Aviation Regulation - a US insight
Thread Starter
Aviation Regulation - a US insight
This interesting view is being taken seriously in the US and may be applicable in Australia - it is not so much what Authorities have in the governing legislation but more to do with culture and the support they get for being innovative.
A report released earlier this year from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that "'Fear of making a mistake' drives a risk culture at the FAA that is too often overly conservative, particularly with regard to [drone] technologies, which do not pose a direct threat to human life."
How did things get this way? The FAA is primarily a safety agency, giving it an incentive to lose focus on the broader picture. As Justice Stephen Breyer has explained, an agency like the FAA can suffer from tunnel vision: focusing so zealously on a single goal (i.e., safety) that it loses sight of how its regulations fit in the larger cost-benefit context.
More importantly, the National Academies' report notes that "FAA risk avoidance behavior is often rewarded, even when it is excessively risk averse, and rewarded behavior is repeated behavior." It has every reason to see the world through tunnel vision.
This behavior has not been limited to drones. A number of other aspects of civil aviation innovation have faced the FAA's risk-averse approach. The FAA banned supersonic flight in 1973 and has yet to reevaluate its position in the 45 years since. The FAA shut down flight-sharing platforms in 2014, and it shows no sign of reconsidering this decision.
There is a bright side to this, however. Unlike many other industries, in which the regulatory thicket spans a number of agencies and levels of government, almost every aspect of aviation is exclusively regulated by the FAA. That means fixing it is simply a matter of reorienting the agency.
Policymakers are taking steps toward doing just that, and Congress has the opportunity to reclaim our airspace for permissionless innovation. Both the Lee-Gardner Amendment and the Aviation Empowerment Act would take the proactive step of requiring the FAA to accept the reality that both supersonic flight and flight-sharing are part of the our future.
Ignoring the future doesn't stop it. The FAA's failure to embrace this reality is why Switzerland, Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all beginning to outpace the United States in the coming aviation revolution. Only by reestablishing the importance of experimentation and innovation can the home of the Wright Brothers and the Apollo program once again catch up with the rest of the world.
Christopher Koopman is senior director of strategy and research with the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University and a senior affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/401260-the-risk-of-risk-aversion-at-the-federal-aviation-administration
A report released earlier this year from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that "'Fear of making a mistake' drives a risk culture at the FAA that is too often overly conservative, particularly with regard to [drone] technologies, which do not pose a direct threat to human life."
How did things get this way? The FAA is primarily a safety agency, giving it an incentive to lose focus on the broader picture. As Justice Stephen Breyer has explained, an agency like the FAA can suffer from tunnel vision: focusing so zealously on a single goal (i.e., safety) that it loses sight of how its regulations fit in the larger cost-benefit context.
More importantly, the National Academies' report notes that "FAA risk avoidance behavior is often rewarded, even when it is excessively risk averse, and rewarded behavior is repeated behavior." It has every reason to see the world through tunnel vision.
This behavior has not been limited to drones. A number of other aspects of civil aviation innovation have faced the FAA's risk-averse approach. The FAA banned supersonic flight in 1973 and has yet to reevaluate its position in the 45 years since. The FAA shut down flight-sharing platforms in 2014, and it shows no sign of reconsidering this decision.
There is a bright side to this, however. Unlike many other industries, in which the regulatory thicket spans a number of agencies and levels of government, almost every aspect of aviation is exclusively regulated by the FAA. That means fixing it is simply a matter of reorienting the agency.
Policymakers are taking steps toward doing just that, and Congress has the opportunity to reclaim our airspace for permissionless innovation. Both the Lee-Gardner Amendment and the Aviation Empowerment Act would take the proactive step of requiring the FAA to accept the reality that both supersonic flight and flight-sharing are part of the our future.
Ignoring the future doesn't stop it. The FAA's failure to embrace this reality is why Switzerland, Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all beginning to outpace the United States in the coming aviation revolution. Only by reestablishing the importance of experimentation and innovation can the home of the Wright Brothers and the Apollo program once again catch up with the rest of the world.
Christopher Koopman is senior director of strategy and research with the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University and a senior affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/401260-the-risk-of-risk-aversion-at-the-federal-aviation-administration
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone got a research grant to come up with those conclusions then not only should they give back the grant, they should also give back the oxygen they have used up. For pity's sake, anyone who has had anything to do with any public service (with some very limited exceptions and flight safety agencies are not in that category) can tell you that trying to get a decision out of them is nigh on impossible let alone anything that remotely smells of being adventurous.
It is a no-brainer. If you are responsible for safety then every decision is predicated on that single premise and one must be seen to be doing something so making it ever more restrictive is the only way one can get to an end of year bonus. Why do you think we have the politicians we now have when the greatest advances Australia ever made were 30 to 40 years ago.
It is a no-brainer. If you are responsible for safety then every decision is predicated on that single premise and one must be seen to be doing something so making it ever more restrictive is the only way one can get to an end of year bonus. Why do you think we have the politicians we now have when the greatest advances Australia ever made were 30 to 40 years ago.
There is a bright side to this, however. Unlike many other industries, in which the regulatory thicket spans a number of agencies and levels of government, almost every aspect of aviation is exclusively regulated by the FAA. That means fixing it is simply a matter of reorienting the agency.
."...SIMPLY a matter of re-orienting the agency" !!
How so with CAsA the world biggest 'self-licking ice cream' ..and immune from any 'climate change'.?
.Because we have continuing Miniscules with no interest or the balls to tackle the problem, polly-wafflers only interested in getting re-elected, CAsA continually yodelling 'safety, safety, safety and much ado about nothing, down the longest tunnel ever made
Nothing to see here, move along. And there soon wont be, either.
How so with CAsA the world biggest 'self-licking ice cream' ..and immune from any 'climate change'.?
.Because we have continuing Miniscules with no interest or the balls to tackle the problem, polly-wafflers only interested in getting re-elected, CAsA continually yodelling 'safety, safety, safety and much ado about nothing, down the longest tunnel ever made
Nothing to see here, move along. And there soon wont be, either.
