Originally Posted by Jdub2 (Post 3477614)

I see where your brain is shorting now, maybe I can translate to something easier for you to understand!

Example:
Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

Reality:
Sonic Flyer declares that the 1500 hour rule has no effect on safety, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

You are the one arguing. We aren't proposing to make the 1500 hour rule. It is already made. There is no argument.
You are arguing we should amend the qualifications, therefore you need to prove your argument.

I'm not sure I can make this any more simple, but in the likely event you still don't comprehend I will see if I can make it even more simple for you

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3477622)

sonicflyer has a financial interest in removing the 1500 hour rule. You’re not going to fix that attitude

Originally Posted by Jdub2 (Post 3477614)

Sonic Flyer declares that the 1500 hour rule has no effect on safety

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3477640)

False. I never wrote that.... See this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


What I did write are the following facts:

1- it was implemented by Obama as a gift to the unions
2- at the time it was passed it had nothing to do with safety, it was purely political
3- there has been no peer reviewed study showing that the 1500 hour rule has made flying safer (please show me otherwise, I would like to read it!)


Nice try though.

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3477640)

False. I never wrote that.... See this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


What I did write are the following facts:

1- it was implemented by Obama as a gift to the unions
2- at the time it was passed it had nothing to do with safety, it was purely political
3- there has been no peer reviewed study showing that the 1500 hour rule has made flying safer (please show me otherwise, I would like to read it!)


Nice try though.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3477650)

1) it was a response to Colgan, not a gift to unions
2) it absolutely had to do with safety

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3477650)

3)it’s disingenuous to say this, because the statistical modeling of exceptionally rare events is nearly impossible. This is the problem with “safety science” as a whole.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3477648)

You think ALPA had any pull with Obama?! The general public and politicians don’t care about airline pilots. There are so many more important things in politics than our small airline world. The families of Colgan 3407 is what CONGRESS cared about. It was bad PR to have them on the news talking about how unsafe the 121 world was. Unions had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Jdub2 (Post 3477645)

Why change it? What possible reason would there be to get rid of the rule? It seems like it's helped so let's let sleeping dogs lie.

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3477767)

No it didn't, both pilots in Colgan had well over 1500 hours. This has been explained ad nauseam, please try and keep up.


So you're saying that there is no way to prove that the 1500 hour rule has made us safer?

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3477794)

Both colgan pilots had 1500+ hours. The ATP rule was still a response to the colgan crash. Please try to keep up.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3477794)

it’s impossible to quantify a lot of things in safety science at a system level. Complex systems with many inputs and extremely low frequency failure are really hard to model. And while there are techniques and a lot of data, you aren’t privy to them and never will be.

Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 3477844)

Incorrect, as previously explained. The 1500 hour rule was purely political and a gift from Obama to the unions. The pilots' flight time had nothing to do with the crash. Anyone who can think critically understands this.