1.25% chance of dying before 1500 hours?

denverpilot said:
Doesn’t matter. Definition of Aircraft in FAR 1. It says nothing about aerodynamic or other lift.

For fun, look up the airworthiness certificate of N328KF. It’s a glider. Of course it was suborbital so that makes sense. But most folks would say it was a “spacecraft”. 367,442 feet.

I haven’t looked up N202VG but it’ll be interesting to see how they’ll comply with the certification regs for carrying passengers. Which they probably won’t, since the entire thing appears to have died 14 years later.

Burt isn’t too happy about that either. LOL.

http://spacenews.com/what-the-hell-happened-the-rise-and-fall-of-suborbital-space-tourism-companies/

Wonder what the AIRworthiness certificate will say on Blue Origin’s toys.
Click to expand...

So you wish to continue your pointless argument. Fine. FARs may provide some definitions but they certainly don't provide the only relevant definitions. In fact a well written regulation for machines which operate in the atmosphere cannot address lift mechanisms in order to leave room for technology growth. Lots of laws are written that way. Equally important is where those laws are applied and the FARs you are sooo worried about historically have not applied outside the atmosphere nor to craft which transit the atmosphere on the way to space. As we move into commercial near-space adventures some aspects of the FARs become relevant particularly for carrier aircraft. No part of those systems will leave Earth's gravity well.

Now looking at your specific examples:
Do any of these spacecraft that operated as aircraft when returning have a chance of leaving Earth's gravity well? No, of course they didn't.

The only spacecraft which have left Earth's gravity well and not returned were payload through the atmosphere.

Now you are certainly free to continue your pointless and inane rant. It's a semi-free country. Said rant won't change the ridiculousness of your chosen position.
 
Half Fast said:
The safest place for a plane (and its pilot) is in the hangar. But that is not why planes (and their pilots) exist.
Click to expand...

Just curious...

...were you intentionally paraphrasing this?

155362-Ships-In-Harbour-Are-Safe-But-That-s-Not-What-Ships-Are-Built-For..jpg
 
Clark1961 said:
The only spacecraft which have left Earth's gravity well and not returned were payload through the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

So you’re admitting the boosters are aircraft and not part of a spacecraft. Which, is exactly what I say. The only pure “spacecraft” is the payload on top. And if it re-enters the atmosphere it’s an aircraft again.

If you are talking about the entire stack, it’s both an aircraft and a spacecraft. If you don’t design the stack to operate properly in the air, it’ll flip over and crash.

Anything operating in air, is an aircraft.

It may also be a spacecraft later on.

If you manage to build it from components on the moon and launch it from there, or on orbit, you can say it’s purely a spacecraft.

But anything we know today as a “spacecraft” is either payload on an aircraft to get there, or a combination of both.

Or by your definition, boosters that don’t escape the gravity well but exit the atmosphere are both aircraft and spacecraft.

I believe a couple of boosters have ended up in the sun. Apollo third stages were crashed into the Moon. (Was the Apollo third stage part of the overall air and spacecraft, or since it only fired on orbit was it a pure spacecraft? Did it operate in air? I say no. But the “whole stack” definition would say yes.) FAA says the whole thing was an aircraft.

So your assertion that all aircraft have come back down is false. :) That was the original point of the discussion after all.

Anything that flew in the air and didn’t return into the atmosphere breaks the assertion. Unless you’re saying the “spacecraft” is only the thing sitting on top of the stack. And I can go with that definition too, if you like. The boosters were aircraft.

For the X-15 program the first stage booster was both an aircraft and an airplane known as a B-52. :) The craft itself was also an aircraft, an airplane and a spacecraft. 13 pilots were awarded astronaut wings by NASA for flying it, as it met the 50 mile requirement at the time for having been in “space”.
 
steingar said:
It is true that lots of things can kill you, and most of them are utterly mundane. I guess my thinking is that if you use good judgement and risk assessment you can avoid a lot of the situations that do the greatest amount of pilot assassination. Then its up to things like loosing your engine over hostile terrain, sudden medical incapacitation or some other unforeseen unavoidable and catastrophic situation. If something like that does come up your number is punched and there isn't a lot you can do about it. Yes, that can be true in any fast moving vehicle, but most vehicles do not need the degree of skill aircraft do to return them to a stationary position.
Click to expand...
If I actually loose my engine I hope it's over hostile terrain. If it's going to fall from altitude, no better place than on top of some hostiles. ;)

(Of course, I might only lose it... either way, if it happens over the Whites, my ticket is pretty much punched.)
 
Lol typical PoA fashion...denver and clark getting in heated battle over what is defined as an aircraft.

LMAO
 
tawood said:
Well I hope so too! You mention J3 engine failure...with an A65? (That's what my one-and-only-one failure was with, except behind the A65 was a Taylorcraft)
Click to expand...

Yes. A 65 hp. When it's cold, you can't pull it back to idle on final without it dying. We parked it for the winter.
 
Shepherd said:
Yes. A 65 hp. When it's cold, you can't pull it back to idle on final without it dying. We parked it for the winter.
Click to expand...
Ah...on mine, the owner before me put some sort of cheap needle valves in the carb, made of plastic...funny thing was, it ran great right up until it quit.
 
denverpilot said:
So you’re admitting the boosters are aircraft and not part of a spacecraft. Which, is exactly what I say. The only pure “spacecraft” is the payload on top. And if it re-enters the atmosphere it’s an aircraft again.

If you are talking about the entire stack, it’s both an aircraft and a spacecraft. If you don’t design the stack to operate properly in the air, it’ll flip over and crash.

Anything operating in air, is an aircraft.

It may also be a spacecraft later on.

If you manage to build it from components on the moon and launch it from there, or on orbit, you can say it’s purely a spacecraft.

But anything we know today as a “spacecraft” is either payload on an aircraft to get there, or a combination of both.

Or by your definition, boosters that don’t escape the gravity well but exit the atmosphere are both aircraft and spacecraft.

I believe a couple of boosters have ended up in the sun. Apollo third stages were crashed into the Moon. (Was the Apollo third stage part of the overall air and spacecraft, or since it only fired on orbit was it a pure spacecraft? Did it operate in air? I say no. But the “whole stack” definition would say yes.) FAA says the whole thing was an aircraft.

So your assertion that all aircraft have come back down is false. :) That was the original point of the discussion after all.

Anything that flew in the air and didn’t return into the atmosphere breaks the assertion. Unless you’re saying the “spacecraft” is only the thing sitting on top of the stack. And I can go with that definition too, if you like. The boosters were aircraft.

For the X-15 program the first stage booster was both an aircraft and an airplane known as a B-52. :) The craft itself was also an aircraft, an airplane and a spacecraft. 13 pilots were awarded astronaut wings by NASA for flying it, as it met the 50 mile requirement at the time for having been in “space”.
Click to expand...
Nah, boosters weren't aircraft, they were spacecraft boosters. Sheesh, this is too easy. The FARs don't apply so by your logic they aren't aircraft. By any rational persons' logic the boosters were spacecraft which moved the payload from the Earth's surface to microgravity. Now we can note that the Apollo third stages only operated in microgravity well above the atmosphere. And by the way, anybody can say anything they want about spacecraft. The FAA had no regulatory authority over spacecraft that left Earth's gravity well so what they may or may not have said is not relevant.

You mention the X-15. What part of that system was regulated by the FARs? None is the correct answer. What part of that system left Earth's gravity well? Once again none is the correct answer.

How long do you want to play these games?
 
Clark1961 said:
Nah, boosters weren't aircraft, they were spacecraft boosters. Sheesh, this is too easy. The FARs don't apply so by your logic they aren't aircraft. By any rational persons' logic the boosters were spacecraft which moved the payload from the Earth's surface to microgravity. Now we can note that the Apollo third stages only operated in microgravity well above the atmosphere. And by the way, anybody can say anything they want about spacecraft. The FAA had no regulatory authority over spacecraft that left Earth's gravity well so what they may or may not have said is not relevant.

You mention the X-15. What part of that system was regulated by the FARs? None is the correct answer. What part of that system left Earth's gravity well? Once again none is the correct answer.

How long do you want to play these games?
Click to expand...

They actually were regulated by FAR. The FAR delegates military aircraft to the military, not the other way around.

All the private venture “spacecraft” also are operated under the FARs as I pointed out with SpaceShip One having an N-number and certified as a glider.

Without a specific FAR exemption from the definitions and rules, SpaceShip Two (well Three really since they crashed the actual Two...) will have to have an airworthiness certificate. (Edit: HAS an airworthiness certificate but you have to pay to see it, apparently.)

The FAA definition still applies. They just exempted the military and NASA in the past. A spacecraft is a sub-circle inside of the aircraft Venn diagram.

FAA COULD create a new category of “Spacecraft” and exempt it from aircraft licensing but as of now, they have not that I’m aware of.

They issue Launch Operator Licenses and have issued two people Astronaut certificates. For operating their combination aircraft and spacecraft.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/current_licenses/
 
According to our boy Zeus over on reddit..you gonna die
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
No one makes it out of life alive, biggest risk people take is not taking risks.

Frankly I find having a bad diet, or poor breeding much more of a risk than flying a plane.
Click to expand...

According to this reddit thread, if you fly GA it is the #1 thing likely to kill you. How true it is...idk? Maybe the stats fella on here can comment on the accuracy of that guys calculation
 
CC268 said:
According to this reddit thread, if you fly GA it is the #1 thing likely to kill you. How true it is...idk? Maybe the stats fella on here can comment on the accuracy of that guys calculation
Click to expand...

That's silly. The two biggest killers of Americans are heart disease and cancer. Same is true for pilots. Maybe 1.5% of all pilots die in airplanes, the other 98.5% from something else.
 
FormerHangie said:
That's silly. The two biggest killers of Americans are heart disease and cancer. Same is true for pilots. Maybe 1.5% of all pilots die in airplanes, the other 98.5% from something else.
Click to expand...

Yea I was trolling a bit...I read through that whole reddit thread and that Zeus guy was just going off on how dangerous flying airplanes was lol. I think he literally posted the same thing like 4 times.
 
CC268 said:
Yea I was trolling a bit...I read through that whole reddit thread and that Zeus guy was just going off on how dangerous flying airplanes was lol. I think he literally posted the same thing like 4 times.
Click to expand...

Reddit aviation stuff is waaaaaay more entertaining than here. Mostly for the “WTF?!” factor. LOL.
 
CC268 said:
Yea I was trolling a bit...I read through that whole reddit thread and that Zeus guy was just going off on how dangerous flying airplanes was lol. I think he literally posted the same thing like 4 times.
Click to expand...
Looks like CardinalGuy (aka "death defying Gaston's landing") changed his handle for Reddit?
 
CC268 said:
Yea I was trolling a bit...I read through that whole reddit thread and that Zeus guy was just going off on how dangerous flying airplanes was lol. I think he literally posted the same thing like 4 times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well he made a bad mistake in his calculation, assuming that the rate is constant. It isn't. You are actually significantly more likely to die early in your flying career, but that rate is greatly reduced by the time you reach 500 hours. The rate of fatal accidents changes with experience, kind of flying and currency. Some of those things are highly controllable. Fly often and fly conservatively, do not go VFR into IMC, know the ground around you, pay attention on every base to final turn and you have already beaten the odds.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Yeah, well he made a bad mistake in his calculation, assuming that the rate is constant. It isn't. You are actually significantly more likely to die early in your flying career, but that rate is greatly reduced by the time you reach 500 hours. The rate of fatal accidents changes with experience, kind of flying and currency. Some of those things are highly controllable. Fly often and fly conservatively, do not go VFR into IMC, know the ground around you, pay attention on every base to final turn and you have already beaten the odds.
Click to expand...
I think it's also important to distinguish that people aren't dieing as a result of their hours being low; people are dieing as a result of their pilotage abilities not being sufficient for the tasks they are attempting. The pilots who live past 500 hours are the pilots who make responsible decisions and fly within their abilities.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
there are some real stats done by Paul Craig is his book the killing zone based on NTSB data and he describes the killing zone to be >100 and <400 hrs. i am trying hard to cross that zone as soon as i am able... am half way through. if i make it to the other side, i will let ya'll know
 
ShuRugal said:
However, the percentage of passenger cars which leave the Earth's surface and return again is no longer 100.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And hasn’t been since about 1970...okay, one could argue that the moon will eventually impact the Earth and call that a return...
 
Clark1961 said:
And hasn’t been since about 1970...okay, one could argue that the moon will eventually impact the Earth and call that a return...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call the lunar rovers passenger cars: those were extremely specialized machines. Calling them a passenger car is like calling the Space Shuttle an airplane: it's pedantically correct, but but accurate at all from a practical standpoint.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
ShuRugal said:
I wouldn't call the lunar rovers passenger cars: those were extremely specialized machines. Calling them a passenger car is like calling the Space Shuttle an airplane: it's pedantically correct, but but accurate at all from a practical standpoint.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
And my position is that the rovers were very practical cars for the moon and that they did indeed carry a passenger in addition to the driver. In fact, as a battery powered car the rover was a precursor to the Tesla.

As always, everyone on POA is correct and has to argue about it.
 
Clark1961 said:
As always, everyone on POA is correct and has to argue about it.
Click to expand...

Complains the man who decided that my light-hearted comment was worth starting an argument over.

Grow up.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
ShuRugal said:
Complains the man who decided that my light-hearted comment was worth starting an argument over.

Grow up.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Take your own advice.
 
Clark1961 said:
And my position is that the rovers were very practical cars for the moon and that they did indeed carry a passenger in addition to the driver. In fact, as a battery powered car the rover was a precursor to the Tesla.

As always, everyone on POA is correct and has to argue about it.
Click to expand...
Do not think that Tesla Roadster is coming home either.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
ShuRugal said:
Someone wanted to start a fight. I was indeed referring to the Tesla.
Click to expand...

I don't think they were wanting to start a fight, they were just being pedantic.

Irony intended... ;)
 
bflynn said:
I don't think they were wanting to start a fight, they were just being pedantic.

Irony intended... ;)
Click to expand...
I think it's more accurate to say they weren't expecting to get back what they were giving.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top