BrunDog
Well-known member
Reading of Wayne's and Annette's accident, something came to light. Something pretty profound...
I just becoming a VFR pilot (check ride next week). Will be heading to do instrument next. Not for a living or anything serious, just for fun and education.
Aviation, like motorcycling has its safety risks. But one thing I have come to realize about aviation is that redundancy is critical to managing down risk. Weather goes bad - have an alternate determined. Mechanical fuel pump craps out - got an electrical one. Vacuum pump goes kaput - fine, there are two. Pilot keels over - there is another one in the right seat (if you planned it right). Radio goes up in smoke - pull the portable out of your bag. Get lost - use radio navigation. Or GPS. Or radar. And etc., etc., etc.
The problem with motorcycling in general is there are NO backup systems. Like in Wayne's accident - probable front flat - despite the skilled rider, there is only one possible outcome. We ride on two tires and depend on both. Pretty high odds that a acute failure will lead to a fall. And high odds that a fall will lead to injury. Why is this acceptable?
Perhaps manufacturers should design in some redundancy. For example, why not have run-flat tires? Or a safety ring inside the rim that supports the tire tread if air loss occurs? What about gear? There is protective gear, but truthfully, does it do enough? A helmet is protective, but people still die with them. Can't someone design a helmet that assures a very high rate of survival, by say, an airbag-type inflation around the outside shell? What about cars - couldn't they have a motorcycle sensor that alerts the driver if an impact is predicted?
I realize there are real engineering challenges to some of these examples. Costs may may many items completely unfeasible. But damn, we really throw caution into the wind considering if one thing goes wrong - there is nothing to back us up!
OK, thanks. My philosophical dissertation is over!
-BD
I just becoming a VFR pilot (check ride next week). Will be heading to do instrument next. Not for a living or anything serious, just for fun and education.
Aviation, like motorcycling has its safety risks. But one thing I have come to realize about aviation is that redundancy is critical to managing down risk. Weather goes bad - have an alternate determined. Mechanical fuel pump craps out - got an electrical one. Vacuum pump goes kaput - fine, there are two. Pilot keels over - there is another one in the right seat (if you planned it right). Radio goes up in smoke - pull the portable out of your bag. Get lost - use radio navigation. Or GPS. Or radar. And etc., etc., etc.
The problem with motorcycling in general is there are NO backup systems. Like in Wayne's accident - probable front flat - despite the skilled rider, there is only one possible outcome. We ride on two tires and depend on both. Pretty high odds that a acute failure will lead to a fall. And high odds that a fall will lead to injury. Why is this acceptable?
Perhaps manufacturers should design in some redundancy. For example, why not have run-flat tires? Or a safety ring inside the rim that supports the tire tread if air loss occurs? What about gear? There is protective gear, but truthfully, does it do enough? A helmet is protective, but people still die with them. Can't someone design a helmet that assures a very high rate of survival, by say, an airbag-type inflation around the outside shell? What about cars - couldn't they have a motorcycle sensor that alerts the driver if an impact is predicted?
I realize there are real engineering challenges to some of these examples. Costs may may many items completely unfeasible. But damn, we really throw caution into the wind considering if one thing goes wrong - there is nothing to back us up!
OK, thanks. My philosophical dissertation is over!
-BD
