sure should not be allowed simply out of "an abundance of caution" over a perceived problems that may not actually exist. Under your world view everything is banned by default unless the government chooses to allow it... That is the opposite of a free society.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Whilst I concur that there has to be a minimum risk level for something to require "the banhammer" I'm probably ok with that being a weighted result of probability and consequence. Which when it comes to planes in the US takes on an almost mythical level of fear for obvious reasons. Freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. [1] Sorry I don't really mean to target at YOU but it's a narrative way to make the point. I'm sure you're very special <3
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    >freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. that can be a very dangerous statement depending on how you define or assess "impact on other people" To me, I should be free to do as I please unless my actions cause or can be proven to likely cause serious injury or death to another person, or cause actual articuable direct damage to another persons legally obtained property. When you say "impact" another person, that could mean me simply typing an controversial opinion into an online forum, should the government be allowed to ban my opinion simply because it "impacts" a person that reads it? On the topic of Drones, I believe a more defined Airspace is enough. Carve out simple rules and enforce those simple rules. the FAA today is over complicating the issue, and is putting in place rules that will do nothing to increase actual safety, or address any actual safety issue. The Registration for example is a massive privacy violation with no real world impact on safety. the FAA, like the FCC has mismanaged the public resource they were charged with managing.
madaxe_again 11y ago
So, how many drone related aviation accidents have there been? And how many fixed wing accidents due to pilot error? A more sensible solution if we're talking about safety would be to ban human pilots. FWIW I've hundreds of hours of fixed wing and drone piloting experience, respectively, and I have way more control with a drone than with a tonne of grp and aluminium driven by whirling death.
- frgewut 11y ago
  You mean banning humans from piloting drones or planes?
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Yup. Automate everything. Flight control software is now good enough. As much as I love flying in both formats, this is the logical end point of "safety first", and my personal feelings don't come into it. I'm not a proponent of this, just drawing the conclusion. Same with cars.

kylehotchkiss 11y ago

genuinely curious (not trying to pick at your point at all), how many USA plane crashes could have been prevented if a parachute was present and working? (The amount of instant drag that parachute deploying would product at a jet's stall speed (> 150mph) is probably more than a fuselage would handle well, given the lightweight engineering.)

artmageddon 11y ago
Depends; are we talking about small engine planes or big jet liners? Some Cirrus aircraft have them, but that's only one particular brand. As for larger aircraft, I'll refer to this link below [0]: "taking into consideration the added complexity of design, installing and maintaining an emergency parachute system for a typical passenger jet, the amount of revenue lost by carrying at least 40-45 fewer passengers to compensate for installing such a heavy system, and the extremely unlikelihood such a recovery ever would be required, I can't see trying to scale up a parachute recovery capability for airliner use." https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-airplanes-have-giant-parachutes-attached-to-them-to-save-the-plane-and-its-passengers-in-times-of-emergency https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-airplanes-have-giant-parachut...
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>how many USA plane crashes could have been prevented if a parachute was present and working? None! But it could potentially have prevented a lot of the fatalities.
throwaway60453 11y ago
Parachutes actually increase the number of crashes, since instead of attempting a landing, the plane hits the ground. Parachutes increase the cost of ownership, as they have to be replaced every 10 years or so. A lot of the people buying Cirrus airplanes are taking off into marginal weather and just assume the parachute will save them when their luck runs out.

melling 11y ago

Anytime someone gives you the one in a million argument, ask them to do a little math. 100,000 flights per day. 200 people per flight making cell phone calls? How many potential avionics issues are we talking about? What's the most years we've gone without a major airline accident? Wasn't there a 10 year period at one point?

ghaff 11y ago
The question was really about electronic devices during takeoff and landing. They were very conservative, though I can't really fault them for it--however annoying it was to both passengers and flight crews. But given the number of electronic devices--including phones--that you know weren't actually turned off or put into airplane mode, it became pretty obvious that there wasn't a systematic problem with having devices on.

CPAhem 11y ago

There is a big threat to the lower end of the aviation industry (crop dusters, news choppers etc) from drones. The threat is not physical but of them being replaced by drones. It is similar to the threat of Uber to the Taxi industry. Expect much more fear-mongering about drones, and lobbying from the existing aviation industry. This is why much drone research takes place outside the ol' US of A.

wyager 11y ago

>There's no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks Huh? There obviously is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment There are probably tens of millions of dollars (at least) of lost productivity every year due to the FAA's excessive heavy-handed rules on electronics use during taxi/takeoff/landing. Banning cell phones during certain parts of flight is essentially just as nonsensical as the example in your last paragraph. >but there's really no drawback to the FAA for imposing a drone ban. That is extremely myopic. The most obvious downsides of excessive regulation of UAVs is the suppression of innovation and experimentation with cutting edge vehicle tech. And, of course, most people put some stock in the value of having fun.

aparadja 11y ago
You might have misread the parent comment. It said "no downside to the FAA for overblowing risks" and "no drawback to the FAA for imposing a drone ban". I think the point was that FAA does useless and harmful things because they don't have to pay the price themselves.

the_ancient 11y ago

Ofcourse there is a downside... The loss of liberty being the most basic and obvious. The FAA regulating, or banning something is them taking a liberty from me. In a free society in order to take my liberty it must only be done after all other avenues of solving the perceived problem have been explored and eliminated. It damn sure should not be allowed simply out of "an abundance of caution" over a perceived problems that may not actually exist. Under your world view everything is banned by default unless the government chooses to allow it... That is the opposite of a free society.

Ntrails 11y ago
Whilst I concur that there has to be a minimum risk level for something to require "the banhammer" I'm probably ok with that being a weighted result of probability and consequence. Which when it comes to planes in the US takes on an almost mythical level of fear for obvious reasons. Freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. [1] Sorry I don't really mean to target at YOU but it's a narrative way to make the point. I'm sure you're very special <3
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >freedom to do as you please is not a real thing - you have to temper that freedom with the requirement to consider the impact on other people. Because you[1] are not special, and your freedoms are no more important than their freedoms. that can be a very dangerous statement depending on how you define or assess "impact on other people" To me, I should be free to do as I please unless my actions cause or can be proven to likely cause serious injury or death to another person, or cause actual articuable direct damage to another persons legally obtained property. When you say "impact" another person, that could mean me simply typing an controversial opinion into an online forum, should the government be allowed to ban my opinion simply because it "impacts" a person that reads it? On the topic of Drones, I believe a more defined Airspace is enough. Carve out simple rules and enforce those simple rules. the FAA today is over complicating the issue, and is putting in place rules that will do nothing to increase actual safety, or address any actual safety issue. The Registration for example is a massive privacy violation with no real world impact on safety. the FAA, like the FCC has mismanaged the public resource they were charged with managing.

madaxe_again 11y ago

So, how many drone related aviation accidents have there been? And how many fixed wing accidents due to pilot error? A more sensible solution if we're talking about safety would be to ban human pilots. FWIW I've hundreds of hours of fixed wing and drone piloting experience, respectively, and I have way more control with a drone than with a tonne of grp and aluminium driven by whirling death.

frgewut 11y ago
You mean banning humans from piloting drones or planes?
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Yup. Automate everything. Flight control software is now good enough. As much as I love flying in both formats, this is the logical end point of "safety first", and my personal feelings don't come into it. I'm not a proponent of this, just drawing the conclusion. Same with cars.