Search results

For finishing up my CFII training I decided to do it a G1000 equipped SR20. It has been a bit more than I anticipated given most of my instrument experience is in my 6 pack equipped Cardinal with VORs. Right now I am reading the manual to try and get a sense on everything this panel can do...

So it sounds like the idea that there should appropriately be different responses depending on both the severity of the harm or possible harm and its certainty is an idea that agrees with you. If that is correct, I would like to consider a set of related non-aviation examples to help clarify...

Just happened across this neat documentary about Fitch who was controlling the throttles on this flight.

Thanks for noting that as I am mostly interested in that context of what you think and how you evaluate these things. So in a bio study we think of the magnitude or strength of the effect and the certainty of that effect. It is possible to link those to actual studies and compare across studies...

Are you familiar with the concepts of grading certainty of evidence and strength of effects used in biomedical studies? These seem like good answers to legal and procedural questions, but don't directly translate into those terms.

Let's call this example 1. So would you sole or primary reason for not supporting one be that it is unconstitutional? Or are there other issues? Let's call this example 2. So for this example - Would the potential costs of compliance factor into your decision? How strong would the evidence...

Ok here’s an example. The FAA says it believes that the risk of people carrying a firearm on a GA aircraft merits banning the carriage of any firearm on a flight operated under part 91. Certainly there are some small risks here and the FAA says that is enough that they are banning them...

Another alternative would be to simply remove the FAA approval. Then buyers would need to become more aware of what they are purchasing. Perhaps they would even evolve the equivalent of a Consumers Union for airlines and a set of standards they must meet to receive approval. In terms of the...

Well, if it were up to you, how would you make them? What sort of standards would you apply to determine whether a given action should be regulated by the government and/or criminalized? We are talking normative standards, or what is necessary in this thread, so this is right at the core of that.

Thanks for the historical perspective. But how do you think these decisions should be made? Because that is what I assume you are judging when you opine that the rule should be this or that way, is fair or unfair, justifies criminalization or not, etc.

Certainly that posts raises a number of good issues. Let's try and parse them one at a time. So here is a question that is sort of basic here. Do you think that which actions are regulated and potentially criminalized by the government should be decided by emotional appeals in particular...

This post provides some valuable information, thanks. In terms of my post #2 here, the question which is critical in my view is how dangerous is Bubba really to the general public? He may be a danger to himself and a liability to his insurer, but to others? There should likely also be a...

I am inclined to agree there is some risk to the general public from people flying airplanes. The question is how much and how well that can be judged. And then based on those facts, whether that justifies threats of violence for enforcement (as noted originally by @rotorwrench, the FAA cannot...

What do these 3 things have to do with each other? Do you deny that Brailsford used violence against Shaver? Yes or no? If yes, what are the pertinent differences between what happened there and the definition? Let’s deal with this one item at a time. After we establish the meaning of the...

Yes, this seems to be skirting the issue. While it is true that the FAA does not have a SWAT team yet, it does refer the cases for criminal prosecution by people who have guns and will use them to enforce a judgement. So yes the FAA regulations are backed by a threat or actual use of violence...

I should perhaps have mentioned that I am the son of a linguist, so from a very early age was brought up to enjoy parsing the meaning of words and statements. Thus I was concerned to hear the results of this informal survey by @rotorwrench . I don't believe that majority vote determines the...

The only reference really necessary here is to the dictionary. Merriam-Webster gives “violence noun vi·o·lence ˈvī-lən(t)s 1 a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy B : an instance of violent treatment or procedure“ Now does the government often engage in...

They are not against the law generally when the government uses them. That is fundamentally what the government does - it uses violence and threats of violence to control people. They are “legal” in the sense of normally permitted by the law, but that does not change what the actual actions are...

Well, in 25 states there is Constitutional Carry, so no test at all. I don't think it has to be an "equal opportunity" market at all, whatever that might mean. I consider a free market to be one without interference by people using violence and threats of violence to get their way. Since the...

I agree one is more subjected to such people in an aircraft. In my experience, generally the people who carry all the time are better trained than LEOs. But that is a very limited sample. My serious opinion, as you likely know, is that this should be up to the airlines and their insurers. Then...