News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets by syshum on Friday February 02, 2018 @08:29PM (#16295594)
That depends on if actual safety is in jeopardy or "safety" regulations that are often written for the expressed purpose to increase costs in order to be anti-competitive with no real safety impact
Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets by nolok on Friday February 02, 2018 @08:34PM (#16295611)
No matter how misguided I may think your comment is, I think we can both agree that even in your view of it having registered aircrafts and especially having properly trained crew is in the "actual safety" category.
Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets by gbacon on Saturday February 03, 2018 @11:33AM (#16298242)
We all seem to agree that regulatory capture[0] exists too.

A properly trained crew sounds great, but then comes the question of definitions. Less than five years ago[1], it was legal for a first officer in an FAA Part 121 operation to hold no more than a commercial ticket, minimum aeronautical experience 250 flight hours. Airplanes were not falling out of the sky then with the now-improperly trained crews. Perhaps more flight hours were necessary, but the bar for properly trained crew may really lie at 300, 500, or a thousand hours rather than 1,500.

Maybe number of flight hours like KSLOC is not such a useful metric. Current ATP minimums may nail it exactly. How shall we verify the answer?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[1]: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...

Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets by matte_black on Friday February 02, 2018 @08:49PM (#16295666)
Eh, who knows, these planes basically fly themselves these days anyway. /s