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.
When is criminal law necessary for aviation safety?
- Thread starter Winthrop
- Start date
These seem like good answers to legal and procedural questions, but don't directly translate into those terms.
rotorwrench
Active member
No on bio studies. But keep in mind, my reply was only in context to your question on my personal views and was not specific in nature. The actual process is much more in depth, requiring input from a number of different skill sets; under which I would hazard to guess, the NPRM process would give similar results as your bio grading/strength concepts.
Perhaps review the available guidance on the FAA NPRM process to see if it answers your questions? Regardless, I would generally think there are more differences than similarities between biomedical studies and the FAA rulemaking process.
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 in those fields. One often needs to evaluate these to make the best treatment decision for a patient.
So when you say the rules should be decided by the evidence, as in example 2, do you evaluate something similar in your own mind? How much evidence is good enough? How strong should the effect be to offset costs? It may well be that is not at all the sort of thinking you use, so if not, I would be curious to hear more about what the process is.
rotorwrench
Active member
Yes.
Depends on the reason for the new or revised rule: loss of life/potential loss of life?; crew-pax-aircraft safety?; Grow the industry? Protect the industry? And so on.
I think each type of reason needs its own separate review, priorities, and cost analysis. Then the proper root cause (evidence) and mitigation course can be determined to reduce the risk or fix the issue.
Now whether the root cause is “good enough” or the “cost offsets” are acceptable to everyone would depend on their objectivity/experience on the goals of the corrective action goals vs my objectivity/experience.
To use my example from post #17, I believe my stated correction action was based on a “good enough” root cause, at an acceptable cost. I think any actions above that would not be in the best interest of the industry plus increase the burden on the owners who are not in violation.
Now if there was a body count associated with the trend of undocumented mx, then it probably would require a higher-level response like an AD or something similar.
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. These are from everyday life. Let's consider the following 4 situations:
Situation 1: I hear from neighbor X that neighbor Y yells at his wife all the time.
Situation 2: While walking past neighbor Y's house, I often hear him yelling at his wife.
Situation 3: I hear from neighbor X that neighbor Y has threatened to shoot his wife.
Situation 4: While walking past neighbor Y's house, I see him holding a gun and threatening to shoot his wife, who appears completely non-threatening.
I assume you would agree that these four situations differ in the morally appropriate response.
In both 1 and 2, I think one morally appropriate response would be to simply never deal with neighbor Y and avoid him, particularly if I don't know him well.
In 3, I think a morally appropriate response is that someone try and intervene, maybe contact the wife by other means to confirm.
In 4, I think a morally appropriate response is to draw my weapon and shoot neighbor Y.
Now I know you might not agree with my exact moral reasoning on the responses, but do you see that it would be appropriate to distinguish between 3 and 4 in terms of what one does? Whereas in 1 and 2 it doesn't matter that much and that the same response is likely appropriate in both situations.
rotorwrench
Active member
You're correct but I find there are zero similarities between aviation and these non-aviation examples. The aviation side is decided to an objective standard (law or rule) via established principals like risk management. So in my view there is nothing to clarify.
The main difference with your examples is the morality qualifier which, in my opinion, is subjective to the person and their beliefs vs an objective standard. So while my thought process with aviation matters is one way, its much different with your non-aviation examples.
Not really. I look at the whole scenario differently as I believe in personal responsibility and accountability.
Based on the context of your situations above, the wife has allowed herself to be caught up in all 4 situations. So she also assumes responsibility here. As to neighbor X, my 1st question to him is what is he going to do about it... since he saw it 1st… then brought it up to me?
As to situation 4, while you believe it is morally okay to shoot your neighbor Y, I don’t. But not enough details to make an accurate comment on my part. However, on face value, you have now opened yourself to potential repercussions especially if it happened in the middle of the street or worse in their house.
Or reality rears its head when neighbor X calls 911 for "a man" with a gun, just before you shoot Y, so when Barney Fife pulls up, sees you in a Weaver stance, dead guy on the ground, with his wife pointing at you... I wonder what could happen??? You'll make the 11 o'clock news for sure.
This distinction I am a bit puzzled by.
Does a person enforcing laws and regulations make a moral decision when deciding to enforce them?
Do people who are choosing to enact a law or regulation making a moral decision?
I don’t see anything in the definition of morality that requires it to be subjective versus objective.
I do understand that you have a different thought process for the two types of decisions and I am trying to understand those differences, how they arise, and why.
It was not my intention in bringing up these 4 situations to discuss in detail the decision in each case (as you note, not enough detail), but rather to illustrate that both the impact of an action and our certainty about it influence the moral evaluation. I assume we agree on that.
rotorwrench
Active member
Probably because I define or hold morals/morality in a different manner than you do. My take is that morals are what a society, a culture, a religion, etc. wants of a person. Except that each society, or each culture, or each religion, etc. can have a different moral standard for the exact same topic or ideal. I prefer to use my personal values as a guide through life which happens to put a premium on objective standards that cross all moral boundaries.
Perhaps lets work through some realistic examples? But maybe start another thread in hangar talk so as not to take this thread completely off the tracks?
Yes, I think so.
My own view is that morality is integral to this topic. However, I am always happy to change venues, so to speak, to facilitate discussion. Please see the new thread at https://flyersforum.org/threads/morality-and-rule-systems-in-aviation-laws-and-regulation.3512/
Winthrop
Active member
Sometimes removing inefficiency solves that problem.
So as to 121 I do check the safety records of airlines and aircraft types. With 135 I always double check. As for helicopter tours, well yeah, I think I commented on one tour operator that scared me. However, helicopter tours are notorious for cutting corners.
rotorwrench
Active member
Perhaps in the 80s-early 90s that might have been correct with tours, but not in more recent times in my experience. However, despite the efforts there still are some aviation operators who cut corners and even at the 121 level.
But what’s interesting with this topic is statistically you have a higher chance of dying being flown by your neighbor or “Uncle Bob” in their privately owned, recreational aircraft. Even higher than those “notorious” 135/136 helicopter tour ops.
So do you also check and double check your neighbor’s or relative’s safety record, flight history, and credentials prior to boarding?
Winthrop
Active member
I no longer fly because I am a bad pilot and I sure as hell don't fly with poorly qualified private pilots or qualified pilots who can't afford to maintain a modern aircraft.
