Yea I'm actually OK with them being risk adverse, because I don't really want to have to worry about the plane I am flying in suddenly dropping out of the sky for any number of reasons.

I'm equally uncomfortable with your plane falling on me suddenly.

No, you have to move fast and kill people by the hundreds.

825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016

The move fast happened a while ago.

Where is the killing people by the 100s?

Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries.

Also, the FAA does grandfather in a lot of stuff. If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers or get near populated areas.

Lastly, I'm not sure if modern passenger jets would be allowed in the same way if invented today. The FAA would probably restrict them within 100 miles of urban areas. After all, what if people tried to crash them into buildings?

> Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries.

Developed countries also have an FAA equivalent. Regulation is equally strict in the EU for instance.

Other countries follow a lot of FAA recommendations voluntarily, even if they have no jurisdiction there.

> If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers...

Why? Are you saying they'd ban all single engine aircraft from carrying passengers? What about the SR22?

Don't let them know about the Experimental-Amateur Built category where anyone can build an airplane in their garage and a licensed pilot can go fly it with very limited FAA oversight of the construction...

It’s not like there are no rules to follow: http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-oper...

Is the FAA different in risk aversion to other developed country equivalents?