It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here.
We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review.
This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
You can look at the incentives from the other direction: we probably don't want a system where any FAA regulations can be effectively repealed simply by lobbying Congress to not increase FAA funding as needed. If the FAA can't or won't do their job properly, the fix should take the form of positive action from higher levels of government, not a passive fail-deadly default.
Not only that, it incentivizes applications to be as dense and technical as possible instead of as clear and understandable as possible as a way to burn down the time that the FAA has to review something so their review is incomplete.
We cannot, should not, and dare not let a long application process allow applicants to side step review by abusing the process.
Required ADS-B and collision avoidance tech is another. Many lives could be saved, instead they mandated fire extinguishers in all planes which have likely saved zero lives.
We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review.
This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.