[HN Gopher] FAA Continues to Stall on G100UL ___________________________________________________________________ FAA Continues to Stall on G100UL Author : sklargh Score : 70 points Date : 2022-06-07 17:32 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.avweb.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.avweb.com) | [deleted] | zbrozek wrote: | Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to | anything is no. Permit housing? No. Permit power lines? No. | Permit a nuclear plant? No. Permit an aviation fuel? No. Permit | cross-laminated timber? No. | | Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away | and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. | btrettel wrote: | > Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest | answer to anything is no. | | This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the | US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) | is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to | reject the application in the time they are given, what choice | do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary. | whatshisface wrote: | That's actually an example in favor of the OP's point, | because patents are restrictive in nature rather than | permissive. Accepting the patent doesn't permit anyone to do | anything, it represents the government _removing_ the ability | of anyone but the claimant to do what they 're claiming. | | (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and | patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing | to license them to delay their implementation. The patent | system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can | convince the examiner they invented it.) | btrettel wrote: | Could be semantics, I guess. Patent examiners permit | operation of monopolies in my view. | | > (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing | and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then | refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The | patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they | can convince the examiner they invented it.) | | I imagine polluting companies would ignore the patents | ("efficient infringement") and/or try to invalidate the | patents. | whatshisface wrote: | > _Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my | view._ | | The operation of a monopoly was already possible before | the patent via trade secrets (typical contemporary | example, SpaceX), what the patent does is make it illegal | to break the monopoly by re-inventing the technology. | devmor wrote: | > This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes | uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. | | It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe | and trustworthy. | api wrote: | Ossification leads to instability for numerous reasons, not | the least of which being that it encourages people to just | ignore authorities and go around them. This leads to a | culture of routine corruption where people break the law just | to get things done, which can lead to a full-blown mafia | state or to collapse and revolution. | vajrabum wrote: | Is that really true though? Do you have an example of | bureaucratic ossification leading to a mafia state? Is | there evidence that is how any mafia or mafia state has | arises? Is there any evidence that bureaucracy has played a | role in a revolution or was a causal factor? | Sargos wrote: | Historically this has not been true. The more ossified the | bureaucracy becomes the less able it is to adapt and innovate | which eventually leads to replacement or revolution. | vajrabum wrote: | Do you have some historical examples? | cnlevy wrote: | The Roman Empire would like to have a word with you | | https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from- | rom... | onphonenow wrote: | Spot on. I've worked govt adjacent. It's basically a "can't do" | mentality vs a "can do" mentality. Politically same issue. | Endless politicians "outraged" and "offended" by various things | - so keeping your head down, doing it the same way you've done | it before is seen as the safest internally. Now layer in a ton | of non-performance or deliverables oriented goals and things | just grind down to a total halt. | metacritic12 wrote: | It all makes much more sense if you consider the world from the | following hypothetical utility function of the FAA: to maximize | net present value of funding. | | If they are 50% efficient, or even 10% efficient, they won't be | eliminated. They're still needed for certain basic operations | in aviation. | | However, if they do something with a 30% chance of a great | outcome from aviation, and 1% chance of a negative scandal, | that negative risk outweighs any positivity. | PaulHoule wrote: | Aviation is ground zero for that. | | Is is telling that aviation's "sustainable fuel" vision is the | same Fischer-Tropsch chemistry that's been abandoned for | everything else because the capital cost of the machinery is | too damn high. | | Ground transportation has moved on to single-entity fuels that | are synthesizable like 1-butanol and dimethyl ether. I can't | for the life of me see why the industry isn't developing | methane as an aviation fuel as it could even be the low cost | solution in 2022 if Airbus had developed that instead of the | thoroughly pizzled A380. | p_l wrote: | Methane was investigated as aviation fuel, and was found to | be more problematic than Hydrogen - in fact, it's even less | forgiving than hydrogen due to taking longer to dissipate and | having worse side effects in case of accidental tank rupture. | | In fact, the only viable use of Methane in aviation fuels was | by 2007 considered to be... feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch | chemistry, which also can make carbon-neutral syntin that | will require no complete rebuilds of planes and engines. | _moof wrote: | In my experience (decades of direct interaction) most of the | FAA is a model of professionalism in civil service. But there | are pockets of sheer insanity, usually due to perverse | incentives like what you're describing. This whole fiasco has | all the hallmarks of pathological risk-aversion. No one wants | to be the one who said "yes" because there's no punishment for | saying "no." The FAA's approach to risk management is, in | general, second-to-none, but when it isn't paired with a | mission assurance mindset, you get pathological outcomes like | this. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Allowing two inspectors to pursue personal grudges against | one of the most beloved figures in US aviation: | https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=FAA+bob+hoover | | Five hundred and thirty seven people killed from the 737 max | scandal, which showed the FAA was basically not providing any | oversight of Boeing whatsoever, and even worse, was complicit | in coverups: | https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa- | boeing-737-... | | Furthermore, _the FAA was the last national agency in the | world to ban the 737 Max from flying_. https://www.nytimes.co | m/interactive/2019/business/boeing-737... | | That lack of supervision included the FAA providing little or | no oversight over Boeing using lithium ion batteries without | sufficient testing, resulting in several fires on airliners. | | Treating air traffic controllers so poorly - including | underpaying them by nearly thirty percent, that they went on | strike, and refusing to give them a shorter work week to | compensate for the high stress nature of the job: https://en. | wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr... | | and since then, we've had decades upon decades of overworked, | overstressed, understaffed air traffic controllers, which | results in problems ranging from crashes due to errors to | falling asleep to substance abuse: | | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+sleepi. | .. | | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FAA+air+traffic+controllers+drunk | | A controller in Las Vegas has a stroke and was speaking | gibberish for half an hour before anyone in the control tower | noticed, likely because she was working alone and | unsupervised. | | Am I forgetting anything? | | "Model of professionalism in civil service" my ass. This | debacle over fueling is just yet another way the FAA has | pointlessly stood in the way of progress to protect vested | industry interests. FAA regulations are rife with all sorts | of absurd shit barring a private pilot from modernizing their | planes in cost effective manner or enhancing them with | greater avionics capabilities. | topspin wrote: | From the story: | | "But the applicant, in this case GAMI, should have a right to | know who is on the TAB and what their credentials are." | | Hmm. Seems like 737 MAX was about the incestuous relationship | between the FAA and Boeing, at least in part. Perhaps when there | is less knowledge available about the people responsible for | approving things we stand a chance of a meaningful result. | bushbaba wrote: | To me, this is yet another case for reducing the number of large | federal governing bodies. Shouldn't the fuel approved for use be | a state (or local airport) decision in all but federal military | airfields? | _moof wrote: | Absolutely not. Fuel approval is an engineering matter, not a | political one. | sokoloff wrote: | It would be an overall nightmare if aviation was regulated | state-by-state. | | I'm generally in favor of "as local as practical", but I think | that the FAA, FCC, CDC, EPA, and a few others are cases where | "as local as practical" ends up being federal. | akira2501 wrote: | The better question is, if this an obvious improvement over the | current solutions, then what is it specifically that prevents | this governing body from allowing the change? And, wouldn't | that same issue be a worse problem for a smaller and less well | funded governing body? | db65edfc7996 wrote: | So what happens if you takeoff in state A with fuel requirement | X and land in state B with fuel requirement Y? | nimish wrote: | Technocracy + bureaucracy = sloth. There's no incentive to risk | anything. You aren't directly answerable to the people whom you | consider beneath you anyway. Nothing improves. | | If FAA won't do their job, then that power (such as it is) needs | to be stripped from them and invested back in Congress. | KennyBlanken wrote: | The FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive | branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. | Congress has pretty significant supervision legislatively and | budgeting-wise. | | Presumably GABI has talked to some congressional reps. So the | question is: why aren't they lighting a fire under the FAA's | ass to at least follow their own regulations? This seems more | than worthy of a congressional hearing. Frankly, AOPA should | have demanded as much, but they're probably too worried about | pissing off Lycoming and Continental. | | GABI also has the option to pursue redress via the courts. I | don't know whether they've attempted to do so or not. | _moof wrote: | The delegation of authority from Congress to the FAA doesn't | stop Congress from telling the FAA what to do. Congress can | still pass, and has passed, legislation directing the FAA to | take specific action on specific matters, and there's | absolutely nothing the FAA can do about it other than comply. | Congress can absolutely step in here if it wants to. | c-linkage wrote: | If I were to put on my conspiratorial hat, I would guess the | reason for stalling is that approving the G100UL fuel from | General Aviation Modification, Inc. (GAMI) will divert profits | from Shell and ExxonMobil, both of which provide significant | funding for the two US political parties. | | In fact, I would not at all be surprised to see approval delayed | until such time as Shell or ExxonMobil can develop a competitor | -- not an exact copy of GAMI's fuel, but something close enough | to not violate the patent. | dylan604 wrote: | How big is GAMI, as in, could Shell or ExxonMobil not just buy | them? | sokoloff wrote: | GAMI is tiny (and privately held). You could tour their | entire facilities in a fascinating afternoon. | | Whether they could be bought is a matter of choice by the | owners. It's not that Shell or Exxon couldn't afford them, | but the principals might choose not to sell for a price | that's attractive to the oil companies. | sklargh wrote: | A follow-up by Paul. | [deleted] | PaulHoule wrote: | This is completely connected with the FAA holding 5G frequencies | hostage because it can't make airlines replace faulty altimeters. | Phone companies should have sued the manufacturers of those | things. | p_l wrote: | And would have no success, because under FCC rules the telecoms | are the closest ones to violating the rules ( _their_ emissions | are causing problems for others, receiving is not regulated) | and moreover, it was FCC decision to go with much smaller guard | band and not require various preventive measures. | | The altimeters aren't faulty, and everywhere else the | regulatory bodies for aviation, radio spectrum, aviation | industry and telcos cooperated on figuring things out. | Unfortunately for USA, physics doesn't bend just to accommodate | bad management of radio spectrum and hilariously bad mobile | telco market. | Gordonjcp wrote: | I wonder how hard it would be to adapt a plane to run on propane? | You'd need to find somewhere to keep a cylindrical tank (so not | the wings) and ideally you'd need a liquid-cooled engine so the | coolant could heat the gas vapouriser. You'd get 115 octane fuel, | and no CO / HC / NOx / SOx or other nasties in the exhaust, just | CO2 and water. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-07 23:00 UTC)