5 ms·

Aviation regulations are written in blood. They are the only reason you can step into an aircraft with a reasonable expectation of making it safely to your des

Aviation regulations are written in blood. They are the only reason you can step into an aircraft with a reasonable expectation of making it safely to your destination. Disasters are generally not caused by obvious large issues, but a multitude of smaller compounding, seemingly benign causes that could otherwise be easily dismissed. The massive body of regulation around aviation is a direct result of this. Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people.

jessriedel 6y ago
That regulations are motivated by avoiding deaths does not mean that they are effective at that, or even if they are effective that they are worth the costs. Regulations that specify specific safety equipment, rather than specifying target error rates or bonds/liability, are the worst because they get enacted and then stay on the books for decades unchanged.
- danaliv 6y ago
  They aren’t motivated by it. They’re a result of it. Practically every rule or standard in the book can be traced to a crash. Mode C veil? Aeromexico 498, 82 dead. Radio comms standardization? Tenerife, 583 dead. CRM: United 173, 10 dead. Altitude requirements while being vectored to an approach (91.175(i)): TWA 514, 92 dead. I could go on. The answer to “why can’t we just” in aviation is “because people died.” The FAA doesn’t make rules just to make them. They make them because aviation is unforgiving and it will kill you and your passengers if you screw it up.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It sounds like you're trying to disagree with the comment you replied to but none of those facts disagree with what they said.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      No, the writer who said "because of" is more correct than "motivated by." The US FARs are really a sequence of reactions to dead passengers, which is what "written in blood" means. That's why the NTSB always seems to be one step ahead of the FAA in demanding action - the NTSB investigated an accident with dead people, found a cause, and requested the FAA do something about it. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    Being caused by previous deaths and being motivated to avoid future deaths are very compatible.
stickfigure 6y ago
> Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people ...in 1970. Not saying that all aviation regulations are bad, but the fact that carburetors are still used in general aviation is pretty damning.
- ksd482 6y ago
  Interesting. Can you please elaborate your point about the carburetors? Why shouldn't they be used in general aviation? I don't have much knowledge about engines, that's why I am asking you.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Carburetors are mainly susceptible to icing in normal use. Your engine can just start losing power and rapidly quit. I once had carb icing in Hawaii at 2000' near Wheeler due mostly to humidity, and it was only thorough training that allowed me to figure that out fast enough to apply carb heat and save the plane. A lot of inexperienced pilots just ride it down into the ground. Dual fuel injectors prevent the icing problem (usually, unless your fuel actually crystallizes or freezes), but they have other failure modes like dirt or wear. Or forgetting to turn them on.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    I'm not a pilot but I have a lot of experience with carburetors in cars and motorcycles. Carburetors are fiddly analog devices that require tuning by way of changing port sizes, needle valve sizes, float levels, mixture adjusters, throttle position adjusters, and more. Most of these require disassembly, and they clog and distort as the carburetor ages. Carburetors are highly sensitive to temperature and altitude. Tuning them is "more art than science". Modern fuel injection systems have digital control and feedback loops using a variety of sensors. They provide optimal fueling in pretty much any condition. They may be more complicated, but (at least in vehicles) they're rock solid reliable compared to carburetors. They also have more graceful failure modes - if the O2 sensor craps out, the computer defaults to running rich and puts a warning light on the dash. I'm pretty sure that if the carburetor was invented today, it would never be allowed to carry human traffic.

jessriedel 6y ago

That regulations are motivated by avoiding deaths does not mean that they are effective at that, or even if they are effective that they are worth the costs. Regulations that specify specific safety equipment, rather than specifying target error rates or bonds/liability, are the worst because they get enacted and then stay on the books for decades unchanged.

danaliv 6y ago
They aren’t motivated by it. They’re a result of it. Practically every rule or standard in the book can be traced to a crash. Mode C veil? Aeromexico 498, 82 dead. Radio comms standardization? Tenerife, 583 dead. CRM: United 173, 10 dead. Altitude requirements while being vectored to an approach (91.175(i)): TWA 514, 92 dead. I could go on. The answer to “why can’t we just” in aviation is “because people died.” The FAA doesn’t make rules just to make them. They make them because aviation is unforgiving and it will kill you and your passengers if you screw it up.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  It sounds like you're trying to disagree with the comment you replied to but none of those facts disagree with what they said.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    No, the writer who said "because of" is more correct than "motivated by." The US FARs are really a sequence of reactions to dead passengers, which is what "written in blood" means. That's why the NTSB always seems to be one step ahead of the FAA in demanding action - the NTSB investigated an accident with dead people, found a cause, and requested the FAA do something about it. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  Being caused by previous deaths and being motivated to avoid future deaths are very compatible.

stickfigure 6y ago

> Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people ...in 1970. Not saying that all aviation regulations are bad, but the fact that carburetors are still used in general aviation is pretty damning.

ksd482 6y ago
Interesting. Can you please elaborate your point about the carburetors? Why shouldn't they be used in general aviation? I don't have much knowledge about engines, that's why I am asking you.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Carburetors are mainly susceptible to icing in normal use. Your engine can just start losing power and rapidly quit. I once had carb icing in Hawaii at 2000' near Wheeler due mostly to humidity, and it was only thorough training that allowed me to figure that out fast enough to apply carb heat and save the plane. A lot of inexperienced pilots just ride it down into the ground. Dual fuel injectors prevent the icing problem (usually, unless your fuel actually crystallizes or freezes), but they have other failure modes like dirt or wear. Or forgetting to turn them on.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  I'm not a pilot but I have a lot of experience with carburetors in cars and motorcycles. Carburetors are fiddly analog devices that require tuning by way of changing port sizes, needle valve sizes, float levels, mixture adjusters, throttle position adjusters, and more. Most of these require disassembly, and they clog and distort as the carburetor ages. Carburetors are highly sensitive to temperature and altitude. Tuning them is "more art than science". Modern fuel injection systems have digital control and feedback loops using a variety of sensors. They provide optimal fueling in pretty much any condition. They may be more complicated, but (at least in vehicles) they're rock solid reliable compared to carburetors. They also have more graceful failure modes - if the O2 sensor craps out, the computer defaults to running rich and puts a warning light on the dash. I'm pretty sure that if the carburetor was invented today, it would never be allowed to carry human traffic.