4 ms·

> Gotta love deregulation. I dunno, I see it as the opposite: regulation (apparently) made it impossible to just train pilots on this one new feature, instead

> Gotta love deregulation. I dunno, I see it as the opposite: regulation (apparently) made it impossible to just train pilots on this one new feature, instead requiring a full recertification of both the airframe and the pilots, which is incredibly expensive and unnecessary relative to what was actually required to save lives. So one way of looking at is is: regulation caused perverse incentives that ultimately got people killed.

Aeolun 7y ago
That’s such a roundabout way of thinking that I’m not sure whether you believe it yourself. You’re basically saying that because shitty people don’t want to follow safety regulations we shouldn’t have them.
- closeparen 7y ago
  You should always consider incentives when thinking about regulations. Especially roundabout, second and third order consequences. Those are the ones that get you. Having safety in mind doesn't make something unambiguously good, fit for purpose, or free of net-negative consequences. The specific content of rule determines that.
TomVDB 7y ago
A different way to look at this is: does this particular perverse incentive justify reduced regulation so that it can’t happen anymore. Even if your assessment is valid, you’d likely be throwing away the baby with the bath water if you’d cut regulation to avoid it.
- erichocean 7y ago
  I would think it would justify additional regulations to allow for something like "upgrades" to existing certifications instead of the binary (full recertification|pretend plane is identical) standard we appear to have today that resulted in the 737 Max tragedy. Is that less regulation? More regulation? I don't know, and I doubt it matters if it's "less" or "more" since the goal is fewer dead people, not passing an ideological Turing test.
  - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
    > Is that less regulation? More regulation? You are suggesting stronger regulation of some aircraft ('upgrades', as you rightly say), without weakening regulation for any other aircraft. So it's certainly 'more regulation'. > I doubt it matters if it's "less" or "more" since the goal is fewer dead people, not passing an ideological Turing test. It's a political question, so there's at least some question of ideology. Full-bore libertarians would doubtless find some way to oppose your suggestion. You said regulation caused perverse incentives that ultimately got people killed. It would be more fair to say that a loophole in the regulations, caused the perverse incentive.

Aeolun 7y ago

That’s such a roundabout way of thinking that I’m not sure whether you believe it yourself. You’re basically saying that because shitty people don’t want to follow safety regulations we shouldn’t have them.

closeparen 7y ago
You should always consider incentives when thinking about regulations. Especially roundabout, second and third order consequences. Those are the ones that get you. Having safety in mind doesn't make something unambiguously good, fit for purpose, or free of net-negative consequences. The specific content of rule determines that.

TomVDB 7y ago

A different way to look at this is: does this particular perverse incentive justify reduced regulation so that it can’t happen anymore. Even if your assessment is valid, you’d likely be throwing away the baby with the bath water if you’d cut regulation to avoid it.

erichocean 7y ago
I would think it would justify additional regulations to allow for something like "upgrades" to existing certifications instead of the binary (full recertification|pretend plane is identical) standard we appear to have today that resulted in the 737 Max tragedy. Is that less regulation? More regulation? I don't know, and I doubt it matters if it's "less" or "more" since the goal is fewer dead people, not passing an ideological Turing test.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > Is that less regulation? More regulation? You are suggesting stronger regulation of some aircraft ('upgrades', as you rightly say), without weakening regulation for any other aircraft. So it's certainly 'more regulation'. > I doubt it matters if it's "less" or "more" since the goal is fewer dead people, not passing an ideological Turing test. It's a political question, so there's at least some question of ideology. Full-bore libertarians would doubtless find some way to oppose your suggestion. You said regulation caused perverse incentives that ultimately got people killed. It would be more fair to say that a loophole in the regulations, caused the perverse incentive.