TheNewTeddy Posted July 18, 2012 Report Posted July 18, 2012 I've been watching a lot of air crash videos and am wondering how those who push for reducing "red tape and regulation" would respond to regulation in the field of aircraft safety? I'd presume even the hardest right-wingers are for making our airplanes safe, so then, why are they so special etc? It's an honest question because I do not understand the opposition to regulation. Quote Feel free to contact me outside the forums. Add "TheNewTeddy" to Twitter, Facebook, or Hotmail to reach me!
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Posted July 18, 2012 The main objection has to do with the economics of passenger and freight air transportation, not safety, wherein regulations are written by blood and lawsuits. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted July 18, 2012 Report Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Some regulation is useful, perhaps even necessary. Excessive regulation is a hindrance. A standard on how strong an airplane wing must be to be deemed acceptable is one thing. A standard on how many signatures had to be signed in what size font on what size sheet of paper to get one bolt for that wing, from a specified set of approved suppliers for an approved cost in accordance with 312048124148 pages of regulations that can be interpreted only by a team of highly specialized lawyers is something else. It's interesting, we had to bid on a little contract to build something for a NASA sub-contractor recently. They asked for an estimate on how much this item would cost. Based on the technical costs we came up with about $170,000. Then a while later they sent us the full form contract which specified all the regulations we'd have to meet. Guess what? The cost of making sure we comply with all those regulations will take thousands of man hours. The final cost came to about $600,000. The bulk of that being completely unrelated to the cost of actually designing, building, testing, and delivering what they wanted, but rather legal and administrative costs to make sure we comply with approximately 9,000 pages of regulations (all existing in separate documents which endlessly cross-reference each other, etc). The costs and complexities of complying with excessive regulation are a major burden imposed on the economy, and a substantial proportion of the regulations that exist are superfluous. Edited July 18, 2012 by Bonam Quote
carepov Posted July 18, 2012 Report Posted July 18, 2012 IMO, it is almost always possible to simplify/reduce regulation AND improve safety (or other objecteives like a cleaner environment). Quote
TheNewTeddy Posted July 19, 2012 Author Report Posted July 19, 2012 Regulation can also be wrong. Al Gore went on Letterman after being elected VP to demonstrate. Ashtray's had to meet a regulation standard that was insane. (google it if you are curious) But... South African Airways Flight 295 crashed because of a fire. The regulation for testing a fire used tobacco leaves and working fans, but this flight had neither. The fire was far more intense. Quote Feel free to contact me outside the forums. Add "TheNewTeddy" to Twitter, Facebook, or Hotmail to reach me!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.