Aviation technology conspiracy.

[CurtC]

Maybe I just don't "get" the CT mindset, but how would suppressing this somehow help the aerospace industry? I would think that, given a superior design, every company would be rushing to design planes based on it and improve upon them in order to get more customers.

Maybe they're the same idiots who are suppressing the 200 mpg carburetor?

 

[JonnyFive]

Maybe they're the same idiots who are suppressing the 200 mpg carburetor?

Yeah, I'd love to be the moron who was sitting on that instead of making billions on fuel-efficient Cadillacs and SUVs. Does that kind of thinking make sense to anyone?

It's a conspiracy of the stupid, apparently.

Isn't there some rumor of a water-powered engine that was kept secret because the evil oil companies wanted to keep selling lots of gasoline?

If this is all true, why haven't hybrid cars and increasingly fuel-efficient engines been suppressed?

 

[Big Les]

This one would be ludicrous to most casual readers, simply because it's so obscure. But you'd be surprised how many otherwise intelligent people would buy the whole shebang if you replaced "Burnelli" with "electric car" and "aviation industry" with "automotive industry". People are so suspicious and dissatisfied with the US government (and others), they are willing to casually buy into any old rubbish, as long as those deceitful politicians "coulda" been responsible. And they won't bother to think critically or to think through the implications of what they're lending tacit support to. Same goes for 9/11 (topically) and to a lesser extent any other anti-authority CT going. Most will dress up their support in a humourous way, to appear non-committal and cover their arses in the event someone debunks them. But they would love it to be true, so they say "it wouldn't surprise me", and leave it at that.

Such people are the bread and butter of street pollsters.

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
I also wonder if those poor deluded souls think these cute little buggers were ripoffs of their genius, or suppressed by the Boeings and Airbuses of the world...

I'm pretty sure I saw the M2 being built over at Gus Briegleb's place in El Mirage. Walked into a hangar, and Gus was welding up what had to be the lowest-aspect ratio glider I'd ever seen. I was told it was secret, and to keep my mouth shut. I have, til now.

 

[mailman]

Actually, that's unlikely. The F-15 Eagle was designed according to a specific set of requirements. That Burnelli bird from 1947, that they claim was "the same design," couldn't possibly have been designed to the same spec, since in 1947 the concept of Mach 2+ heavy air superiority fighters wasn't even viable.

In contrast, the Su-27 was intended for the same environment as the F-15, so naturally its design is similar in many aspects.

Hmmmmmm, I think you are saying the same thing as what I said. The F15 and Su27 were to operate in similar environments doing similar jobs (air superiority) hence why the two different design teams came up with similar answers to over come the challenges the faced.

BTW, I did some simulation work on the Su27 for a Russian company a couple years ago...VERY interesting work indeed

Regards

Mailman

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?

 

[rwguinn]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?

So, how is that "Supressed"?
You know about it, I know about it, there are reports out there, Mythbusters mentioned it...

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm pretty sure I know of at least one real "suppressed" technology that the airline industry won't implement.

I think it's been proven that you could dramatically improve passenger survival in a crash simply by turning the seats backwards. The industry won't do it, however, because: 1) it slightly decreases the total number of seats that can fit into a plane; and 2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

Still, how much is a human life worth?

If people would not fly on your planes think of all the lives you will save by having empty planes be the ones that crash. Genius.

At least from a stafety standpoint. No one flies, no one dies in plane crashes.

I would like to see your evidence for 1) myself as well.

But if the automotive industry did not build cars that went over 20 mph think of all the lives that could also be saved? It must be a conspiracy.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, how is that "Supressed"?
You know about it, I know about it, there are reports out there, Mythbusters mentioned it...

Well, that's why I put it in quotation marks.

I think it is "supressed" only insofar as the general public really has not had a chance to weigh the advantages/disadvantages and make their opinions known. It's just assumed that people would dislike the idea.

 

[Loss Leader]

If people would not fly on your planes think of all the lives you will save by having empty planes be the ones that crash. Genius.

At least from a stafety standpoint. No one flies, no one dies in plane crashes.

I would like to see your evidence for 1) myself as well.

But if the automotive industry did not build cars that went over 20 mph think of all the lives that could also be saved? It must be a conspiracy.

Not flying and not traveling over 20 mph have costs to the consumer. Installing airplane seats backwards costs next to nothing: it is as expensive to install a seat forwards as it is backwards; it costs passengers nothing to sit backwards as they get to the same place at the same time for the same amount of money.

Why should a simple fix that has basically no cost whatsoever not be implemented?

Should seatbelts be removed from cars because they increase the price of the car slightly? Should sneeze guards be removed from salad bars because there is a cost for the plexiglass?

Honestly, the cost/benefit analysis is nowhere near as simple as your sarcastic post implies.

 

[rwguinn]

Well, that's why I put it in quotation marks.

I think it is "supressed" only insofar as the general public really has not had a chance to weigh the advantages/disadvantages and make their opinions known. It's just assumed that people would dislike the idea.

Actually [anecdote mode] many people, including myself, have motion sickness problems when not facing the direction of travel. Arriving at my destination dehydrated and smellier than ususal might be off-piutting [/anecdote mode]

 

[CurtC]

2) the public really, really doesn't want to face backwards on airplanes.

I like it. When I fly on Southwest Airlines, their seats at the front of the cabin face backwards (with their backs to the front wall, facing the passengers sitting in the second row). These seats are quite often empty, so I can come on late, sit backwards for an hour or so, then be among the first off the plane at my destination.

Of course, the whole reason my scheme works is that the majority of people don't want to face backwards.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not flying and not traveling over 20 mph have costs to the consumer. Installing airplane seats backwards costs next to nothing: it is as expensive to install a seat forwards as it is backwards; it costs passengers nothing to sit backwards as they get to the same place at the same time for the same amount of money.

Why should a simple fix that has basically no cost whatsoever not be implemented?

Because they give people peice of mind by going forward, and people are willing to accept the increased risk for the peice of mind. You could make a similar arguement about all the seats in a car except the drivers being backward as well.

Should seatbelts be removed from cars because they increase the price of the car slightly? Should sneeze guards be removed from salad bars because there is a cost for the plexiglass?

To increase safety they should put sneeze guards between all diners as well at the tables. After all it is such a margional cost for the plexiglass relative to the safety improvement.

Honestly, the cost/benefit analysis is nowhere near as simple as your sarcastic post implies.

Your problem is you are only assessing monitary costs. If an airline(they decide on the seats after all not the manufacturers) installed seats backwards they would lose most of their business. So there is a definite ecconomic cost to them, namely they go out of business. You are simply being dishonnest about what has an ecconomic cost.

 

[Loss Leader]

Your problem is you are only assessing monitary costs. If an airline(they decide on the seats after all not the manufacturers) installed seats backwards they would lose most of their business. So there is a definite ecconomic cost to them, namely they go out of business. You are simply being dishonnest about what has an ecconomic cost.

Not at all. What year do you think seatbelts were first invented?

For decades, they were available but automobile manufacturers refused to install them in their cars. The manufacturers argued that cars with seatbelts would be seen as inherently unsafe and people would not buy their cars. There was a simple fix: the government made seatbelts mandatory. Everyone had to install them, nobody lost market share and the public was safer.

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

 

[JonnyFive]

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

Exactly how much benefit does having the seats face backwards convey, anyway? Is there any kind of data or any studies available?

I've seen the MythBusters thing, but I'd be interested in something more exhaustive.

 

[rwguinn]

Not at all. What year do you think seatbelts were first invented?

For decades, they were available but automobile manufacturers refused to install them in their cars. The manufacturers argued that cars with seatbelts would be seen as inherently unsafe and people would not buy their cars. There was a simple fix: the government made seatbelts mandatory. Everyone had to install them, nobody lost market share and the public was safer.

Your worry that airlines will lose business is easily fixed. The government need only mandate that seats face backwards. The public will get used to it just like they got used to seatbelts. People will fly - backwards - and nobody will go out of business.

Yeah, that's what we need.
The government dictating how we live and die simply because some do-goder thinks he knows best for the rest of us, moreso than the people who actually study this stuff.
The benefits are marginal, and would be likely effective for low velocity, low angle impacts,i.e., run off the runway type of incidents.
Fire is by far the biggest problem in any aircraft incident.
Dadgummed lawyers!

 

[Loss Leader]

Exactly how much benefit does having the seats face backwards convey, anyway? Is there any kind of data or any studies available?

I've seen the MythBusters thing, but I'd be interested in something more exhaustive.

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.

 

[rwguinn]

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.

That sounds exactly like a CTer, if you stand back and look at it.
I absolutely destest the layman "It's for your own good" that comes from the "daddy knows best" folks who bring you the "I used the hair dryer in the shower and it nearly killed me" lawsuit

 

[JonnyFive]

Well, that's exactly the point. It's not about whether products should be made safer and it's not about whether the government should mandate certain safety precautions. Government can, does and should force companies to take safety into consideration, especially when market forces work against spending any extra money on a product.

The question is whether the safety benefit of any particular technology is worth the costs. Putting seats backwards has a cost - a low cost, but a cost. How much benefit does it provide? Is it only for low-speed slide-off-the-runway crashes or would it help in more dire emergencies? Does it prevent injuries or deaths? Are we willing as a society to bear the costs of not having the safety mechanism in place?

These are the questions we need to answer. Simply dismissing it as "government meddling" is useless in the real world.

I agree. If it has a potential benefit, it's probably worth examining, if nothing else. I would add, though, that market forces often do push companies towards safety innovation. Automobiles are required to have a certain baseline level of safety, but car companies add additional features because it sets their car above the rest, and many people are fanatical about keeping themselves safe.

I like the multiple airbags and excellent seatbelts in my car. They reduce the chance of me dying horribly in the unlikely event of a catastrophic crash. I paid a little extra for that safety, but to me that was worth the cost.

It's probably a conspiracy by the car companies... they just want to keep me alive so I can buy more cars!

 

[mailman]

That sounds exactly like a CTer, if you stand back and look at it.
I absolutely destest the layman "It's for your own good" that comes from the "daddy knows best" folks who bring you the "I used the hair dryer in the shower and it nearly killed me" lawsuit

Hmmmm, I think you have got it wrong. Your last post is what I would expect from a 9/11 conspiracist cnut, "if its the government telling us to do something, it must be a cover up!".

Regards

Mailman