4 ms·

The FAA is actually pretty good at regulating "known" things within its remit. It is however, exceptionally bad at regulating unknown things, so it has a define

The FAA is actually pretty good at regulating "known" things within its remit. It is however, exceptionally bad at regulating unknown things, so it has a defined process to make things known. One of the most dangerous conditions at the FAA is when an unknown thing evades the FAA's process by which to make it known and understood to the FAA. It takes the agency a long time to grasp and assess. See 737 MAX, UAS...

KennyBlanken 5y ago
The FAA is a giant lumbering dinosaur that has done as little as humanly possible to avoid any sort of modernization while drowning General Aviation in paperwork and regulations to protect a buggy-whip avionics and engine manufacturing/maintenance/repair industry, while for decades has failed to effectively address the primary safety issues in GA. Namely controlled flight into terrain and running out of fuel. Let me give you an example of the idiocy GA pilots face; a relative is a plane-owning pilot. The attitude indicator in many GA planes is a mechanical gyroscope, driven by vacuum from the engine, a vacuum pump, or a static port on the side of the plane. They are absurdly expensive, high precision devices and they have a huge failure rate. Repairing them is also very expensive. For decades, we've had superior technology: MEMS based accelerometers and rate sensors. Avionics using these sensors are incredibly reliable, very inexpensive, and switching to them is a royal fucking pain in the ass because of all the regulations and paperwork the FAA requires to do it. There's a massive avionics repair industry that has been in buggy-whip status for probably three decades, and the FAA is their little bitch. He had an engine failure because his mechanic never changed an inexpensive part that was listed as required to be replaced on every maintenance interval. It turns out that despite all the FAA regulations, an aviation mechanic can go "meh, whatever" and ignore the factory repair manual for an aviation engine, even when the manual says "this is required to be done." Furthermore, the shop was listing the work as having been done, which meant they were generating fraudulent paperwork. This was also not against FAA regulations. So the FAA regulates the fuck out of something like replacing 1940's technology with modern electronics superior in every way, but allows mechanics to fake paperwork and ignore factory repair manuals, and Boeing gets to say "oh yeah, FAA, we totally are doing all the things we're supposed to be doing", the FAA goes "mmm hmm sounds good" and then when four hundred people are killed, exactly nothing happens to Boeing management?
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  ‘ Furthermore, the shop was listing the work as having been done, which meant they were generating fraudulent paperwork. This was also not against FAA regulations.’ The FAA is part of the federal government. Are you seriously claiming there aren’t regulations penalizing those who submit false paperwork?
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  This is a case where a little knowledge makes everything look like a conspiracy. Sadly none of what you wrote is even remotely true. Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. There's no conspiracy here, no evil FAA paperwork or regulations standing in your way. I have no idea where you got the impression that the FAA tolerates faking paperwork. The FAA even has a page showing off some of their enforcement actions https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... Check out https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 That's literally what you are describing, the mechanic said they did something according to the manual, but didn't. So no. The FAA isn't trying to keep GA down.
  - wolrah 5y ago
    > Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. To me the cost is the obvious point of complaint. Now I'm not an aircraft tech, but I'm looking through the manual for the E5 and as far as I can tell the $5000 base configuration gets you the main unit itself as well as an exterior sensor module. The main module of course houses the display, CPU, and battery as well as the IMU and pneumatic sensors for pitot/static and some serial ports for connection to other electronics. The remote module houses a non-certified GPS (connection to an IFR-certified navigation system is required for installation in IFR-capable aircraft), a compass, and a temperature sensor. None of that is high-tech equipment, nor is the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated. I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. Obviously there are reliability and redundancy aspects to consider, but even the E5 is only officially allowed to replace one of two instruments and everything else must remain in its original position. Reliable IMUs and redundant microcontrollers aren't the cheapest things out there but they don't make up an order of magnitude price difference either. The regulations are there for a reason at their core, but there has to be some kind of balance where we don't have extra zeroes appearing in price tags just because something goes on a plane.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

The FAA is a giant lumbering dinosaur that has done as little as humanly possible to avoid any sort of modernization while drowning General Aviation in paperwork and regulations to protect a buggy-whip avionics and engine manufacturing/maintenance/repair industry, while for decades has failed to effectively address the primary safety issues in GA. Namely controlled flight into terrain and running out of fuel. Let me give you an example of the idiocy GA pilots face; a relative is a plane-owning pilot. The attitude indicator in many GA planes is a mechanical gyroscope, driven by vacuum from the engine, a vacuum pump, or a static port on the side of the plane. They are absurdly expensive, high precision devices and they have a huge failure rate. Repairing them is also very expensive. For decades, we've had superior technology: MEMS based accelerometers and rate sensors. Avionics using these sensors are incredibly reliable, very inexpensive, and switching to them is a royal fucking pain in the ass because of all the regulations and paperwork the FAA requires to do it. There's a massive avionics repair industry that has been in buggy-whip status for probably three decades, and the FAA is their little bitch. He had an engine failure because his mechanic never changed an inexpensive part that was listed as required to be replaced on every maintenance interval. It turns out that despite all the FAA regulations, an aviation mechanic can go "meh, whatever" and ignore the factory repair manual for an aviation engine, even when the manual says "this is required to be done." Furthermore, the shop was listing the work as having been done, which meant they were generating fraudulent paperwork. This was also not against FAA regulations. So the FAA regulates the fuck out of something like replacing 1940's technology with modern electronics superior in every way, but allows mechanics to fake paperwork and ignore factory repair manuals, and Boeing gets to say "oh yeah, FAA, we totally are doing all the things we're supposed to be doing", the FAA goes "mmm hmm sounds good" and then when four hundred people are killed, exactly nothing happens to Boeing management?

MichaelZuo 5y ago
‘ Furthermore, the shop was listing the work as having been done, which meant they were generating fraudulent paperwork. This was also not against FAA regulations.’ The FAA is part of the federal government. Are you seriously claiming there aren’t regulations penalizing those who submit false paperwork?
light_hue_1 5y ago
This is a case where a little knowledge makes everything look like a conspiracy. Sadly none of what you wrote is even remotely true. Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. There's no conspiracy here, no evil FAA paperwork or regulations standing in your way. I have no idea where you got the impression that the FAA tolerates faking paperwork. The FAA even has a page showing off some of their enforcement actions https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... Check out https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 That's literally what you are describing, the mechanic said they did something according to the manual, but didn't. So no. The FAA isn't trying to keep GA down.
- wolrah 5y ago
  > Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. To me the cost is the obvious point of complaint. Now I'm not an aircraft tech, but I'm looking through the manual for the E5 and as far as I can tell the $5000 base configuration gets you the main unit itself as well as an exterior sensor module. The main module of course houses the display, CPU, and battery as well as the IMU and pneumatic sensors for pitot/static and some serial ports for connection to other electronics. The remote module houses a non-certified GPS (connection to an IFR-certified navigation system is required for installation in IFR-capable aircraft), a compass, and a temperature sensor. None of that is high-tech equipment, nor is the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated. I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. Obviously there are reliability and redundancy aspects to consider, but even the E5 is only officially allowed to replace one of two instruments and everything else must remain in its original position. Reliable IMUs and redundant microcontrollers aren't the cheapest things out there but they don't make up an order of magnitude price difference either. The regulations are there for a reason at their core, but there has to be some kind of balance where we don't have extra zeroes appearing in price tags just because something goes on a plane.