Safety; rules vs freedoms

[Let'sgoflying!]

"I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules"

I was 'just reading stuff' last night and ran across this quote (made by the owner of the submarine which imploded, killing 5 during the Titanic exploration).

Of course, I found it natural to compare this thought above to what has happened in aviation, and to recall that the FAA has clearly shown us how such attitudes and actions has had similar outcomes.
Also, and probably most importantly, I had to consider these thoughts as it relates to my own aviation activities of the past.
I have never been a rulemonger per se, but I find I take the FARs more to heart as I get deeper into flying. (I have to wonder how much luck has saved me from some things that pushed the envelope of some FAR.)

I also see the side of "rules should not restrict freedoms excessively" (otherwise someone could outlaw motorcycles, skydiving, flying, base jumping and other fun things) and I think that was Rush's view - he 'should be able to explore unhindered' (although he was not risking his life alone - and ignoring the safety items were widely viewed by the mini-sub community as obviously hazardous).

Comments, especially in relation to aviation.....

 

[AV8R_87]

I think the FAA understands and manages these risks rather well... that's why we can do "stupid" stuff under part 91 that isn't allowed under part 135 or 121.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

We all make mental calculations about risk/reward. We all break the rules to do the things we really want to do, or which we think are dumb, overly restrictive laws and we can get away with violating.

The fact that speeding and parking tickets are so common tells me that people are selective rule followers

But my guess is that in aviation more people injure/kill themselves taking on (legal, permitted) risks that they don't understand, rather than intentionally violating the rules.

Stockton Rush, mr Titan Submarine guy, made the moral error of dragging other people down in his misadventures rather than accepting the risks himself and suffering the consequences alone.

 

[Flatiowa]

I think that is were “declaring an emergency” was brilliant to be included in the regulations. I’m am 100% all for following the rules (many if not most were written in blood from past bad happenings), but in an emergency situation sometimes deviating from SOP, or regulation is the correct thing to do. Hopefully nobody is ever in that situation, and if they are they know enough to follow the SOP until it is no longer the correct action to take, and they have the wisdom to see what that point is and the correct action to take, but by then the chance of a good outcome is already against the odds. (And they better darn well be able to explain the rationality behind their actions after the event to a group of experts of the situations circumstances if they make it through it).

 

[Rene]

I think the FAA understands and manages these risks rather well... that's why we can do "stupid" stuff under part 91 that isn't allowed under part 135 or 121.

Or go whole hog under 103.

 

[Tools]

We are ALL selective compliars. Period. It’s the ones that don’t realize it that worry me the most, which ain’t a lot really…

 

[Shawn]

In terms of FAA they really don't care if you kill yourself in your endeavors but most of the regs are written to prevent you from taking out others in the process.

Part 103 is a perfect example...

 

[Roger Wilco]

"I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules"

I was 'just reading stuff' last night and ran across this quote (made by the owner of the submarine which imploded, killing 5 during the Titanic exploration).

Of course, I found it natural to compare this thought above to what has happened in aviation, and to recall that the FAA has clearly shown us how such attitudes and actions has had similar outcomes.
Also, and probably most importantly, I had to consider these thoughts as it relates to my own aviation activities of the past.
I have never been a rulemonger per se, but I find I take the FARs more to heart as I get deeper into flying. (I have to wonder how much luck has saved me from some things that pushed the envelope of some FAR.)

I also see the side of "rules should not restrict freedoms excessively" (otherwise someone could outlaw motorcycles, skydiving, flying, base jumping and other fun things) and I think that was Rush's view - he 'should be able to explore unhindered' (although he was not risking his life alone - and ignoring the safety items were widely viewed by the mini-sub community as obviously hazardous).

Comments, especially in relation to aviation.....

Thanks for posting this. I read the Wiki and would like to post the rest of his statement, because it reflects an attitude that we have all encountered, and perhaps sometimes espoused, regarding our aviation escapades:

"You know, at some point, safety just is pure waste. I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk/reward question. I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules."​

​

It's not clear whether the passengers who put their faith in Rush fully comprehended the risks, and less likely that they were aware of his cavalier attitude toward "the rules" or shared his personal risk/reward calculus. What is clear is that they chose to undertake a risky endeavor, and they met their reward.

No matter what, it is difficult for me understand how someone engaged in his line of work would characterize safety (at any point) as being "pure waste."

But my guess is that in aviation more people injure/kill themselves taking on (legal, permitted) risks that they don't understand, rather than intentionally violating the rules.

I agree. Identifying and understanding the risks involved are the first steps in conducting a safe operation.

Stockton Rush, mr Titan Submarine guy, made the moral error of dragging other people down in his misadventures rather than accepting the risks himself and suffering the consequences alone.

This is the crux.

We are ALL selective compliars. Period. It’s the ones that don’t realize it that worry me the most, which ain’t a lot really…

Gotta disagree with you here. Many pilots may be inadvertant non-compliers, while not being selective non-compliers.

 

[Rene]

Maybe I don't get around enough, but I don't know anyone who wants to risk their life or take a chance that they might kill someone else. But at my age I know tons of people who don't trust what others -- especially those in positions of legitimate authority -- tell them. Sure, wisdom comes from experience. And experience comes from making mistakes that don't kill you. That's a significant part of it.

But part of it is also the fact that we are constantly being lied to. When others exaggerate the risks inherent in an activity to discourage participation, or alternately ignore the risks to encourage participation it makes rational people distrustful. When my local government tries to disguise revenue collection or attempts at social engineering as "safety" it makes us all less safe.

 

[Flatiowa]

Remember you will never live long enough to learn everything “the hard way”, unless you are able to learn from the mistakes of others you will never become wise. Same as with admitting your own mistakes, or the really BIG one, saying you don’t know when you don’t know.

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

Not excusing Rush or condoning his approach…at all. But, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that an adult could not fully grasp that a place with 400x standard atmospheric pressure is a pretty darn dangerous place to be.

t's not clear whether the passengers who put their faith in Rush fully comprehended the risks

 

[Palmpilot]

But part of it is also the fact that we are constantly being lied to.

I would question the "constantly" part of that. Not everyone lies about everything all the time. The trick is to develop our ability to sort fact from fiction.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's a discussion of recent evidence on the Titan implosion. This synopsis was provided with the video:

"U.S. Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation public hearings shed new light on the Oceangate Titan disaster. Multiple system failures on nearly every dive. Water tight boundaries compromised and not retested before use after repair. Oceangate demonstrated a complete lack of understanding and recognition of the hazards involved in deep submersible operation. These hearings are why the submersible industry needs mandatory rating and classification of every human occupied vessel."​

Qualifications of the commentator:

"Welcome to Sub Brief, I’m Aaron. I’ve spent 20 years serving onboard U.S. Navy submarines. As a U.S. Navy contractor, I provided Strategic and Policy Level consultation for domestic and international clients on cleared Navy projects. Now, I work as a military contractor providing technical subject matter expert services to clients on Naval matters and submarine technologies. Over the years, I have networked with a team of open-source intelligence professionals to provide services to private clients. Here on the Sub Brief channel, I share some of my unclassified work."​

 

[Rene]

I would question the "constantly" part of that. Not everyone lies about everything all the time. The trick is to develop our ability to sort fact from fiction.

No, "(n)ot everyone lies about everything all the time."

But some people lie about some things enough of the time to spread disinformation and erode trust in the "official" version of what is going on.

 

[Clip4]

I disagree that the FAA does a great job of adopting regulations that promote a high level of safety for Part 91 ops. If you have adopted the Part 61 and 91 regulations as a private pilots for your minimums, your safety standards are rather low IMO.

 

[Dana]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that an adult could not fully grasp that a place with 400x standard atmospheric pressure is a pretty darn dangerous place to be.

Being in the air at 40,000' is a pretty darn dangerous place to be, too, but we've developed technology to deal with it. The average person accepts that technology has made it safe to be there, and (incorrectly, in this case) assumes that technology will offer the same protection in a submarine.

I would question the "constantly" part of that. Not everyone lies about everything all the time. The trick is to develop our ability to sort fact from fiction.

No, but we're constantly being subjected to lies from all directions. Learning to sort it out is something that some people are better at than others.

I disagree that the FAA does a great job of adopting regulations that promote a high level of safety for Part 91 ops. If you have adopted the Part 61 and 91 regulations as a private pilots for your minimums, your safety standards are rather low IMO.

What is a "high level of safety"? Certainly GA isn't as safe as airline travel, and not quite as safe as driving, but it's at a level that its participants feel comfortable with, and we're not raining death out of the skies onto nonparticipants... and that's the point of the regulations. I don't agree with all of the FAA's regulations, but we're a lot safer than we would be if there were no rules.

 

[AV8R_87]

I disagree that the FAA does a great job of adopting regulations that promote a high level of safety for Part 91 ops.

Part 91 provides a "good enough" level of safety for the risks involved. No unsuspecting paying passengers, small aircraft so a crash can't cause too many casualties.
It's our job as pilots to rise above the minimums. Most of us don't do it, which is unfortunate.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Part 91 provides a "good enough" level of safety for the risks involved. No unsuspecting paying passengers, small aircraft so a crash can't cause too many casualties.
It's our job as pilots to rise above the minimums. Most of us don't do it, which is unfortunate.

Yep. Some of the recent accidents show a total lack of understanding of the consequences of an error.

 

[Clip4]

Part 91 provides a "good enough" level of safety for the risks involved. No unsuspecting paying passengers, small aircraft so a crash can't cause too many casualties.
It's our job as pilots to rise above the minimums. Most of us don't do it, which is unfortunate.

A few of us don’t rise above the minimums. If most didn’t, the accident rates would be staggering.

 

[Salty]

A few of us don’t rise above the minimums. If most didn’t, the accident rates would be staggering.

I disagree. From what I see, most are already not meeting the minimum standards, and that's a far bigger problem IMO

 

[AV8R_87]

A few of us don’t rise above the minimums. If most didn’t, the accident rates would be staggering.

I stand by my statement. Most of us are just lucky.
How many pilots practice a stall, or slow flight, or short/soft field landings more than every two years, for their flight reviews? Or a simulated engine failure during takeoff or anywhere in the pattern?

 

[UngaWunga]

 

[SoonerAviator]

View attachment 133791

I don't think Libertarians would feel "salt in the wound" at all. For them, it's a perfect example of people being free to make their own choices unencumbered by government regulations. Sometimes those choices result in death, and most Libertarians are fine with that.

 

[Clip4]

I disagree. From what I see, most are already not meeting the minimum standards, and that's a far bigger problem IMO

So you are saying pilots are commonly violating the regs?

 

[Palmpilot]

No, "(n)ot everyone lies about everything all the time."

But some people lie about some things enough of the time to spread disinformation and erode trust in the "official" version of what is going on.

One of the pitfalls is confirmation bias, i.e., automatically accepting assertions that agree with our existing beliefs. This flowchart illustrates the point:

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't think Libertarians would feel "salt in the wound" at all. For them, it's a perfect example of people being free to make their own choices unencumbered by government regulations. Sometimes those choices result in death, and most Libertarians are fine with that.

Titan was apparently carrying paying passengers, which in the aviation world invokes regulations that are intended to provide a higher level of safety.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Titan was apparently carrying paying passengers, which in the aviation world invokes regulations that are intended to provide a higher level of safety.

Doesn't really matter to a Libertarian. They basically operate on the assumption that everyone is responsible for themselves, doesn't matter if you're a "paying customer". The recourse for a dead paying customer is via lawsuits by the surviving family in the court of law. I'm not being combative here, that's just where classical Libertarians stand on those type of issues. It's not full-on anarchy, but they typically don't want government regulation on much of anything, including building codes, food & drug products, or private submersible operations.

 

[Salty]

So you are saying pilots are commonly violating the regs?

We'd have to agree on terms such as "commonly" before I could answer. But pilots are not following proper procedures on a regular basis. If they were, we wouldn't be seeing stall spins happening so regularly.

 

[Palmpilot]

I disagree that the FAA does a great job of adopting regulations that promote a high level of safety for Part 91 ops. If you have adopted the Part 61 and 91 regulations as a private pilots for your minimums, your safety standards are rather low IMO.

It's certainly true that regulations aren't sufficient by themselves to prevent pilots from getting into dangerous situations, especially when operating IFR. Even under VFR, it's not hard to think of examples, like colliding with mountains at night, or scud-running in class G airspace.

 

[Palmpilot]

Doesn't really matter to a Libertarian. They basically operate on the assumption that everyone is responsible for themselves, doesn't matter if you're a "paying customer". The recourse for a dead paying customer is via lawsuits by the surviving family in the court of law. I'm not being combative here, that's just where classical Libertarians stand on those type of issues. It's not full-on anarchy, but they typically don't want government regulation on much of anything, including building codes, food & drug products, or private submersible operations.

I was trying to comment on the safety aspects of it, not the political aspects.

 

[rwellner98]

How many pilots practice a stall, or slow flight, or short/soft field landings more than every two years, for their flight reviews? Or a simulated engine failure during takeoff or anywhere in the pattern?

I do.

But, yes, I agree with your point. Outside of the bush flying community, it's tremendously less common to make an effort to keep those skills sharp. I once took a friend who had been a pilot for eight years into a grass strip for his first time. So it's possible he had been demonstrating soft field techniques in his flight review, but he had never actually flown into one in that entire eight years.

I looked over and he was, literally, white knuckled on short final grabbing onto his kneeboard.

And I'll add another skill that is rarely practiced. Curving approaches. Everyone is taught straight in, stabilized, finals. Which are indeed easier to master and reduce likelihood of spins. But, even if you are never going to fly into a back country strip, being able to control the plane as it arcs into an emergency landing could well save your bacon.

As an example, last weekend I was at lakewood lodge. Almost everyone flew the blue approach below. The yellow approach gives you an extra 200-300 ft horizontally to descend to the strip, but it also takes you over lower trees, so you don't have as much altitude to bleed off vertically.

 

[Dan Thomas]

So you are saying pilots are commonly violating the regs?

It's more than the regs that keep us safe. Understanding subjects like carb ice and its management, and Angle of Attack and how it changes in flight, are examples of the things that kill pilots regularly. I haven't seen a regulation that a pilot must understand these things, only that the subjects be taught.

 

[Clip4]

It's more than the regs that keep us safe. Understanding subjects like carb ice and its management, and Angle of Attack and how it changes in flight, are examples of the things that kill pilots regularly. I haven't seen a regulation that a pilot must understand these things, only that the subjects be taught.

Continued VFR into IMC remains in top 10 GA fatal accidents. Difficult to argue pilots don’t know it violates regulations or they didn’t understand the consequences.

 

[GaryM]

Being in the air at 40,000' is a pretty darn dangerous place to be, too, but we've developed technology to deal with it. .

Absolutely true, of course.

Dealing with the pressure differential is where sub risks differ from aircraft risks. One can fly from sea level to deep space and the pressure differential will never exceed 14.7 psi. Submerging in sea water, you hit the 14.7 psi differential in the first 33 feet. And add another 14.7 psi with every additional 33 feet of depth, all the way to the bottom

 

[Palmpilot]

Continued VFR into IMC remains in top 10 GA fatal accidents. Difficult to argue pilots don’t know it violates regulations or they didn’t understand the consequences.

An acquaintance of mine killed himself and his family doing that.

 

[cowman]

I don't support laws that prevent people from taking personal risks lest someone decides it's a good idea to ban personal risks I enjoy taking... and really other people doing risky things doesn't bother me any.

As far as taking people along for the ride and the whole issue of disclosure vs people's ability to actually understand the risk... well that's murky territory. On one side you have an assuming public who will just assume everything they buy a ticket for is well vetted or will accept the operator's assurances of "oh yeah, it's fine I've done it lots of times." On the other you have a reasoning human being's agency to determine what level of risk is acceptable to them.
I don't know that there's an objectively correct position here since every person's ideas of acceptable risk are different... and a lot of things really are perfectly safe up until the moment they're not. I prefer to err on the side of personal choice though.

 

[Clip4]

I don't support laws that prevent people from taking personal risks lest someone decides it's a good idea to ban personal risks I enjoy taking... and really other people doing risky things doesn't bother me any.

As far as taking people along for the ride and the whole issue of disclosure vs people's ability to actually understand the risk... well that's murky territory. On one side you have an assuming public who will just assume everything they buy a ticket for is well vetted or will accept the operator's assurances of "oh yeah, it's fine I've done it lots of times." On the other you have a reasoning human being's agency to determine what level of risk is acceptable to them.
I don't know that there's an objectively correct position here since every person's ideas of acceptable risk are different... and a lot of things really are perfectly safe up until the moment they're not. I prefer to err on the side of personal choice though.

What risk did the person with a Cessna crashed into their house accept? The FARs operate to protect more than you you against yourself.

 

[ChemGuy]

I think the FAA understands and manages these risks rather well... that's why we can do "stupid" stuff under part 91 that isn't allowed under part 135 or 121.

A lot of the rules regarding 121 (maybe 135) are because some ya-hoo back in the 20’s-70’s did some stupid **** and killed a bunch of people.

Example Texas international air flight 655 deviated 100nm at night to try and get around a line of storms…while VFR. They hit a mountain right as the first officer was saying the MEA for this are is …. That’s when they hit the mountain.
This was 1973. A little while later new rules about flying 121 as IFR only came out.
This wasn’t the first 121 flight to scud run and hit something hard.

 

[AV8R_87]

The FAA regulates by accident

 

[Bell206]

A lot of the rules regarding 121 (maybe 135) are because some ya-hoo back in the 20’s-70’s did some stupid **** and killed a bunch of people.

An even bigger reason behind a majority of the FARs in general is due to ICAO member requirements. The whole point of ICAO was to provide a common regulatory standard between countries to faciliate growth of the international aviation industry. Without that agreement signed in 1944, aviation would have never achieved the levels it did in the same timeframe.