I'm usually not anti-government, but the FAA has absolutely lost its way and is causing far more harm than good nowadays. Look at lead in avgas. The Boeing fiascos. Inability and cost of innovating in the space. America is being left behind in global aviation.
alexk307|3 years ago
pmichaud|3 years ago
“Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
hammock|3 years ago
There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor).
Would that more understand this idea.
dylan604|3 years ago
londons_explore|3 years ago
The correct approach is to reward new things, reward changes and innovation, and punish massively anything that causes an accident putting lives at risk.
For example, make a fund that any aircraft manufacturer pays fines into. Fines for engine failures. Fines for oxygen mask deployments. Fines for crash landings. Massive fines for deaths. Aim to fine about 50% of the value of all aircraft sold.
Then give the pot of those fines back to aircraft designers and operators per passenger mile safely flown.
Overall, the industry gets the same amount of cash. But manufacturers and operators who manage to do it more safely will end up more profitable.
You also need a system of watchdogs who try to find 'coverups' - ie. times where a safety procedure is skipped to avoid the fine. A combination of whistleblower rewards and automatic data reporting from the plane should help with that issue.
coderenegade|3 years ago
The real question should be why they were initially going to certify eVTOLs as light aircraft. That just seems like the entirely wrong category for them.
sokoloff|3 years ago
> developers of winged eVTOL aircraft including Joby Aviation, Archer and Beta Technologies have been proceeding on the assumption that their aircraft would be certified under the FAA’s overhaul of small airplane certification rules that took effect in 2017.
"developers...have been proceeding under the assumption" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence...
Ekaros|3 years ago
anonymousiam|3 years ago
The USAF should instruct the FAA to pound sand. USAF has the primary spectrum allocation, and is the owner/operator for both systems.
(Aviation Week 2/7/2022 pg. 16)
FabHK|3 years ago
jessaustin|3 years ago
No one serious would ask what was wrong with tetraethyllead in gasoline fueling automobiles in urban areas, but aviation is a completely different context.
elihu|3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
"What do you do to protect the environment in this case?"
"The planes fly outside the environment."
"Into another environment?"
"No, no, they fly beyond the environment. They're not in an environment."
"But it must be somewhere. What's out there?"
"Nothing's out there."
"There must be something out there."
"There's nothing out there. All there is is air, and clouds, and birds."
"And?"
"Twenty thousand tons of tetraethyllead."
"What else?"
"CO2 emissions, CFCs, and about seven hundred 737 Max's. The environment's perfectly safe."
chaxor|3 years ago