Originally Posted by
Pilot DAR
I agree that "average", "must not require unusual skill" and the like are very difficult to quantify. But there has to be a starting point somewhere. For my experience, if the pilot assessing the handling characteristic has any doubt about compliance, the first thing he/she does, is discuss it with the team, including the certifying authority. This would be the opposite of murmuring to one's self that it's "probably okay" and saying nothing, knowing that doing so steps the certification process along.
I have certainly trained pilots on airplane types which I knew to be totally benign, and the pilot had a terrible time with it - it was the pilot! And, I own a certified single engine GA type, which is so demanding of skill, it is actually actually requires a type rating in other countries. In my opinion, it does demand unusual skill, and type specific training, but it was certified "normally".
In any case, like anything in certification, if in doubt, report and discuss (then probably have another pilot assess, with the concern in mind).
The bold part is the problem. As long as one is dealing with honest people, things are fine. The moment greed sets in, we get what happened to the MAX. Have less vague certification specifications and the amount of cheating will be reduced.
Initially, this sounds pretty bad for aircraft designers, though looking further into this, it makes their life a lot easier. Engineers/Technical designers want to have clear criteria of what they need to achieve, and makes preparing for the certification a lot easier. Not to say, for example, the whole car-industry works on these principles. Turn the vague marketing level requirements into technical requirements and create the technical design from there. Once the technical options are exhausted, work with the marketing to update (maybe water down) the marketing goals for that specific item. Since cars are produced in massive amounts, this working mechanism is mandatory to avoid disaster designs.