The FAA is the antithesis of "move fast and break things", and their threshold for "unsafe" is justifiably very very tight.

Claiming this has anything to do with "disruption to the commercial airline business" requires some extraordinary evidence to back it up.

We're a little too proud of "break things" sometimes. "Break things" should not extend to human beings, or fragile aluminium tubes containing human beings.

You wouldn't accept "move fast and break things" from your surgeon, and he can only kill one customer at a time.

Agreed.

"Move fast and break things" is a bad strategy if you're operating in the sky. We've been accumulating data that support this view since Wilbur and Orville in 1903.

This was absolutely unsafe and illegal. Regardless of whether they were conducting a flight for friends or not, they were operating an aircraft that requires two pilots at all times (per the FAA) with just one pilot (and a student pilot).

That's unsafe and illegal, even if the plane was otherwise empty. Even worse with passengers.

> This does not necessarily mean what was done here was in any way unsafe

> unlicensed pilots

> unauthorized/unregistered aircraft

> cavalier attitude toward regulatory compliance

Yeah, that sounds in no way unsafe. There are rules and certification/regulation processes for a reason.

Unlicensed/unauthorized for what? For commercial airline business? Were they performing such a business?

The FAA has actively worked to assist and promote general aviation, air taxis, and charters for a long time. All of those compete to some extent against commercial airlines.

Did you read the press release?

Yeah, why have qualified crew on passenger-flying airplanes, sure ...