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

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:30:00 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

I agree, that's where it should be.

The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.

There are inherent dangers in the FAA's flawed integration of
MTRs into the National Airspace System (NAS). First is the military's
failure to appreciate that MTR operations are conducted in joint use
airspace, of which the military does not have exclusive use. From
discussions I have had with military pilots, they seem to fail to
understand that regulations require them to see-and-avoid conflicting
air traffic during MTR operations.

This leads to the second flaw in the FAA's MTR implementation: the
impossibility of spotting conflicting traffic in time to maneuver out
of the path of collision. Federal regulations restrict maximum
aircraft speed to 250 knots below 10,000 feet, but MTR operations are
conducted under a waiver at speeds nearly double that regulatory
limit. This exemption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be patently
incompatible with separating aircraft by visual means as required by
federal regulation. There is not adequate time available for a human
pilot to conduct his mission, pilot his aircraft, and comply with the
regulatory see-and-avoid mandate at such high speed.

Given this information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa15.pdf
An experimental scan training course conducted with military
pilots found the average time needed to conduct the operations
essential to flying the airplane was 20 seconds – 17 seconds for
the outside scan, and three seconds for the panel scan.

it is easy to see the problem; things happen too fast for humans to
reliably deconflict at such high speeds. This is evidenced in three
military/civil mid air collisions (MAC) that have occurred in
conjunction with MTR operations.

The first, a collision between a Navy A7 and a glider in 1986,
miraculously resulted in no loss of life, however the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident report
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
erroneously failed to list as a probable cause the A7 pilot's failure
to see-and-avoid the glider that apparently had the right-of-way due
to it's being in a different Category. FAR 91.113(d)(2) mandates that
the pilot of a powered airplane shall give way to a glider and may not
pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

In 1993 a military A6 entering a MTR late collided with an Ag-Cat. The
NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1 got
the probable cause right this time:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE SEE-AND-AVOID CONCEPT OF
SEPARATION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLIGHT RULES THAT
PRECLUDED THE CREW OF THE A6E AND THE PILOT OF THE AGCAT FROM
RECOGNIZING A COLLISION HAZARD AND TAKING ACTIONS TO AVOID A
MIDAIR COLLISION.

The next military/civil MAC occurred in congested terminal airspace in
2000 by a flight of two F-16s without benefit of ATC clearance. The
criminal misdeeds committed by the USAF flight lead are too numerous
to mention here, but the mishap further illustrates the military's
lack of accountability for its MTR operations. The lead F-16 pilot
failed to see the Cessna 172, and lead his wingman in to a collision
with it resulting in the "disintegration" of ATP rated 172 pilot and
his aircraft; wreckage and carnage was scattered over four square
miles. It was reported that the C-172 was in steep right bank away
from the F-16 at the time of impact, but apparently the civilian pilot
did not have adequate time to successfully maneuver out of the path
the F-16 fighter. The NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1 cites
among the probably causes, the Cessna pilots failure to see-and-avoid
the high-speed military traffic.

From these military/civil MTR MACs it is evident that the hazards
caused by the FAA's integration of MTRs into the NAS are unacceptable,
and the NTSB's failure to appreciate that fact is disappointing. If
it is the military's high-speed low-level MTR operations that are
causing the hazard, it is the military upon whom sole responsibility
for deconflict ion should rest; see-and-avoid is obviously unworkable
at these closing speeds.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 15:13:06 in message
, Jose
wrote:

With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.

An ex-commodore of a prestigious yacht club once told me that of all the
yachts in the club 80% never or hardly ever left their moorings. Of the
remainder he claimed 80% never left the harbour.

In effect the majority were expensive weekend cottages.
--
David CL Francis

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at 15:13:06 in message
, Jose
wrote:

With a boat, you can socialize on the boat; you don't have to take the
boat anywhere. You can go somewhere and have an instant community of
friends just by hanging around the dock. You can take the boat a mile
offshore and just sit there all day, for entertainment.

An ex-commodore of a prestigious yacht club once told me that of all the
yachts in the club 80% never or hardly ever left their moorings. Of the
remainder he claimed 80% never left the harbour.

In effect the majority were expensive weekend cottages.
--
David CL Francis

Actually for a weekend cotttage they are quite reasonably priced.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.
[...]

Heh heh...I don't disagree, but I am amused at how you managed to drag that
issue into this thread.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:17:42 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The FAA has granted an exception to such responsibility for the hazard
created by operations on Military Training Routes by military aircraft
in excess of 250 knots below 10,000'.
[...]

Heh heh...I don't disagree, but I am amused at how you managed to drag that
issue into this thread.


That issue needs to be publicly dragged before the FAA and the NTSB
via the news media.

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