4 ms·

We do need regulations on submersibles offering transport to passengers. 1) Dead people 2) How much is this debacle costing taxpayers? If your private actions

We do need regulations on submersibles offering transport to passengers. 1) Dead people 2) How much is this debacle costing taxpayers? If your private actions can impose significant cost on the public, the public has a right to ensure you're minimising risk.

RandomBK 3y ago
On (2), I think there's some general policy discussions we should have around government spending rescuing people willing and knowingly doing obviously dangerous/stupid things. Americans fucking around in North Korea or active war zones is another example that comes to mind. I think that would be a better use of time than spinning up a 100-person government licensing program to regulate the 1000 people playing with submarines.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Yeah, the costs of SAR when people made very dumb decisions is an ongoing debate. In my country at least, the consensus is that we don't want people to _not_ call for help when they need it because they're afraid of being invoiced. I used to be a ranger, so was involved in SAR to a small extent, usually triggering them, manning the radio, and hitting up other hikers who might have seen something for info, but a lot of our rangers were also volunteers with LandSAR, as they had the techical skills and the local knowledge. And as far as I'm aware, there was only one serious attempt to invoice someone for a search. An American serviceman with Operation Deep Freeze had left his intentions for a multi-day hike with the rangers, and when he didn't make contact within 24 hours of his expected date out, a search was initiated. The personal details he'd left weren't great, we knew that an American called Mike was following the Casey Stream - Poulter River - Lake Minchin - Townsend Pass - Taramakau River route, and we knew he hadn't signed out. No details of his car (if any), or where it was parked, no local contact details, nothing much but an overdue Yankee Mike who was headed into an area where the route he was following wasn't quite here-be-dragons, but you'd certainly stumble into dragons if you made navigation mistakes or bad choices in general. Volunter searchers on foot spent about 6 weeks scouring his route, and possible wrong turns he could've taken for, which involves very challenging terrain, they brought in both kinds of SAR dogs (the kind that are trained to find people, and the kind that are trained to find bodies) and, significantly more expensively, there was a lot of helicopter flight hours expended trying to find him. The rescue choppers had the IR cameras, ideal for finding warm bodies in the cold, and night vision great at enhancing any light emitted on the ground. Plus the massive spotlight and the winch and the trained paramedics etc. (Apparently a small torch is very damn visible at night with the NVG, just don't be under trees, it doesn't help). After those six weeks, the search was called off. A few months later he was eventually located by our Police who'd been following up every angle to identify him. He was safe and sound at home, in Utah. He'd returned to the US shortly after his hike. I'm guessing his deployment (or the season for flights to the Antarctic) had been at an end, so he went on one last hike and just forgot to sign out. The Police took it personal, and desperately wanted to invoice him for the rescue, even suing him in a US court if need be, but the diplomats nixed it as the US is very protective of its citizens, especially when they're in the service.
postalrat 3y ago
This debacle has been a nice bump for the economy. People will be taking about it for weeks. The costs of the search are quite low. Basically a training exercise.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Broken window fallacy? But true, as a training exercise it has some value, so long as those resources weren't needed elsewhere at the time.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    It's also got a lot of people suddenly interested in deep sea exploration.
cameldrv 3y ago
The FAA has a tiered framework of safety regulations based on the relationship of the passengers to the flight that makes sense to me: Tier 1: Scheduled airline service -- Passengers generally can't choose the model of aircraft and might even get a different airline via codeshare. They have no ability to evaluate the pilot before the flight. The airline, flight related employees, and the aircraft are all subject to heavy regulation. Tier 2: Charter aircraft -- Passengers are usually choosing the aircraft and can speak to the pilots. Still very substantial regulation but less than airlines. Tier 3: Private flying -- pilots can't charge for the flight, only share costs, and have to be traveling together even to share costs. Passengers will generally know the pilot personally and be able to evaluate their judgment. Regulations are much lighter. Tier 4: Experimental aircraft -- Airplanes that haven't been certified have to have EXPERIMENTAL in big letters as you get on the plane, and you can't charge passengers money at all. Bigger and faster experimental aircraft like jet fighters are more regulated in where and when they can fly so that they're less likely to kill people on the ground when they crash, but the FAA is relatively hands-off if it's only the pilot's life at risk.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Yeah I was thinking of the regulatory difference between taking your mates up in your Piper Cherokee and taking paying passengers in your Piper Cherokee. The regulatory requirements change significantly based on that alone. (E.g., PPL for friends, CPL for paying passengers). I don't even know if you're allowed to take paying passengers in a homebuilt.
  - throw0101a 3y ago
    > (E.g., PPL for friends, CPL for paying passengers). PPL also cannot charge money besides (at most) cost-sharing, e.g. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger

RandomBK 3y ago

On (2), I think there's some general policy discussions we should have around government spending rescuing people willing and knowingly doing obviously dangerous/stupid things. Americans fucking around in North Korea or active war zones is another example that comes to mind. I think that would be a better use of time than spinning up a 100-person government licensing program to regulate the 1000 people playing with submarines.

EdwardDiego 3y ago
Yeah, the costs of SAR when people made very dumb decisions is an ongoing debate. In my country at least, the consensus is that we don't want people to _not_ call for help when they need it because they're afraid of being invoiced. I used to be a ranger, so was involved in SAR to a small extent, usually triggering them, manning the radio, and hitting up other hikers who might have seen something for info, but a lot of our rangers were also volunteers with LandSAR, as they had the techical skills and the local knowledge. And as far as I'm aware, there was only one serious attempt to invoice someone for a search. An American serviceman with Operation Deep Freeze had left his intentions for a multi-day hike with the rangers, and when he didn't make contact within 24 hours of his expected date out, a search was initiated. The personal details he'd left weren't great, we knew that an American called Mike was following the Casey Stream - Poulter River - Lake Minchin - Townsend Pass - Taramakau River route, and we knew he hadn't signed out. No details of his car (if any), or where it was parked, no local contact details, nothing much but an overdue Yankee Mike who was headed into an area where the route he was following wasn't quite here-be-dragons, but you'd certainly stumble into dragons if you made navigation mistakes or bad choices in general. Volunter searchers on foot spent about 6 weeks scouring his route, and possible wrong turns he could've taken for, which involves very challenging terrain, they brought in both kinds of SAR dogs (the kind that are trained to find people, and the kind that are trained to find bodies) and, significantly more expensively, there was a lot of helicopter flight hours expended trying to find him. The rescue choppers had the IR cameras, ideal for finding warm bodies in the cold, and night vision great at enhancing any light emitted on the ground. Plus the massive spotlight and the winch and the trained paramedics etc. (Apparently a small torch is very damn visible at night with the NVG, just don't be under trees, it doesn't help). After those six weeks, the search was called off. A few months later he was eventually located by our Police who'd been following up every angle to identify him. He was safe and sound at home, in Utah. He'd returned to the US shortly after his hike. I'm guessing his deployment (or the season for flights to the Antarctic) had been at an end, so he went on one last hike and just forgot to sign out. The Police took it personal, and desperately wanted to invoice him for the rescue, even suing him in a US court if need be, but the diplomats nixed it as the US is very protective of its citizens, especially when they're in the service.

postalrat 3y ago

This debacle has been a nice bump for the economy. People will be taking about it for weeks. The costs of the search are quite low. Basically a training exercise.

EdwardDiego 3y ago
Broken window fallacy? But true, as a training exercise it has some value, so long as those resources weren't needed elsewhere at the time.
- postalrat 3y ago
  It's also got a lot of people suddenly interested in deep sea exploration.

cameldrv 3y ago

The FAA has a tiered framework of safety regulations based on the relationship of the passengers to the flight that makes sense to me: Tier 1: Scheduled airline service -- Passengers generally can't choose the model of aircraft and might even get a different airline via codeshare. They have no ability to evaluate the pilot before the flight. The airline, flight related employees, and the aircraft are all subject to heavy regulation. Tier 2: Charter aircraft -- Passengers are usually choosing the aircraft and can speak to the pilots. Still very substantial regulation but less than airlines. Tier 3: Private flying -- pilots can't charge for the flight, only share costs, and have to be traveling together even to share costs. Passengers will generally know the pilot personally and be able to evaluate their judgment. Regulations are much lighter. Tier 4: Experimental aircraft -- Airplanes that haven't been certified have to have EXPERIMENTAL in big letters as you get on the plane, and you can't charge passengers money at all. Bigger and faster experimental aircraft like jet fighters are more regulated in where and when they can fly so that they're less likely to kill people on the ground when they crash, but the FAA is relatively hands-off if it's only the pilot's life at risk.

EdwardDiego 3y ago
Yeah I was thinking of the regulatory difference between taking your mates up in your Piper Cherokee and taking paying passengers in your Piper Cherokee. The regulatory requirements change significantly based on that alone. (E.g., PPL for friends, CPL for paying passengers). I don't even know if you're allowed to take paying passengers in a homebuilt.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > (E.g., PPL for friends, CPL for paying passengers). PPL also cannot charge money besides (at most) cost-sharing, e.g. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger