|
|
|
|
|
by aeternum
1222 days ago
|
|
The problem is that regulations are often a knee-jerk reaction without consideration to the second order effects. When a crash happens, add a rule to prevent it from happening again. Eventually however you have so many onerous rules that it becomes incredibly expensive to design a new aircraft engine and thus are suck with decades old tech that lacks modern innovation and safety features. It's very rare to do a pass over regulations to try to simplify them. From a regulatory POV, there is little glory in that and lots of risk. |
|
See https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/fd... for example.
FAA overall has done a lot of good for the safety of the flyers (and I respect it much more than other regulatory agencies tasked with protecting us). The problem is that very often there is a trade off between safety and other things, and regulatory framework prohibits the people it is meant to serve from deciding on their own where exactly they want to be in terms of this trade off. For example, if motorcycles were invented today, they would almost certainly be banned as way too unsafe to operate. That would suck, because I love riding motorcycles.