Re: FCC vs FAA Story

[sronan () ronan-online com]

They had 5 years to do that, and didn’t start until the very last minute.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 5, 2022, at 8:41 PM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer () gmail com> wrote:
>
> 
> On 6/5/22 17:14, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
> > They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.
> >
> > Shane
> It is not that simple. And they have done a lot of work. Much more than NOTHING.
>
> These are primarily used in low visibility situations. How many crashed passenger filled planes would have been 
> acceptable? 
>
> Low visibility, low altitude flying is known as IFR. (IFR - Instrument Flight Rules). There are a hundred or more low 
> altitude flight 'plates' published. They had to be checked, verified, determined to be safe. This is NOT something 
> that they just decide. Until they knew it was safe, they had to tag it as unsafe. Below is an example of just two at 
> the Van Nuys that MIGHT have been effected. 
>
> They actually have to fly each change to each plate, under different conditions to re-certify them. And you want them 
> to do that. If they determine that it was safer if 50 foot higher in one segment, then they had to re-test again and 
> then release a new 'plate'.
>
> And they had to certify the equipment, done by the manufacturer and the FAA. They can't just place the equipment on a 
> test bench and see if it still works.
>
> We don't know, so go ahead and fly your 500 passengers in low visibility and see if you crash is NOT how to do it.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) Douglas.Royer () gmail com 714-989-6135