6 ms·

>It (OceanGate) added that the classification agencies "slowed down innovation… bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into

>It (OceanGate) added that the classification agencies "slowed down innovation… bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation". As a private pilot who is considering building a kit aircraft, this is certainly true. It can be exceedingly expensive to prove safety standards have been met for new designs, which is why so few new certified aircraft are on the market and old designs are so expensive. This leads to the whole industry slowing to a crawl. But that absolutely doesn't mean safety standards haven't been met with new designs. However, if I build a kit plane, the FAA will require it be emblazoned "Experimental" and commercial activity - such as paying passengers - is forbidden. I hope the paying customers of this sub were well aware of the level of risk they were taking. All that being said, I'm supportive of anyone's right to go and build a contraption that may end their life, so long as they don't take anybody or anyone else's property with them.

notwhereyouare 3y ago
>However, if I build a kit plane, the FAA will require it be emblazoned "Experimental" and commercial activity - such as paying passengers - is forbidden. unless you're a big company https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/ono50t/ever_see_a_major_airline_running_passenger_ops_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/ono50t/ever_see_a_m...
- noirscape 3y ago
  Reading the comments, that plane was actually fully certified, they just forgot to remove the sticker.
- tekla 3y ago
  Ignorant response. Just because you see a sticker doesn't mean anything. The aircraft is certified to fly commercially. Its the same as people freaking about speed tape.
- TheDesolate0 3y ago
  [dead]
tiedieconderoga 3y ago
To quote the CBS reporter who recorded an earlier journey with them, as he read the waiver form¹: >...An experimental submersible vessel, that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, or death. Where do I sign? Probably not enough of a disclaimer, especially if they had people read and sign it once they were already miles out at sea. The passengers were technically advised of the risks, though. ¹: https://youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o&t=2m38s https://youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o&t=2m38s
sharx 3y ago
There are externalized costs besides death though, like the resources deployed in the search and rescue effort. In the case of aviation you can also cause collateral damage or death.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  Yes, but you have to allow a certain amount of freedom or everything grinds to a standstill. The approach the FAA takes is perfectly reasonable: you can do this dangerous thing, but you can't legally make money from it, and if you "forget" to tell your passengers, the aircraft itself is labelled "Experimental."
- hisnameisjimmy 3y ago
  I am happy for my tax dollars to go to efforts like these. The world is cooler when we have people doing rad stuff.
  - Daishiman 3y ago
    This applies until the cost of people doing "rad stuff" is too high to bear socially.
    - akritrime 3y ago
      which is why you most probably can't play with plutonium in your backyard
- sjducb 3y ago
  Search and rescue is often seen by the military as a high quality training exercise. They feel the stress of a real exercise where someone’s life is on the line.
JohnFen 3y ago
> is anathema to rapid innovation So what? Rapid innovation is not always what should happen. It always comes with pretty serious risks and not insignificant costs.
eternityforest 3y ago
In a free country, yes, anyone has the right to do so. Not my place to judge if I'm going to continue watching Jackass movies. But I'm not a fan of people like this guy vaguely shaming those who don't like to take lots of risks. I'm not a daredevil, if I got on a plane I would expect it to be safer than the trip to the airport. The FAA, and the elevator industry, are two of the groups that actually do things the way I like to see them done. If there is one single crash, they will train pilots and update firmware or even retrofit hardware to stop that one specific scenario. If there's a near miss, and someone could have crashes, they might do the same. Anywhere else, we just say "Yeah, we know this kills X people a year, but if ya wanna be safe don't get up". Innovation is largely overrated. A lot of the useful stuff seems to be held up on the basic science rather than willingness to do hands on experiments. If there's tech to save fuel, they'll do it because it's cheap. If there's tech to make it safer, the FAA will probably require it. If there's some really clever trick that does neither but makes it simple and cheap and interesting, I'm quite happy for it to just remain in the experimental stuff. Whenever people talk about innovation being more important than safety it always sounds like typical hacker ethos "I want a world full of lots of different random technical ideas that are simple and can be understood"..... "love of ideas" more than love of engineering progress in the modern sense.

notwhereyouare 3y ago

>However, if I build a kit plane, the FAA will require it be emblazoned "Experimental" and commercial activity - such as paying passengers - is forbidden. unless you're a big company https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/ono50t/ever_see_a_major_airline_running_passenger_ops_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/ono50t/ever_see_a_m...

noirscape 3y ago
Reading the comments, that plane was actually fully certified, they just forgot to remove the sticker.
tekla 3y ago
Ignorant response. Just because you see a sticker doesn't mean anything. The aircraft is certified to fly commercially. Its the same as people freaking about speed tape.
TheDesolate0 3y ago
[dead]

tiedieconderoga 3y ago

To quote the CBS reporter who recorded an earlier journey with them, as he read the waiver form¹: >...An experimental submersible vessel, that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, or death. Where do I sign? Probably not enough of a disclaimer, especially if they had people read and sign it once they were already miles out at sea. The passengers were technically advised of the risks, though. ¹: https://youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o&t=2m38s https://youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o&t=2m38s

sharx 3y ago

There are externalized costs besides death though, like the resources deployed in the search and rescue effort. In the case of aviation you can also cause collateral damage or death.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
Yes, but you have to allow a certain amount of freedom or everything grinds to a standstill. The approach the FAA takes is perfectly reasonable: you can do this dangerous thing, but you can't legally make money from it, and if you "forget" to tell your passengers, the aircraft itself is labelled "Experimental."
hisnameisjimmy 3y ago
I am happy for my tax dollars to go to efforts like these. The world is cooler when we have people doing rad stuff.
- Daishiman 3y ago
  This applies until the cost of people doing "rad stuff" is too high to bear socially.
  - akritrime 3y ago
    which is why you most probably can't play with plutonium in your backyard
sjducb 3y ago
Search and rescue is often seen by the military as a high quality training exercise. They feel the stress of a real exercise where someone’s life is on the line.

JohnFen 3y ago

> is anathema to rapid innovation So what? Rapid innovation is not always what should happen. It always comes with pretty serious risks and not insignificant costs.

eternityforest 3y ago

In a free country, yes, anyone has the right to do so. Not my place to judge if I'm going to continue watching Jackass movies. But I'm not a fan of people like this guy vaguely shaming those who don't like to take lots of risks. I'm not a daredevil, if I got on a plane I would expect it to be safer than the trip to the airport. The FAA, and the elevator industry, are two of the groups that actually do things the way I like to see them done. If there is one single crash, they will train pilots and update firmware or even retrofit hardware to stop that one specific scenario. If there's a near miss, and someone could have crashes, they might do the same. Anywhere else, we just say "Yeah, we know this kills X people a year, but if ya wanna be safe don't get up". Innovation is largely overrated. A lot of the useful stuff seems to be held up on the basic science rather than willingness to do hands on experiments. If there's tech to save fuel, they'll do it because it's cheap. If there's tech to make it safer, the FAA will probably require it. If there's some really clever trick that does neither but makes it simple and cheap and interesting, I'm quite happy for it to just remain in the experimental stuff. Whenever people talk about innovation being more important than safety it always sounds like typical hacker ethos "I want a world full of lots of different random technical ideas that are simple and can be understood"..... "love of ideas" more than love of engineering progress in the modern sense.