Pilots are completely subsumed under our political control over commercial aviation to the point we might as well tell them which hand to brush their teeth with. Almost zero control over "their own specific field." Wee bit more control for general aviation, hence all the crashes.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
the higher accident rate in general aviation is due to less training, less maintenance, inherently more dangerous operations (e.g. single-pilot and VFR), less attention to important factors like proficiency "pilots having major operational control" is not a major factor
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @zeynep and
and, hell, you're wrong even about Part 121 aviation the pilot in command is the final authority for all decisions concerning the flight from takeoff to landing, he's king, just like in GA
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You're missing the point. We don't let them fly a thing without intrusive and expansive control over their whole lives, including extensive training and protocols and checklists, and we don't let them continue flying if there's the slightest deviation from our parameters.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @ded_ruckus and
"Here's the world's shortest leash in a field regulated within an inch of its life" is the not the paean to deferring to technocratic expertise people seem to think it is. The amazing part is that this is not immediately obvious to people.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Pilots have a short leash, yeah, but the leash is mostly also set by technocratic experts the procedures are defined by engineers and mechanics, the regulations are set by FAA/NTSB career guys (often pilots themselves)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @zeynep and
very little about aviation policy is set democratically
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The democratic part is that we decided we were going to prioritize safety almost above all for this industry. NTSB fascinating and I think they have figured out good tools for wrangling a complex sociotechnical problem. But it costs what, one million $ per line of cockpit code?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I am not convinced this was fundamentally a political decision. Modern risk-aversion with life aside, jetliner airframes cost like $300M. It's worth spending a whole lot of money to prevent even a few hull losses.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I dunno. We spend so much money on the military... How much have we spent on the F-35? Trillions? So the idea that we are efficient isn't true either. We are remarkably inefficient. It's not lives either—plane crashes affect very few. Long story, we decided to make flying safe.
-
-
The military is a whole separate topic, and doesn't have much to do with commercial aviation (other than exchanging a lot of personnel). And, plane crashes affect so few precisely because we've spent so much effort and money on making it safe. That wasn't true in the 30s.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is exactly my point. "And, plane crashes affect so few precisely because we've spent so much effort and money on making it safe. That wasn't true in the 30s."
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.