I was wondering what the OP was blabbering about, then I took the time to peruse through the first few pages of his former F16 posts....Furlock Bones said:ignoramus and i'm not talking about Cruzgabehcoud said:
Conservative indeed. Smh
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/texas-politics/ted-cruz-deepfake-pornography-bill-deadline-f-35-nasa/287-77a3d3a5-abfc-46d9-8cdc-d08d1cd175d0
The FAA doesn't have the expertise. The job of the FAA is to make the regulations from the data it has been given.aTmAg said:FAA's can fund the research just like NASA. There is nothing special about NASA.Ag with kids said:NASA does the research to gather data,aTmAg said:Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.Ag with kids said:For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...aTmAg said:Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.Ag with kids said:Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.aTmAg said:My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.Ag with kids said:Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?aTmAg said:NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.Ag with kids said:I never said I agree with any of that.aTmAg said:There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.Ag with kids said:Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.aTmAg said:So the reason we need NASA is because they have a influence with the FAA which is yet another wasteful agency that impedes the progress of mankind?Ag with kids said:Meh.aTmAg said:They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.Ag with kids said:They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.aTmAg said:
I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.
I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.
I work with them all the time on AAM/UAM. There needs to be some coordination otherwise you'll NEVER get a system that the FAA will approve for UAS in the NAS. I work with a lot of the private sector on this too.
I won't disagree they can be slow though. But, most of the folks BELOW the top bureaucracy aren't really.
Not much of a ringing endorsement.
Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?
FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.
BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.
Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.
But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.
NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.
Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.
I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.
I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.
I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.
But, there actually IS life outside your pod...
The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.
The FAA uses the data to develop the regulations.
I did NOT say that...aTmAg said:Don't get me wrong... I'm ONLY talking about what AwK was talking about where they can greese the FAA skids on certain regulations.nortex97 said:
Faa is a regulatory agency. Research best operates separate from that, hence darpa, naca (nee nasa). It would be silly to subsume nasa space exploration in particular under the faa. Nothing could be gained imho.
NASA should not do any "space exploration" horsecrap. We don't need to spend billions of dollars studying sex habits of butterflies in 0 G. The shuttle program was also a HUGE waste of taxpayer money and caused the death of 14 astronauts. That alone sucked all the air out of the space industry and kept the SpaceX's of the world from actually innovating. Because of that, NASA has kept us decades behind where we otherwise would be.
aTmAg said:Don't get me wrong... I'm ONLY talking about what AwK was talking about where they can greese the FAA skids on certain regulations.nortex97 said:
Faa is a regulatory agency. Research best operates separate from that, hence darpa, naca (nee nasa). It would be silly to subsume nasa space exploration in particular under the faa. Nothing could be gained imho.
NASA should not do any "space exploration" horsecrap. We don't need to spend billions of dollars studying sex habits of butterflies in 0 G. The shuttle program was also a HUGE waste of taxpayer money and caused the death of 14 astronauts. That alone sucked all the air out of the space industry and kept the SpaceX's of the world from actually innovating. Because of that, NASA has kept us decades behind where we otherwise would be.
The managers where I work hire the engineers and software to do the job. They don't go to Boeing and have them do all the engineering for them.Ag with kids said:The FAA doesn't have the expertise. The job of the FAA is to make the regulations from the data it has been given.aTmAg said:FAA's can fund the research just like NASA. There is nothing special about NASA.Ag with kids said:NASA does the research to gather data,aTmAg said:Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.Ag with kids said:For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...aTmAg said:Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.Ag with kids said:Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.aTmAg said:My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.Ag with kids said:Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?aTmAg said:NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.Ag with kids said:I never said I agree with any of that.aTmAg said:There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.Ag with kids said:Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.aTmAg said:So the reason we need NASA is because they have a influence with the FAA which is yet another wasteful agency that impedes the progress of mankind?Ag with kids said:Meh.aTmAg said:They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.Ag with kids said:They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.aTmAg said:
I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.
I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.
I work with them all the time on AAM/UAM. There needs to be some coordination otherwise you'll NEVER get a system that the FAA will approve for UAS in the NAS. I work with a lot of the private sector on this too.
I won't disagree they can be slow though. But, most of the folks BELOW the top bureaucracy aren't really.
Not much of a ringing endorsement.
Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?
FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.
BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.
Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.
But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.
NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.
Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.
I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.
I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.
I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.
But, there actually IS life outside your pod...
The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.
The FAA uses the data to develop the regulations.
NASA DOES have the expertise. The job of NASA is to perform the research to provide the data to the FAA.
They have two COMPLETELY different functions.
Think about it where you are...
Should the managers and engineers do the software team's job?
aTmAg said:The managers where I work hire the engineers and software to do the job. They don't go to Boeing and have them do all the engineering for them.Ag with kids said:The FAA doesn't have the expertise. The job of the FAA is to make the regulations from the data it has been given.aTmAg said:FAA's can fund the research just like NASA. There is nothing special about NASA.Ag with kids said:NASA does the research to gather data,aTmAg said:Before my current employer, I worked at several places both large and small. One of them was a government agency. So I have more experience than most on different types of jobs. So I HAVE seen outside my pod.Ag with kids said:For someone on the F-35 program, you're quite judgemental...aTmAg said:Sounds like you have a personal stake. There is no reason that you couldn't have had lunch with an FAA guy on Friday instead. NASA has no business existing.Ag with kids said:Well, I CURRENTLY have worked with NUMEROUS people in NASA. Just ate lunch with one Friday. These are not low level NASA folks, either.aTmAg said:My only knowledge is that I have had 2 family members work for them. Besides that, no.Ag with kids said:Have you worked with NASA on UAS research? Since you're an expert on what they know?aTmAg said:NASA shouldn't be steering any research. History has proven that they have no idea what the correct direction is. If we insist on the FAA getting that involved with setting the rules now, then they should be in contact with manufactures themselves. No reason to get yet ANOTHER middleman agency involved.Ag with kids said:I never said I agree with any of that.aTmAg said:There is one thing to make the "rules of the road" and another to get your tentacles into every aspect of aircraft development, as if you (the federal agency) has more knowledge than the engineers making the aircraft in the first place.Ag with kids said:Someone needs to make the "rules of the road" for the NAS.aTmAg said:So the reason we need NASA is because they have a influence with the FAA which is yet another wasteful agency that impedes the progress of mankind?Ag with kids said:Meh.aTmAg said:They shouldn't be. They are wasteful and slow. They should let the private sector do that.Ag with kids said:They are doing the heavy lifting in research on Advanced Air Mobility/Urban Air Mobility. That's the plans to allow unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace.aTmAg said:
I obviously don't have a problem with the F-35, as I wouldn't dedicate my life to it if I didn't think it was important. Defense is specifically laid out in the constitution and is one of the few things that is within proper scope of the federal government.
I used to justify NASA as effectively an arm of DoD. That when we were making rockets to launch into orbit, we were effectively working on our ICMBs and whatnot. But that was self delusion. ICBMs came first, and NASA used those rockets for their first missions. The Saturn V was the first rocket that "NASA" build (actually the private subcontractors did the real designs and construction). So in reality, there is really absolutely no reason for NASA to exist.
I work with them all the time on AAM/UAM. There needs to be some coordination otherwise you'll NEVER get a system that the FAA will approve for UAS in the NAS. I work with a lot of the private sector on this too.
I won't disagree they can be slow though. But, most of the folks BELOW the top bureaucracy aren't really.
Not much of a ringing endorsement.
Or would you prefer we just let people just do what they want?
FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of the FAA...If I was the Administrator I would change a LOT of things there.
BUT, the reality is that the FAA will make the "rules of the road". And again, SOMEONE has to.
Now, a lot of what the FAA does is bull***** At my last job I saw firsthand how well they **** up progress on new aircraft certification.
But, I will say that, on unmanned aircraft stuff, while they're slow, they're MUCH more receptive and are WANTING industry to tell them how the rules should be made.
NASA is doing a decent job of steering the research in the correct direction so that we can have actual data to make the decisions on what the "rules of the road" should be.
Edit: that's not true. I also work with many people who are NASA expats, and that they are screwed up other projects that my company is involved with. I also know that they have been wrong on predicting the future of rocket for the past 40 years. So suddenly I'm to believe that they finally got their act together on UAS? Color me skeptical.
I know exactly what they're doing and have been involved in a number of programs either run by NASA or with NASA as a participant...all involved in UAS.
I don't think there are any FAA NextGen folks here in Corpus. But, the NASA guy was here in town. I've worked with him a number of times. I'm going to see a bunch of NASA people in early January, too.
I understand you're insulated from the non-DOD world living in the F-35 world.
But, there actually IS life outside your pod...
The FAA's job has been to "set the rules of the road." That is what they are for. Why should yet a SECOND agency get involved in that? It simply makes no sense.
The FAA uses the data to develop the regulations.
NASA DOES have the expertise. The job of NASA is to perform the research to provide the data to the FAA.
They have two COMPLETELY different functions.
Think about it where you are...
Should the managers and engineers do the software team's job?
