Are we as hobbyist UAS users in the clear for now? can we jump for joy? or to soon?
07-26-2016, 08:19 PM
#501
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Grief!!! I go off to an FAA meeting for a couple of hours and then come back to find y'all still going at it!
First off, Franklin M's background in aviation is probably better than all of the rest of us combined! I have NO doubts that he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately, when he talks, few are listening here because those few cannot, or will not, accept that his education and experience probably trumps EVERYTHING the rest of us have done with our lives!
Second, neither Franklin nor the military can say that, someday, there will NEVER be another accident. With such a HUGE array of variables that cannot be controlled 100% (such as material stresses, corrosion, weather, etc) a TOTALLY accident free future just isn't going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes!
What military accident investigations attempt to do is to identify the steps that led up to the crash, figure what could've/should've been done to break that chain of events (and thus, lead to a different outcome) and then incorporate those findings into future pilot training, aircraft design, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc so that one more cause of aircraft accidents can be eliminated (the ultimate goal) or at least reduced as low as possible (the more realistic goal).
And here's something else to think about... All five US militaries use aircraft that are designed for one purpose and that's to win a battle against an adversary that may very well be better than us. Such a goal (or call it a promise to the American people) requires that we design aircraft and train pilots/mechanics/flight surgeons/weather briefers/etc to abilities beyond that point which we thought was good enough last time. Pushing our limits has always been risky, and from those risks come education (often at the cost of loss of life). We learn, try to keep the risk manageable, and press on. To do less is to let down those who we promised to defend!
In closing, let me point out that our own space program had several near-disasters as well as a few big disasters. However, we learned from the resulting post-accident investigations, and pressed on. The end result is that space travel has become so accident-free nowadays that no one watches what's going on with rocket launches or the space station anymore. And even though the Soviets tried their hardest, to date only US footprints are on the surface of the moon, with less than a forth of the Soviet's casualties.
I'd say that our accident investigation programs work!
Harvey
First off, Franklin M's background in aviation is probably better than all of the rest of us combined! I have NO doubts that he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately, when he talks, few are listening here because those few cannot, or will not, accept that his education and experience probably trumps EVERYTHING the rest of us have done with our lives!
Second, neither Franklin nor the military can say that, someday, there will NEVER be another accident. With such a HUGE array of variables that cannot be controlled 100% (such as material stresses, corrosion, weather, etc) a TOTALLY accident free future just isn't going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes!
What military accident investigations attempt to do is to identify the steps that led up to the crash, figure what could've/should've been done to break that chain of events (and thus, lead to a different outcome) and then incorporate those findings into future pilot training, aircraft design, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc so that one more cause of aircraft accidents can be eliminated (the ultimate goal) or at least reduced as low as possible (the more realistic goal).
And here's something else to think about... All five US militaries use aircraft that are designed for one purpose and that's to win a battle against an adversary that may very well be better than us. Such a goal (or call it a promise to the American people) requires that we design aircraft and train pilots/mechanics/flight surgeons/weather briefers/etc to abilities beyond that point which we thought was good enough last time. Pushing our limits has always been risky, and from those risks come education (often at the cost of loss of life). We learn, try to keep the risk manageable, and press on. To do less is to let down those who we promised to defend!
In closing, let me point out that our own space program had several near-disasters as well as a few big disasters. However, we learned from the resulting post-accident investigations, and pressed on. The end result is that space travel has become so accident-free nowadays that no one watches what's going on with rocket launches or the space station anymore. And even though the Soviets tried their hardest, to date only US footprints are on the surface of the moon, with less than a forth of the Soviet's casualties.
I'd say that our accident investigation programs work!
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-26-2016 at 09:04 PM.
07-26-2016, 08:34 PM
#502
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Guys,
First off, Franklin M's background in aviation is probably better than all of the rest of us combined! I have NO doubts that he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately, when he talks, few are listening here because those few cannot, or will not, accept that his education and experience trumps EVERYTHING the rest of us have done with our lives!
Second, neither Franklin nor the military can say that, someday, there will NEVER be another accident. With such a HUGE array of variables that cannot be controlled 100% (such as material stresses, corrosion, weather, etc) a TOTALLY accident free future just isn't going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes!
What military accident investigations attempt to do is to identify the steps that led up to the crash, figure what could've/should've been done to break that chain of events (and thus, lead to a different outcome) and then incorporate those findings into future pilot training, aircraft design, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc so that one more cause of aircraft accidents can be eliminated (the ultimate goal) or at least reduced as low as low as possible (the more realistic goal).
And here's something else to think about... All five US militaries use aircraft that are designed for one purpose and that's to win a battle against an adversary that may very well be better than us. Such a goal (or call it a promise to the American people) requires that we design aircraft and train pilots/mechanics/flight surgeons/weather briefers/etc to abilities beyond that point which we thought was good enough last time. Pushing our limits has always been risky, and from those risks come education (often at the cost of loss of life). We learn, try to keep the risk manageable, and press on. To do less is to let down those who we promised to defend!
In closing, let me point out that our own space program had several near-disasters as well as a few big disasters. However, we learned and pressed on. The end result is that space travel has become so accident-free nowadays that no one watches what's going on with launches or the space station anymore. And even though the Soviets tried their hardest, to date only US footprints are on the surface of the moon!!!
Harvey
First off, Franklin M's background in aviation is probably better than all of the rest of us combined! I have NO doubts that he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately, when he talks, few are listening here because those few cannot, or will not, accept that his education and experience trumps EVERYTHING the rest of us have done with our lives!
Second, neither Franklin nor the military can say that, someday, there will NEVER be another accident. With such a HUGE array of variables that cannot be controlled 100% (such as material stresses, corrosion, weather, etc) a TOTALLY accident free future just isn't going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes!
What military accident investigations attempt to do is to identify the steps that led up to the crash, figure what could've/should've been done to break that chain of events (and thus, lead to a different outcome) and then incorporate those findings into future pilot training, aircraft design, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc so that one more cause of aircraft accidents can be eliminated (the ultimate goal) or at least reduced as low as low as possible (the more realistic goal).
And here's something else to think about... All five US militaries use aircraft that are designed for one purpose and that's to win a battle against an adversary that may very well be better than us. Such a goal (or call it a promise to the American people) requires that we design aircraft and train pilots/mechanics/flight surgeons/weather briefers/etc to abilities beyond that point which we thought was good enough last time. Pushing our limits has always been risky, and from those risks come education (often at the cost of loss of life). We learn, try to keep the risk manageable, and press on. To do less is to let down those who we promised to defend!
In closing, let me point out that our own space program had several near-disasters as well as a few big disasters. However, we learned and pressed on. The end result is that space travel has become so accident-free nowadays that no one watches what's going on with launches or the space station anymore. And even though the Soviets tried their hardest, to date only US footprints are on the surface of the moon!!!
Harvey
You seem to give almost absolute deference to what Frankin will say because of his background, and probably yours as well. All fine and well, you clearly share some similarities, and few can challenge this technical resume. It's damn impressive. It doesn't however mean he is right on every point, or that his opinions on all issues aren't subject to review and scrutiny. It's not just one or two who might disagree with him either, there are more, but the disagreements are't usually technical based. They are his opinions and conclusions on other issues, like how virtually everything associated with the AMA is bad, horrible, crooked, nefarious etc etc. 10 years of this, along with a few others as well. Some have been saying the same thing for more than 10 years, predicting the end of times and the AMA etc etc, all to see their prognostications not come to fruition. So ya, some folks won't buy everything he writes as gospel...even more so when he refuses to even approach the very issue you just noted, the impossibility of a risk and loss free program.
07-26-2016, 08:48 PM
#504
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-26-2016 at 09:00 PM.
07-26-2016, 09:00 PM
#505
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here's an interesting link that a friend just sent me.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016...on-white-house
07-26-2016, 09:17 PM
#506
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'm ever in an airliner that's caught in a storm so bad that everyone is sure the plane is going to crash, you better believe that I'm hoping that the cockpit crew is still shooting for a 100% successful outcome!
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-26-2016 at 09:25 PM.
07-26-2016, 09:18 PM
#507
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Thought I would mention, just got the AMA mag for August. Another great edition, imo. Great article by Bill Pritchett who tackled a whole host of issues, including the rumors and misinformation out there. He did mention membership though, and some great numbers were noted. 188,000 members (it would have been as of June), but that the youth membership figures are the highest ever. Within the last 5 years 39,000 youths have joined the AMA, up from 11,000..so we're now at 50,000. All time high number of 188,000 should be a good thing right?
The article is a must read, and for those on either side of the AMA=Bad fence, an eye opener. It's on page 144 in the mag, not sure about the digital edition.
The article is a must read, and for those on either side of the AMA=Bad fence, an eye opener. It's on page 144 in the mag, not sure about the digital edition.
07-26-2016, 09:23 PM
#508
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
But to surrender to the reality that we cannot totally eliminate risk and loss isn't acceptable either.
If I'm ever in an airliner that's caught in a storm so bad that everyone is sure the plane is going to crash, you better believe that I'm hoping that the pilot isn't going to give up!
Harvey
If I'm ever in an airliner that's caught in a storm so bad that everyone is sure the plane is going to crash, you better believe that I'm hoping that the pilot isn't going to give up!
Harvey
07-26-2016, 09:32 PM
#509
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see accepting fact and reality as synonymous with surrender, perhaps that's why we aren't on the same page here. You and/or Franklin can keep framing it this way to whatever end, but it's nothing close to what I've said. There will always be more that can be done, that doesn't mean anyone needlessly or recklessly accepts risk.
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-26-2016 at 09:38 PM.
07-27-2016, 02:43 AM
#510
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
No, no, don't take it the wrong way. I didn't use the "surrender" word in a bad way. I meant it to mean that while 100% is the desired goal, there's a point where most of us throw up our hands and say we've done all we can do. However, I applaud those who feel that more can still be done.
Harvey
Harvey
07-27-2016, 04:01 AM
#511
Agree with almost everything you have said, especially the part about not being able to completely avoid future accidents. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but I read that to mean you would agree that more can be done, or that in fact, there is only so much that can be done.
You seem to give almost absolute deference to what Frankin will say because of his background, and probably yours as well. All fine and well, you clearly share some similarities, and few can challenge this technical resume. It's damn impressive. It doesn't however mean he is right on every point, or that his opinions on all issues aren't subject to review and scrutiny. It's not just one or two who might disagree with him either, there are more, but the disagreements are't usually technical based. They are his opinions and conclusions on other issues, like how virtually everything associated with the AMA is bad, horrible, crooked, nefarious etc etc. 10 years of this, along with a few others as well. Some have been saying the same thing for more than 10 years, predicting the end of times and the AMA etc etc, all to see their prognostications not come to fruition. So ya, some folks won't buy everything he writes as gospel...even more so when he refuses to even approach the very issue you just noted, the impossibility of a risk and loss free program.
You seem to give almost absolute deference to what Frankin will say because of his background, and probably yours as well. All fine and well, you clearly share some similarities, and few can challenge this technical resume. It's damn impressive. It doesn't however mean he is right on every point, or that his opinions on all issues aren't subject to review and scrutiny. It's not just one or two who might disagree with him either, there are more, but the disagreements are't usually technical based. They are his opinions and conclusions on other issues, like how virtually everything associated with the AMA is bad, horrible, crooked, nefarious etc etc. 10 years of this, along with a few others as well. Some have been saying the same thing for more than 10 years, predicting the end of times and the AMA etc etc, all to see their prognostications not come to fruition. So ya, some folks won't buy everything he writes as gospel...even more so when he refuses to even approach the very issue you just noted, the impossibility of a risk and loss free program.
07-27-2016, 04:03 AM
#512
I won't ever accept that 100% isn't possible. In 2015, US Part 121 air carriers flew 6,059,756 flights domestically with ZERO fatalities (Note 1)
And they did it after years of incorporating many small changes as a result of lessons learned. Mind you, none of these changes prevented all accidents, but they prevented some. The net result of all of these small improvements was a 100% fatality free year.
In fact, there were only 30 incidents of any type in those 6,059,756 flights. That's just one mishap of any type in every 268,658 flights. Is model aviation that good? If not, then there's still work to be done.
So again, why not incorporate two changes in the LMA inspection program, changes that stem directly from actual losses of a LMA, that reduce the likelihood of future accidents of the same type.
Note 1 -
Num of flights is from DOT statistics. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts/cus...tt&ascc&ascp=1
Num of mishaps (zero) comes from NTSB search on this page http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx using:
From: 01/01/2015
To: 12/31/2015
Injury Severity: fatal
Operation: part 121
Injury events? Change severity to "all"
And they did it after years of incorporating many small changes as a result of lessons learned. Mind you, none of these changes prevented all accidents, but they prevented some. The net result of all of these small improvements was a 100% fatality free year.
In fact, there were only 30 incidents of any type in those 6,059,756 flights. That's just one mishap of any type in every 268,658 flights. Is model aviation that good? If not, then there's still work to be done.
So again, why not incorporate two changes in the LMA inspection program, changes that stem directly from actual losses of a LMA, that reduce the likelihood of future accidents of the same type.
Note 1 -
Num of flights is from DOT statistics. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts/cus...tt&ascc&ascp=1
Num of mishaps (zero) comes from NTSB search on this page http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx using:
From: 01/01/2015
To: 12/31/2015
Injury Severity: fatal
Operation: part 121
Injury events? Change severity to "all"
07-27-2016, 04:06 AM
#513
Does it also mean you'd support removing ambiguity in the LMA inspection policy? Specifically the undefined "minimal voltage drop" section?
07-27-2016, 04:24 AM
#514
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I won't ever accept that 100% isn't possible. In 2015, US Part 121 air carriers flew 6,059,756 flights domestically with ZERO fatalities (Note 1)
And they did it after years of incorporating many small changes as a result of lessons learned. Mind you, none of these changes prevented all accidents, but they prevented some. The net result of all of these small improvements was a 100% fatality free year.
In fact, there were only 30 incidents of any type in those 6,059,756 flights. That's just one mishap of any type in every 268,658 flights. Is model aviation that good? If not, then there's still work to be done.
So again, why not incorporate two changes in the LMA inspection program, changes that stem directly from actual losses of a LMA, that reduce the likelihood of future accidents of the same type.
Note 1 -
Num of flights is from DOT statistics. www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts/customized/table?adfy=2015&adfm=1&adty=2015&adtm=12&aos=6&artd=1&arti&arts&asts=1&astns&astt&ascc&ascp=1
Num of mishaps (zero) comes from NTSB search on this page http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx using:
From: 01/01/2015
To: 12/31/2015
Injury Severity: fatal
Operation: part 121
Injury events? Change severity to "all"
And they did it after years of incorporating many small changes as a result of lessons learned. Mind you, none of these changes prevented all accidents, but they prevented some. The net result of all of these small improvements was a 100% fatality free year.
In fact, there were only 30 incidents of any type in those 6,059,756 flights. That's just one mishap of any type in every 268,658 flights. Is model aviation that good? If not, then there's still work to be done.
So again, why not incorporate two changes in the LMA inspection program, changes that stem directly from actual losses of a LMA, that reduce the likelihood of future accidents of the same type.
Note 1 -
Num of flights is from DOT statistics. www.rita.dot.gov/bts/acts/customized/table?adfy=2015&adfm=1&adty=2015&adtm=12&aos=6&artd=1&arti&arts&asts=1&astns&astt&ascc&ascp=1
Num of mishaps (zero) comes from NTSB search on this page http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx using:
From: 01/01/2015
To: 12/31/2015
Injury Severity: fatal
Operation: part 121
Injury events? Change severity to "all"
So does this mean that you're supportive of the two changes to the LMA inspection policy that I've proposed? Two changes directly as a result of lessons learned in two full loss LMA mishaps?
Does it also mean you'd support removing ambiguity in the LMA inspection policy? Specifically the undefined "minimal voltage drop" section?
Does it also mean you'd support removing ambiguity in the LMA inspection policy? Specifically the undefined "minimal voltage drop" section?
We can keep going round and round on the questions, to what end? I've already answered your questions numerous times, I'm all for learning from past mistakes and taking corrective action. That specific action confirms my premise, that more can usually be done, which confirms that there is only so much that can be done. Short of not flying, there is no perfect solution. That's the answer you're going to keep getting from me. Ask the same questions over and over as if to make some point, then I can come back with several that you refuse to answer, like if you have explicit approval of the town to fly in the park that you fly in. Whats the point? I think I made mine, there isn't a person here who lives in the fantasy world where everything is preventable.
If you feel like you have the solutions to all of the safety issues that presently face modelers, share it with the AMA via the appropriate channels, or better yet share the info with your fellow hobbyists. If someone can learn something from it, fantastic.
07-27-2016, 04:27 AM
#515
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Right. Numbers are a funny thing, they can be utilized so many different ways. Gotta look past the number to get to the real information, and that does sometimes mean looking at who paid for the data to be gathered, does it appear biased in any way, and how the information is being used to either support or argue a specific position.
07-27-2016, 04:34 AM
#516
Thought I would mention, just got the AMA mag for August. Another great edition, imo. Great article by Bill Pritchett who tackled a whole host of issues, including the rumors and misinformation out there. He did mention membership though, and some great numbers were noted. 188,000 members (it would have been as of June), but that the youth membership figures are the highest ever. Within the last 5 years 39,000 youths have joined the AMA, up from 11,000..so we're now at 50,000. All time high number of 188,000 should be a good thing right?
The article is a must read, and for those on either side of the AMA=Bad fence, an eye opener. It's on page 144 in the mag, not sure about the digital edition.
The article is a must read, and for those on either side of the AMA=Bad fence, an eye opener. It's on page 144 in the mag, not sure about the digital edition.
07-27-2016, 04:37 AM
#517
Tell you what. You offered to nominate me for office. How about this instead. YOU submit the two ideas. Heck even take the credit for them. I'll be curious to see if they get a vote.
07-27-2016, 04:42 AM
#518
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Hey, it's encouraging to see you use the word encouraging in any sentence that has to do with the AMA, even if it's sarcastic in nature.
The good news is that the AMA has so many youngsters involved, and it's fair to say they will be a large part of the future (and continued) success of the AMA and the hobby. I'm thrilled that some of my dues (probably a very small part) goes to any benefits they can derive from membership. And even more good news, the membership at large is o/k with this as well. Membership continues to increase, more kids joining....my goodness things are looking up!
07-27-2016, 04:45 AM
#519
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Yours is a kind offer, but I would never take the credit for your work. You know how to communicate with the folks at the AMA (you've been sharing the PM's you get from them here and elsewhere), so I'm sure you know how to go about it. If in doubt, check with your local AVP or VP.
07-27-2016, 05:32 AM
#520
Yours is a kind offer, but I would never take the credit for your work. You know how to communicate with the folks at the AMA (you've been sharing the PM's you get from them here and elsewhere), so I'm sure you know how to go about it. If in doubt, check with your local AVP or VP.
If you want to feel better about it, submit the idea and say "this idea was forwarded to me by a colleague..."
That way we'll see if they're any more open to suggestions from such strong supporters as you vs. folks that challenge them (like me).
07-27-2016, 05:34 AM
#521
The good news is that the AMA has so many youngsters involved, and it's fair to say they will be a large part of the future (and continued) success of the AMA and the hobby. I'm thrilled that some of my dues (probably a very small part) goes to any benefits they can derive from membership.
07-27-2016, 05:52 AM
#522
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-27-2016 at 06:30 AM.
07-27-2016, 06:35 AM
#523
Really? That sounds like a hysterical conclusion you've reached there, sort of like blaming Chris for calling all AMA members dishonest thieves. Keep repeating both of those, sort of like the Jedi mind trick of "believing" and it might be "fact" eventually.
I'll accept anything reasonable that cuts down on damages of any type. Have yet to say anything contrary to that, not withstanding your comments above. I haven't said what are you claiming, at this point you just appear to be lying, intentionally misstating what I said, or just misunderstand. I hate to feel that way, but this appears to be where we are going, regrettably.
Nothing you've shown so far indicates there isn't more work to be done, which is really another way of saying there is only so much that can be done.
I'll accept anything reasonable that cuts down on damages of any type. Have yet to say anything contrary to that, not withstanding your comments above. I haven't said what are you claiming, at this point you just appear to be lying, intentionally misstating what I said, or just misunderstand. I hate to feel that way, but this appears to be where we are going, regrettably.
Nothing you've shown so far indicates there isn't more work to be done, which is really another way of saying there is only so much that can be done.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-27-2016 at 06:52 AM.
07-27-2016, 07:22 AM
#524
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The trick will be getting those 50,000 turned into paying members when the time comes. We the paying members are not getting any younger.................................I have nothing against the youth membership.but anyone with 1/2 a brain will see that challenges lay ahead.
Mike
Mike
07-27-2016, 07:23 AM
#525
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the reasoning you use and the one Franklin so easily found fault in, the automotive design change might not have saved everyone so it shouldn't have been done at all and we should all be driving cars that aren't designed to protect the passengers but, rather, survive a crash with as little damage as possible as was the case back in the early 70s.
I don't remember anyone saying that if we can't reach 100% safety, we shouldn't try at all. (Or at least I think that's what you're saying.) At the risk of misunderstanding the gist of this conversation, I believe the two sides are saying:
Franklin: Anything less than 100% is unacceptable and we can't rest until we achieve it.
Porcia: 100% is not realistically attainable so let's be satisfied to get as close as we can.
Interestingly, BOTH sides are correct. Franklin is driven to make safety Job 1. On the other hand, Porcia recognizes that no matter how much money and manpower is devoted to totally fixing a problem, 99% may be the realistic maximum attainable. As an example, an automobile that is constructed of 20ft thick rubberfoam all of the way around may be 99.999% safe; however, it's not really feasible.
If I had cancer, I would want my surgeon to have Franklin's attitude. However, if I didn't have unlimited medical insurance, I would accept Porcia's. (This isn't intended as an insult, Porcia. I just wouldn't want to deplete my family's savings in order to pursue immortality.)
So, who's wrong? NEITHER!!!
Hydro, I'm so very sorry about your loss. Please take comfort in that those horrific accidents so many years ago have contributed in making automobiles much safer today. Driving still isn't 100% safe but it's getting closer!
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-27-2016 at 07:29 AM.