Buzzing, and physical harm to the public

Let'sgoflying! said:
'No', there is very little actual physical risk to the public on the ground from buzz jobs as there have been few, to no instances where this has resulted in incidents in the past.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not many deaths or injuries, but there's still property damage. Dig through the NTSB accident database for examples.
My inference from this is that 'yes', most of the public and media reaction to such instances is emotional, and not based upon an actual physical threat.
Click to expand...
I think that's also true. But even one injury to an innocent party due to illegal low flying is unacceptable to me.
 
I think that's also true. But even one injury to an innocent party due to illegal low flying is unacceptable to me.
Click to expand...

I think that is what I want to understand better; that sentence reflects what drives the FAA to their 'zero accident' goals, and it is tied into the emotional response we see from the public when it comes to aviation accidents.
(not pickin on anyone, most of us have come to accept the current legal burden as the price of admission)

Here are some questions that come to mind:

Is it reasonable to have a goal of zero accidents or injuries in aviation? (we lose a driver or a pedestrian - many of them completely innocent bystanders - every 15 minutes* in this country, every day, all year long. Why aren't the transportation lawmakers all over that, on the basis of quantity of death alone?!)

Is the cost (financial cost, cost of overregulation, cost of reducing aviation availability to many folks) worth the seemingly burdensome set of regulations we now have?

We have a reg. that permanently strips away a person's approval to fly when no one was either physically injured or arguably posed a true physical threat.......do we have similar regs in other modes of transportation? If you buzz your boat at high speed, past a group of swimmers, will people call 911, and will you never drive a boat again as a result?

Are our aviation rules driven by emotion instead of logic and fact unlike other legal areas of our lives?

I again remind that I am not 'in favor of more aviation fatalities'. However, I marvel at the disparity of response our legal system has between an aviation incident or fatality - and that of other activities.
And I do have concern that we are overregulated. And it concerns me that as a group we sheepishly might accept without complaint an unfair regulatory burden.

*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810791.PDF
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
I think that is what I want to understand better; that sentence reflects what drives the FAA to their 'zero accident' goals, and it is tied into the emotional response we see from the public when it comes to aviation accidents.
(not pickin on anyone, most of us have come to accept the current legal burden as the price of admission)

Here are some questions that come to mind:

Is it reasonable to have a goal of zero accidents or injuries in aviation? (we lose a driver or a pedestrian - many of them completely innocent bystanders - every 15 minutes* in this country, every day, all year long. Why aren't the transportation lawmakers all over that, on the basis of quantity of death alone?!)

Is the cost (financial cost, cost of overregulation, cost of reducing aviation availability to many folks) worth the seemingly burdensome set of regulations we now have?

We have a reg. that permanently strips away a person's approval to fly when no one was either physically injured or arguably posed a true physical threat.......do we have similar regs in other modes of transportation? If you buzz your boat at high speed, past a group of swimmers, will people call 911, and will you never drive a boat again as a result?

Are our aviation rules driven by emotion instead of logic and fact unlike other legal areas of our lives?

I again remind that I am not 'in favor of more aviation fatalities'. However, I marvel at the disparity of response our legal system has between an aviation incident or fatality - and that of other activities.
And I do have concern that we are overregulated. And it concerns me that as a group we sheepishly might accept without complaint an unfair regulatory burden.

*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810791.PDF
Click to expand...

Ride a bicycle on any public road in America then come back and talk about the inequities in the rules.

If you'd rather not, here's the straight scoop: Number of drivers = hundreds of millions.

Is it any surprise the system has a preference?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
We have a reg. that permanently strips away a person's approval to fly when no one was either physically injured or arguably posed a true physical threat.......

Are our aviation rules driven by emotion instead of logic and fact unlike other legal areas of our lives?
Click to expand...

Your line of arguement contains the implicit assumption that the only valid reason for an FAA regulation is the possibility of harm to persons or property outside the plane. There are plenty of data (fatal accidents) to show that buzzing is potentially very harmful to people inside the plane. Your assertion that the anti-buzzing regulation is not based on facts is incorrect. The regulation is based on different facts than the ones you've been examining.
 
The rules against buzzing are primarily to protect non-participants from the risks associated with flying. It's not reasonable to expect perfection anywhere, and there are always risks to participants in any activities. But unless the activity requires an action that places non-participants at risk (and therefore goes through the whole balancing act), it's reasonable to restrict or prohibit that action.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Is it reasonable to have a goal of zero accidents or injuries in aviation? (we lose a driver or a pedestrian - many of them completely innocent bystanders - every 15 minutes* in this country, every day, all year long. Why aren't the transportation lawmakers all over that, on the basis of quantity of death alone?!)
Click to expand...
The question here is not the routine risk due to error during normal operations, but radically increased risk due to deliberate violation of rules and safety precautions. I'm willing to accept a few innocent deaths due to normal road traffic, but not injuries/deaths to innocent bystanders caused by illegal street racing or drunk driving.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Unfortunately, that's not what I said, and you edited out an important part of what I did say. I'd appreciate it if you put that part about "an innocent party" back in, because without it, the quotation attributed to me no longer reflects my opinion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - done. But I don't see that the abbreviation of your sentence changed anything. Seems to me we still have scads of injuries/deaths to 'innocents' from non-aviation activities which do not bring about such stringent regulation.


The question here is not the routine risk due to error during normal operations, but radically increased risk due to deliberate violation of rules and safety precautions. I'm willing to accept a few innocent deaths due to normal road traffic, but not injuries/deaths to innocent bystanders caused by illegal street racing or drunk driving.
Click to expand...

Point noted, but I will continue to ponder that if you merely compare effort expended and regulations made, based upon actual numbers of dead bodies,...the response seems greatly out of line - and my theory is that raw, logic-free emotion drives it.
"Ahhh! An airplane might fall on our heads! Lock them all up!"
But we, as you note, simply accept that the number of deaths in auto transportation is equivalent to a town the size of...York, Pa or.....Littleton, Co boom- is erased from the country each and every year.
(Yes, I understand the comparisons of purpose-based travel comparisons and that not everyone can fly an airplane, but in this thread I am stripping those biases out to simply look at the piles of dead bodies. With aviation, the pile is tiny....but the response is huge. Its emotion. )

Thinking of the road races/drunk driving comparison you offer.....is the response similar? Do such violators get permanent bans of driving after the first offense?
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
Thinking of the road races/drunk driving comparison you offer.....is the response similar? Do such violators get permanent bans of driving after the first offense?
Click to expand...
No, and if you dig through the NTSB files, revocations for first 91.119 offenses are extremely rare. In fact, of the 72 cases including 91.119 charges that went to the NTSB since 1992, the only revocations were four cases which also involved:
  • violations of 91.13(a); 91.9(a); 91.117(a); 91.303(e); 91.515(a)(1); 91.531(c); 91.175(c)(1); 91.175(c)(2); 91.175(e)(1)(i); 91.175(c); 61.3(c); 43.12(a)(1); and 61.20.
  • "low, formation flight around Jones and Rockaway Beaches in New York on July 4; flight within 500 feet of swimmers; transponders off and not in communication with ATC despite proximity to JFK airport; heightened state of alert for terrorist threats; citizens called police; police helicopter dispatched; fighter aircraft directed to intercept"
  • drugs and alcohol
  • entering class B airspace without an ATC clearance; performing an aerobatic maneuver below 1,500 feet and within class D airspace; careless or reckless operation; aircraft speed in excess of 250 knots; low altitude flight;
Based on that, it appears that like drunk driving, you really have to aggravate the offense before you get a "permanent ban" for buzzing.
 
dmccormack said:
Ride a bicycle on any public road in America then come back and talk about the inequities in the rules.

If you'd rather not, here's the straight scoop: Number of drivers = hundreds of millions.

Is it any surprise the system has a preference?
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic but:

To the lady in the Green Mercury Mountaineer that honked and almost forced me into the row of parked cars on the right of Meadowcrest lane when I was biking:

Sehr angenehm! Trink das wasser nicht. Die kuhen
haben dahin gesheissen.

If you don't speak German: Use both hands to get water from the pond; you'll get more!

Best,

Dave
 
I wonder how folks get the idea to do this dangerours stuff <g>

Best,

Dave
 

Attachments

  • Beerstop.wmv
    3.8 MB · Views: 19
Let'sgoflying! said:
Fair enough - done. But I don't see that the abbreviation of your sentence changed anything. Seems to me we still have scads of injuries/deaths to 'innocents' from non-aviation activities which do not bring about such stringent regulation.




Point noted, but I will continue to ponder that if you merely compare effort expended and regulations made, based upon actual numbers of dead bodies,...the response seems greatly out of line - and my theory is that raw, logic-free emotion drives it.
"Ahhh! An airplane might fall on our heads! Lock them all up!"
But we, as you note, simply accept that the number of deaths in auto transportation is equivalent to a town the size of...York, Pa or.....Littleton, Co boom- is erased from the country each and every year.
(Yes, I understand the comparisons of purpose-based travel comparisons and that not everyone can fly an airplane, but in this thread I am stripping those biases out to simply look at the piles of dead bodies. With aviation, the pile is tiny....but the response is huge. Its emotion. )

Thinking of the road races/drunk driving comparison you offer.....is the response similar? Do such violators get permanent bans of driving after the first offense?
Click to expand...

The way you look at regulations as a pilot determines in large part how you will interface regulations into your personal flight safety regimen.

Regulations are merely limits, basically of proximity and performance parameters as they relate to actual flight safety. The smart pilot views the regulations as simply a starting point from which to base a flight safety attitude.
All the regulations do is to TRY and set down some limits that a governing body has determined from experience and statistics will "most likely result" in a minimum of accidents.
This preface about regulations is extremely important for pilots to understand because in an activity such as flying, a potential accident is a constant companion as you travel through your flying career.

In the display flying community, because of our proximity to the ground as our pilots work professionally, we stress the development of a "flight safety attitude" that accepts regulations and goes beyond that, right into the pilot's attitude toward flying in general. I can tell you that our effort to end accidents is based on the premise that although a 0 factor is naturally and obviously the theoretical goal, the realistic goal is to get the number of accidents down to as low as humanly possible.

The best way to view what I'm saying here is that whether you are displaying a P51 on hard deck waivers or you are a GA pilot enjoying a Sunday flight down to the shore, how you view flight safety is the key to avoiding accidents.

The regs are indeed stuffy and complex, and you can indeed make an argument about some factor or another about a regulation based on hard stats and make it come out one way or the other, but in the end analysis, if true flight safety is your goal, the best way to view a regulation is to see it for what it actually is, a guide for pilot to use meant to HELP avoid a potential accident.
In the end, if you fly long enough, sooner or later you will come into close proximity with a potential accident. I know I have more than once.
Whether or not you actually have that accident will depend primarily on the attitude and skills YOU developed throughout your career as a pilot that coupled together define YOU as a pilot.

Dudley Henriques
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
Not to get off topic but:

To the lady in the Green Mercury Mountaineer that honked and almost forced me into the row of parked cars on the right of Meadowcrest lane when I was biking:

Sehr angenehm! Trink das wasser nicht. Die kuhen
haben dahin gesheissen.

If you don't speak German: Use both hands to get water from the pond; you'll get more!

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

LOL Dave, BTW the past participle of scheissen is geschissen :D
 
vontresc said:
LOL Dave, BTW the past participle of scheissen is geschissen :D
Click to expand...

Oh man Pete, that stuff gives me a headache. I can still here Mrs. Lavendar lecturing about diagraming sentences in HS----yuck. Sounded just like the teacher in Peanuts----blah blah blah bla. I've never had to do that since and seem to have randomly managed to succeed somehow.

Best,

Dave
 
Graueradler said:
Class 3 Medical???
Click to expand...
Well, maybe someone knowledgeable on the subject can share the history of flight physicals for non-military flyers. I'm under the impression that we are talking ancient history here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top