4 ms·

> If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. I don't think that sort of process is good for anything invo

> If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here. Look at the Boeing situation and tell me with a straight face that less oversight plus automatic approval on deadline exhaustion would have helped there. If anything, it would have been worse. For things not involving safety it's not a terrible idea.

exabrial 2y ago
> The safety of the general public should trump all here An SLA is not unreasonable nor counterproductive to that end. Courts do this all the time.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here. We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review. This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
  - nickff 2y ago
    The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      Then don't work in a regulated industry. I don't know what to tell you. Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process?
      - ElonChrist 2y ago
        [dead]
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process? Leaded avgas replacement is one such example. Pretty much every step was like pulling teeth.
      - aeternum 2y ago
        Required ADS-B and collision avoidance tech is another. Many lives could be saved, instead they mandated fire extinguishers in all planes which have likely saved zero lives.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      You can look at the incentives from the other direction: we probably don't want a system where any FAA regulations can be effectively repealed simply by lobbying Congress to not increase FAA funding as needed. If the FAA can't or won't do their job properly, the fix should take the form of positive action from higher levels of government, not a passive fail-deadly default.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        Not only that, it incentivizes applications to be as dense and technical as possible instead of as clear and understandable as possible as a way to burn down the time that the FAA has to review something so their review is incomplete. We cannot, should not, and dare not let a long application process allow applicants to side step review by abusing the process.
    - 2y ago
sirspacey 2y ago
Safety is the by product of a well run system that can incorporate lessons learned Faster, efficient systems are demonstrably safer The MEP program for Value Stream Mapping has a ton of evidence on this across many industries
indoordin0saur 2y ago
> I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here. All the more reason for them to respond in a timely manner. If they're struggling to keep up with enforcing safety regulations I think we need to streamline the process, get them more funding or both.

exabrial 2y ago

> The safety of the general public should trump all here An SLA is not unreasonable nor counterproductive to that end. Courts do this all the time.

DrillShopper 2y ago
It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here. We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review. This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
- nickff 2y ago
  The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Then don't work in a regulated industry. I don't know what to tell you. Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process?
    - ElonChrist 2y ago
      [dead]
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process? Leaded avgas replacement is one such example. Pretty much every step was like pulling teeth.
    - aeternum 2y ago
      Required ADS-B and collision avoidance tech is another. Many lives could be saved, instead they mandated fire extinguishers in all planes which have likely saved zero lives.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    You can look at the incentives from the other direction: we probably don't want a system where any FAA regulations can be effectively repealed simply by lobbying Congress to not increase FAA funding as needed. If the FAA can't or won't do their job properly, the fix should take the form of positive action from higher levels of government, not a passive fail-deadly default.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      Not only that, it incentivizes applications to be as dense and technical as possible instead of as clear and understandable as possible as a way to burn down the time that the FAA has to review something so their review is incomplete. We cannot, should not, and dare not let a long application process allow applicants to side step review by abusing the process.
  - 2y ago

sirspacey 2y ago

Safety is the by product of a well run system that can incorporate lessons learned Faster, efficient systems are demonstrably safer The MEP program for Value Stream Mapping has a ton of evidence on this across many industries

indoordin0saur 2y ago

> I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here. All the more reason for them to respond in a timely manner. If they're struggling to keep up with enforcing safety regulations I think we need to streamline the process, get them more funding or both.