Jason_Bowman
On one hand, I agree as someone who develops requirements and does stakeholder engagement and management in my day job. On the other, if the goal is a reduction in government regulations, you can’t rely on the approach you suggest because the stakeholder approach is not incentivized to reduce bulk and complexity in regulations. Here’s a thought exercise for you. MOSAIC is still possible under a two-for-one rule with some effort. You combine experimental, light sport, and standard (under 12,500 lb gross) categories into one simplified category, and you construct the new regulations to have an effect rather than specify the details but much further than MOSIAC took it. Just look at the mess the stall speed requirement under MOSAIC created because stall speed was an imperfect metric at best and a poor metric at worst for the effect they were trying to achieve. And MOSAIC is still extremely verbose. You eliminate 2, maybe 3, airworthiness categories and get 1 back. Q.E.D. But the FAA’s slow and meandering ways, in fact all of government’s, are not suited to this approach. One of the only exceptions I know of is 47 CFR 97 where they allow a community planning and policing approach. On the other hand, the complexity and politics simply shifted from the government to elsewhere.
1 reply
