My question was mainly to point out that perhaps the FAA is just another example of unneeded, overreaching, overpowerful federal involvement in everything.
I have absolutely no confidence that the FAA knows more about anything involving aviation than the engineers and scientists and developers in the aviation industry.
I’m sure at one time they did have a valid role in keeping things safe, but as all government programs do, they have now completely outgrown their mission.
No company could survive if their products continually failed, so safety and success are crucial to them without requiring government oversight. The FAA does not appear to prevent those failures, but to jump on board and act as though they had higher authority and knowledge after accidents happen. In fact, all of the failures were previously approved by them, so exactly what benefit did they bring by even having any input ahead of time?
The fact that they are weighing in on an experimental launch, which they approved, to make it seem as though they know better what should have happened, and how things could be improved, seems to prove that. Were they surprised that it exploded?
And no, I don’t think that the aviation industry should have no oversight. I just believe that the FAA has taken it way too far.
Just my two cents,
Love,
O2
Seriously, though ... we don't know the number of accidents, bad designs, etc. that have been prevented or stopped by FAA oversight. We only really know about the incidents they failed to stop. During the 737-MAX fiasco, people on this forum were complaining that the FAA was "owned" by the aviation industry; that the 737-MAX problems were the result of insufficient independent oversight. Now, people on this forum are complaining that the FAA's extreme caution regarding an experimental spacecraft whose only flight so far was terminated explosively by the range safety official is excessive, and "obvious" evidence of some vendetta against SpaceX. It's absurd.