Plane down off of Cape May, NJ

[apr911]

You might be fine with accepting the risk of going out over water and going splat. But if you go splat, someone is going to have go look for you. And if they find you, or think they've found you, they're going to have to suit up and dive to try to get your carcass back. In that situation, your choices end up putting others at risk.

Sure but the same can be said about going hiking in a National Park or doing the supply run flying the Alaskan bush or boating in general or just getting up and driving to work every morning. If something negative happens, your decision to do just about anything has the potential to put others at risk, that's why they are paid professionals with extensive training in an effort to minimize that risk to themselves.

 

[Tantalum]

Sure but the same can be said about going hiking in a National Park or doing the supply run flying the Alaskan bush or boating in general or just getting up and driving to work every morning. If something negative happens, your decision to do just about anything has the potential to put others at risk, that's why they are paid professionals with extensive training in an effort to minimize that risk to themselves.

Yes but the analogy is a little bent, interestingly I just recently had this discussion with a friend who's been flying with me a few times and is an avid hiker and climber. Taking your examples:

"hiking in a National Park"
--if you respect the wilderness and go prepared then you're going about that responsible. You may still get lost or injured but you took reasonable efforts to minimize that, given your activity. But then there are people who get lost / dehydrated / die somewhat because they're tourists who fly in on vacation, hear "national park" and assume it's safe, only to get their minivan stuck somewhere on a trail and all they brought was a left over diet coke from lunch

"Alaskan bush"
--risk comes with that territory though.. there is not sport or hobby that involves ocean swell skimming in a plane

"Boating"
--similar to hiking, there are safe people who bring life jackets, PFD, flares, etc.. Then those who bring nothing but a half dead cell phone. And those people who will willingly venture out into a hurricane (literally) only to need their tails rescued later. The latter case is stupid, as was seen in HMS Bounty and El Faro sinkings recently knowingly cranking into storms these were faced with serious investigations

"Driving to work every morning"
--we all accept that risk and take efforts to avoid injury by staying alert, not using our phones, not drinking alcohol, etc. The aviation equivalent of skimming ocean swells to me is the guy who's going to drive drunk knowingly "but only on back roads with no traffic" - someone (us, the tax payers) are still going be the ones paying for an idiot's actions

The paid professionals should help us when we get into hot water, make mistakes, and accidents happen. BUT, if you're just blatantly an idiot then you should be charged for the recovery costs, and if survived, I would argue they should face legal trouble to discourage future events and others from trying similar stunts

 

[apr911]

Yes but the analogy is a little bent, interestingly I just recently had this discussion with a friend who's been flying with me a few times and is an avid hiker and climber. Taking your examples:

"hiking in a National Park"
--if you respect the wilderness and go prepared then you're going about that responsible. You may still get lost or injured but you took reasonable efforts to minimize that, given your activity. But then there are people who get lost / dehydrated / die somewhat because they're tourists who fly in on vacation, hear "national park" and assume it's safe, only to get their minivan stuck somewhere on a trail and all they brought was a left over diet coke from lunch

"Alaskan bush"
--risk comes with that territory though.. there is not sport or hobby that involves ocean swell skimming in a plane

"Boating"
--similar to hiking, there are safe people who bring life jackets, PFD, flares, etc.. Then those who bring nothing but a half dead cell phone. And those people who will willingly venture out into a hurricane (literally) only to need their tails rescued later. The latter case is stupid, as was seen in HMS Bounty and El Faro sinkings recently knowingly cranking into storms these were faced with serious investigations

"Driving to work every morning"
--we all accept that risk and take efforts to avoid injury by staying alert, not using our phones, not drinking alcohol, etc. The aviation equivalent of skimming ocean swells to me is the guy who's going to drive drunk knowingly "but only on back roads with no traffic" - someone (us, the tax payers) are still going be the ones paying for an idiot's actions

The paid professionals should help us when we get into hot water, make mistakes, and accidents happen. BUT, if you're just blatantly an idiot then you should be charged for the recovery costs, and if survived, I would argue they should face legal trouble to discourage future events and others from trying similar stunts

If you follow the conversation, the analogy is not at all bent. We're discussing what is acceptable risk and how what's acceptable to some might not be acceptable to others. @Juliet Hotel 's previous statement was that if you accept the risk (and presumably take the necessary precautions) and go splat, you are impacting someone other than yourself and putting them at risk even if you avoid hitting anything/anyone.

My point was that you are doing that with just about any activity.

Nothing you've stated in here changes that.

Your analogy that skimming the ocean is the equivalent to driving drunk knowingly but only on the back roads is actually more bent than mine. In one case (ocean skimming) you are or at least can make yourself aware of the risks and are capable of making that decision and further can take precautions to minimize the risk to others. In the other, you are impaired, incapable of understanding the risks and even on the backroads where there might be no traffic doesn't mean you wont encounter traffic so you are putting others at risk by the very act independent of you having an accident that requires rescue or recovery. The closer analogy for the uninformed pilot would be the tourist in the national park but for the informed pilot, all your comment shows is that you have a different risk perspective/profile/tolerance than some others.

That's totally ok but I assume you probably also are not down with the idea of skydiving or doing something like @Katamarino 's around-the-world flight with trips over open ocean/water (especially if it were to entail flying with a VFR only aircraft without such items as an attitude indicator; e.g. ferry ops) or possibly operating in a seaplane.

 

[Tantalum]

That's totally ok but I assume you probably also are not down with the idea of skydiving or doing something like @Katamarino 's around-the-world flight with trips over open ocean/water (especially if it were to entail flying with a VFR only aircraft without such items as an attitude indicator; e.g. ferry ops) or possibly operating in a seaplane.

All of these sound like fantastic activities to me

I feel like I'm being trolled. Hot dogging an airplane down close to the water even if you're far from other people is stupid and nowhere near relatable to hiking or skydiving etc

But c'est la vie

 

[Sundancer]

You might be fine with accepting the risk of going out over water and going splat. But if you go splat, someone is going to have go look for you. And if they find you, or think they've found you, they're going to have to suit up and dive to try to get your carcass back. In that situation, your choices end up putting others at risk.

And the folks that do come looking - they made their choices, as well, right? For the thrill, or the satisfaction of doing service, or for another personal reason? They are at risk, as you say - but a risk they've taken on freely. Anyway, my choices don't put them at risk - it's something they chose to do. I respect and admire them, and been one myself. But I'm also glad such folks are necessary, that we can have different measures, and don't all have to come to the same conclusions about how to live.

See, no one has to come looking for me - our culture makes it expected that we do so, we intrude into other's decisions - we think it's morally necessary. that's cool, but not an excuse for imposing a universal standard. Come looking if you feel the need - your call, just don;t blame the splat-ee for the action.

 

[Sundancer]

All of these sound like fantastic activities to me

I feel like I'm being trolled. Hot dogging an airplane down close to the water even if you're far from other people is stupid and nowhere near relatable to hiking or skydiving etc

But c'est la vie

Can't buy it as stupid - as someone else said, maybe not well considered or thought through; but thrilling, spontaneous, maybe. Very high risk, certainly, if getting killed rates high in your consideration. It doesn't always rate that high with everyone, though, and not at every point in time in someone's life. Risks I took a long time ago I won't take now. Other, different ones, I do. I expect it's the same for most (many?) people.

 

[Huckster79]

If it was skimming I believe that to be foolish and unwise. However there has to be an element of others risk tolerance. I had a person once tell me it was irresponsible to be a probate pilot and a father... I don’t see it that way, but they did... I fly a taildragger, many folks think it’s foolish to fly “outdated technology” that makes the plane inherently unstable on the ground, I love the trill of each take off and landing knowing it’s only my skills that prevent, or allow, a groundloop every time I’m on the ground...

Doesn’t change my opinion of skimming, but I didn’t change that persons mind who thought I should wait till my kids were grown to endeavor on the journey of being a private pilot either...