Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jandrese 1494 days ago
This may even be seen as a warning to investors that the FAA is not going to be laissez faire with regards to regulating aircraft that carry passengers, so companies that are currently trying to skirt regulation are at risk.
1 comments
Robotbeat 1494 days ago
The FAA will downright torpedo the entire industry in the name of conservatism.

A lifesaver for Boeing and Airbus to have such a restrictive regulator in the biggest market.

The electric aviation (generally, not just eVTOL) over-regulation is the one that really gets me. The FAA will happily reinforce the status quo of fossil fuel aviation (including the leaded gas fiasco!) than take one iota of risk. Every 4500 tons of CO2 (just ten 777 flights) results in an excess death due to climate change[0], but that’s not the FAA’s problem!

[0]https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/07/29/more-carbon-emi...

link
jandrese 1494 days ago
> but that’s not the FAA’s problem!

I think this is supposed to be sarcastic, but that's exactly how the FAA sees it. Their job is to prevent people from dying in or because of aircraft and that's it. Environmental concerns are the EPA's domain.

Once the alternative fuels are available and the FAA has determined that they are safe to use it should be EPA pressuring pilots to make the switch.

I do however agree that the FAA is outrageously slow to react to change. They are risk adverse to a excessive degree, but at the same time air travel is the safest way to get around on a per-mile basis, so their approach is working.

My final note is that slow development in eletric aircraft is not entirely the fault of the regulatory environment. There is also the issue of battery technology being a bit insufficient for most uses currently and having bad failure conditions.

link
bombcar 1494 days ago
The FAA is in a lose-lose position. Be conservative and everyone bitches about how they're holding back progress. Be "flexible" and allow the MAX and everyone rips them a new one saying "they should have known".

The "game theory" move is to allow things in experimental and basically forbid them from passenger travel until some other certification body (EU?) sticks their neck out.

link
emilecantin 1494 days ago
MAX happened because the logical change (tweak the body / landing gear of the plane to accomodate the larger engine) would've been too onerous because of the FAA rules, so they fixed it in a stupid way that complied with the FAA rules.

MAX was FAA's fault as much as it was Boeing's.

link
nradov 1494 days ago
The airlines were also at least partly at fault in the Boeing 737 MAX debacle. They specifically asked Boeing for an airplane with flight characteristics identical to existing 737NG models so that their pilots wouldn't need new type certification, which is why Boeing came up with MCAS as a flawed solution. Boeing and the FAA should have pushed back on that, and found the flaws earlier, but none of that would have happened if airlines hasn't tried to cheap out.

The 737 MAX 10 does have longer landing gear.

link
starwind 1494 days ago
> The FAA is in a lose-lose position. Be conservative and everyone bitches about how they're holding back progress. Be "flexible" and allow the MAX and everyone rips them a new one saying "they should have known".

It's not one or the other. They can allow innovation and still keep things safe. In fact, it's their job

link