4 ms·

That's going to be a no-go with the current wildfire situation, full stop. GA is actually pretty important and the US has enjoyed a lot of benefits from having

That's going to be a no-go with the current wildfire situation, full stop. GA is actually pretty important and the US has enjoyed a lot of benefits from having a strong GA sector. Keep in mind that the US trains the lions share of the world's pilots because in the rest of the world it's either too expensive or too restrictive (many governments don't like the idea of people having access to airplanes). Either way though, I'm going to make you defend the personal risk statement as ground fatalities from GA accidents are exceedingly rare by any reasonable metric. There is a lot of money going into replacement engines but they're mostly diesel since the most dominant fuel in aviation is Jet-A (essentially diesel/kerosene). These have found some success in Europe where 100LL is much more expensive as the operating costs of the diesels is much greater given their complexity, maintenance needs, and initial acquisition costs.

sokoloff 8y ago
Indeed. In addition to fire fighting and pilot training, avgas burning aircraft provide critical transport in rural areas and a portion of the crop-dusting fleet is piston-powered. Many more people are killed by dog bites in America than ground GA fatalities (turbine and piston combined). I’d no sooner make a safety argument to ban dogs than piston airplanes.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I was talking about the people in the plane exposing themselves to risk by flying, not ground fatalities, so uh? I wonder how "high personal risks" would lead to the misunderstanding. It looks like crashes result in about 300 annual deaths (of people on the planes) and dog bites 20 or 30. It seems that flying in a small plane is only somewhat more dangerous than driving the similar distance. But driving isn't really safe in the US either.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    The US is one of the safest places in the world to drive, and certainly in the same class as most developed countries. Is it the risk to individuals you object to, or the environmental cost? Which matters more, lead in fuel or the burning of fuel itself? Should we just go ahead and ban all combustion engines? That would at least be fair across the transportation sector. Microprocessor production is toxic. Should we ban microprocessors? Dry cleaning is notorious. Should we ban dry cleaning? Gasoline is toxic in all forms. Should we ban gasoline? Batteries are almost always toxic. Should we ban batteries? Or maybe we should just let the EPA and similar government bodies regulate this, along with the courts, which means we’re all good today.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      So better than chaos is an accomplishment? There are quite a lot of people living in countries with ~½ the road fatalities per mile driven, which is quite the delta.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Personal risks that overwhelmingly affect only the people engaged in the risk are things that most people accept as the participants’ business. Motorcycles, fatty foods, swimming, and many others fit this category. It didn’t occur to me (or seemingly Wild182) that you were suggesting banning an activity that was risky essentially solely to the participants in that activity. Being worried about ground fatalities of non-participant is something that makes sense, so that was the line of reasoning I thought you were suggesting. It was my mistake. On a per-mile basis, light aircraft are approximately as safe/dangerous as motorcycles. That’s the “all causes” rate for both. Both activities have means to substantially reduce the risk versus the “all causes”. On a cycle, wear a helmet, drive within your limits, don’t drink and ride. In an airplane, don’t run out of gas, don’t fly into thunderstorms, don’t fly in clouds if you’re not instrument rated and current.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      I thought "personal" meant that it only affected the people engaged in the risk, so there you go. I guess "individual" would follow your understanding somewhat better?
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        Your words were clear. The mistake was mine. I misread, making insufficient allowance for the concern to regulate risk taking by others.

sokoloff 8y ago

Indeed. In addition to fire fighting and pilot training, avgas burning aircraft provide critical transport in rural areas and a portion of the crop-dusting fleet is piston-powered. Many more people are killed by dog bites in America than ground GA fatalities (turbine and piston combined). I’d no sooner make a safety argument to ban dogs than piston airplanes.

maxerickson 8y ago
I was talking about the people in the plane exposing themselves to risk by flying, not ground fatalities, so uh? I wonder how "high personal risks" would lead to the misunderstanding. It looks like crashes result in about 300 annual deaths (of people on the planes) and dog bites 20 or 30. It seems that flying in a small plane is only somewhat more dangerous than driving the similar distance. But driving isn't really safe in the US either.
- bdamm 8y ago
  The US is one of the safest places in the world to drive, and certainly in the same class as most developed countries. Is it the risk to individuals you object to, or the environmental cost? Which matters more, lead in fuel or the burning of fuel itself? Should we just go ahead and ban all combustion engines? That would at least be fair across the transportation sector. Microprocessor production is toxic. Should we ban microprocessors? Dry cleaning is notorious. Should we ban dry cleaning? Gasoline is toxic in all forms. Should we ban gasoline? Batteries are almost always toxic. Should we ban batteries? Or maybe we should just let the EPA and similar government bodies regulate this, along with the courts, which means we’re all good today.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    So better than chaos is an accomplishment? There are quite a lot of people living in countries with ~½ the road fatalities per mile driven, which is quite the delta.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Personal risks that overwhelmingly affect only the people engaged in the risk are things that most people accept as the participants’ business. Motorcycles, fatty foods, swimming, and many others fit this category. It didn’t occur to me (or seemingly Wild182) that you were suggesting banning an activity that was risky essentially solely to the participants in that activity. Being worried about ground fatalities of non-participant is something that makes sense, so that was the line of reasoning I thought you were suggesting. It was my mistake. On a per-mile basis, light aircraft are approximately as safe/dangerous as motorcycles. That’s the “all causes” rate for both. Both activities have means to substantially reduce the risk versus the “all causes”. On a cycle, wear a helmet, drive within your limits, don’t drink and ride. In an airplane, don’t run out of gas, don’t fly into thunderstorms, don’t fly in clouds if you’re not instrument rated and current.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I thought "personal" meant that it only affected the people engaged in the risk, so there you go. I guess "individual" would follow your understanding somewhat better?
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Your words were clear. The mistake was mine. I misread, making insufficient allowance for the concern to regulate risk taking by others.