5 ms·

I'm usually not anti-government, but the FAA has absolutely lost its way and is causing far more harm than good nowadays. Look at lead in avgas. The Boeing fi

I'm usually not anti-government, but the FAA has absolutely lost its way and is causing far more harm than good nowadays. Look at lead in avgas. The Boeing fiascos. Inability and cost of innovating in the space. America is being left behind in global aviation.

FabHK 4y ago
Do you think that aviation regulation is better anywhere else? In Europe it is a mess (particularly for general aviation), in Asia there is hardly any general aviation.
alexk307 4y ago
You're upset with the FAA for the Boeing fiasco, but simultaneously upset that they are going to be more strict with certifying a new class of aircraft?
- pmichaud 4y ago
  Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
  - droopyEyelids 4y ago
    If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too
- hammock 4y ago
  Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.
- dylan604 4y ago
  The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify, so they have blame in that. Strict regulations are not necessarily a bad thing if they are actually needed, but regulations for regulation's sake to keep the agency with a purpose is definitely bad. At some point the bueracracy takes over, and it's hard to avoid the useless regulations that make it look like things are being done but ignore the true things needing regulation.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  They're taking the wrong approach to safety... The correct approach is to reward new things, reward changes and innovation, and punish massively anything that causes an accident putting lives at risk. For example, make a fund that any aircraft manufacturer pays fines into. Fines for engine failures. Fines for oxygen mask deployments. Fines for crash landings. Massive fines for deaths. Aim to fine about 50% of the value of all aircraft sold. Then give the pot of those fines back to aircraft designers and operators per passenger mile safely flown. Overall, the industry gets the same amount of cash. But manufacturers and operators who manage to do it more safely will end up more profitable. You also need a system of watchdogs who try to find 'coverups' - ie. times where a safety procedure is skipped to avoid the fine. A combination of whistleblower rewards and automatic data reporting from the plane should help with that issue.
  - db65edfc7996 4y ago
    That sounds a lot like testing in production. Move fast and break things when the stake are human life. I will accept a slower pace of aircraft development, thank you.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      We could move fast and quickly figure out a new lead free fuel... Or we could keep using our reliable leaded fuel that kills hundreds of people annually. Sometimes, 'move fast and break things' actually saves lives. Especially when you're moving fast on the development of new safety systems.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    As a pilot, I can't see any reason to fine for an oxygen mask deployment at all and very little reason to fine for an engine failure resulting a safe landing (which is the incredibly overwhelming majority of them in airline transport category aircraft). That would be like fining a driver for a hard braking incident or triggering their ABS. Not everything needs to have an economy created out of it.
    - 4y ago
jessaustin 4y ago
Serious question: what's wrong with lead in avgas? No one serious would ask what was wrong with tetraethyllead in gasoline fueling automobiles in urban areas, but aviation is a completely different context.
- chaxor 4y ago
  It's completely unnecessary, as it has been shown that general aviation planes can operate on mogas in almost every single propeller engine. Additionally, it costs more over the long run due to the maintenance costs (e.g. spark plug issues from lead build up when you sit at lower RPMs for taxiing).
  - Diggsey 4y ago
    Going to need a citation for those claims... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Phase-out_of_leaded_aviation_gasoline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Phase-out_of_leaded_avia... > 70% of 100LL aviation fuel is used by the 30% of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet that cannot use any of the existing alternatives On the second point: lead is specifically added to help increase the lifetime of components like spark plugs, since it decreases knocking.
    - c1yd3i 4y ago
      Lead isn't added to help increase the lifetime of anything. In-fact, that's hilarious, because lead fouls spark plugs and the rest of the engine. I've personally removed spark plugs with pea sized nuggets of lead wedged in the electrode. Problems caused by lead (e.g., stuck valves) are probably the #1 reason you have to overhaul cylinders. Lead is an octane booster, that's it. "Knocking" is an antiquated term. Knocking = detonation, and any severe detonation would destroy an aircraft engine. For example, this is why we take off with our mixture so rich, to create a huge margin against detonation by lowering internal cylinder pressures. https://www.lycoming.com/node/17607 https://www.lycoming.com/node/17607
    - wahern 4y ago
      > > 70% of 100LL aviation fuel is used by the 30% of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet that cannot use any of the existing alternatives A large part of this problem, AFAIU, is that "cannot use" can mean lack of type certification. IOW, as a practical matter many (most?) pre-existing engines could use new, unleaded fuels, but engine certifications haven't yet been updated by the FAA. Only leaded-fuel is legally permitted in most old engine types, and old engines dominate in general aviation. See, for example, this blurb further down in that Wikipedia article, > In 2022, Paul Bertorelli of AVweb reported that the FAA is dragging its feet on broadly certifying G100UL, delaying approval of the fuel for more engines and spending over $80 million on EAGLE to re-start a search for an unleaded fuel when G100UL has been under evaluation for over 10 years. where G100UL is (I think) the only alternative replacement fuel actually approved so far, certified just last year, and only for one particular family of engines.
anonymousiam 4y ago
I completely agree. From the recent 5G ground radar fiasco (where FCC had already adjudicated the issue) to a chilling case of FAA telling the United States Air Force that they cannot use their allocated spectrum for a Link 16 TRANSEC enhancement because of potential GPS interference. The USAF should instruct the FAA to pound sand. USAF has the primary spectrum allocation, and is the owner/operator for both systems. (Aviation Week 2/7/2022 pg. 16)
coderenegade 4y ago
eVTOLs are powered lift aircraft, though, so this is moving to certify them under the correct specification. This is a good thing as far as I can see, because the FAA's job isn't to make life easy for innovators, it's to ensure that the technology is safe for everyday use. And quite frankly, that's how it should be; the FAA is the defacto standard for aviation regulation, and I wouldn't want to fly on anything that was incapable of meeting FAA standards. The 737 max fiasco was a major blow to the organization's reputation, and this is a good sign that they're taking their job seriously again, because people died. The real question should be why they were initially going to certify eVTOLs as light aircraft. That just seems like the entirely wrong category for them.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It's not at all clear to me that the FAA was originally going to certify them under those rules. Note the carefully worded text here: > developers of winged eVTOL aircraft including Joby Aviation, Archer and Beta Technologies have been proceeding on the assumption that their aircraft would be certified under the FAA’s overhaul of small airplane certification rules that took effect in 2017. "developers...have been proceeding under the assumption" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Also I don't want anything not properly certified and verified to fly above me. Specially VTOL type crafts. At least with regular planes they have glide characteristics and are not aimed to operate regularly in urban areas outside airports.

FabHK 4y ago

Do you think that aviation regulation is better anywhere else? In Europe it is a mess (particularly for general aviation), in Asia there is hardly any general aviation.

alexk307 4y ago

You're upset with the FAA for the Boeing fiasco, but simultaneously upset that they are going to be more strict with certifying a new class of aircraft?

pmichaud 4y ago
Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too
hammock 4y ago
Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.
dylan604 4y ago
The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify, so they have blame in that. Strict regulations are not necessarily a bad thing if they are actually needed, but regulations for regulation's sake to keep the agency with a purpose is definitely bad. At some point the bueracracy takes over, and it's hard to avoid the useless regulations that make it look like things are being done but ignore the true things needing regulation.
londons_explore 4y ago
They're taking the wrong approach to safety... The correct approach is to reward new things, reward changes and innovation, and punish massively anything that causes an accident putting lives at risk. For example, make a fund that any aircraft manufacturer pays fines into. Fines for engine failures. Fines for oxygen mask deployments. Fines for crash landings. Massive fines for deaths. Aim to fine about 50% of the value of all aircraft sold. Then give the pot of those fines back to aircraft designers and operators per passenger mile safely flown. Overall, the industry gets the same amount of cash. But manufacturers and operators who manage to do it more safely will end up more profitable. You also need a system of watchdogs who try to find 'coverups' - ie. times where a safety procedure is skipped to avoid the fine. A combination of whistleblower rewards and automatic data reporting from the plane should help with that issue.
- db65edfc7996 4y ago
  That sounds a lot like testing in production. Move fast and break things when the stake are human life. I will accept a slower pace of aircraft development, thank you.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    We could move fast and quickly figure out a new lead free fuel... Or we could keep using our reliable leaded fuel that kills hundreds of people annually. Sometimes, 'move fast and break things' actually saves lives. Especially when you're moving fast on the development of new safety systems.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  As a pilot, I can't see any reason to fine for an oxygen mask deployment at all and very little reason to fine for an engine failure resulting a safe landing (which is the incredibly overwhelming majority of them in airline transport category aircraft). That would be like fining a driver for a hard braking incident or triggering their ABS. Not everything needs to have an economy created out of it.
  - 4y ago

jessaustin 4y ago

Serious question: what's wrong with lead in avgas? No one serious would ask what was wrong with tetraethyllead in gasoline fueling automobiles in urban areas, but aviation is a completely different context.

chaxor 4y ago
It's completely unnecessary, as it has been shown that general aviation planes can operate on mogas in almost every single propeller engine. Additionally, it costs more over the long run due to the maintenance costs (e.g. spark plug issues from lead build up when you sit at lower RPMs for taxiing).
- Diggsey 4y ago
  Going to need a citation for those claims... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Phase-out_of_leaded_aviation_gasoline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Phase-out_of_leaded_avia... > 70% of 100LL aviation fuel is used by the 30% of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet that cannot use any of the existing alternatives On the second point: lead is specifically added to help increase the lifetime of components like spark plugs, since it decreases knocking.
  - c1yd3i 4y ago
    Lead isn't added to help increase the lifetime of anything. In-fact, that's hilarious, because lead fouls spark plugs and the rest of the engine. I've personally removed spark plugs with pea sized nuggets of lead wedged in the electrode. Problems caused by lead (e.g., stuck valves) are probably the #1 reason you have to overhaul cylinders. Lead is an octane booster, that's it. "Knocking" is an antiquated term. Knocking = detonation, and any severe detonation would destroy an aircraft engine. For example, this is why we take off with our mixture so rich, to create a huge margin against detonation by lowering internal cylinder pressures. https://www.lycoming.com/node/17607 https://www.lycoming.com/node/17607
  - wahern 4y ago
    > > 70% of 100LL aviation fuel is used by the 30% of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet that cannot use any of the existing alternatives A large part of this problem, AFAIU, is that "cannot use" can mean lack of type certification. IOW, as a practical matter many (most?) pre-existing engines could use new, unleaded fuels, but engine certifications haven't yet been updated by the FAA. Only leaded-fuel is legally permitted in most old engine types, and old engines dominate in general aviation. See, for example, this blurb further down in that Wikipedia article, > In 2022, Paul Bertorelli of AVweb reported that the FAA is dragging its feet on broadly certifying G100UL, delaying approval of the fuel for more engines and spending over $80 million on EAGLE to re-start a search for an unleaded fuel when G100UL has been under evaluation for over 10 years. where G100UL is (I think) the only alternative replacement fuel actually approved so far, certified just last year, and only for one particular family of engines.

anonymousiam 4y ago

I completely agree. From the recent 5G ground radar fiasco (where FCC had already adjudicated the issue) to a chilling case of FAA telling the United States Air Force that they cannot use their allocated spectrum for a Link 16 TRANSEC enhancement because of potential GPS interference. The USAF should instruct the FAA to pound sand. USAF has the primary spectrum allocation, and is the owner/operator for both systems. (Aviation Week 2/7/2022 pg. 16)

coderenegade 4y ago

eVTOLs are powered lift aircraft, though, so this is moving to certify them under the correct specification. This is a good thing as far as I can see, because the FAA's job isn't to make life easy for innovators, it's to ensure that the technology is safe for everyday use. And quite frankly, that's how it should be; the FAA is the defacto standard for aviation regulation, and I wouldn't want to fly on anything that was incapable of meeting FAA standards. The 737 max fiasco was a major blow to the organization's reputation, and this is a good sign that they're taking their job seriously again, because people died. The real question should be why they were initially going to certify eVTOLs as light aircraft. That just seems like the entirely wrong category for them.

sokoloff 4y ago
It's not at all clear to me that the FAA was originally going to certify them under those rules. Note the carefully worded text here: > developers of winged eVTOL aircraft including Joby Aviation, Archer and Beta Technologies have been proceeding on the assumption that their aircraft would be certified under the FAA’s overhaul of small airplane certification rules that took effect in 2017. "developers...have been proceeding under the assumption" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence...
Ekaros 4y ago
Also I don't want anything not properly certified and verified to fly above me. Specially VTOL type crafts. At least with regular planes they have glide characteristics and are not aimed to operate regularly in urban areas outside airports.