3 ms·
I'm no expert, but why can't we just add some regulation that says the insurance carriers will be responsible for any liability beyond 2024 (or whatever) and th
by FrameworkFred 5y ago
I'm no expert, but why can't we just add some regulation that says the insurance carriers will be responsible for any liability beyond 2024 (or whatever) and that they're free to charge whatever they want based on the make and model of the altimeter in use on the plane?
- rtkwe 5y agoWhy not make something safe instead of trying to end run an economic incentive to safety? Airplanes are one of the safest per mile form of transportation in the US because we regulate the actual safe flight instead of playing economic games to get companies to act safely.
- FrameworkFred 5y agoI'm suggesting this may be a viable alternative given that this has been a known potential issue for quite some time now and the aviation industry appears to be dragging their feet on replacing the faulty gear. It seems to me premiums that approach or exceed the cost of an upgrade would encourage them to get moving on the fix. On the other hand, maybe it makes more sense for insurance carriers to simply refuse to assume liability for flights on airplanes with altimeters that are known to have issues with 5G tech. That approach seems to work for discouraging new construction in floodplains.
- kube-system 5y agoInsurance is generally a reverse-looking science and does a really bad job at proactively measuring risk. You save more lives by having an engineer analyze potential problems with the plane before it crashes, than you do by waiting for one to crash so an actuary can count it.