"Pilot had to dive aggressively to avoid midair collision over Burbank airport."
-
Fair, but it has gotten very noticably worse based on Trump's deregulation catching up on the aircrafts and the latest round of forcing out air traffic control
Also, I didn't know you could just say "all pronouns". I like that a lot, I'm really uncomfortable putting myself in boxes and that describes my preferences very succinctly
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, whereas prior congresses and presidencies squeezed regulatory agencies and let them get captured, Trump is just taking a wrecking ball to them. What we're going through now really can't be compared to what happened before, including during Reagan's term and George W. Bush.
Re: Pronouns, TBH I was in theater as a kid and TTRPGs as a teen and young adult, so it was super easy to get comfortable whatever pronouns suited my character. And yeah, embraced my enby status as I got past my forties.
-
At any time, you can expect at least 2-6 people out of their seats if the fasten seatbelts sign isn't on. But I don't really care about that part, shit happens
Planes shouldn't be dodging each other in the first place... That's the actual problem here. I don't blame the pilot either, they avoided a collision, so as far as I'm concerned they did what they had to do
The situation itself never should have happened
i dont even know what youre trying to state or argue. seatbelts should be worn by all seated passengers at all times to mitigate risk of injury in case something that shouldn't happen does end up happening. obviously there are exceptions like when people need to piss and shit.
-
Well? Does u/Agent641 get the computer?
I made it through. Maybe next time.
-
And I'm aware of unexpected turbulence...I just don't see getting banged about that big a deal. Shit happens. Wrong place, wrong time... Sure, put on your seatbelt when you're sitting down, but even if you don't you're probably not going to die from it
“J. E. Littlewood, a mathematician at Cambridge University, wrote about the law of truly large numbers in his 1986 book, "Littlewood's Miscellany." He said the average person is alert for about eight hours every day, and something happens to the average person about once a second. At this rate, you will experience 1 million events every thirty-five days. This means when you say the chances of something happening are one in a million, it also means about once a month. The monthly miracle is called Littlewood's Law.” - David McRaney
This is why people build houses in flood zones. What are the odds this will affect me? And every year, people gamble with those one in a million odds, and someone loses. Then their friends console each other at the funeral that it was a freak accident and who could have predicted it would happen? And why were they in that position? Because people don't have an intuitive grasp of statistics, particularly low probability and high frequency, and what the are odds it will happen to them. But it's happening to someone all the time, and much more likely to the one who says, "Well, it probably won't be me."
I don't think you get what I'm saying.
If you build your house in a flood zone... Well, I feel for you. That sucks, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it
If the state is cutting taxes to incentize building in a flood plain (which is a thing that has happened), in going to be very upset
-
These conservative warnings exist for a reason, though. That being hundreds of lives at stake. What I think would be more interesting is to hear how often these types of events occurred before and after the layoffs at the FAA
Agreed. The point of a conservative warning is to give plenty of time and opportunity to react without bouncing your passengers off the ceiling.
Fault for the loss of separation seems to be on the controllers. Not all separation incidents are the same, though. This one seems to be rather minor. By my estimation, the encroachment was a maximum of 264 yards, and the duration of that encroachment (without pilot or controller intervention) would have been less than 10 seconds. Too tight, yes. It needs addressed so it doesn't become a habitual violation that could lead to more severe encroachment by these controllers. But there was no real danger of bodily harm from this encroachment.
Fault for an overly aggressive maneuver is on the pilot. There was a risk of injury from that overly aggressive response. The pilot's actions elevated a minor, no-risk event to one that risked serious injury to the passengers and crew. But, he was following instructions from a device designed to improve aviation safety, and the nature of the warnings from that device, an over-response is much safer than an under-response. He has to trust his instruments, and his instruments (erroneously) told him to push the nose down, quickly, lest he hit another plane.
TCAS is designed and intended to reduce risk and prevent harm. In this specific incident, though, it seems like the TCAS-RA actually increased the risk of harm, by calling for an immediate action that wasn't actually necessary to prevent harm. Is there a way to improve TCAS?
I, too, would like to know how often TCAS incidents were recorded before and after the layoffs. Those layoffs definitely harmed aviation safety. But if someone were injured in this incident, I don't think I could point the finger at the controllers or lack thereof. This particular incident seems to suggest a shortcoming in the TCAS system.
-
i dont even know what youre trying to state or argue. seatbelts should be worn by all seated passengers at all times to mitigate risk of injury in case something that shouldn't happen does end up happening. obviously there are exceptions like when people need to piss and shit.
No duh. I don't care if a few people got slammed into the ceiling
I care that two planes almost collided and killed everyone
Why even consider the seat belts? They're not the real issue here
-
stuff like this is why i'm lowkey terrified of flying
also this isn't a shitpostSo you'd rather stick to the ground, where you can't dive to avoid an oncoming vehicle?
-
Bus and Rail rules.
Motorcycles are for the young who don't want to get old.
Everyone wants to shit on motorcycles, but it's as much a red herring as a meaningful statement. You might as well mention that horse riding is 25x more dangerous than motorcycles. And if you really want to get into the weeds, go look up how many motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, and how many of those are due to speeding or alcohol involvement. So if you don't drink, and don't act like a fool, you're really not all that badly off. Still worse than being in a steel cage for protection, but it's not only for people "who don't want to get old."
-
Agreed. The point of a conservative warning is to give plenty of time and opportunity to react without bouncing your passengers off the ceiling.
Fault for the loss of separation seems to be on the controllers. Not all separation incidents are the same, though. This one seems to be rather minor. By my estimation, the encroachment was a maximum of 264 yards, and the duration of that encroachment (without pilot or controller intervention) would have been less than 10 seconds. Too tight, yes. It needs addressed so it doesn't become a habitual violation that could lead to more severe encroachment by these controllers. But there was no real danger of bodily harm from this encroachment.
Fault for an overly aggressive maneuver is on the pilot. There was a risk of injury from that overly aggressive response. The pilot's actions elevated a minor, no-risk event to one that risked serious injury to the passengers and crew. But, he was following instructions from a device designed to improve aviation safety, and the nature of the warnings from that device, an over-response is much safer than an under-response. He has to trust his instruments, and his instruments (erroneously) told him to push the nose down, quickly, lest he hit another plane.
TCAS is designed and intended to reduce risk and prevent harm. In this specific incident, though, it seems like the TCAS-RA actually increased the risk of harm, by calling for an immediate action that wasn't actually necessary to prevent harm. Is there a way to improve TCAS?
I, too, would like to know how often TCAS incidents were recorded before and after the layoffs. Those layoffs definitely harmed aviation safety. But if someone were injured in this incident, I don't think I could point the finger at the controllers or lack thereof. This particular incident seems to suggest a shortcoming in the TCAS system.
Very thoughtful and informed reply. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
-
This ain't no shitpost.
You have to admit it'd be pretty shitty to run into another airplane in the sky though?
-
As with all statistics, you can make the numbers say what we you want. Planes can carry 500+ people, so an incident risks all 500 of those passengers; similar for rail, but not so much for the bus. And I think about bus and there's two different kinds of buses, IMO, the inner city bus that's on the road for hours, but doing few miles while making frequent stops. Not sure what a journey is then, whether it's stop by stop or from start to finish. And there's
So yeah, I dunno. If it's your time it's your time. I don't think any of these means of travel are "unsafe," whatever that means. But I'll still have a couple of beers before I get on the plane, because I'm not afraid of flying, but having a couple beers beforehand makes it better.
I’ll still have a couple of beers before I get on the plane, because I’m not afraid of flying..
Have to admit this is kind of funny.
-
Yeah, but people are still going to be using the bathrooms and such, even if you assume everyone actually obeys the rules
Pour one out for the poor fella who finally got his turn to poop just before this happened.
-
Uh, what? Something like 80 % of their economy is now government spending.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I meant getting Trump elected to sow discord and chaos in the US has allowed Russia to continue their war while facing fewer repercussions
-
So you'd rather stick to the ground, where you can't dive to avoid an oncoming vehicle?
-
Planes are the safest form of transportation if you look at safety per km travelled. If you look at other metrics, like safety per trip or per travel time then they are less safe than busses or trains.
Planes have nonetheless huge advantages over the others, like if you have to travel hundreds of km, or across the ocean.
Cruising through the Atlantic in a Greyhound would be wild, though. -
I don't think you get what I'm saying.
If you build your house in a flood zone... Well, I feel for you. That sucks, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it
If the state is cutting taxes to incentize building in a flood plain (which is a thing that has happened), in going to be very upset
Okay, I see what you're saying there. I don't agree with the stance for the first part, but that's a personal choice. After all, the government could not only not incentivize building in a flood zone, they could make it illegal.
-
I can assure you some pants were shit on that flight
Shitpantsing then
-
This post did not contain any content.
Damn
We almost got rid of Jimmy dore
-
This post did not contain any content.
If only there were a device to keep you in your seat when something like this happens
-
Without pilot intervention, the closest they would have come would have been 4.85 nautical miles laterally, and at the same altitude.
With the pilot intervention, the closest they came was 4.85 nautical miles laterally, and 500 feet vertically.
