3 ms·
It's a bit unfair, I'd say, to compare a single military fighter jet incident rate to (all?, matured?) civilian aircraft incident rates, as such: "It's like co
by greyboy 14y ago
It's a bit unfair, I'd say, to compare a single military fighter jet incident rate to (all?, matured?) civilian aircraft incident rates, as such:
"It's like comparing over-powered motorbikes in the hands of reckless teenagers with school buses."
I'm not excusing the error rate, but civilian aircraft have a faily simple set of operations: fill aircraft with people and/or cargo, fly a pre-determined route at a relatively stable airspeed, and land. Also, what was the error rate of civilian aircraft during development (as the F-16 number reflects)?
Outside of the Concorde, I don't think they have to worry about supersonic speeds. Also, nor are they concerned high angles of attack, or reduced aerodynamics at low altitudes, or low/near surface flying, and a plethora of other uses and scenarios.
Unless I misinterpreted your statement, then disregard this reply.
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoYour parent isn't complaining about the incident rates of military aircraft. He's complaining about putting something with the that high of an incident rate in the same airspace with civilian traffic (not to mention housing). It drastically increases the risk of the civilian aircraft being involved in one of those much-more-numerous incidents, and, when an aircraft has an "incident", the passengers and crew (and people standing under said incident) tend to not come out of it well. Convenient for the military aircraft causing the incidents in this hypothetical situation, they have no passengers or crew to worry about. And I absolutely believe that will increase the number of risks they (the Air Force or its shoddy contractors) will be willing to take, further increasing the risk to civilians around.
- greyboy 14y agoGotchya. But that doesn't invalidate my reply, which was about the numbers being compared and the context of those numbers. Are there many people living in the desert where the military trains? Or over open water? Many military bases don't have residential areas in the immediate vicinity, unlike most civilian airports. (Sure, there are exceptions to both, but as a whole - what's the norm?) I realize there are incidents that have involved civilians, such as when I was in San Diego and an F-18 (?) crashed into a neighborhood near Miramar in San Diego. My questions: what is the total number of civilian casualties from military "incidents" and how does that compare to civilian incidents? And what other airspace can they fly in? Is there no way to compromise? Etc. I'm not arguing for or against contractors or drones. I would think they should be launched from military bases, if at all. My goal is to look at it from the right perspective.
- simonk 14y agoI don't think people have any issues with them being at military bases, its that they are starting to be more and more deployed at civilian airports all around the world.