Iced up Cirrus crashes

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
I disagree that all safety improvements *must* ultimately come from
improving the technology. Behavioral change can also improve safety.
Stop such ridiculous practices as giving people the opportunity to
have a dozen DUI convictions, and safety will improve. Stop the
ridiculous practice of permitting ever more distractions while
driving, such as cell phones, DVD players, etc., and safety will
improve. I am completely opposed to the mentality that suggests that
we can behave any way we want and count on technology to save our
asses.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where that would work.
But we don't. I agree that vehicles (aircraft, motor, etc.) would
all be MUCH safer if people would pay attention to their
piloting/driving.

Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

When you figure out a way to get a better human, then we can start
talking about getting that better human to change their behavior.
Until then, you're stuck with the kind of behavior that the current
human is willing to engage in.

Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How about BFRs
for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type before one can
legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm not under any illusion
that these practices could become a reality in our society, but I'm sure
that safety would improve dramatically if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current standards would
be a good place to start, for that matter. But frankly, I believe that the
only reason that standards are so strict with airplanes is that people (the
general public) have ALWAYS been terrified of them. Since day one,
airplanes have been freaking people out.

If as many people flew airplanes as drive, there's no way the regulations
would be as strict as they are now. The general public wouldn't put up with
the inconvenience. Conversely, it's entirely possible that one reason
aviation has always been so small an industry is that it's just too many
hurdles for most people (the argument that the Sport certificate will expand
the pilot community is a demonstration of that thought).

Agreed. However, if we maintain the mindset that it isn't necessary to
become better humans because technology will be sufficient compensation
for our idiocy, I'm afraid that we'll ultimately lose that game.

There, I'm going to have to disagree. Or at least, you'll have to define
"lose that game" better. The human race gets where it gets because of the
sheer numbers and determination. I have a fairly low opinion of the average
human, but I have a pretty optimistic outlook on where society as a whole
will go. That's because the average human makes very little difference in
where society goes.

Our progress is slow, but there's enough average people to provide the
manpower, and who cares if a few tens of thousands get slaughtered on the
roads each year? Those aren't the important people for the most part
anyway. Yes, there's a bit of collateral damage; no matter how intelligent
you are, you can't protect against every eventuality. But again,
statistically speaking, a person who is applying some thought to their
driving (or flying) is light years ahead of the average person out there,
and will (on average) do way better.

We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason, the
smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only game I
see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the dumb people.
Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty close (and is
already doing so).

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How
about BFRs for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type
before one can legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm
not under any illusion that these practices could become a reality
in our society, but I'm sure that safety would improve dramatically
if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current
standards would be a good place to start, for that matter. But
frankly, I believe that the only reason that standards are so strict
with airplanes is that people (the general public) have ALWAYS been
terrified of them. Since day one, airplanes have been freaking
people out.

The point is, whatever the rationale, I don't think that the stricter
standards both for design and operation of aircraft is a Bad Thing.

[...]
We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason,
the smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only
game I see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the
dumb people. Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty
close (and is already doing so).

IMO, that depends on whether you take a micro or macro view of the topic.
The "technology as savior" mindset has pretty far-reaching ramifications.
I appreciate the irony that I'm writing this on the day that the Kyoto
treaty goes into effect, and that the US and other major producers of
polutants aren't taking part in what even its supporters call an
inadequate first step to slow the destruction of our environment. ;-)

Regards,

Neil