Plus if it does go through it's only a matter of time before we see 'folks this biz is dangerous and needs some guardrails' and they end up re-inventing what they already had but less effective and twice as expensive all while acting like they're the first ones to have ever thought of it all
Setting aside the obvs conflict of interest issues here, who would want to go back to the days where you could reliably expect at least one fatal crash each season? Especially when it would later turn out during investigations that it was avoidable if proper checks and maintenance had been done?
Like many things these days the more I think about it the madder it makes me.
So like, if you drop from 4 to .5 after introducing inspections it seems like a relatively sure bet that aircraft airworthiness and proper maintenance were maybe probably pretty directly related to the high fatality rate.
I get that owners want to save / hoard money, and I’ve seen plenty of ‘get govt off our backs’ and ‘just let ‘em fly’ attitudes in certain corners of aviation (firebombing being one of them). And I could see if the fatality rate didn’t change that much but it dropped from 4 to 0.5.
Yes, yes what the national firebomber fleet - the same one that used to see fatal crashes every year - the same one that lost aircraft repeatedly to wings failing and folding up like a cheap chair - what that industry clearly needs is to go back to those heady, inexpensive no regulation days.
If you credulously do a segment about the vote in California in which you don’t say the president is lying, you’re spreading disinformation to your listeners.
