Aviation technology conspiracy.

[rwguinn]

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

Nope-
A lawyer describing the physics (which he is not necessarily competent to do) and cherry-picking a study out of many, saying this is good science, and that the g'bmt won't make 'em fix it implies a cover-up and collusion amongst the eeviil gubment, the airlines, and Boeing/Airbus.
I am not a lawyer, and not going to argue legal issues--but I know from experience that the "tests" required to demonstrate crashworthyness for some vehicles are simply make-work, feel-good stuff that has no basis in reality.

 

[Loss Leader]

Nope-
A lawyer describing the physics (which he is not necessarily competent to do)

I didn't do this. I only said that there was evidence that seating people backwards might save lives.

and cherry-picking a study out of many, saying this is good science,

I didn't do this. I never vouched for the validity of any study. I only said that evidence existed.

and that the g'bmt won't make 'em fix it

I didn't do this. I said that it is properly the government's responsibility to impose safety regulations when market forces might not bring them about on their own.

implies a cover-up and collusion amongst the eeviil gubment, the airlines, and Boeing/Airbus.

I didn't do this. I only mentioned that there was something cheap that could save lives that deserved more public attention.

I am not a lawyer, and not going to argue legal issues--but I know from experience that the "tests" required to demonstrate crashworthyness for some vehicles are simply make-work, feel-good stuff that has no basis in reality.

This is a non-sequitor that has nothing to do with my point.

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

In the case of this example, I suspect that the reason for conservatism is not necessarily the costs of physically changing the seats. I think it has much more to do with the fear that passengers will not like travelling backward as much, which might cost a lot of passengers if not all manufacturers implement it.

In the case of blended wing-body aircraft and such, conservatism is partly rooted in the fact that these thing cost a lot of R&D, and factories will have to be retooled completely. This is a major investment, especially if the jigs etc. are so different from the jigs used for the planes they used to make. Add to that that profit margins are generally fairly narrow in the aerospace industry and there's you're problem.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And we need sneeze guards at all tables in resturants as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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!

Exactly safety sells cars now, so any arguement that safety will hurt sales is now very untrue.

 

[JonnyFive]

Exactly safety sells cars now, so any arguement that safety will hurt sales is now very untrue.

Unless, of course, the safety features cost so much that they put a given car out of everyone's price range. But the range of automotive safety features available at a reasonable cost is quite broad, and growing every day.

After all, not too long ago cars didn't even have over-the-shoulder restraints. There's some ad for the old Ford something-or-other (I think it's the Falcon) that advertises its padded dashboard.

You know, so you don't hurt your head too much when you jackknife in a crash.

Plus there's usually a luxury segment that, among other things, wants the latest in safety gizmos.

Like padded dashboards.

 

[rwguinn]

I didn't do this. I only said that there was evidence that seating people backwards might save lives.



I didn't do this. I never vouched for the validity of any study. I only said that evidence existed.



I didn't do this. I said that it is properly the government's responsibility to impose safety regulations when market forces might not bring them about on their own.



I didn't do this. I only mentioned that there was something cheap that could save lives that deserved more public attention.



This is a non-sequitor that has nothing to do with my point.

Truce, Dood?

I get frustrated when people are trying to do me good. I run up against stupid government intervention in my work all the time--the cost of Engineering insurance has driven me to have to work for somebody, rather than be on my own. Protecting peple from their own stupidity is a futile endeavor....The problem with idiot-proofing something is that they eep coming up with a higher grade idiot"
I promise not to try things in court. I am considered to be one of the most trying people , however.
My last point was actually in response to the "should be investigated" spoint.
We can study things to death--and often do--so as to get answers we want.
Governments are especially good at this. (Although mostly on the local level (below the radar)). What I term as "Liberals" are also good at this. It's called cherry-picking data.
I can design a physical test to give you the answer you want. It's simple if you know the science. It won't pay to have people scrutinize it too closely, though, as Consumer Reports discovered with the baby seats thing this week.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Unless, of course, the safety features cost so much that they put a given car out of everyone's price range. But the range of automotive safety features available at a reasonable cost is quite broad, and growing every day.

But any particular safety feature gets more and more common over time. I have heard about talk of mandating stability control systems and the like.

After all, not too long ago cars didn't even have over-the-shoulder restraints. There's some ad for the old Ford something-or-other (I think it's the Falcon) that advertises its padded dashboard.

You know, so you don't hurt your head too much when you jackknife in a crash.

Plus there's usually a luxury segment that, among other things, wants the latest in safety gizmos.

Like padded dashboards.

Nonsense, it is all about having the most airbags now, and ... Control Systems.

 

[JonnyFive]

But any particular safety feature gets more and more common over time. I have heard about talk of mandating stability control systems and the like.

That's true, especially because it gets cheaper as it's produced in greater quantities and more efficiently.

Electronic stability control (ESC) is a great invention, I love having it, especially in the rain. It beats a padded dashboard any day.

Nonsense, it is all about having the most airbags now, and ... Control Systems.

Control systems kick ass.

 

[Chedda]

Yep, merely running off the runway.....

....oh, and then slamming into an embankment!

Flight 1533 departed Seoul at 10:55 for a flight to Pohang. Weather at Pohang was poor: poor visibility and gusty 25 knots wind. The first attempt to land, at 11:40, failed. After the seconds approach the plane touched down, but overran the runway. The MD-83 skidded through 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and came to rest against an embankment, broken in two.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990315-0&lang=en

 

[rwguinn]

http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/kalmd80.jpg

Yep, merely running off the runway.....

....oh, and then slamming into an embankment!



http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990315-0&lang=en

And your point is?

 

[Chedda]

And your point is?

Apologies for not making my post clearer.

The author of the website in this discussion (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supovw.htm), is making a case for improved safety and reduced fatalities using a Burnelli, as opposed to a conventional passenger airplane design. This may very well be true, although I have not seen any compelling evidence.

What I do object to, however, is the author misrepresenting photographs to support his claim. He claimed this plane "merely ran off the end of the runway", ignoring the impact of 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and an embankment.

Also, there was not one fatality in this crash. Ironically, I would imagine the situation may have been worse if the fuselage hadn't broken in two. A very poor example to use.

 

[rwguinn]

Apologies for not making my post clearer.

The author of the website in this discussion (http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supovw.htm), is making a case for improved safety and reduced fatalities using a Burnelli, as opposed to a conventional passenger airplane design. This may very well be true, although I have not seen any compelling evidence.

What I do object to, however, is the author misrepresenting photographs to support his claim. He claimed this plane "merely ran off the end of the runway", ignoring the impact of 10 antennas, a barbed wire fence and an embankment.

Also, there was not one fatality in this crash. Ironically, I would imagine the situation may have been worse if the fuselage hadn't broken in two. A very poor example to use.

I had hoped that that was your point, but I couldn't ASS-U-ME it for you, given the track record of newbies here....
Yeah. Totally unsafe, no fatalities, and apparently no life-threatening injuries (serious injuries are usually mentioned in reports).
Didn't even look like much of a fire...