Quote:
Originally Posted by JST
Yes, that's an interesting article, though I think the point sits somewhat awkwardly in the 737 Max discussion, since aircraft type approval is one of the best examples of "ask questions, shoot later" that exists in the American legal system.
The precautionary principle is one reason why the EU has been so aggressive in banning the use of GMOs, despite the complete lack of any evidence of harm. The problem with it is precisely the one the NYT identifies--without data, if you have to prove a negative you're really vulnerable to magical thinking. "What if" becomes a roadblock that you can't get around.
|
For sure. Defining strong regulations upfront sounds good in theory but is very difficult in practice when it comes to new technology.
The 737 max issue is an interesting example, though, in that the problem involved software and it sounds like the FAA feels increasingly out of their depth when it comes to evaluating the safety of new software features (leading to the “self certification”). Unintended consequences arising from software are going to be an increasing problem in general. That being said, I do wonder wtf Boeing was thinking when it implemented that software with no sanity check/ redundancy. That’s a basic principle that’s been part of aerospace engineering for a long time.
I believe there are already regulations in the US that require redundancy when it comes to autonomous vehicles atkeast.