[AWES] Re: FAA Poor regulator (For airborne wind)
- I know that we just disagree on this whole point but I found this publication that pertains to the discussion.
It is 90 pages so I have not read it all. But I did take away a few points. The retail cost of part 23 aircraft has increased faster than inflation by a wide margin.
The number of private pilots has dropped by 1/3. They list this as a concern but don't take credit.
The number of fatal accidents has also dropped by about 1/3. They pretty much take credit for this.
I think the drop in the number of pilots was probably the biggest reason for the drop in fatalities. That the better tech they talk about helped and the aging fleet because of the runaway regulatory costs as hurting this number. But the number is so low as to defy such broad statements in general. Mostly GA is just a hobby for the rich. As I have said before, a shadow of it's true potential.
They do make many true and insightful comments, so we can hope that they will find a system that works. I see both the proverbial baby and the bathwater here. But I think that water sure could use some changing.
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
> I am clearly saying to "worry about the FAA" to most would-be AWE developers. My thesis is that AWE developers must master the high standards of aviation safety or be left behind. For most folks this means "worry", because the standards are rigorous. Worrying about the FAA as a "poor regulator" is not a very practical worry (a political futility).
> Nor should anyone understate scaling challenges. True, an aviation concept that tests really well at a small scale by a given "theory of operation" can in principle generally scale greatly. In practice there are no shortcuts to meet severe safety-driven economic tests and the higher regulation standards of greater mass aloft. There are no shortcuts to understand and solve scaling challenges in detail; small scale science prototypes by aerospace programs is just the fun easy part.
> Now you have another real-world FAA regulation case to analyze, your air ambulance crash, on top of the crane waiver. Study how the FAA/NTSB responded to to that crash. Did it shut down the known danger of aviation utility/first-responder work? Or were the causes of the crash carefully studied toward better procedures? Identify a precise "poor regulator" outcome to sustain your rebuttal,
- Brian,That's a great report to give folks a sense of the regulatory process our best designs will ace. Keep in mind there is endless space in the experimental aircraft rules to explore short of the far higher standards of formal commercial certifications.The number of pilots is down by factors well outside FAA control, including a down economy, cheap commodity aviation, aging demographics, new extreme flying sports, and so on. The triumph of modern flight safety is secure, the fluctuations now are almost just random noise.The small aviation cost issue is a problem, so that's why you see so much brilliant effort to come up with cheaper methods. One can in fact paraglide and paramotor and hang glide and pilot ultralights to fly cheaper than ever before. Rope and tarp wind-powered AWES aircraft are far cheaper still. The FAA is not actually blocking any of this cool stuff, until idiots start senseless killing.Thanks for the link, its great for those intending to go the whole way, into certified utility scale systems,daveS