7 ms·

Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, t

by 7e 3y ago

Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. I don’t believe it applies to aircraft, either. “the explicit goal here is to make the new category so attractive that many recreational pilots switch from more dangerous experimental amateur-built aircraft to light-sport aircraft that are designed according to consensus standards.” Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category. Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right. It sounds like the FAA has their hands tied by some law, and, absent Congressional reform, is trying to do the best they can with the constrained authority they have.

yipbub 3y ago
> Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. I don’t believe it applies to aircraft, either. What's the connection? Allowing drug use on planes does not increase technological innovation. Technological experimentation does. > Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category. Source? The FAA seems to back their claims up with actual data. > Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right. I did a little bit of googling, and the experimental aircraft are not allowed over densely populated areas or crowded airspace without the guidance of an ATC and sufficient altitude is there to glide away to safety. Even experimental aircraft must receive an airworthiness certificate.[0] From what I've seen, they're only loosening the restrictions that seem to make no contribution to safety and will make it easier for more aircraft to adopt the restrictions that do make it safer. They're incentivized to be safe because they fly the planes, and a higher rating means more privileges(haven't verified this), crackpots who don't care about safety won't make it through the trial period before their plane is allowed out of limited airspace. Why express strong opinions that are unresearched? Or if they are, provide some sources? Or provide some reasoning other than intuition? Especially in a world where we are increasingly not allowed to do things unless specifically allowed. (allowlist instead of denylist) [0] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-building/frequently-asked-questions/densely-populated-areas https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-...
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Once the initial shakedown period has passed, in practice E-AB airplanes can fly where certified aircraft can. In a certified airplane, you still have to comply with 91.119. I’ve only flown in a couple experimental—amateur-built aircraft; I think the current regs are a good balance of keeping “dangerous piece of shit” airplanes away from populated areas (once it’s flown out the initial operating hours, it’s probably not one) and allowing access to the National airspace system by others. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
happyjack 3y ago
Experimental is a very broad category. On one hand we have $250k Rv-10s that are immaculate and built well from kits that thousands have used to shitty canard garage designed birds. I will say, the crackpots are largely getting pushed out of experimental and the folks who love flying and want to see it succeed on a budget are stepping in. I'm not an experimental bro, but I am tempted with the crazy costs of mundane parts for 60 year old planes.

by 7e 3y ago

yipbub 3y ago

> Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. I don’t believe it applies to aircraft, either. What's the connection? Allowing drug use on planes does not increase technological innovation. Technological experimentation does. > Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category. Source? The FAA seems to back their claims up with actual data. > Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right. I did a little bit of googling, and the experimental aircraft are not allowed over densely populated areas or crowded airspace without the guidance of an ATC and sufficient altitude is there to glide away to safety. Even experimental aircraft must receive an airworthiness certificate.[0] From what I've seen, they're only loosening the restrictions that seem to make no contribution to safety and will make it easier for more aircraft to adopt the restrictions that do make it safer. They're incentivized to be safe because they fly the planes, and a higher rating means more privileges(haven't verified this), crackpots who don't care about safety won't make it through the trial period before their plane is allowed out of limited airspace. Why express strong opinions that are unresearched? Or if they are, provide some sources? Or provide some reasoning other than intuition? Especially in a world where we are increasingly not allowed to do things unless specifically allowed. (allowlist instead of denylist) [0] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-building/frequently-asked-questions/densely-populated-areas https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-...

sokoloff 3y ago
Once the initial shakedown period has passed, in practice E-AB airplanes can fly where certified aircraft can. In a certified airplane, you still have to comply with 91.119. I’ve only flown in a couple experimental—amateur-built aircraft; I think the current regs are a good balance of keeping “dangerous piece of shit” airplanes away from populated areas (once it’s flown out the initial operating hours, it’s probably not one) and allowing access to the National airspace system by others. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

happyjack 3y ago

Experimental is a very broad category. On one hand we have $250k Rv-10s that are immaculate and built well from kits that thousands have used to shitty canard garage designed birds. I will say, the crackpots are largely getting pushed out of experimental and the folks who love flying and want to see it succeed on a budget are stepping in. I'm not an experimental bro, but I am tempted with the crazy costs of mundane parts for 60 year old planes.