> Too much regulation and safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet, is the thesis. Does the FDA believe this thesis for drugs? Clearly not. Or, more precisely, the benefits do not outweigh the harm. I don’t believe it applies to aircraft, either.
What's the connection? Allowing drug use on planes does not increase technological innovation. Technological experimentation does.
> Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category.
Source? The FAA seems to back their claims up with actual data.
> Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right.
I did a little bit of googling, and the experimental aircraft are not allowed over densely populated areas or crowded airspace without the guidance of an ATC and sufficient altitude is there to glide away to safety. Even experimental aircraft must receive an airworthiness certificate.[0]
From what I've seen, they're only loosening the restrictions that seem to make no contribution to safety and will make it easier for more aircraft to adopt the restrictions that do make it safer. They're incentivized to be safe because they fly the planes, and a higher rating means more privileges(haven't verified this), crackpots who don't care about safety won't make it through the trial period before their plane is allowed out of limited airspace.
Why express strong opinions that are unresearched? Or if they are, provide some sources? Or provide some reasoning other than intuition? Especially in a world where we are increasingly not allowed to do things unless specifically allowed. (allowlist instead of denylist)
Once the initial shakedown period has passed, in practice E-AB airplanes can fly where certified aircraft can. In a certified airplane, you still have to comply with 91.119.
I’ve only flown in a couple experimental—amateur-built aircraft; I think the current regs are a good balance of keeping “dangerous piece of shit” airplanes away from populated areas (once it’s flown out the initial operating hours, it’s probably not one) and allowing access to the National airspace system by others.
What's the connection? Allowing drug use on planes does not increase technological innovation. Technological experimentation does.
> Umm, that’s wishful thinking. It might work to some degree, but the real fix is to regulate the crackpots out of the experimental category.
Source? The FAA seems to back their claims up with actual data.
> Flying a dangerous piece of shit through common airspace is not a right.
I did a little bit of googling, and the experimental aircraft are not allowed over densely populated areas or crowded airspace without the guidance of an ATC and sufficient altitude is there to glide away to safety. Even experimental aircraft must receive an airworthiness certificate.[0]
From what I've seen, they're only loosening the restrictions that seem to make no contribution to safety and will make it easier for more aircraft to adopt the restrictions that do make it safer. They're incentivized to be safe because they fly the planes, and a higher rating means more privileges(haven't verified this), crackpots who don't care about safety won't make it through the trial period before their plane is allowed out of limited airspace.
Why express strong opinions that are unresearched? Or if they are, provide some sources? Or provide some reasoning other than intuition? Especially in a world where we are increasingly not allowed to do things unless specifically allowed. (allowlist instead of denylist)
[0] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/intro-to-aircraft-...