|
> the problem is that this particular regulatory agency was corrupt and failed in its primary duty. What regulatory agency isn't captured? If you make a regulatory body, you want to staff it with those who 'know' about the subject. That's going to come from the most well-known groups at the time. These are people, and they had lives and friends before in the groups they came from. So, naturally, a lighter touch will be given to some from the same groups, but not to others who are unknown; and that's best case. Also, I have seen no evidence that any regulatory body has done much to help safety, and they will definitely discourage risk-taking. Planes for instance, were getting better and safer before the FAA arrived. Concern for the environment grew before the EPA, workplace safety increased before OSHA, and so on. All these agencies (because they are staffed again by people, who want to keep their jobs - ask a doctor, he'll say you need a doctor, etc.) will point to the improvements after their inception, and say, "look at the good job we do!". It does not hold though, that these improvements would not have occurred without the agency, and it could very well be the case that improvements come sooner. For instance, the current basic airframe might be best, but few try other designs, like a lift body, or a flying wing, which might be more efficient. I know the B-2 bomber was based on a flying wing design and does need sophisticated computer control of the control surfaces though, to work without a tail, and that's costly enough to get right. Add the FAA rules on top, and, as has happened, that idea dies early on the vine. You might say that's a good thing, and maybe in this case it was, but it also clearly wasn't tried for very long either, and the attempts would draw greater scrutiny from the FAA. And that's a shame. |
Stockton Rush, is that you? Aren't you dead? Or are you a big fan of his?
>Concern for the environment grew before the EPA
That sounds like "thoughts and prayers". "Concern" doesn't protect the environment; laws and enforcement does. The EPA was made for a good reason.
>workplace safety increased before OSHA
Some, but not in other places, just like the EPA. OSHA made rules and enforced them, so everyone got workplace safety, not just some places where management cared enough.
>ask a doctor, he'll say you need a doctor
Yes, because everyone eventually gets some illness that requires the services of a doctor. Many illnesses are only detectable with tests.
>For instance, the current basic airframe might be best, but few try other designs, like a lift body, or a flying wing, which might be more efficient.
You can read stuff all over the internet explaining why flying works don't work for passengers; it's not because of "regulation", it's because it's just a bad design for that. It's only used for bombers because it gives them stealth (combined with other design choices), and bombers don't need pressurization. Pressurizing a flying wing adds lots of weight, and to get equivalent internal volume, the design requires a huge wingspan that airports can't handle. It has nothing to do with FAA rules, and everything to do with physics.