4 ms·

> Then a doped up former major league pitcher decides to hop in your plane and fly it into the ocean and everything you have done is called into question and yo

> Then a doped up former major league pitcher decides to hop in your plane and fly it into the ocean and everything you have done is called into question and you end up buried in lawsuits. Here's what I don't understand. If the same meathead pitcher gets in his Ferrari and drives it into a tree, nobody questions the car company or buries them in lawsuits. Driver crashes car, it's their fault. So wouldn't it stand to reason that aviation evolve into the 21st century by eliminating much of the red tape? Sure, cars are required to leverage new technology to enhance safety (e.g. mandating back-up cameras), and the same should apply to an aviation world which treats aircraft as they are: cars in three dimensions rather than two. All that red tape was necessary when flying was extremely dangerous with primitive technology. We now have the means, through continuous enhancement, to make a "safe enough" aircraft and offload some of the risk on the driver.

EncomLab 2y ago
You can't inject reason into a conversation that is largely defined by $$. GA is an incredibly tiny market - faa.gov has the current active non-student pilot population in the US as less than 500k. The survival of the companies that rely on that population is predicated on the tight regulatory environment - not in spite of it.
- baggachipz 2y ago
  I'm sure you're right, but what if that population of people exploded due to a revamped system? Surely they'd benefit from a looser environment as well? I suppose it's a leap of faith they wouldn't be willing to take.
  - EncomLab 2y ago
    You know how fast drone legislation was passed? That's the power of the Commercial Aviation sector when it feels threatened. Now imagine how they would react if somehow an affordable aircraft that made flying "easy" hit the market. Icon came close...
talldayo 2y ago
> the same should apply to an aviation world which treats aircraft as they are: cars in three dimensions rather than two. If you think an aircraft is a car with extra dimensions of travel then you've trivialized flight. Airplanes have gotten more complex over the past 50 years, and you're not going to get away abstracting any of it comfortably. The red tape exists because flying is hard, expensive and extraordinarily risky. Junior aviators shouldn't be getting into planes they cannot operate themselves. It's like trying to claim it's safe putting a person without a drivers license behind the wheel of a self-driving car. You might feel that your life or the major-league pitchers' isn't worth enough for it to matter, but there's at least 1 or 2 important people on the overbooked 747 you crashed into due to crosswinds on the runway or after ignoring ATCs demands to "go around".
- baggachipz 2y ago
  I'm trivializing small aircraft flight, because it's a personal transport like a car. And the reason I'm doing so is that it seems very technically possible to safely control and simplify the amateur/small craft experience. So, my question would be, with modern technology, why should flying be hard? I'm not suggesting this for a 747. Let's compare it to a private driver's license versus a CDL. Of course we shouldn't let any schlub to pilot a plane, just like we (ostensibly) require a person to take driver's training and pass a test prior to getting behind the wheel. In my admittedly ignorant mind, we could automate and make safe the entire process. The OP prevents a device with redundant and safety systems making it nearly impossible to execute dangerous maneuvers, and balance weight and weather concerns. Current computing could automate air traffic control at small airfields where these small planes would fly. The airspace carved out for these craft could be enforced by the fly-by-wire system on the plane. And so on. My point is, with modern tech, it would possibly be feasible to trivialize personal flying.
Stevvo 2y ago
What you're talking about is already a thing. Experimental category is aviation without much of the red tape. You can fly pretty much anything that passes 50 hours of flight testing, then modify it at will just like your car. Expect this aircraft to offered as Experimental/Amateur-Built, because they have shown no plans for certification.

EncomLab 2y ago

You can't inject reason into a conversation that is largely defined by $$. GA is an incredibly tiny market - faa.gov has the current active non-student pilot population in the US as less than 500k. The survival of the companies that rely on that population is predicated on the tight regulatory environment - not in spite of it.

baggachipz 2y ago
I'm sure you're right, but what if that population of people exploded due to a revamped system? Surely they'd benefit from a looser environment as well? I suppose it's a leap of faith they wouldn't be willing to take.
- EncomLab 2y ago
  You know how fast drone legislation was passed? That's the power of the Commercial Aviation sector when it feels threatened. Now imagine how they would react if somehow an affordable aircraft that made flying "easy" hit the market. Icon came close...

talldayo 2y ago

> the same should apply to an aviation world which treats aircraft as they are: cars in three dimensions rather than two. If you think an aircraft is a car with extra dimensions of travel then you've trivialized flight. Airplanes have gotten more complex over the past 50 years, and you're not going to get away abstracting any of it comfortably. The red tape exists because flying is hard, expensive and extraordinarily risky. Junior aviators shouldn't be getting into planes they cannot operate themselves. It's like trying to claim it's safe putting a person without a drivers license behind the wheel of a self-driving car. You might feel that your life or the major-league pitchers' isn't worth enough for it to matter, but there's at least 1 or 2 important people on the overbooked 747 you crashed into due to crosswinds on the runway or after ignoring ATCs demands to "go around".

baggachipz 2y ago
I'm trivializing small aircraft flight, because it's a personal transport like a car. And the reason I'm doing so is that it seems very technically possible to safely control and simplify the amateur/small craft experience. So, my question would be, with modern technology, why should flying be hard? I'm not suggesting this for a 747. Let's compare it to a private driver's license versus a CDL. Of course we shouldn't let any schlub to pilot a plane, just like we (ostensibly) require a person to take driver's training and pass a test prior to getting behind the wheel. In my admittedly ignorant mind, we could automate and make safe the entire process. The OP prevents a device with redundant and safety systems making it nearly impossible to execute dangerous maneuvers, and balance weight and weather concerns. Current computing could automate air traffic control at small airfields where these small planes would fly. The airspace carved out for these craft could be enforced by the fly-by-wire system on the plane. And so on. My point is, with modern tech, it would possibly be feasible to trivialize personal flying.

Stevvo 2y ago

What you're talking about is already a thing. Experimental category is aviation without much of the red tape. You can fly pretty much anything that passes 50 hours of flight testing, then modify it at will just like your car. Expect this aircraft to offered as Experimental/Amateur-Built, because they have shown no plans for certification.