You're viewing a single thread.
Flying planes. A few months ago, I got to do take-off and pilot a bit in a tandem plane. Being in a small, single-engine 1969 plane instead of the typical jumbo jet--I realized it was literally just a shitty old RV inside, shag carpet, rickety little passenger window, and all. Except for one minor difference: we were soon IN THE FUCKING SKY. That's when I realized humanity has no place being up there, with all due respect to John F. Kennedy, NASA, etc. And a little sidenote to those same scientists: a giant metal object ascending into the sky makes no sense--I don't think it can last. It's the folly of man. Oh, and you can just have a plane!? That's allowed somehow!?
Now imagine being a wwii fighter pilot and charging straight ahead through enemy's AA in a plane built from wood and paper.
Im pretty sure your thinking about ww1, planes made in ww2 mostly consisted of metal.
Iirc biplanes were still used in ww2. Some of the newer ones also have wooden elements, such as the famous "wooden wonder" mosquito.
You have no clue how rediculously well regulated aircraft are. However aesthetically displeasing the plane you flew in was, it wouldn't be in the sky if it wasn't flightready.
You have no clue how rediculously well regulated aircraft are
While I'm broadly in agreement with you (and am certainly not in favour of banning flying), I think recent events have shown us pretty clearly: they are not nearly as well-regulated as the industry likes to claim, especially with the large commercial aeroplanes.
Still better regulated than cars and driving.
I think the problem is that some of the corporations have decided that it's acceptable to increase the margins of error in the name of profit.
If they make more money than they lose due to lawsuits and lost customers, it's a win in the eyes of capitalism!
The FAA and industry response to Boeing's neglegence has been swift and complete. I don't think these recent events detracts from what I said.
Boeing has been having issues going back a lot further, since at least the 787 Dreamliner. It's just gotten a lot worse with the 737 Max.
The problem is that the FAA allows them to use "Designated Inspectors" to ensure their compliance, which are Boeing employees, not independent FAA staff. And the FAA is still allowing them to fly despite there still being serious known flaws (being unable to run the anti-ice system for more than 5 minutes without potentially damaging the engine).
It's also probably why their only real competitor, not being based in business-friendly safety-regulation-hating America, hasn't had similar problems.
In a properly regulated market, the FAA never would have allowed 737 Maxes to be certified for use, or it at least would have grounded them once issues became clear. Instead, they treat Boeing as "too big to fail" and don't want to upset the travel market in the way that grounding large numbers of planes because of a safety concern.
Planes are by far the safest way to travel due to the extremely strict regulations, regulations that don't exist for other means of transportation