4 ms·
> The system is designed to not pose a risk to human life in the worst case event of a collision. This is what the FAA 101 and ICAO weight limits are for. And i
by modeless 1y ago
> The system is designed to not pose a risk to human life in the worst case event of a collision. This is what the FAA 101 and ICAO weight limits are for. And indeed, there were no serious injuries and no depressurization event to my knowledge as a result of the collision.
This seems close to a worst case scenario for this failure mode, and everyone is still OK. I consider that good engineering.
- blackcatsec 1y agoA reminder for those in the back, government regulation made this safe (FAA limits). And yes, this is good engineering, but through decades of learning crowdfunded with tax dollars.
- artursapek 1y agoAnyone arguing against government regulation as a whole is completely delusional. Companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
- baggy_trough 1y agoThe problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so they build up into a choking plaque over time.
- anjel 1y agohttps://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_under_the_Congressional_Review_Act https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_under_... You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but the mechanism itself exists.
- baggy_trough 1y agoIt needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new regulations, but it's much weaker instead.
- alistairSH 1y agoIs that really true? An agency can remove a regulation it created. Congress (via the linked law) can also remove a regulation. Congress can also create regulations via legislation (though they typically don't go to that level of detail). And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm. The cost of removing that regulation prematurely is reintroducing that problem / harm.
- bjt 1y agoThe problem is more about regulatory capture. An industry adapts to a regulation, and creates winners and losers. Once the regulation no longer makes sense (costs taxpayers/consumers more than it benefits), those who are winning from it have a strong interest in keeping it around anyway. A good example is the state franchise laws against car manufacturers owning dealerships. Why can't Toyota sell me a car directly? Direct manufacturer sales seem to work fine in other contexts (e.g. Ikea). In Europe they're moving more and more direct sales. There's no good reason to keep them here in the US, but the dealership owners who benefit from these laws are the only people impacted directly enough to bother hiring lobbyists.
- alistairSH 1y agoAgreed. And, IMO, the fix to regulatory capture isn't adding a mechanism to directly make deregulation easier. Instead, it's to (somehow) remove the money from politics/campaigning.
- baggy_trough 1y ago> And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm. It would be comforting to believe so, but that requires ignoring every aspect of human nature.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hangsi 1y agoThere is a mechanism for this, internationally usually named some variant of a Law Commission [0]. The idea is to look for laws that are technically in effect but can rarely or never be applied. For example, the UK Law Commission boasts a repeal of 3000+ acts in its time [1], such as repealing rules for conducting slave trades that were made obsolete in the 1800s but not repealed at the time. In addition to the sibling comment's mention of the Congressional Review Act for agency oversight, there is a US Office of the Law Revision Counsel [2]. It has an official website [3] which is beautifully old-fashioned, but looks to be purely a resource for accessing the letter of the law and doesn't recount its volume of repeals in the same way. None of this matters if the insane or counterproductive regulations are deliberate and desirable for the current lawmakers, of course. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_commission [1] https://lawcom.gov.uk/repeals/ https://lawcom.gov.uk/repeals/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Counsel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Cou... [3] https://uscode.house.gov/ https://uscode.house.gov/
- vkou 1y agoWe do, it's called the legislature. Half the legislature campaigns on not doing anything if they get elected, though, and when they get elected, you get... Well, you get a lot of different things, most of them awful.
- baggy_trough 1y agoI'm interested in a system that would actually collect the garbage rather than just being theoretically capable of it but in practice not doing it.
- vkou 1y agoIt would probably work about as well as a system where all contracts and debts get voided every 7 years. It's building on quicksand, but it's certainly not unprecedented.
- dlcarrier 1y agoThis event was unsafe, despite being wholly within the regulations, but in the comments of this post, the CEO of the company has made a promise to do better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656044#45659295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656044#45659295 Government regulators have failed, but at least the company is making an effort to prevent this from happening again.
- SR2Z 1y agoGovernment regulators have NOT failed. The CEO already pointed this out - hitting the front windshield on a corner at cruise speed is the worst possible case for a collision like this. Once pilot got some light shrapnel and the airplane successfully landed with zero deaths. This is such a rare collision that people attributed it to SPACE DEBRIS initially. The only fix I'd like to see the government make is allowing lightweight objects to broadcast transponder data. Even if they don't do that, another 50 years will probably pass before the next collision of this type.
- dlcarrier 1y agoA reminder to those who presume regulators make the right decisions, a cheap ADSB out transponder would have prevented this incident, but putting one on a weather balloon is prohibited by the FAA.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoProhibited? Why? Will air travel become safer because we don't know where they are?
- MPSimmons 1y agoWhat happens to the payload mass when you add the transponder?
- dlcarrier 1y agoIt could easily be less than a percent of added weight, considering that there's probably already batteries and a GPS receiver on the balloon.
- ggreer 1y agoThe FCC requires that airborne transmitters identify themselves by broadcasting the an FAA designator such as the aircraft registration number.[1] The FAA has no identification or registration process for small weather balloons. So this effectively prohibits them from broadcasting. It's possible to add a radar reflector, but they add significant weight and bulk to the balloon's payload. I think reflectors are only required for larger weather balloons. 1. See § 87.107: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2024-title47-vol5-sec87-107.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title47-vol5/pd...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- thedudeabides5 1y agoisn't the worst case it goes into the engine and it explodes/burns?
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoNo, because the plane is designed to safely fly without an engine. They test the engines by shooting turkeys from the grocery store into them while they run.
- bdangubic 1y agowithout working one working engine - sure. with serious structural damage - perhaps not so much
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoYes, with serious structural damage. It's part of certification process for the engine: https://youtu.be/iBqWS1hil18 https://youtu.be/iBqWS1hil18
- MaxfordAndSons 1y agoI think GP meant structural damage to the airframe. That said, I think there are some modes of structural damage a modern plane can sustain and still fly, but to gp's point, probably not many.
- bdangubic 1y agoyes I did :)
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoThe FAA limits the mass of a weather balloon for this reason. I also would not be surprised to see new regulation on the distribution of that mass as a result of this incident.
- johnldean0 1y agoWindBorne cofounder CEO (John Dean) here -- Thanks, indeed I think that a strike to the cockpit glass, in the corner where there is more stress concentration, is one of the worst places to hit for human safety. And indeed the system was designed to be safe in the event of a collision. But still, in light of this I think we can do better. I think it's possible to operate the way we do and have a the mass distributed such that the only damage is ever cosmetic. We follow FAA 101 regulations on this but I want to have better internal impact modeling as well.
- MPSimmons 1y agoIt's unfortunate that this happened, but this will help drive better engineering decisions in the future for everyone. Glad everyone is mostly okay from this!
- tyre 1y agoPretty great, public response from you to publish this and be in the comments here. Kudos. I hope more CEOs take your lead.
- dlcarrier 1y agoPlease put pressure on the FAA to do better too. NOTAMS, as they currently are, are pretty useless, and allowing unmanned vessels to output ADS-B could be extremely beneficial.
- johnldean0 1y agoYea, the FAA does a lot and I think overall they do a great job, but I wish there was better systems for communications here. I think ultimately companies like WindBorne just have to go above and beyond what is required if they want to operate at scale safely in this space. And no one else operates balloons at the scale that we do, and safety has to be built into the design and operations regardless of how the official systems work.
- travisgriggs 1y agoHats off to you and your company. I wish more companies could put up a notice like you did, much less show up as a CEO on frickin' HN and be willing to take responsibility as well as desire to do better. I honestly am a little confused how a person like you exists. The FAA should put someone like you in charge of Boeing.