3 ms·

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, shuf

by 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the incentives from the other direction: we probably don't want a system where any FAA regulations can be effectively repealed simply by lobbying Congress to not increase FAA funding as needed.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.
mystified5016 2y ago
Thinking that a process is unfair or inconvenient does not grant one the right to break laws intended to protect people.

by nickff 2y ago

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.

mystified5016 2y ago

Thinking that a process is unfair or inconvenient does not grant one the right to break laws intended to protect people.