A Regulatory Primer
Alice: “Where should I go?”
Cheshire Cat: “That depends on where you want to end up.”
Alice and the Cheshire Cat could have been talking about regulatory philosophy in these two brief exchanges.
When President Reagan designated the Department of Transportation as the lead for space, it was not because DOT was largely a regulatory agency. DOT had been awarded the role of the lead agency because it admitted that the Federal Aviation Administration was not the appropriate agency to guide a new industry. DOT had said it recognized that excessive regulation could have adverse impacts on a new industry. That very realization was what offered hope to the industry and those of us nurturing this brand new space program because having made the mistake of thinking FAA was an appropriate home for space “regulation” once, perhaps DOT wouldn’t make that mistake again.
In my experience, nothing could be more important than coming up with the right balance of regulation. In my opinion, then as now, too many regulatory agencies started with the goal of controlling their regulatory subjects without regard to the greater goals of efficiency, effectiveness, and growth.
There are many different approaches to regulating safety. There are design based regulations and performance-based regulations. All approaches have secondary consequences. Some artificially constrain the development of an industry, or some steer an industry in certain directions, while others achieve the primary goal of safety while encouraging and supporting growth and development. Many regulatory systems become so cumbersome and complex that approvals are interminably slow and hugely expensive and discourage innovation and change. Others are vague and ambiguous leaving their regulatory subjects with so much uncertainty that innovation is risky. Some regulatory entities are so risk averse that they actually discourage new concepts and innovations.
Alice: “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
Cheshire Cat: “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”
Alice: “I don’t much care where.”
Cheshire Cat: “Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go.”
Alice: “…So long as I get somewhere.”
Cheshire Cat:” Oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.”
Once regulatory programs get started on a certain track, they tend to continue along that track. Thus, how it starts determines where it ends. So FAA’s regulatory approach remains unchanged, despite continuous complaints from industry, manufacturers, and the public with no thought to the second-order consequences of its approach.
Article from Wall Street Journal Monday, October 6, 2014
U.S. Rules Clip Drone Makers’ Wings
FAA Ban Is Boon To Overseas Rivals
Byline: Jack Nicas
Berlin—In four years, Service-drone has emerged as a promising player here in the rapidly expanding commercial drone industry. The 20-employee startup has sold more than 400 unmanned aircraft to private-sector companies and now is pitching its fourth-generation device.
Over the same period, Seattle-based Applewhite Aero has struggled to get permission from the Federal Aviation Administration just to fly its drones, which are designed for crop monitoring. The company, founded the same year as Service-drone, has test flown only one of its four aircraft and is now moving some operations to Canada, where getting flight clearance is easier.
“We had to petition the FAA to not carry the aircraft manual onboard, said Applewhite founder Paul Applewhite. “I mean, who’s supposed to read it?” Mr. Applewhite, like many of his US peers, fears the drone industry “is moving past the US, and we’re just getting left behind.”
The U.S. introduced drones to the world as machines of war. But as unmanned aircraft enter private industry—for purposes as varied as filming movies, inspecting wind farms and herding cattle—many US drone entrepreneurs are finding it hard to get off the ground, even as rivals in Europe, Canada, Australia and China are taking off.
The reason, according to interviews with two dozen drone makers, sellers and users across the world: regulation. The FAA has banned all but a handful of private-sector drones in the US while it completes rules for them, expected in the next several years.
The policy has stifled the US drone market and driven operations underground, where it is difficult to find funding, insurance, and customers….”
My objective as long as I was tasked with handling regulatory issues for the Office was not to let this regulatory program become an impediment. Nor did I believe near sighted regulation should prevent the evolution of totally un-thought of space transportation concepts.
Today, we can see that the space community at the time of President Reagan didn’t have the slightest clue what the future only 30 years hence would bring. I believe that what we see today is still only the beginning…unless the new young regulators don’t understand the principles on which the commercial space office was originally based in which case the industry will wither.