Accidents - correlation and causation?

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Nothing is black and white. The guy =at= the airport, who has no
intention of flying but is just there to pick Sam up would be more like
the pedestrian on the side of the road. But I'm talking about the
schoolyard that has an airplane fall on it.

My point is your willingness to simply alter the stated scenario to suit
your whim. And again, you try to shift the discussion away.

Regardless, the pedestrian in his front yard next door to your house is like
the guy at the airport, being near one terminus of an automobile trip. The
schoolyard is much more like the pedestrian downtown, being somewhere along
the path of travel of the automobile trip.

Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of "innocent".

"Innocent" means "didn't do it". The "it" that he didn't do needn't be a
Bad Thing.

If it's not a bad thing to expose oneself to risk, why is your desire to
punish such a person by affording them less protection from the actions of
others?

In this context, I use "innocent" to mean "didn't deliberately put himself
in harm's way", where flying an airplane is a case of deliberately putting
oneself in harm's way. You are taking a chance. Ditto driving a car
(each WRT their respective hazards)

There is absolutely no reason that the harm in question needs to include the
irresponsible actions of others.

A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of
being shot.

There is always risk, but when you =contribute= to that risk (by going
hunting, for example) you are no longer "innocent" in the sense that the
picknicker is.

So the park stroller is NOT innocent by your reasoning? After all, they
would have less risk staying at home, so their action of going out and
strolling in the park contributes to their risk. Ergo, "no longer
'innocent'".

But according to you, the people on the ground are innocent while the
passengers in the plane are not. And according to you, they should thus
be granted more protection.

Yes, they should... by the pilot.

The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.

In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
degree of protection.

The passengers are at greater risk to begin with.

So what? Why should then passengers of boats not be granted the greater
degree of protection, through a similar training and certification program
used for aviation?

You don't seem to be able to stay focused on who it is you'd like to protect
or to not protect. Sometimes you want the "innocents" not directly involved
to be better protected, and sometimes you want the "guilty" who are exposing
themselves to greater risk to be granted greater protection.

But even so, the case in boating is that no one is granted any real
protection by government regulation. Not the passengers, and not the
"innocents".

[...]
flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.

The risk is small, but nonzero.

Really? You know of someone who has been killed by a kite?

I've never heard of such a thing (excluding kites specifically designed to
harm, which I already disqualified in the text you trimmed).

As far as I know, the risk of flying a kite IS zero with respect to a fatal
injury.

Now we're discussing degree, which is what I was saying all along. LIttle
league pitchers aren't certified, but there have been fatal pitching
accidents too.

Well, as I mentioned, there are a number of activities, including many that
are FAR more hazardous than little-league pitching, that are not regulated.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be. Still, little-league pitching is not
inherently dangerous. That is, no death would occur when the usual and
proper safety precautions are taken. In aviation and boating, you can take
every precaution, and an accident can still kill you.

We disagree, but I'm open to being swayed by actual data. (and if you
include big boats, you have to include big planes too)

That's fine. The hazard to people on the ground by large airplanes is even
less than by small airplanes.

Pete

My point is your willingness to simply alter the stated scenario to suit
your whim.

You make an analogy that I do not believe fits well. I came up with a
different one.

If it's not a bad thing to expose oneself to risk, why is your desire to
punish such a person by affording them less protection from the actions of
others?

I am not affording them less protection, =they= are affording
=themselves= less protection by engaging in risky activity. My concept
of who should be protected has nothing to do with whether or not they
are doing a "bad" thing, but whether or not they are doing a
=consensual= thing.

There is absolutely no reason that the harm in question needs to include the
irresponsible actions of others.

I don't say it's ok that an irresponsible driver in car A hits a
responsible driver in car B. I am saying that by getting into a car,
you are accepting the risk that car A may cross your path, in exchange
for the ability to get car B to where you're going.

The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.

The pilot is the one in control.

Why should then passengers of boats not be granted the greater
degree of protection, through a similar training and certification program
used for aviation?

If the risk is commensurate, they should.

ometimes you want the "innocents" not directly involved
to be better protected, and sometimes you want the "guilty" who are exposing
themselves to greater risk to be granted greater protection.

The point of the rules is to mitigate or modify risk. Some risks need
more modification because they are.. well... riskier.

Really? You know of someone who has been killed by a kite?

No, and I don't know of someone who has been killed by a meteor. It's
not impossible though. The risk is not zero. It is also irrelevant how
many victims of what that I know.

Still, little-league pitching is not
inherently dangerous. That is, no death would occur when the usual and
proper safety precautions are taken.

What precautions? What about batting? What precautions would prevent a
batted ball from impacting the pitcher in a fatal manner? You can take
every precaution and an accident can kill you anywhere, in any activity.

The hazard to people on the ground by large airplanes is even
less than by small airplanes.

You know this... how? One particular large airplane killed thousands of
people on the ground. Granted this was an unusual event, but it was
significant.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
You make an analogy that I do not believe fits well. I came up with a
different one.

It only failed to "fit well" because it undermined your point. Changing the
analogy to suit your desire doesn't fix the problem with your point.

[...]
The pilot isn't the one making the rules. Try again.

The pilot is the one in control.

You seem to be forgetting that this is in regards to the question about
regulation. That is, rule-making. In the activity of rule-making, the
pilot is NOT the one in control.

No, and I don't know of someone who has been killed by a meteor.

You don't? There are a number of scientists who would take issue with your
claim.

It's not impossible though.

By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone? With a meteor,
the mechanism is pretty plain to see. Even as infrequent as meteors land,
there is documented evidence that they have killed. However, even with the
EXTREMELY frequent use of kites in this country, I am not aware of a single
event in which a kite killed someone.

The risk is not zero. It is also irrelevant how many victims of what that
I know.

If you are going to claim that a kite can kill, you ought to at least have
an example of when one has.

[...]
You know this... how? One particular large airplane killed thousands of
people on the ground. Granted this was an unusual event, but it was
significant.

It was completely irrelevant. No amount of rule-making would have altered
the one time I'm aware of that a large airplane (two, actually) killed
thousands of people on the ground. It wasn't accidental.

As far as how I know the situation with respect to accidents, the proof is
in the accident record. Large airplanes practically never crash, and even
when they do, it's very unusual for anyone on the ground to be hurt. On the
other hand, small airplanes crash all the time. Even though it is similarly
unusual for anyone on the ground to be hurt, the sheer difference in
accident rate causes a larger risk exposure.

Pete

You seem to be forgetting that this is in regards to the question about
regulation. That is, rule-making. In the activity of rule-making, the
pilot is NOT the one in control.

True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

You don't [know of someone who has been killed by a meteor]?
There are a number of scientists who would take issue with your claim.

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone?

A dive into a person asleep on the lawn, where the strut penetrates
through the eyeball into the brain is one method. I will agree that
this is a difficult feat to accomplish, but I do not believe it is
out-and-out impossible.

If you are going to claim that a kite can kill, you ought to at least have
an example of when one has.

No, that is not only not true, it is foolish.

No amount of rule-making would have altered
the one time I'm aware of that a large airplane (two, actually) killed
thousands of people on the ground.

One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky. And that it was
deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were large aircraft
attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small aircraft are not
as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not recognized by the ADIZ
people.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:36:27 GMT, Jose
wrote:

By what mechanism do you presume a kite will kill someone?

A dive into a person asleep on the lawn, where the strut penetrates
through the eyeball into the brain is one method. I will agree that
this is a difficult feat to accomplish, but I do not believe it is
out-and-out impossible.

Or, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11766288/

Don

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
Or, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11766288/

That is precisely the type of "kite designed to harm" that I excluded from
the discussion.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
True. But the fact that the pilot is in control (of others) should
influence rulemaking (on behalf of others).

Boats don't have pilots?

Scientists disagree that I don't know anybody who was killed by a meteor?

Once again, you rewrite my post to suit your desire.

I didn't write that you know someone who was killed by a meteor. I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

[...]
One, actually.

A second airplane killed another bunch of people right nearby.

Again, rewriting my post. My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

And you are right, rulemaking would not have altered that. But my claim
was not that rulemaking would have saved anyone, it was that large
aircraft do have a risk of falling out of the sky.

I never said they don't. And with respect to the question of rule-making,
it is VERY MUCH relevant whether an event would be stopped by rule-making.
Ironic that you would claim it's not relevant, and then write this:

And that it was deliberate is irrelevant also. The fact that they were
large aircraft attracted those who would use them as weapons. Small
aircraft are not as effective, therefore as attractive, a fact not
recognized by the ADIZ people.

The biggest problem with the ADIZ (rule-making) is that it has no effect on
the intentional actions of terrorists. The question of intent versus
accidental is very relevant to the question of rule-making.

I realize that making up stuff is a popular Usenet tactic, but I really have
no interest in feeding your tendencies.

Pete

I wrote
that you know OF someone who was killed by a meteor (or more correctly, you
SHOULD know OF someone...if you are ignorant of scientific facts, that
certainly could get in the way of your understanding).

Why should I know of someone who was killed by a meteor? It is not
necessary to know of someone who was killed by a meteor to ascertain
whether or not it is possible to be killed by a meteor.

My comment about two airplanes does not in any
way preclude two separate events. Your reply simply illustrates the lack of
anything real for you to criticize.

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

In any case the thread is drifting into irrelevance.

I contend that flying is more dangerous to the non-flying public than
boating is dangerous to the non-boating public. I might be wrong; I'm
open to data.

However, I also contend that =IF= the above is true, =THEN= it makes
sense to have more stringent regulation of airplane pilots than boating
pilots.

I also do not see an inconsistancy WRT allowing a student pilot to fly
solo but not with passengers. Since the danger to passengers is
inherently greater than the danger to the nonflying public, it makes
more sense to protect passengers via this rule. If the risk is small
enough, rulemaking is not necessary. (FSVO "small")

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 at 19:11:39 in message
, Jose
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether it was one airplane or two. But you chose to
point out that it was two. I chose to point out that it was one. That
there was another right afterwards doesn't matter.

Can anyone let us know what aircraft or aircraft in the same incident
killed thousands of people on the ground? I am interested in aircraft
accidents but I do not know at the moment of any that fit that category.
--
David CL Francis