3 ms·
That depends on if actual safety is in jeopardy or "safety" regulations that are often written for the expressed purpose to increase costs in order to be anti-c
by syshum 9y ago
That depends on if actual safety is in jeopardy or "safety" regulations that are often written for the expressed purpose to increase costs in order to be anti-competitive with no real safety impact
- nolok 9y agoNo matter how misguided I may think your comment is, I think we can both agree that even in your view of it having registered aircrafts and especially having properly trained crew is in the "actual safety" category.
- matte_black 9y agoEh, who knows, these planes basically fly themselves these days anyway. /s
- gbacon 9y agoWe all seem to agree that regulatory capture[0] exists too. A properly trained crew sounds great, but then comes the question of definitions. Less than five years ago[1], it was legal for a first officer in an FAA Part 121 operation to hold no more than a commercial ticket, minimum aeronautical experience 250 flight hours. Airplanes were not falling out of the sky then with the now-improperly trained crews. Perhaps more flight hours were necessary, but the bar for properly trained crew may really lie at 300, 500, or a thousand hours rather than 1,500. Maybe number of flight hours like KSLOC is not such a useful metric. Current ATP minimums may nail it exactly. How shall we verify the answer? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [1]: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14838 https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...