[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)