OWS: Justification - Page 12 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-27-2011, 10:49 PM   #111 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LI NY
Posts: 470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
Too simplistic. Yes some innovation is the result of competition to find cheaper ways to generate power and yes the industry does look for safer ways to produce energy. But to totally discount the effect of regulatory pressure is intellectually dishonest, grossly naive or both. Many advances are the direct result of the industry trying to comply with regulation. Take "clean coal" as a prime example. The coal industry and coal fired plants would never of their own accord invested hundreds of billions of dollars to developed highly efficient stack scrubbing technologies of their own accord. It took passage of increasingly strict air quality regulation to get them off of their butts to do it.

Same thing applies to diesel engine manufactures who now have DPF filter systems to eliminate all soot from exhausts. It was EPA standards that forced this issue. Because of the EPA requiring engine manufacturers to comply with higher standard, you can now follow a new diesel pickup on the road without gagging on exhaust fumes.

I grant you that like anything, regulation does get out of hand and we need vehicles to quickly redress those cases. I also grant you that public pressure and competition within industry is also a factor. But the reality is that it is a combination of these forces that enact change and improve safety and quality of life. You seem to be adamant about refusing to accept that regulation is a major force for good in this arena and that just makes you grossly incorrect. Like the capitalist, you judge "quality of life" by how cheap material assets can be had. Society is changing their views on this and most of us will be happy to pay a little more for a safer, more sustainable "quality if life".
Very well said.
Efilnikufesin is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 04:56 AM   #112 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Private enterprise is chiefly policed and held accountable by the people who patronize it. It is the lack of due diligence which has become a cultural norm which creates an opportunity for acts of predatory (even if involuntary) business.
Blame the consumer: standard tactic of the neoconservative...

I totally disagree with this opinion. History is just to filled with case after case where business has cheated, robbed and in same cases killed their consumers. It is these consumers who, through legal action, have held businesses accountable for their wrongdoings. It is also these consumers that have created, by political pressure, these government agencies to regulate these industries. You are typical of many conservatives who view government as some outside entity rather than the tool of the people to carry out the jobs that the people have decided need doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
To suggest that because a government agency exists and performs regulatory functions and dismiss the notion that capacity would not have been performed otherwise is fallicious at best.
I have suggested nothing of the sort. In fact what I have said is that it is a combination of both as well as other factors. You on the other hand refuse to admit that regulation plays a factor in positive behavior by business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
These agencies are not accountable because there are no metrics measuring the efficacy of their performance and no mission statement to guide their philosophy.
This is patently a false statement. There are in fact plenty of documented cases where regulators have been summarily dismissed for not doing their jobs. Within the FAA there is constant change to procedure when evidence is found that they are not serving the public interests efficiently. Agencies are in fact more accountable than private industry in most cases. No FAA investigator or section chief ever wants to be sitting in front of a Congressional inquiry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
That may how a capitalist would react in a environment which isn't capitalistic, but you are still missing the point. Capitalism seeks to eliminate avenues by which competitors gain artificial advantages over one another. If there are minimal, simple and straight forward regulations, there's not much in the way for them to exploit.
I am not "missing the point" I am disagreeing with you; big difference. I am sorry that you can`t accept disagreement with your view but that is not my problem. The capitalist is going to use every trick and cheat possible to attain his goal in any environment. I do agree with you on one point and that is the simplifying of regulations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
It is Economic Darwinism. What of it? In nature, there are lots of predators, yet beings low on the food chain manage to survive and even flourish. This might sound cruel, but truly, who can we hold responsible for each person's own personal safety? There seems to be this notion that this limit of the decisions we can make for people and the amount we can try to insulate them from the natural dangers that arise from the continual development of society is boundless.
Number one, we are not animals and whether you agree with it or not we live in societies that generally place the needs of the many above the wants of the few. Allowing Darwinian economics to undermine the stability of society is self destructive. We are also not attempting to "insulate people from natural dangers" either. We are trying to ensure that grossly negligent actions or in some cases criminally negligent actions of some people do not needless injure others.

Let me put it to you this way. If you are driving your car and hit a rock that has rolled into the road and you crash your car severely injuring you, that is a "natural danger" that you accept by getting in that car. Now, on the other hand if you are driving your car and the mechanic failed to tighten your lug nuts after changing a tire and the tire comes off causing the said crash, you have every right to seek damages since this was caused by the negligence of another and is not a "natural hazard." It is also not unreasonable to pass regulation requiring said mechanic to be trained and to require his work to be signed off by another head mechanic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I don't have a problem with the concept of regulatory limits, but there is never any discussion as to when limits are becoming ineffectual or even counter-productive, when they should be removed or ways to even determine their efficacy.
I have covered that in previous posts. So I guess you do not read posts as well as look at a video longer than two minutes. It seems to me if this topic were really as important to you as you claim, you might be compelled to put forth a little more effort. Bottom line is as Davidz has pointed out, we do need a review process that scrutinizes all regulations within any given agency. The ones that do not fulfill their intended purpose should be retracted or amended as needed. I have already, several times stated this position but again, I get the feeling you are not looking for a discussion to find common ground; you have decided you are right and are unwilling to watch, listen or read any material that does not bolster your preconcieved opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
We create proxies but these proxies need not be government agencies. The very notion we use government agencies to research what is an acceptable standard of safety is dangerous because no one holds these agencies accountable. It's taken for granted that these agencies are infallible by the layman, because they are governmental in nature.
I will repeat what I have said. It is patently false to make the claim that "no one holds these agencies accountable" Sorry but that is just not true. Agencies ARE held accountable and ARE directed by the people through the representative democratic process. There are plenty of documented cases where agencies or individuals within agencies are identified as having not done their job and corrective actions are taken. Why is it that you neoconservatives always claim that private for profit business is going to serve the interests of the people better than the government established by the people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Look at yourself as an example. You never acknowledge the notion that regulatory measures can be just as predatory and destructive as the supposed predatory capital hungry businesses you fear.
Did I say I feared anything? I am stating my opinions and observations; that is all. I actually have made that very acknowledgement to you in multiple posts. Again, I think you are too busy thinking about what you want to say to listen to what anyone else has said. If not, you would not have made this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Whenever a disaster happens, no one ever questions whether or not the agencies which are supposed to be performing due diligence for us are actually performing as they are supposed to. There is no risk to these agencies, no incentive for them to do so because no one knows or does studies on their effectiveness or anything of that nature.
This is total BS. In any disaster these agencies are always questioned. I can name you hundreds of cases where in an aircraft accident, FAA policy is at the center of the investigations and the FAR`s are changed. Dude, every year, the FAR`s are republished due to changes in regulations, procedures and policies. All of these come about as a result of constant review of accidents and every day interaction between FAA inspectors and air crews and controllers as well as the general public. You are simply making a false claim here and it is dead wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
No, I didn't, because I'm not going to watch a 50 minute video to get context of some talking points you want use. I watched the first 2 minutes of each segment. What exactly is it you want me to glean from this material?
I am not using "talking points" I am trying to hold an honest conversation woth you which is proving to be impossible. Watching the first 2 minutes of a video does not even get you past the basic introduction. As for what you should glean from watching even one of these shows is a glaring illustration of what we have all been saying here. When there is a lack of oversight, industry cuts corners, fails to comply with industry set procedures and hides it from the light of day. If you were truly interested in honest dialogue rather than simply trying to "win" the debate, you would heve felt interested enough to have watched at least one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I am listening to your points but that doesn't mean you get to provide the dilemma of either being forced to listen to your filibuster or be deemed closed minded. I watched as much as I had time for in order to try to get an understanding of why you provided this material.
How are you being "forced" into anything? This is an open forum where people are free to express their opinion. You simply do not like that fact that I have compelling documentation to bolster those opinions. The only thing that gives the impression of close mindedness is your admittedly unwillingness to put fort a modicum of effort to read, watch or listen to anything that might undermine your predetermined opinion. You are free to to do that but don`t become irritated because another remains steadfastly in disagreement with you.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 04:57 AM   #113 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
My point is still valid. There is nothing sociopathic about accepting that loss of life is going to be a consequence of developing and deploying emerging technologies (which airflight still is, given its relative infancy) to commercial applications. That doesn't mean trying to NOT to minimize it, of course. Minimizing loss of life obviously has to be the first priority but not just from a moral standpoint, but from a business standpoint also.
Accepting that some things are out of our control is one thing. Deliberately turning a blind eye to things that have killed people and will kill more people and are easily correctable, for the sake of profit IS sociopathic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
To suggest it's sociopathic to accept that, while preventable, a fatal accident is a physical possibility means one would also have to accept that passengers who fly and understand that there is at least a remote possibility of their loss of life or limb and do so anyway are respectively suicidal or masochistic.
This is an absurdity. There is a given assumption of reasonable safety. You get on board an aircraft with the reasonable assumption that every person involved with the safety of that flight is properly trained and has performed all procedures correctly. Sure, every time I get on a plane, I understand that a flock of geese "could" get sucked into the engines on takeoff causing the plane to crash. This is not something that is easily controllable. It is a risk that I accept because the odds are so much in my favor that it wont happen. I am aware of these risks. What is unacceptable is the risk that I am unaware of because I have the assumption that the airline has carried out correct maintenance procedures.

Do you think anyone on flight 811 would have boarded that plane if they were told that a 2 meter crack in the tail section was present and that at any time this will likely cause the break up of the aircraft? Oh sorry, you were too lazy to watch the video so you don`t know what I am talking about...
 
Old 10-28-2011, 05:33 AM   #114 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I like how you present your argument as though there is some clear, self-evident delineation which defines the separation of spending money on preventing astronomically improbable events and attending to basic safety functions. Give some respect to the job of people who have to figure these things out. If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But that is exactly what I did say. It is not rocket science to understand that spending money to do a proper repair that has been known to cause catastrophic structural failures, is vastly different than spending money to prevent a situation that is astronomically unlikely. I am and have been talking about the unwillingness to spend money on these basic safety functions. We ARE having this conversation because those basic safety functions are not being met by industry and only through regulation are they being met in most cases.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Procedures do not prevent accidents, human performance tools do not prevent accidents.
I totally disagree adamantly with this statement. You claim to work in an environment that is highly procedural. What do you think it is like for me as an Air Force flight crew member refueling airplanes at 35,000 feet from a KC-135? Any pilot whether civilian or military has a checklist in hand that must be followed and in most cases read aloud for every step of an operation. These procedures do in fact prevent many accidents because forgotten steps or taking improper action leads to accidents in my work environment. An improper airspeed or flap setting in my line of work can cause not only the crash of our aircraft but the aircraft that is attached to us. This is an absurd statement you made.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Of course accidents are caused, but they are caused by a confluence of circumstances that individually are not of consequence and therefore, typically unforeseen.
In very, very, very rare circumstances there are such things as non preventable accidents but they are extremely rare. 99.9% of all accidents are the result of inattention, not following proper procedure or the taking of improper action. Even a seemingly random car crash is not truly a non preventable accident. One or more drivers involved failed in some manner to either pay attention, follow a proper procedure or took improper action. Sorry, but I have served on multiple safety panels and have heard every excuse and you will never get away with this with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Every time we have an accident here, generally an industrial safety accident, the solution always to pile on more technical barriers (like proceduralized stops, checks and things of this nature) which makes focusing on the task more difficult, the accumulation of those combinations of factors more likely to go unnoticed and actual work performance to plummet. We're reaching the coffin corner of the flight envelope here and no one is willing to compromise in either procedural burdens which actually contribute to accidents or performance metrics that don't mean anything.
Now here you actually bring up a point that I highly agree with. It is very true that in the interest of trying to eliminate the possibilities for an accident or incident we can and often do overburden the individual with tasks that actually distract them from performing the primary task. You are 100% right on this issue and it is in fact an are that safety committees must be careful. I would submit that perhaps in the civilian world, there is perhaps too much emphasis on trying not to put blame on the individual for failing to perform their job correctly. Abuses in union protection often create an environment where management is afraid to lay blame where it belongs and instead create a bunch of "feel good" procedures to "prevent" future occurrences. In the military we do not have this issue and every airman knows this and therefore there is increased incentive to do the job correctly every time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
If it is complacency which causes accidents, it's complacency because the job itself is becoming less burdensome than all the proceduralized requirements and human performance tools that are being required to be used.
Partly true and I addressed this sufficiently in my previous statement above. By complacency I generally mean complacency on the part of the individual charged with performing the task. When people cut corners, take shortcuts or do not put forth sufficient effort to do their jobs correctly, accidents are caused. You cannot attempt to shift all blame on being "overburdened by regulation" when the fact is an individual failed to do their job.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
They are doing so in error and rash knee jerk reaction. Gen III+ plants have so many advantages over Gen III plants, especially in performance during unanticipated transients. The conundrum is that these safer plants are under severe restricting for licensing under combined construction and operation permits because they are being judged by the safety performance of Gen III designs.
I am in 100% agreement with you on this point. I have been reading a lot of information on the new Sodium Reactors and other type 4 reactors and I concur with you on this point. The general public and media is judging new reactors based on old technology which is unfair and erroneous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I don't. Most nuclear plants are 800-1200 MWE output and run until the output breaker is opened for refueling during which maintenance activities can be performed. There have been exactly two accidents in the history of commercial plant operations which have resulted in a loss of life (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and three which have resulted in gross contamination of the outside environment (the previous two and Three Mile Island)
I see where you are coming from now. When looked at as a whole history, yes perhaps. My point still stands however. There are certain places where plants should not be placed. Diablo Canyon in California sits right on the San Anfdeas Fault and no matter how anyone tries to rationalize this to me, I find it grossly risky and needlessly so when it is easy to build plants in areas with much lower risks. Palo Verde west of Phoenix makes far more sense than building a plant on a fault line or in a known Tsunami prone location. The NRC close the Trojan plant in Oregon partly because the entire western part of Oregon and Washington are the most potential dangerous places on the planet with regard to Tsunamis and mega thrust earthquakes. Bulid the plant in eastern Washington and build transmission lines. That was the point I was making about location.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
How many people have died over the years working in coal mines or shale gas drilling operations? This is cheap, clean power and I don't doubt the small price of figuring out how to reprocess and store fuel long term makes fission technology a good stop gap until we find something better.
You just helped make my case for regulation. How many improvements have we seen in mine safety as a result of regulation?. Today, mines that fully comply with government and industry regulations are vastly safer than they were 20 years ago. In recent incidents it is always discovered that the accident was caused in part because the mining company failed to follow regulation and procedure.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:26 PM   #115 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
Blame the consumer: standard tactic of the neoconservative...

I totally disagree with this opinion. History is just to filled with case after case where business has cheated, robbed and in same cases killed their consumers. It is these consumers who, through legal action, have held businesses accountable for their wrongdoings. It is also these consumers that have created, by political pressure, these government agencies to regulate these industries. You are typical of many conservatives who view government as some outside entity rather than the tool of the people to carry out the jobs that the people have decided need doing.
Businesses actually committing crimes which are already codified and generally accepted as criminal is not the same thing as someone making something not adequately safe. Why is it necessary to have a regulatory body to ensure this process is controlled? You still haven't made any poingant inroads in that regard. Most of safety specific things you seemed concerned with really stem from technology in its infancy, not a brazen and callous disregard for safety. Furthermore, regulation cannot prevent gross negligence because gross negligence is exactly the willful disregard for safety. That's like saying gun laws prevent criminals from buying guns.

Quote:
I have suggested nothing of the sort. In fact what I have said is that it is a combination of both as well as other factors. You on the other hand refuse to admit that regulation plays a factor in positive behavior by business.
I have not refused that. I am adament that the concerns you bring up can be controlled and influenced by public opinion and auditing/investigation by third party proxies without bringing down the hand of regulation.

Quote:
This is patently a false statement. There are in fact plenty of documented cases where regulators have been summarily dismissed for not doing their jobs. Within the FAA there is constant change to procedure when evidence is found that they are not serving the public interests efficiently. Agencies are in fact more accountable than private industry in most cases. No FAA investigator or section chief ever wants to be sitting in front of a Congressional inquiry.
A handful of examples doesn't mean there isn't largely a lack of oversight for regulatory bodies. I'm not even suggesting that most of the time a case of negligence or intentional disregard but rather, sheer incompetence. Most of all, no one is held accountable for the sheer redundancy, complicated nature and volume of guidelines.

Quote:
I am not "missing the point" I am disagreeing with you; big difference. I am sorry that you can`t accept disagreement with your view but that is not my problem. The capitalist is going to use every trick and cheat possible to attain his goal in any environment. I do agree with you on one point and that is the simplifying of regulations.
Of course they are. That's why I'm arguing the removal regulatory mandate, favortist subsidization and arbitrary punitive measures so there is nothing to take advantage of. I have no idea what a "capitalist" is or how you qualify it. All entities are going to take advantage of the regulatory incentives they're offered. That doesn't mean they can't be against such things in principle. I think personal income tax should be greatly simplified and made more universal but I still take advantage of every deduction and rule the IRS has published.

Quote:
We are also not attempting to "insulate people from natural dangers" either. We are trying to ensure that grossly negligent actions or in some cases criminally negligent actions of some people do not needless injure others.
I already made it a point that the boundary between these things isn't some sort of clear, obvious self-evident line. It is always easier to try to choose the illusion of security over natural risk and it becomes all too easy to categorize a great many things as grossly negligent when they simply aren't.

Quote:
I have covered that in previous posts. So I guess you do not read posts as well as look at a video longer than two minutes. It seems to me if this topic were really as important to you as you claim, you might be compelled to put forth a little more effort. Bottom line is as Davidz has pointed out, we do need a review process that scrutinizes all regulations within any given agency. The ones that do not fulfill their intended purpose should be retracted or amended as needed. I have already, several times stated this position but again, I get the feeling you are not looking for a discussion to find common ground; you have decided you are right and are unwilling to watch, listen or read any material that does not bolster your preconcieved opinion.
Don't look for excuses to get all butt-hurt. When I said there's never any discussion, I mean in practice, not what we are discussing. Our discussion here generally means dick because you and I are not the ones deciding how to regulate regulators. If we are, we're doing so by pressuring or congression representatives or appealing to the executive cabinet member responsible.

As to your sentiments about just wanting to spout opinion, notice you've already labeled me as "neo-conservative" and a whole host of other qualifiers and I have done nothing of the sort. It is quite clear you would rather argue against what you think I am saying rather than read and analyze. Hence my hesitate to waste my time watching a 50 minute video.

Quote:
I will repeat what I have said. It is patently false to make the claim that "no one holds these agencies accountable" Sorry but that is just not true. Agencies ARE held accountable and ARE directed by the people through the representative democratic process. There are plenty of documented cases where agencies or individuals within agencies are identified as having not done their job and corrective actions are taken. Why is it that you neoconservatives always claim that private for profit business is going to serve the interests of the people better than the government established by the people?
They have to serve the interest of the consumer because the consumer is the one negotiating the terms of purchase with the business. You're just upset that people, in general, don't do their due diligence and generally are apathetic. This is a consequence of culture and no type of government, all the way from anarchy to a total martial state, can make these types of people "safe" or even safer.

You'll have to ask neo conservatives why they think that. I have my own reasons as outlined above, that being that the Government cannot adequately protect consumers as well as an informed consumer can protect himself. Since government is an extension of the people's will, as you have asserted, what do you think the result of government heled responsible by uninformed, apathetic people?

Quote:
This is total BS. In any disaster these agencies are always questioned. I can name you hundreds of cases where in an aircraft accident, FAA policy is at the center of the investigations and the FAR`s are changed. Dude, every year, the FAR`s are republished due to changes in regulations, procedures and policies. All of these come about as a result of constant review of accidents and every day interaction between FAA inspectors and air crews and controllers as well as the general public. You are simply making a false claim here and it is dead wrong.
So what? Does it demonstrate that burdensome regulation which doesn't increase safety is overseen? Does it demonstrate that there isn't a sense of infalliability on the FAA's part which can cause negligence on the airline's part because "The FAA will take care of it"? Does it even demonstrate that what level of safety the FAA provides is greater than the airlines' own initiative or that this culture is common to hundreds of analgous agencies in other industries?

I'll watch your videos when I have time tonight. It's not that I don't find them uninteresting (maybe partially) or irrelevant, it's that they're *fifty fucking minutes long*. It takes me a matter of minutes to read, digest and respond to things. Hence, at the moment, I'm not able to commit the same amuont of time (50 minutes) as to read, analyze and respond here (10 minutes). Get over it. You act so obstensibly offended.

Last edited by CheeseForSteeze; 10-28-2011 at 01:01 PM.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 12:30 PM   #116 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
Accepting that some things are out of our control is one thing. Deliberately turning a blind eye to things that have killed people and will kill more people and are easily correctable, for the sake of profit IS sociopathic.



This is an absurdity. There is a given assumption of reasonable safety. You get on board an aircraft with the reasonable assumption that every person involved with the safety of that flight is properly trained and has performed all procedures correctly. Sure, every time I get on a plane, I understand that a flock of geese "could" get sucked into the engines on takeoff causing the plane to crash. This is not something that is easily controllable. It is a risk that I accept because the odds are so much in my favor that it wont happen. I am aware of these risks. What is unacceptable is the risk that I am unaware of because I have the assumption that the airline has carried out correct maintenance procedures.

Do you think anyone on flight 811 would have boarded that plane if they were told that a 2 meter crack in the tail section was present and that at any time this will likely cause the break up of the aircraft? Oh sorry, you were too lazy to watch the video so you don`t know what I am talking about...
No one is talking about ignoring grossly negilgent faults. Quit oversimplifying the problem. Many things can fail on an aircraft or any other manmade device. That's gross negligence, and it's illegal. That's already established regardless of regulation. The regulation we're discussing is that which micromanages industry as though it knows the technology better than those practicing the maintenance and operation of it. It's impossible to argue against regulation because it's taken for granted that the agency performing the design and administration of the "how, when, where and what" knows what is safest.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 12:54 PM   #117 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
But that is exactly what I did say. It is not rocket science to understand that spending money to do a proper repair that has been known to cause catastrophic structural failures, is vastly different than spending money to prevent a situation that is astronomically unlikely. I am and have been talking about the unwillingness to spend money on these basic safety functions. We ARE having this conversation because those basic safety functions are not being met by industry and only through regulation are they being met in most cases.
But it does, quite literally, become rocket science to determine if failure due to fatigue of the fuselage is imminent and so many other things which are impossible to quantify. If it were possible to put an exact probability of failure and if predictive maintenance were 100% accurate, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It'd be a simple matter of log keeping. As it is, businesses do have to make a decision as an aircraft ages, the risk of failure naturally goes up.

The problem is regulating agencies do not have to deal with the financial impacts of making business decisions. Of course, it's always easier to err on the side of caution and decomission a plane, but those result in costs, costs borne by the consumer eventually. There's never any studies done for regulatory accountability in this regard: how much is it costing the industry when it could be just as safe for cheaper and what costs is the consumer seeing because of that.

Quote:
I totally disagree adamantly with this statement. You claim to work in an environment that is highly procedural. What do you think it is like for me as an Air Force flight crew member refueling airplanes at 35,000 feet from a KC-135? Any pilot whether civilian or military has a checklist in hand that must be followed and in most cases read aloud for every step of an operation. These procedures do in fact prevent many accidents because forgotten steps or taking improper action leads to accidents in my work environment. An improper airspeed or flap setting in my line of work can cause not only the crash of our aircraft but the aircraft that is attached to us. This is an absurd statement you made.
Yes, but the point I'm making is even a checklist can sometimes not be followed in error. So how do you prevent that? Have a checklist for the checklist? Most of the errors that happen around here are indeed categorized under deviation from procedural guidance, but no one ever stops and asks why someone couldn't or didn't follow a procdure. It's their job to and I certainly know they are capable of reading a step by step list, so what happened?


Quote:
In very, very, very rare circumstances there are such things as non preventable accidents but they are extremely rare. 99.9% of all accidents are the result of inattention, not following proper procedure or the taking of improper action. Even a seemingly random car crash is not truly a non preventable accident. One or more drivers involved failed in some manner to either pay attention, follow a proper procedure or took improper action. Sorry, but I have served on multiple safety panels and have heard every excuse and you will never get away with this with me.
Most of injuries that have happened lately around here resulted during people simply walking from the parking lot to the building or something very similar in nature. We're not talking about operating complex machinery, prescense of hazards, dangerous working environments or insufficient skill to perform the task. The problem I have with dissection of safety events post the fact is that hindsight is 20/20. It's very easy to Monday morning (or Tuesday morning) quarterback it and pick apart some small configuration of circumstances which it is unreasonable to try to prevent as the iniating cause.

Quote:
Now here you actually bring up a point that I highly agree with. It is very true that in the interest of trying to eliminate the possibilities for an accident or incident we can and often do overburden the individual with tasks that actually distract them from performing the primary task. You are 100% right on this issue and it is in fact an are that safety committees must be careful. I would submit that perhaps in the civilian world, there is perhaps too much emphasis on trying not to put blame on the individual for failing to perform their job correctly. Abuses in union protection often create an environment where management is afraid to lay blame where it belongs and instead create a bunch of "feel good" procedures to "prevent" future occurrences. In the military we do not have this issue and every airman knows this and therefore there is increased incentive to do the job correctly every time.
Our plant is not unionized, for the most part and yet, there's still this cool-aid cult attitude of adding yet more redundant lists of "Behaviors", "Fundamentals", "Procedures", "Human Performance Tools", "Risk Significant Behaviors" etc. etc.

This actually analogs my problems with regulatory measures in general. No one ever stops to think if maybe the regulatory guidelines are making thins more difficult to be safe, fair or secure because the businesses are wasting all their resources being in compliance with things that don't or marginally increase end quality for consumers.

Quote:
Partly true and I addressed this sufficiently in my previous statement above. By complacency I generally mean complacency on the part of the individual charged with performing the task. When people cut corners, take shortcuts or do not put forth sufficient effort to do their jobs correctly, accidents are caused. You cannot attempt to shift all blame on being "overburdened by regulation" when the fact is an individual failed to do their job.
I agree but does an individual already not have incentive enough not to be complacent and perform a good job? I have lots of requirements I have to meet (many of them are unnecessary and administrative) but I do my best to make sure when I change something in the plant that it's going to work correctly and not fail unexpectedly. I do so because it's my job to do so and I put forth a lot of effort to make sure I don't look like an ass. Most of the things I get dinged on is I miss something administrative that doesn't serve any purpose, which if I had concentrated on, I might not have had the time to put out something of a quality I would be ok signing my name to.

Quote:
I see where you are coming from now. When looked at as a whole history, yes perhaps. My point still stands however. There are certain places where plants should not be placed. Diablo Canyon in California sits right on the San Anfdeas Fault and no matter how anyone tries to rationalize this to me, I find it grossly risky and needlessly so when it is easy to build plants in areas with much lower risks. Palo Verde west of Phoenix makes far more sense than building a plant on a fault line or in a known Tsunami prone location. The NRC close the Trojan plant in Oregon partly because the entire western part of Oregon and Washington are the most potential dangerous places on the planet with regard to Tsunamis and mega thrust earthquakes. Bulid the plant in eastern Washington and build transmission lines. That was the point I was making about location.
No argument there, but the State of California had every say in rejecting that license and they did not.

Quote:
You just helped make my case for regulation. How many improvements have we seen in mine safety as a result of regulation?. Today, mines that fully comply with government and industry regulations are vastly safer than they were 20 years ago. In recent incidents it is always discovered that the accident was caused in part because the mining company failed to follow regulation and procedure.
I have no idea how many safety improvements resulted from maturation of mining techniques versus those mandated from regulation. Again, I don't argue that regulation doesn't increase safety or that regulation shouldn't have some hand in shaping the industry but what I do have a problem with is this boundless administrative power that seems to be favored. They always use the case of fatalities to justify it, but fatatlities are a natural consequence of mining. It's unsafe by its very nature.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 03:57 PM   #118 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Don't look for excuses to get all butt-hurt. When I said there's never any discussion, I mean in practice, not what we are discussing. Our discussion here generally means dick because you and I are not the ones deciding how to regulate regulators. If we are, we're doing so by pressuring or congression representatives or appealing to the executive cabinet member responsible.

As to your sentiments about just wanting to spout opinion, notice you've already labeled me as "neo-conservative" and a whole host of other qualifiers and I have done nothing of the sort. It is quite clear you would rather argue against what you think I am saying rather than read and analyze. Hence my hesitate to waste my time watching a 50 minute video.
Just because I state an opinion based on my observations and perceptions does not mean I am "all butt hurt" I find your tone here insulting.

Your taking the term "neoconservative" as an affront might also be taken as "getting all butt hurt" too. If you take offense to the term, that is a problem on your part, it is a term or title of a political position. Would you be less offended if instead said, "fiscal conservative"? is that better? Geez, talk about looking for ways to get offended then project that "offendedness" onto another.

I am arguing against what I think you are saying because in many situations it is unclear to me exactly what you are saying. Get used to it; there are always going to be times when communicating with others that a person interprets something that is said differently from what was intended. You sound as if you take exception to my "arguing against what I think you said", No, I am arguing for my position, that is kind of the whole point of debate I thought?

Don`t pin your "hesitance to watching a 50 minute video" on me. Either watch it or don`t. I posted it as a resource; it is up to you whether you find it interesting enough to watch or not, but don`t somehow make it "my fault" that you did`nt watch it. That sounds like something a 5 year old would say.


Bottom line on this is we have some very fundamental differences in opinion regarding regulation. We can keep going back and forth, parsing each other`s words for ever and in the end it is not going to change either of our opinions. I strongly believe that my position is correct and that yours is not. You obviously feel as strongly the other way. If we were actually in the position to create a solution, each would have to give some ground to reach the middle where a workable compromise was attainable. I have given you plenty of that ground and credited you where your points made sense. You on the other hand stubbornly refuse to accept the possibility that my position has any merit to it. This is no longer a conversation but rather a long winded version of "I`m right your wrong" and has outlived its usefulness.

As to the videos I posted, they are Discovery Channel shows that would only really interest people who are interested in aviation, so watch if you like or don`t. In the ones that I selected, there is glaring evidence to support my assertions that if left unregulated, industry does not serve the interests of their customers or the general public. I am not convinced that your theories would not make this situation significantly worse. You are entitled to those views but I am thankful that those views are not supported by the majority and therefore have little chance to see the light of day in practice.


Now, as to the original topic of this thread that we have both strayed way away from, hopefully, you can see how strongly people feel about the direction that business interests have taken and how the masses are feeling increasingly disenfranchised and cheated. Whether you share that belief or not is unimportant; what is important is that more and more people do in fact feel this way and that is why you are seeing these protests against Wall Street.

The people are not buying these tired, old "free market" theories any more and at some point, change is inevitable. The Reagan-esque idea that reducing government to the point that you could drown it in a bathtub, will make the lives of Americans better is disproven. No one, except a tiny minority of "fiscal conservatives" (hope that is not too strong a label for you) believe that theory any longer. The change that is coming can be in the form of peaceful compromise if the rich and powerful accept the fact that there are societal limits and they must work within those limits or suffer the consequences. If they do not soften their position and remain as steadfastly stubborn in their pursuit of wealth at any cost; totally disenfranchising the majority as they have been, that change is going to involve violence.

Ultimately it will be the fault of these elites because they are the only party in this who have room to move. The people have their backs against a wall. If these business interests keep pushing, there will be another bloody revolution in this country. People can spout conservative economic theory all they want; they can proclaim the "correctness" of it all. But, in the end that does not matter. The people will ultimately force the changes that they desire and in the end, those who do not go with these changes will be swept away by it. You might reject this move toward "socialism" as you see it, but in the end it will come down to a case of "deal with it". Universal health care, living wage, and all of these demands that the OWS crowd are demanding, will, eventually become reality. It might not all happen in out lifetimes, but this change is going to eventually happen and nothing you or I can do will stop that, not that I really want to stop it...

Last edited by Outlander; 10-28-2011 at 04:39 PM.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 04:53 PM   #119 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,408
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Just an aside, I know I have been silent but I am not interested in continuing a wall-of-text, or an "I'm right, you're wrong" debate

Outlander, you said:
Quote:
The people are not buying these tired, old "free market" theories any more and at some point...
I want to leave you both with something to think about.

You can't just call it a free market, leaving all of the institutional inefficiencies, corruptions, cronyism, accrued benefits from same, etc., in place, and expect the market to function at all like a truly free market - which (and I know you're not big on "theory") theory dictates are the sort of things that simply can't happen in a free market (on the other hand, Cheeze is guilty of ignoring these finer points of free market theory, as many small-government & libertarian types make this mistake).

A very good example of this would be the aftermath of the civil war. Now, theory dictates that there could be no such thing as slave ownership in a free market. But what we end up with is, OK, the institution of slavery just vanishes overnight. But next-to-nothing was done to cure the injustices that had been perpetrated on the slaves for centuries. The plantation owners kept their plantations, kept their fancy lifestyles, and the slaves were left with nothing or virtually nothing, so they became sharecroppers or very poorly paid workers (essentially slaves). Thus, the injustice continues in a slightly different form because the removal of the immediate condition was not sufficient to cure the entrenched injustice of power accumulated through years of abuse and subjugation. The former slaves are still for the most part slaves, having nothing to offer but their labor, and since they have nothing else, they must accept whatever pittance the plantation owners offer them.

It is indisputably wrong for a free market advocate to suggest that this outcome is the natural result of a free market. Likewise, it is indisputably wrong for someone else to say that this outcome is the fault of the free market.

The same thing happens when you talk about deregulation, free markets, etc.

If you don't do anything to remedy the "too big to fail", if you don't do anything to remedy the "captured regulators" or the "lobbyists" or the "special interest groups", etc., you've created a free market in name only.
david_z is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 08:17 PM   #120 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

Outlander you're certainly wasting your time, but it is amusing seeing cheese flounder when presented with someone who doesn't give up to the verbal diarrhea.
snowjeeper is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:28 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums