19 ms·

I'm glad the FAA does what they do. While it is easy to hand wave away their concerns, it is better to over-spec it now and to test the design than to just let

I'm glad the FAA does what they do. While it is easy to hand wave away their concerns, it is better to over-spec it now and to test the design than to just let manufacturers put "alpha" products into commercial usage and only fix them after a body-count. If driving/vehicles/roads were held to the same or a similar standards to aircraft there might be fewer accidents and deaths today. Ironically self-driving is held to a much higher standard than regular driving; which is appreciated but further makes one question why regular "dumb" vehicles are so under-regulated (the analogy that springs to my mind is when HTTPS with a self-signed certificate used to be treated much worse than regular HTTP, it took years to treat HTTP as the insecure connection it is, manual vehicles are the same way, something that has been around so long we ignore its safety issues).

Waterluvian 8y ago
Put autonomous cars in the exact same conditions as all cars today rather than an easy mode Silicon Valley subset and the body count will be way higher. I don't disagree with your sentiment about the FAA. I don't believe autonomous cars are being held to a higher standard needlessly.
foobarrio 8y ago
How often is failure of the car itself the cause of a fatal automobile accident? Just looking at lack of seatbelt use and alcohol make up 50% of traffic fatalities. It seems that the "Human Choice" is the biggest thing to fix when it comes to auto accidents. * https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812318 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- tomohawk 8y ago
  I have a relative who worked at the FHWA (Federal Highway Admin) for many years. The estimate I often heard is that improper pavement design and maintenance were a factor in 20% - 30% of fatalities (think: asphalt). That friction with your tires is all that's really keeping you on the road. Many states refused to perform testing of their pavement because (a) they would have to remediate, and (b) they would likely have to go with less politically connected companies for pavement that would work better.
  - rizzom5000 8y ago
    According to USDOT and NHTSA human error is responsible for 94% of human fatalities involving traffic crashes (including cyclist and pedestrian deaths).
    - burfog 8y ago
      If the human drives right into a huge wheel-swallowing pothole, is that "human error" or is it "improper pavement design and maintenance"? The human should watch out. On the other hand, the pothole should be fixed. It is probably typical to have multiple factors, making it easy to bend the numbers to one's liking.
furgooswft13 8y ago
> If driving/vehicles/roads were held to the same or a similar standards to aircraft there might be fewer accidents and deaths today. Vehicles are already regulated with regards to safety features; seat-belts, airbags, anti-lock braking systems etc. These have and do prevent many deaths and serious injuries. But holding cars to the same mechanical rigors as airplanes would make them neigh unaffordable for most, to say nothing of yearly inspections many states have which is often considered nothing more than a government subsidy to mechanic shops. It is also entirely unnecessary, as when a car has a mechanical failure, it can just roll to a stop. As for preventing accidents in the first place, car crashes, as with plane crashes, are caused overwhelmingly by operator error.
- walrus01 8y ago
  > But holding cars to the same mechanical rigors as airplanes would make them neigh unaffordable for most, to say nothing of yearly inspections many states have which is often considered nothing more than a government subsidy to mechanic shops. It is also entirely unnecessary, as when a car has a mechanical failure, it can just roll to a stop. For engines, yes, but it's scary how many people don't maintain their brakes properly. Or otherwise drive vehicles that are unsafe to be on the road. https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/ There's a reason why many states, particularly northern and road salt states, have mandatory inspections. There's also very good reasons why state patrols and the DOT do mandatory inspections of larger cargo trucks. Obviously a car does not need to be maintained to the same standard and expense as a light aircraft. If you fuck up your own clutch it's nobody's problem but your own wallet.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    Brakes and tires are two legitimate inspection points that often get neglected by drivers. Still, brake inspections especially, are very often abused by mechanic shop and/or unreasonable regulation terms to force car owners to replace far before is actually necessary. At least in my experience, it seems every single year the shop states they won't pass the car unless some of the brakes are replaced. I suspect in this case they are just bald-face lying, as recently I balked at yet another ~$600 maintenance charge to pass a routine inspection, took the car to a friends shop out of town, and was able to conclude that the original shop never even checked the brakes, as the wheels took _a lot_ of force to remove once the lug nuts were off. Similarly with emissions checks. It often turns into nothing more than a yearly tax on your vehicle and does nothing to improve anyone's safety.
walrus01 8y ago
Not related to autonomous vehicles, but related to the risk of death for light aircraft flight vs. NASA spacecraft human-rating... The FAA seems to be relatively OK with the current annual fatality rate for light-sport aircraft, homebuilt experimental licensed aircraft, and light aircraft in the size range of the Cessna 172. For pilots with less than 1000 hours, flying a light single engine aircraft is a relatively dangerous activity on a per-hour basis. If human spaceflight had the same number of annual fatalities as the current number deaths in the US 48 states while flying homebuilt/kit/light sport aircraft, both NASA and the news media would be freaking out. NASA is requiring spacex to put the Falcon9 and Dragon2 through a very expensive and rigorous period of qualification before it can carry humans on commercial launch contracts. The likelihood that there will be a totally catastrophic disaster that the launch escape system can't recover from is low, but the standard of safety (in terms of flight-hours per human per year) seems to be much, much higher than the FAA's.
- meredydd 8y ago
  The Space Shuttle suffered 2 total losses in 135 missions. Apollo had 1 total loss from a dozen or so flights (plus several heart-stopping near misses). If privately flown Cessna 172s had that kind of fatality rate, I (and many other posters on this board) would long since be a smoking hole in the ground. Space flight is spectacularly dangerous, and US launch vehicles have a particularly gnarly safety record. Some paranoia is probably warranted.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    The space shuttle, Apollo and early Soyuz were also very different spacecraft than current designs and technology. Challenger and Columbia were lost due to institutional ineptitude. The engineers that were the manufacturer of the SRBs on Challenger specifically warned against the cold temperatures and were overruled. People noticed the foam shedding issue with the space shuttle many years before the Columbia incident. The space shuttle was a catastrophic clusterfuck of a pork barrel political design. There was actually no launch escape system or possibility of recovery from early launch phase anomaly once the SRBs were lit, until they burned out (unlike the launch escape system on Soyuz, Apollo, Dragon2, etc). The space shuttle had a ridiculous number of moving parts and degree of complexity compared to a Dragon2 on a Falcon9 (or a Soyuz on top of its booster) The soviet union and russia have had zero fatalities since Soyuz 11 in 1971. I would actually venture that at this point it might be statistically safer to fly along as a passenger in a modern Soyuz mission than to fly as a second passenger in some sub-500-hour pilot's kitbuilt piper cub clone.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>If driving/vehicles/roads were held to the same or a similar standards to aircraft there might be fewer accidents and deaths today. But at what cost? Ground transportation wouldn't be very useful if we couldn't afford it Sure, "human life is sacred" and all that but that's kind of a first world problem you don't get to care about except when you already have infrastructure that's good enough for most use cases. >Ironically self-driving is held to a much higher standard than regular driving; which is appreciated but further makes one question why regular "dumb" vehicles are so under-regulated Design and construction of new vehicles is subject to a large and ever increasing amount of regulation. It just doesn't make the news when a FMVSS gets updated to require that brake hoses meet a later revision of some SAE spec which specifies a more rigorous QC procedure. Regarding maintenance, some negligible fraction (I've heard 6%, "less than 1%" and 0.5%) is caused by mechanical failure. If mechanical failure caused a meaningful portion of crashes you'd see insurance companies harping on about it and offering elective inspection programs in non-inspection states.
sunflowerfly 8y ago
Bringing the same rules to light aircraft as airliners has actually made them less safe. Bringing a new four place plane to market has been cost prohibitive. The majority of new planes built today were designed in the 50’s on slide rules. Imagine if we were all still driving 50’s era automobiles. Luckily, the FAA loosened these rules this week.
- 8note 8y ago
  That's assuming that over those years, the market would select for safer flights and not cheaper ones at the expense of safety.
  - selectodude 8y ago
    The issue is that non-commercial aircraft are being held to the same standard as a 777, not that the 777 is held to an extremely high standard. There's nothing safe about a Cessna 172, period, and it's far too expensive for them to redesign it. So it's going to continue to be a 60 year old plane with updated avionics.
    - tdubhro1 8y ago
      > There's nothing safe about a Cessna 172 Genuine question: is the 172 really considered unsafe, googling "cessna 172 safety record" brings up a lot of articles suggesting it is as safe or safer than comparable aircraft - or are you saying that light private aircraft aren't very safe in general?
      - cjrp 8y ago
        Not specific to the 172, but a sizeable part of the training when getting your license is about what do when the engine stops (gliding, finding a suitable field/road/etc.) - and if you fly long enough there's a fairly good chance you'll have to put what you learned into practise.
    - anfilt 8y ago
      You do realize most airplane crashes are small planes.
stephenr 8y ago
While there are some mechanical failure caused crashes, aren’t the vast majority of car crashes/incidents caused by driver error? Either drunk, speeding, not paying attention, deliberately being a bellend, etc? If anything that just means the licensing process should be stricter - not specifically a change in the cars themselves. With self-driving cars the car is the driver so of course it has to be more strictly controlled - it has to make decisions.
rayiner 8y ago
> Ironically self-driving is held to a much Is it?
pc86 8y ago
The FAA is a common source of criticism and complaint among the aviation community. It's the driving force behind the continually rising costs in general aviation. Owning a small single engine plane with a hull value of $40-50k requires a financial commitment tantamount to purchasing a second home. But, it's good to step back and recognize every now and then that every Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR, 14 CFR) is written in blood. The FAA can be a pain to deal with sometimes but every pilot I know is very, very glad that they do what they do.

Waterluvian 8y ago

Put autonomous cars in the exact same conditions as all cars today rather than an easy mode Silicon Valley subset and the body count will be way higher. I don't disagree with your sentiment about the FAA. I don't believe autonomous cars are being held to a higher standard needlessly.

foobarrio 8y ago

How often is failure of the car itself the cause of a fatal automobile accident? Just looking at lack of seatbelt use and alcohol make up 50% of traffic fatalities. It seems that the "Human Choice" is the biggest thing to fix when it comes to auto accidents. * https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812318 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

tomohawk 8y ago
I have a relative who worked at the FHWA (Federal Highway Admin) for many years. The estimate I often heard is that improper pavement design and maintenance were a factor in 20% - 30% of fatalities (think: asphalt). That friction with your tires is all that's really keeping you on the road. Many states refused to perform testing of their pavement because (a) they would have to remediate, and (b) they would likely have to go with less politically connected companies for pavement that would work better.
- rizzom5000 8y ago
  According to USDOT and NHTSA human error is responsible for 94% of human fatalities involving traffic crashes (including cyclist and pedestrian deaths).
  - burfog 8y ago
    If the human drives right into a huge wheel-swallowing pothole, is that "human error" or is it "improper pavement design and maintenance"? The human should watch out. On the other hand, the pothole should be fixed. It is probably typical to have multiple factors, making it easy to bend the numbers to one's liking.

furgooswft13 8y ago

> If driving/vehicles/roads were held to the same or a similar standards to aircraft there might be fewer accidents and deaths today. Vehicles are already regulated with regards to safety features; seat-belts, airbags, anti-lock braking systems etc. These have and do prevent many deaths and serious injuries. But holding cars to the same mechanical rigors as airplanes would make them neigh unaffordable for most, to say nothing of yearly inspections many states have which is often considered nothing more than a government subsidy to mechanic shops. It is also entirely unnecessary, as when a car has a mechanical failure, it can just roll to a stop. As for preventing accidents in the first place, car crashes, as with plane crashes, are caused overwhelmingly by operator error.

walrus01 8y ago
> But holding cars to the same mechanical rigors as airplanes would make them neigh unaffordable for most, to say nothing of yearly inspections many states have which is often considered nothing more than a government subsidy to mechanic shops. It is also entirely unnecessary, as when a car has a mechanical failure, it can just roll to a stop. For engines, yes, but it's scary how many people don't maintain their brakes properly. Or otherwise drive vehicles that are unsafe to be on the road. https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/ There's a reason why many states, particularly northern and road salt states, have mandatory inspections. There's also very good reasons why state patrols and the DOT do mandatory inspections of larger cargo trucks. Obviously a car does not need to be maintained to the same standard and expense as a light aircraft. If you fuck up your own clutch it's nobody's problem but your own wallet.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Brakes and tires are two legitimate inspection points that often get neglected by drivers. Still, brake inspections especially, are very often abused by mechanic shop and/or unreasonable regulation terms to force car owners to replace far before is actually necessary. At least in my experience, it seems every single year the shop states they won't pass the car unless some of the brakes are replaced. I suspect in this case they are just bald-face lying, as recently I balked at yet another ~$600 maintenance charge to pass a routine inspection, took the car to a friends shop out of town, and was able to conclude that the original shop never even checked the brakes, as the wheels took _a lot_ of force to remove once the lug nuts were off. Similarly with emissions checks. It often turns into nothing more than a yearly tax on your vehicle and does nothing to improve anyone's safety.

walrus01 8y ago

Not related to autonomous vehicles, but related to the risk of death for light aircraft flight vs. NASA spacecraft human-rating... The FAA seems to be relatively OK with the current annual fatality rate for light-sport aircraft, homebuilt experimental licensed aircraft, and light aircraft in the size range of the Cessna 172. For pilots with less than 1000 hours, flying a light single engine aircraft is a relatively dangerous activity on a per-hour basis. If human spaceflight had the same number of annual fatalities as the current number deaths in the US 48 states while flying homebuilt/kit/light sport aircraft, both NASA and the news media would be freaking out. NASA is requiring spacex to put the Falcon9 and Dragon2 through a very expensive and rigorous period of qualification before it can carry humans on commercial launch contracts. The likelihood that there will be a totally catastrophic disaster that the launch escape system can't recover from is low, but the standard of safety (in terms of flight-hours per human per year) seems to be much, much higher than the FAA's.

meredydd 8y ago
The Space Shuttle suffered 2 total losses in 135 missions. Apollo had 1 total loss from a dozen or so flights (plus several heart-stopping near misses). If privately flown Cessna 172s had that kind of fatality rate, I (and many other posters on this board) would long since be a smoking hole in the ground. Space flight is spectacularly dangerous, and US launch vehicles have a particularly gnarly safety record. Some paranoia is probably warranted.
- walrus01 8y ago
  The space shuttle, Apollo and early Soyuz were also very different spacecraft than current designs and technology. Challenger and Columbia were lost due to institutional ineptitude. The engineers that were the manufacturer of the SRBs on Challenger specifically warned against the cold temperatures and were overruled. People noticed the foam shedding issue with the space shuttle many years before the Columbia incident. The space shuttle was a catastrophic clusterfuck of a pork barrel political design. There was actually no launch escape system or possibility of recovery from early launch phase anomaly once the SRBs were lit, until they burned out (unlike the launch escape system on Soyuz, Apollo, Dragon2, etc). The space shuttle had a ridiculous number of moving parts and degree of complexity compared to a Dragon2 on a Falcon9 (or a Soyuz on top of its booster) The soviet union and russia have had zero fatalities since Soyuz 11 in 1971. I would actually venture that at this point it might be statistically safer to fly along as a passenger in a modern Soyuz mission than to fly as a second passenger in some sub-500-hour pilot's kitbuilt piper cub clone.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>If driving/vehicles/roads were held to the same or a similar standards to aircraft there might be fewer accidents and deaths today. But at what cost? Ground transportation wouldn't be very useful if we couldn't afford it Sure, "human life is sacred" and all that but that's kind of a first world problem you don't get to care about except when you already have infrastructure that's good enough for most use cases. >Ironically self-driving is held to a much higher standard than regular driving; which is appreciated but further makes one question why regular "dumb" vehicles are so under-regulated Design and construction of new vehicles is subject to a large and ever increasing amount of regulation. It just doesn't make the news when a FMVSS gets updated to require that brake hoses meet a later revision of some SAE spec which specifies a more rigorous QC procedure. Regarding maintenance, some negligible fraction (I've heard 6%, "less than 1%" and 0.5%) is caused by mechanical failure. If mechanical failure caused a meaningful portion of crashes you'd see insurance companies harping on about it and offering elective inspection programs in non-inspection states.

sunflowerfly 8y ago

Bringing the same rules to light aircraft as airliners has actually made them less safe. Bringing a new four place plane to market has been cost prohibitive. The majority of new planes built today were designed in the 50’s on slide rules. Imagine if we were all still driving 50’s era automobiles. Luckily, the FAA loosened these rules this week.

8note 8y ago
That's assuming that over those years, the market would select for safer flights and not cheaper ones at the expense of safety.
- selectodude 8y ago
  The issue is that non-commercial aircraft are being held to the same standard as a 777, not that the 777 is held to an extremely high standard. There's nothing safe about a Cessna 172, period, and it's far too expensive for them to redesign it. So it's going to continue to be a 60 year old plane with updated avionics.
  - tdubhro1 8y ago
    > There's nothing safe about a Cessna 172 Genuine question: is the 172 really considered unsafe, googling "cessna 172 safety record" brings up a lot of articles suggesting it is as safe or safer than comparable aircraft - or are you saying that light private aircraft aren't very safe in general?
    - cjrp 8y ago
      Not specific to the 172, but a sizeable part of the training when getting your license is about what do when the engine stops (gliding, finding a suitable field/road/etc.) - and if you fly long enough there's a fairly good chance you'll have to put what you learned into practise.
  - anfilt 8y ago
    You do realize most airplane crashes are small planes.

stephenr 8y ago

While there are some mechanical failure caused crashes, aren’t the vast majority of car crashes/incidents caused by driver error? Either drunk, speeding, not paying attention, deliberately being a bellend, etc? If anything that just means the licensing process should be stricter - not specifically a change in the cars themselves. With self-driving cars the car is the driver so of course it has to be more strictly controlled - it has to make decisions.

rayiner 8y ago

> Ironically self-driving is held to a much Is it?

pc86 8y ago

The FAA is a common source of criticism and complaint among the aviation community. It's the driving force behind the continually rising costs in general aviation. Owning a small single engine plane with a hull value of $40-50k requires a financial commitment tantamount to purchasing a second home. But, it's good to step back and recognize every now and then that every Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR, 14 CFR) is written in blood. The FAA can be a pain to deal with sometimes but every pilot I know is very, very glad that they do what they do.