4 ms·

JSX operates under a regulatory loophole that allows them to bypass TSA security and hire significantly less experienced pilots. It is easy to find articles wit

JSX operates under a regulatory loophole that allows them to bypass TSA security and hire significantly less experienced pilots. It is easy to find articles with very different opinions on JSX than this one. I would ask why a company operating the same planes and more total flight hour than a competitor should be able to bypass the same security requirements and hire pilots with half the flight hours. Same goes for Skywest Charter. The rules they work around, in Part 121, were made stricter 15 years ago because of the Colgan crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407#Legacy that killed 49 people on the aircraft and one on the ground.

bedhead 3y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway5752 3y ago
  Okay, that is fair. But if you are a major or regional flying under part 121, it isn't quite fair for JSX to essentially pretend they are not scheduled. Maybe they 1500 hour rule should be relaxed for everyone. But JSX is flying the same planes at the same scale as other companies and presents the same risk to the general public. They should be regulated the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19144957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19144957 is 5 years old but has some good insights. edit: I missed the name-calling. Please be better than that.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Do we really need to name call here
dghlsakjg 3y ago
European airlines hire pilots with even fewer hours, but have similar accident rates. There is still significant oversight for anyone operating aircraft commercially, and it doesn't seem like this poses a significant risk from that perspective.
jessriedel 3y ago
If you're going to cite the "less experienced pilots" in the Colgan crash as the reason the FAA increased the flight hour requirement, it seems responsible to mention that the pilots in that crash satisfied the higher requirement too. (EDIT: I see you have now acknowledged this in a different reply. Thanks!) Going by the statistical value of life, crash risk now contributes a truly negligible amount to the cost of flight. We shouldn't accept additional burdensome flight safety rules without quantitative arguments that they pass a cost-benefit test.
- throwaway5752 3y ago
  That's directly in the source I quoted, to be fair: "(This rule would not have influenced the crew in this accident, as both pilots held ATP certificates and had more than 1,500 hours of experience.)". This requirement was added after the Colgan crash, as a direct result of it, though. This isn't about new regulation, it is about a company attempting to avoid existing regulation. I am sure you'd agree removal of regulations should go through the same sort of cost benefit analysis, and that regulations should be applied fairly to all parties.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    > I am sure you'd agree removal of regulations should go through the same sort of cost benefit analysis Definitely not. We should err toward freedom. If you don't have good reason to think that the benefits of a regulation outweigh the harms, it should absolutely be repealed. Of course, in this particular case I think the cost-benefit analysis has been done, and the 1500 hour rule is net harm. > and that regulations should be applied fairly to all parties. Not in the way you mean. I think if we have a bad regulation that is applied arbitrarily to one of two competitors, the afflicted party should lobby for the regulation to be removed from themselves, not for it to be applied to their competitor. If someone can find a legal way around a bad law, they should do it. I want taxis to be more like Uber/Lyft, not the other way around, and I don't think Uber/Lyft and its drivers should be punished for the harm inflicted to taxi drivers (if any) by bad rules.
    - 3y ago
mlyle 3y ago
Part 135 is not a "loophole."
- throwaway5752 3y ago
  As an admitted non-expert, the loophole part seems to be in the interpretation of a 30 seat limit on charters under part 135, along with the Part 380 "public charter operator".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bedhead 3y ago

[flagged]

throwaway5752 3y ago
Okay, that is fair. But if you are a major or regional flying under part 121, it isn't quite fair for JSX to essentially pretend they are not scheduled. Maybe they 1500 hour rule should be relaxed for everyone. But JSX is flying the same planes at the same scale as other companies and presents the same risk to the general public. They should be regulated the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19144957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19144957 is 5 years old but has some good insights. edit: I missed the name-calling. Please be better than that.
selimthegrim 3y ago
Do we really need to name call here

dghlsakjg 3y ago

European airlines hire pilots with even fewer hours, but have similar accident rates. There is still significant oversight for anyone operating aircraft commercially, and it doesn't seem like this poses a significant risk from that perspective.

jessriedel 3y ago

If you're going to cite the "less experienced pilots" in the Colgan crash as the reason the FAA increased the flight hour requirement, it seems responsible to mention that the pilots in that crash satisfied the higher requirement too. (EDIT: I see you have now acknowledged this in a different reply. Thanks!) Going by the statistical value of life, crash risk now contributes a truly negligible amount to the cost of flight. We shouldn't accept additional burdensome flight safety rules without quantitative arguments that they pass a cost-benefit test.

throwaway5752 3y ago
That's directly in the source I quoted, to be fair: "(This rule would not have influenced the crew in this accident, as both pilots held ATP certificates and had more than 1,500 hours of experience.)". This requirement was added after the Colgan crash, as a direct result of it, though. This isn't about new regulation, it is about a company attempting to avoid existing regulation. I am sure you'd agree removal of regulations should go through the same sort of cost benefit analysis, and that regulations should be applied fairly to all parties.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  > I am sure you'd agree removal of regulations should go through the same sort of cost benefit analysis Definitely not. We should err toward freedom. If you don't have good reason to think that the benefits of a regulation outweigh the harms, it should absolutely be repealed. Of course, in this particular case I think the cost-benefit analysis has been done, and the 1500 hour rule is net harm. > and that regulations should be applied fairly to all parties. Not in the way you mean. I think if we have a bad regulation that is applied arbitrarily to one of two competitors, the afflicted party should lobby for the regulation to be removed from themselves, not for it to be applied to their competitor. If someone can find a legal way around a bad law, they should do it. I want taxis to be more like Uber/Lyft, not the other way around, and I don't think Uber/Lyft and its drivers should be punished for the harm inflicted to taxi drivers (if any) by bad rules.
  - 3y ago

mlyle 3y ago

Part 135 is not a "loophole."

throwaway5752 3y ago
As an admitted non-expert, the loophole part seems to be in the interpretation of a 30 seat limit on charters under part 135, along with the Part 380 "public charter operator".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]