While the normies obsess about seat-size regulation, here are my three biggest take-aways from the new law:pic.twitter.com/CTJwdnBEWO
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
While the normies obsess about seat-size regulation, here are my three biggest take-aways from the new law:pic.twitter.com/CTJwdnBEWO
And here is a sample of some of the most consequential text when it comes to ultimately repealing the overland ban in the future:pic.twitter.com/S1sptLyYep
This project was textbook zero-to-1 policy entrepreneurship: -I wrote a white paper and op-ed with a colleague about an interesting but uncrowded regulatory issue. -It got picked up by some lawmakers. -Industry joined in. -It was appropriately timed for a major reform package
It's easy to be cynical about the Ideas to Policy think tank pipeline, but sometimes it really works, especially if the issue is genuinely neglected and not yet politicized. Of course it also takes the help of a lot of equally motivated friends:https://twitter.com/hamandcheese/status/1047853915197399041 …
I get what you're trying to do, but a lot of the supporting material you link to is questionable. 1) You should disclose who is funding this project. 2) Why should supersonic aircraft not be subject to the same noise requirements? Isn't losing hard speed limits the entire point?
3) The stage 4 noise standards include flyover noise, but only on takeoff. There's no measurement of en-route noise. SSTs aren't supersonic at takeoff. If an aircraft produced en-route noise equivalent to a Stage 4 takeoff, that would be a huge quality of life degradation
You'll find answers to questions 2-3 if you read the text of the bill and the previous posts I link to. To 1) I nor the Center received any funding for this. It was a passion project that I actually had to fight to keep doing since I'm supposed to work on welfare policy now.
I think replacing a hard ban with a special Mmo-based noise carve out is the wrong approach. We don't accept that learning curve argument for safety. Thanks for answering the question about funding; it was a bit of a head-scratcher.
That's not the approach the FAA is taking. The FAA *has* to issue a new type certification because the current certifications turn out to only apply for subsonic aircraft, per existing statute. The contours of an eventual boom noise standard and T&L standards remain TBD.
And if this wasn't clear, the type certification is over companies like Boom that will be flying SSTs over the ocean come the mid 2020s. The sonic boom standard for over land will come much later and only after the FAA thinks a low boom airliner is technologically feasible.
There's a lot of material to sort through; who is saying that 14 CFR 23 and 25 don't apply to supersonic airplanes? Has that analysis been posted somewhere?
I'm not an FAA attorney, but to the best of my knowledge the reason type certification for noise is subsonic specific dates to the decision to carve out Concorde for Stage 2 in 14 CFR 36. Concorde of course abided general airworthiness regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/36.301 …
This is a huge accomplishment. Congrats all around!
Awesome work!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.