Regarding 2, it makes sense to me. The FAA's purview is
vast. They handle matters pertaining to all airspace in the USA. That includes commercial and private flights, drones, local government, and (of course) space flight. (And maybe even military flights, too, IDK). Is there such a thing as an "FAA detective" that
preemptively goes on-sight to verify the reports they receive? Like most agencies, they function primarily on a self-reporting basis, relying heavily on the fear of retributive sanctions to ensure that they aren't being lied to in those reports. Can you imagine the cost of investigating everyone and everything the FAA is supposed to regulate?!
My sense is that, unusually among government regulators, the FAA is generally competent and cares about the real consequences of their in/action - both because the subject is life-and-death table stakes, but also because when there's a disaster the FAA itself is, by default, one of the "usual suspects". And rightly so.
Personally I see this as a very optimistic story about a regulator that actually does its job.
My sense is that, unusually among government regulators, the FAA is generally competent and cares about the real consequences of their in/action - both because the subject is life-and-death table stakes, but also because when there's a disaster the FAA itself is, by default, one of the "usual suspects". And rightly so.
Personally I see this as a very optimistic story about a regulator that actually does its job.