Continue Discussion - visit the forum 67 replies
December 2024

Jason_Bowman

On one hand, I agree as someone who develops requirements and does stakeholder engagement and management in my day job. On the other, if the goal is a reduction in government regulations, you can’t rely on the approach you suggest because the stakeholder approach is not incentivized to reduce bulk and complexity in regulations. Here’s a thought exercise for you. MOSAIC is still possible under a two-for-one rule with some effort. You combine experimental, light sport, and standard (under 12,500 lb gross) categories into one simplified category, and you construct the new regulations to have an effect rather than specify the details but much further than MOSIAC took it. Just look at the mess the stall speed requirement under MOSAIC created because stall speed was an imperfect metric at best and a poor metric at worst for the effect they were trying to achieve. And MOSAIC is still extremely verbose. You eliminate 2, maybe 3, airworthiness categories and get 1 back. Q.E.D. But the FAA’s slow and meandering ways, in fact all of government’s, are not suited to this approach. One of the only exceptions I know of is 47 CFR 97 where they allow a community planning and policing approach. On the other hand, the complexity and politics simply shifted from the government to elsewhere.

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ Jason_Bowman

skywalker23606

Its laughable to think larger twins, turboprops, pressurized airframes and light jets (Mustang/Vision) would be certified in the same way as experimental and light sport.

December 2024

oldDPE

Two-for-one, if implemented, will be the policy in the aggregate. Two public mental health policies will be dumped and one (MOSAIC) will be retained, for example. Retain/innovate vs ridicule/eradicate will be a function of the amount of business interests backing a given rule.

December 2024

Walkinghispath

Maybe it shouldn’t take a law degree to understand the regulations that apply to a particular thing.

A great start would be incorporate the myriad legal interpretations and orders that alter or redefine the rules. Some of these date back decades and, should you not know where to look for them, could have drastic negative implications for you.

December 2024

NopeNotThat

This country voted in the idea/
leadership that using a hatchet to apples to make applesauce was the best way forward.

Now we get to enjoy… The fruits of that labor.

1 reply
December 2024

raymo

The approach worked well last time. We should look forward to reduced bureaucracy and smaller government, less fraud, waste and abuse. There will always be opposition to ideas, even good ones.

December 2024

MWSletten

I think what gets missed in the call for deregulation that will be a theme of the next four years is that regulations are crafted in consultation with the stakeholders like those folks who were talking about it a couple of years ago. They spend thousands of hours writing letters, talking on the phone and yes, arm twisting politicians trying to make sure the new rules reflect what’s needed for their business.

I would agree with this when stakeholders request a particular piece of regulation. Often, however, a rule is proposed and stakeholders consult because they must; if they don’t they are crushed in an avalanche of paper like the rest of us.

December 2024

UA767RET

“The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

-Thomas Jefferson-

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ UA767RET

dbier

I felt that way after the 2020 election - and clearly a majority realized it was true this time around when they voted for a course correction.

December 2024 ▶ NopeNotThat

dbier

Absolutely looking forward to it! The policies of the last 4 years were not sustainable. I beleive many Americans learned they have to vote for policy over personality.

December 2024

Rick_Ewart

I’ll take my chances with the new gang that will be in charge come January 20th, 2025. My economic well being and overall quality of life was much better under that Administration than it has been under the current “Gang that cannot shoot straight” that is in Power now!

December 2024

mayhemxpc

I was in the Defense Department the last time around. The way it was handled there was a complete review of all regulations. Every office responsible for particular regulations (in my case, I was in Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) had to justify keeping a regulation or to suggest how that regulation could be merged with other, similar regulations. Justifying a regulation began with identifying the statutory authority or requirement for the regulation. For example, something in a Defense Authorization Act that included, “the Department shall publish regulations that…” Apart from simple statutory justification, it is really amazing how many regulations are duplicative of other regulations, either in whole or in part, create apparent contradiction with other regulations, or just pile one on top of another. In this review, identifying opportunities for combining regulations can reduce the size of the regulations, just in the process of merge and edit. Hypothetically, you could combine three regulations into one, and that revised regulation would be perhaps only a little longer than one of the originals. This is aside from identifying regulations that were written for another time and have been overcome by events, other processes, or technology.

Remember, though, the requirement was to IDENTIFY regulations to be removed. That removal would still be subject to the normal regulation review process, which could wind up keeping or further amending that regulation.

December 2024

RationalityKeith

The general goal is good but it will be messy, especially with TheMouthX and TheMouthT making decisions.

As for stakeholders, some of them should want regulations written more competently thus clearer - that often

There’s a problem with legalities, recall some in this forum wanted detail rather than FAA making judgements, note shysters spend court time trying to wriggle their customer out of penalty for bad/illegal behaviour.

And problems with government employees, such as:

What’s needed is clear enunciation of principles, coaching during the work, and firing as needed.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ RationalityKeith

rpstrong

What’s needed is clear enunciation…

An excellent summary of your post. I’m still trying to parse the first two paragraphs…

1 reply
December 2024

Raf

The “Two-for-One Rule” is a flawed, arbitrary policy that prioritizes optics over substance. It risks safety, innovation, and public welfare by undermining critical regulations in aviation, workplace safety, and environmental protection.

December 2024

Raf

One more thing, Russ. You usually avoid political commentary, but this piece quietly critiques the “Two-for-One Rule,” highlighting its flaws, possible comeback, and how it ties into broader governance issues. Good read!

1 reply
December 2024

gmbfly98

Arbitrary rules almost always lead to negative consequences.

December 2024 ▶ Jason_Bowman

ssobol

One of the only exceptions I know of is 47 CFR 97 where they allow a community planning and policing approach.

One of the problem with that is finding a community that can agree with each other enough to come up with a standard or rule.

Reminds me of Congress.

December 2024 ▶ Raf

rniles

Politics is unavoidable, Raf, and I won’t avoid it when it has a direct impact on aviation. Thanks for the kind words as always.
Russ

December 2024 ▶ rpstrong

RationalityKeith

Obviously they are two separate stories, brief descriptions from my experience.
‘parsing’ is an odd concern.

December 2024

kent.misegades

See “Trump Administration Accomplishments” for what really happened in President Trump’s first term. Especially the category “Massive Deregulation”. The results far exceeded the goals, typical of Donald Trump’s entire career.

“Instead of 2-for-1, we eliminated 8 old regulations for every 1 new regulation adopted.”

In his second term, I predict he will eliminate entire agencies and departments, not only existing regulations. For any activity for which states have their own, the federal government should be forbidden to meddle. For instance, Departments of Education and the EPA.

For any government activity for which the private sector offers solutions, government should be forbidden from involvement. This covers most everything the federal government currently does, including certification of aircraft, which could be far better handled by industry itself, and at no cost to taxpayers.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

4 replies
December 2024

RationalityKeith

A large problem is time taken to get through the myriad of regulations and steps.
If you can’t get one done today you lose another day - or four if bureaucracy is taking a long weekend off.
(Aviation flies 24/7, bureaucrats don’t.)

December 2024

RationalityKeith

There is a rule that leads to cost estimates in proposed rule making.

How realistic the estimates are is a question, sometimes affected persons comment on the record about the estimate.

But in any case it all adds up.

December 2024

Uniform_Golf

The bureaucrat in me reacts “damn, this is an impossible situation. Screw it and just leave things as they are - I don’t get paid enough for these headaches.” Besides, leaving things exactly as they are appeals to the conservative side of my psyche.

Perhaps the easiest way to meet this ‘twofer’ requirement is to leave MOSAIC as a mirage- something that might come to be some day, but not to-day. After all, if a new regulation isn’t created, then the bureaucrats won’t have too find two to scrap, right?

My antidote whenever my mind goes down such nihilistic paths is “let’s not let the perfect or the idea be the enemy of the good… we are just trying to make things better.” Ahhh, but the requirements (banging head sound).

December 2024 ▶ kent.misegades

Uniform_Golf

You mean, privatize ATC?

3 replies
December 2024

whankinson

What might be an issue here that is not mentioned, is that the FAA’s regulations are Federal Laws, passed by Congress. All the other agencies make the rules without voter consent, so to speak, except, I believe the nuclear folks. So will the 14CFR’s come under the 2 for 1 edict at all ?

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ whankinson

Pete_P

I thought the gist of a regulation has to be rooted in statute, no? For example, when Congress declares that Medicare can shop overseas for cheaper medications, the details of implementing the law is hashed out by the FDA in 21 CFR, referencing Public Law #xxxxx as the authorization for such.

December 2024

Pete_P

Regulations tend to grow in time, the add-ons are often to close loopholes as they are discovered. They don’t have to make things convoluted, but they often do, because the revisers are in a hurry or are not really familiar with the original flow and logic and the add-on can inadvertently duplicate, negate or create ambiguity. And sometimes, those seeking to reduce the regulatory burden are actually merely seeking to restore the loopholes—to their benefit. Formulaic regulatory action like “add one, kill two” requires treating regulations like a homogenized commodity with properties of proportional equivalence and commutation—which is not a rational approach.

December 2024 ▶ Uniform_Golf

gmbfly98

That is certainly a likelihood with this incoming administration. And I think we can all agree that privatized ATC will not be a good thing for anyone other than the owners of the for-profit entity.

December 2024 ▶ Uniform_Golf

kent.misegades

No, of course not. No reasonable businessperson would want to acquire any government agency due to the baggage this entails. Far better is to start over from scratch with no government involvement at all. There are plenty of private airports, private fuel service, private security systems, etc. who do a stellar job of providing excellent aviation services at an affordable price to users. ATC would need some thinking, but there are no government activities that can not be replaced by free, competing markets. The vast majority of airports in the U.S. are “uncontrolled” and yet operate safely. The best of these are privately-owned. Look at the converse - fly from a government-owned airport and you will pay 2x - 3x for anything from shops in the terminal. A form of government-sanctioned fleecing of consumers. And then there is the “TSA Experience”, the de-humanizing of travelers by unenthusiastic government employees in uniforms. The Limbaugh Theory is 100% accurate: "Everything the government touches, turns to creape.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ kent.misegades

Uniform_Golf

I sure love the idealism, and certainly all new things start out with a certain spirit of goodwill. Corporations being corporations though, the best care eventually tends to be to their best paying passengers. If you ever fly on the airlines, you know that elite members get pandered to. The people who look for the cheapest fares get treated almost with distain.

Guess who privatized ATC’s ‘best customers’ will be. Guess who will get the best treatment. You don’t need to look too far to find examples of where GA is unhappy with the service they get from an ATC agency that was privatized 18 years ago.

December 2024 ▶ Uniform_Golf

RationalityKeith

I remind ‘gmbfly’ of the Canadian solution.

NavCanada is a non-government entity controlled by a motley assortment of ‘stakeholders’. So far it is working as the controllers cooperate. (Canada created a new type of company for that, an odd one.)

Canada’s federal government also devolved major airports to local authorities in a roughly comparable mush including local governments. (Some airports were already owned by local government, such as Kelowna, Edmonton Industrial, Dawson Creek BC, …)

December 2024 ▶ kent.misegades

NopeNotThat

He sure exceeded his ‘goals’ thats without a doubt.

The bigliest list of bankruptcies, cheating, and swindling bar none.

Successes on the other hand… have been very few and far between. The Apprentice show saved him from oblivion.

I hope for our countries sake we do, in fact, see some genuine success, because government day to day doesn’t run on puffery.

December 2024 ▶ kent.misegades

Chuck-the-Wise

Self-regulation within the industry. Right. Two words: 737 Max.

December 2024

Chuck-the-Wise

Stupid photo. What did it cost to stage it, and who paid for it? Any misunderstanding over what 'cutting red tape" means?

December 2024

pilotmww

I can think of many regulations that could be eliminated that TSA has, especially those concerning GA. That includes the latest one enacted for flight instruction. If US citizens had to sit through the TSA training that I am required to, the department would be eliminated quickly. TSA rules are one of several reasons I will not reup my expired CFI when I retire!

December 2024 ▶ kent.misegades

donlwilke

Please let’s DON’T “eliminate… the EPA” (or any of the multitude of out-of-favor federal agencies). As someone whose business was heavily regulated by the EPA, I frequently disagreed with their decisions and approaches to some problems. That being said, one thing worse than an unwieldy but mostly competent Federal agency, is a patchwork of smaller state agencies with less capability, less competence, and 50 different ideas of what needs to be done. Suppose the rules changed every time you flew across a state line? Suppose you had to apply for (and pay for) a “state” Airworthiness certificate for every state to which you might someday fly? As someone once said, “for every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and WRONG!” This is one of those…

December 2024

James_Peterson

Spoken like someone who has never had to navigate the ridiculous complexities of Pt 135 or 121 regulations first-hand. The amount of red tape involved to do the simplest thing is insane. No, it isn’t all to make us safer either.

I am watching a situation very slowly unfold in a training dept where a line pilot with experience on a new aircraft system (designed to increase safety) has to train a check airman on a new system so then the check airman can officially train the first pilot to be legal. How exactly does this make anyone safer?

It’s time for targeted cuts to be made to the tangles of red tape, Russ. Isn’t this your second article in the last week or so hammering the next administration that hasn’t even taken office yet? Be careful, or your bias as a Trudeau-following Canadian might show through…

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ James_Peterson

gmbfly98

Don’t confuse the implementation and enforcement of regulations with the regulations themselves. Fewer regulations won’t necessarily make things easier, and in some cases could actually make “red tape” even worse when it is rewritten to be so broad that it can be used however the enforcer decides it should be used. Assuming there’s anyone left to enforce the regulations, that is.

We may love to hate them, but regulations keep things organized and on a level playing field - and yes, like any human construct, can also be used to control or punish some people.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ gmbfly98

James_Peterson

The bigger problem is bureaucrats, who are rarely accountable, are issuing their own de facto regulations through interpretations and policies. That is one of the biggest targets for the next administration. I’m all for that, but we won’t know if it works out until it’s tried.

Russ’ article comes across as someone who is in favor of bigger govt and more regs. One of the last big de-regulation periods in American aviation worked out pretty well for the health of the industry as a whole. If Russ wants more regs and less competition I’d suggest he take a long look at GA in China. There’s a list of reasons Chinese students are sent to the U.S. to learn how to fly.

December 2024

Tom_Waarne

The only members of the public that understand and support aviation are those that live in geographic regions of Canada that need it. Canada will never have a “critical mass” of folks who support aviation activities as does the U.S. As for arbitrary two for one ideas I always ask if this is the policy at the bank. No takers there. What is needed is not jingoism but a careful review and probable rewrite of legislation to bring it up to date along with clear and simplified language, not a teardown of legislation that has created the U.S. Patchwork legislation on common interests such as transportation is goofy at best and probably leads to more restrictive operations. I don’t think Russ is a closet Liberal, there aren’t many of those west of the lakehead (Superior).

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ UA767RET

RationalityKeith

Problem is the 49% who voted for the opposite get oppressed, a ‘tyranny of the majority’.

Government is into too much in people’s lives.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

Um…

You are conflating two things, what does reducing regulations have to do with Canada per se? Canada has ample quantity of the same problem.

BTW, what does perceived political views of Russ Niles have to do with Canada as such? Many people in the US have similar views.
(BC is West of the lakehead, often has a socialist government, one just got narrowly re-elected. There is a rising tide of voter unhappiness with Marxism-based governments, that almost defeated the BC government, it will defeat the federal government next year. Yes, eco-____ is a key reason, government costs another.)

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ RationalityKeith

RationalityKeith

'Eco____ including carbon tax which of course affects aviation both directly and by the underlying ideology, and opposition to development of resources for export.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ RationalityKeith

Tom_Waarne

Yes Keith, that is my point. We are over governed by local, municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments each of which steps on the others toes and is fundamentally unaware (polite word) of the other’ concerns. In regards to aviation which is foreign to most, I refer to G.A. which has a central focus to folks who need and rely on it frequently to enable normal life to unfold. Most everyone has abandoned “Marxism” and instead embraced some degree of “socialism” which can be the death knell to innovation and freedom. We must choose carefully and not discard the gains society has made for a dog eat dog world. There needs to always be a path to a stable, supportive society that values innovation, freedom and the work of a person to improve their own situation as well as society’s. B.C is often an anomaly in terms of politics yet the population does not seem to be decreasing. As a Country we need to find a path with forestry, mining, manufacturing and other industry that leads a way for us to generate revenue to support a healthy society. Not much different from our cousins in the U.S. Perhaps you missed the intent of my comment about closet Liberals. Fair enough. Try a reread of the posted comments.

December 2024 ▶ RationalityKeith

Rick_Ewart

Well Russ, you finally did it. I got the feeling, after “Flying” took over your operation, that Avweb was on the Fast Track to Wokesville. The fact that you, being a Canadian citizen, seem to keep inserting yourself into American politics tends to ruffle my feathers. I will longer subscribe to your WOKE publication, that masquerades as an Aviation Publication. There are plenty of other reputable publications out there that provide Aviation related content, and manage to keep their Political preferences to themselves. The Main Stream Media is finally learning that when you alienate over half the US Population with Left Wing nonsense, your bottom line will eventually plummet. Perhaps your company will learn that lesson before it is too late!

From Russ. One of my perks is being able to edit comments so when I have a response for a specific comment I’m just going to write it in that comment.
I get the Canadian thing but I can’t help it. Born in Victoria, B.C. and, as the son of an RCAF officer who spent his whole career in NORAD (in the intensely dangerous late 50s to early 70s) I’d argue that I have some skin in the game. I even lived in Great Falls, Montana for a time growing up. We could see a Minuteman silo from our back porch which means that if the unthinkable had happened I, and hundreds of my countrymen, would have died for your country, in your country, along with your citizens. That’s still the deal we have with the U.S., by the way.
But I digress.
I’m not sure where the woke thing came from in this blog. I thought it addressed a practical matter that might arise from a political decision.
As for your assessment of the state of media in general, I’d be interested to see your list of “reputable” outlets. Also, the notion that there are sides to pick when it comes to who’s reputable is an interesting take on the First Amendment.
As for political comment, it would be a lot easier and maybe even safer for me to avoid it but I will offer it whenever and however I see fit as it relates to aviation. That the reputable publications you admire avoid such discussion tells me a lot.
Anyway, when I blunder in, it will be your Constitutional right to agree, disagree or fall somewhere in between.
From the outside looking in, I’d recommend you cherish that right. What you seem to be embracing is the opposite.

3 replies
December 2024

Tom_Waarne

Keep reading folks, it ain’t over.

December 2024

Raf

Decisions made in Washington, DC don’t stop at US borders. They extend globally, affecting economies, alliances, and cultures. For our neighbors in Canada, this means even small US policy changes hit hard, making it justifiable for Canadians to speak out. As American politics shape global trends, nations must stay alert and adapt swiftly to the political ripples, or at times, tsunamis.

1 reply
December 2024

gmbfly98

I would argue that it’s not government that is into too much in people’s lives, but society that is into too much in people’s lives. Government is just a subset of society. And what I mean by that is just look at Google and Apple and Amazon and Netflix and all of these company’s products that we use that track our location and search terms and habits. And it’s only getting worse with “AI” on the scene.

The thing is, government is a construct that we have come up with as a way to manage society, and in the US at least, it’s there to protect society from evildoers that are only looking out for themselves. That’s why cars and aircraft and medicine and such are as safe as they are - not because those companies decided to build better, safer products of their own decisions, but because they were forced to. Look at, for example, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire; regulations were created to prevent that from happening again.

It’s too naively simplistic to say “kill 2 regulations for every 1 created”, because some very useful regulations will get killed along with the less useful ones. The problem is, the real solution is to take a closer look at all of them and how they interact, and to cut out the useless ones or reshape them to be more useful. Sometimes that means reducing regulations, other times that might mean adding new ones for clarification. But that’s not a simple soundbyte that will trend.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ Rick_Ewart

RationalityKeith

Oh - another xenophobe fule.

Funny thing about the world’s longest hardly defended border - people cross it. They work, relax, play, romance, … What are you afraid of?

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ RationalityKeith

RationalityKeith

Many Americans work in Canada for varying amounts of time.
Many Americans vacation in Canada, some own vacation property in Canada.
Americans in the US buy products from Canada, including airplanes like the renowned CL415 aerial fire suppression tanker, high purity laboratory chemicals, log harvesting machines, and the natural gas people in Seattle like to use.

Canada even allows Americans to travel through Canada to get to Alaska, even during the SARS2 panicdemic.

Sometimes Americans are stoopid, like Boeing fomenting tariffs on the efficient Bombardier C-Series airliner - read up on how that backfired big time, including the response of a major US airline.

December 2024 ▶ Raf

RationalityKeith

Thankyou.
And there’s no shortage of Americans ranting about Canada.

One Congressperson inferred violence was needed because pasta makers in the US were importing durum wheat at lower price than being sold for in the US - where prices had risen because the US government subsidized export to Turkey where it was made into pasta that was sold into the US: double wham on pasta makers in the US.

(Funny thing about weather - it ignores those artificial lines on pieces of paper. So durum grows well in a diamond-shaped area of AB-MT-ND-SK.)

December 2024 ▶ Rick_Ewart

SL2

I’d ask you to define “woke”, but you clearly can’t. All you can do is bluster and spittle.

December 2024 ▶ Rick_Ewart

Aviatrexx

Rick, had you used a fraction of the effort that went into your high-dudgeon code-word-laden rant on perceived political biases in Russ’ article, and used it to proofread your own philippic, you might have noticed that your Primary Threat was exactly the opposite of what you intended: “I will longer subscribe to your WOKE publication”.

I trust you put more care into copying a clearance. Otherwise, I won’t be comfortable sharing the NAS with you, much less the AvWeb commentary.

December 2024 ▶ gmbfly98

RationalityKeith

Yes.
There is a mentality/psychology of adding rules to solve a problem - often instead of using existing laws or capabilities such as police feet on the street and detectives.
Do-gooders evade reality, I say.

December 2024

Cornice

MOSAIC (light sport aircraft regulations) were a joke from the beginning. The intent was clear, but what was written condemned people to toys that were both useless and unsafe to operate. That’s why $$Billions$$ were spent and today you never see a light sport aircraft in the air. They don’t serve any meaningful purpose. If you weigh over 100 pounds and want to travel more than 50 miles forget it. It was not an intentional start on meaningful revision of aircraft or pilot regulations. Now they want to tweak them just enough to make people think someday they will actually be able to fly a real aircraft. Doesn’t look like it to me. It’s Nancy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every step of the way. Either let people fly or just shut the whole thing down. There are enormous areas of the USA where you can fly for hours and never encounter a person or building or anything else. It’s the classic tyranny of those who live in cities imposing their highly limited view on those who live in a very different environment.

1 reply
December 2024

gmbfly98

While I agree that the original light-sport requirements were flawed, I would say it is not correct to say that no one flies them. There are some regularly-flying ones in the area where I fly, and I know several people who own or have owned one (including some older aircraft that also happen to fit within the current LSA rules).

Many of the LSAs I know of are also over-built to be able to support higher payloads. These are typically kit aircraft that can be built as E-LSA or non-LSA, and as far as I’m aware (at least for some of them), the only difference is what category they’re flight-tested as (i.e. a paperwork difference). I suspect this is because they hope that one day the LSA category will be expanded and now these E-LSAs can have a paperwork gross weight increase.

December 2024

SafetGuy

There is no “landslide” for Trump. He didn’t even get a majority of the vote, and in 2016, Hillary Clinton was ahead of him by more votes than Trump’s margin over Harris this year.

Still, he gets to be “president” again, so here we go. Regulatory review is certainly a valid objective, but beware of targets without rational basis. Why 2 for 1? Why not 27 for 1, or 1.6 for 1?

Because it sounds good. That’s it. And that’s not a good reason for regulatory anything.

So sure - direct a root-and-branch review of existing regulations for statutory basis, continued need, clarity, minimized complexity, and effectiveness. If they fail that analysis, do what’s necessary to adjust or repeal them. If they’re valid, leave them alone. But that says next to nothing about the need and justification for other regulatory actions based on other circumstances - so failing to implement new (and needed) regulations because existing regulations in other situations were reviewed and found to be valid seems like a really bad idea.

If you subscribe to the “all regulations stink” theory, well…go ahead and hack away. You’ll likely discover (for better or worse) why a lot of regulations exist. Chances are that it’s not because some bored bureaucrats came to work one morning and decided to invent new ways to annoy the public.

1 reply
December 2024

Raf

The “Two-for-One Rule” was intended to cut through bureaucratic red tape, but its lack of consideration for the interconnected nature of regulations has resulted in unintended and potentially dangerous consequences. Critical areas like safety, environmental protection, and public health have suffered from a policy that prioritizes numbers over nuance. Instead of a careful scalpel, this rule swings a sledgehammer, often causing more harm than good.

Sectors like aviation, healthcare, and public safety demand precision and context—not a one-size-fits-all approach tied to arbitrary quotas. While the rule may provide modest benefits for small businesses or tech innovation by reducing administrative burdens, its broader application is fraught with risks. It’s a classic case of putting optics ahead of impactful governance, trading short-term gains for long-term stability.

Summary of Grades

At the end of the day, the “Two-for-One Rule” is like cutting corners on a bridge—it may look like progress, but it compromises structural integrity. For sectors where lives, safety, and sustainability are on the line, meaningful reform needs to be more than a numbers game. Aviation and other industries deserve policies that focus on substance over showmanship, ensuring progress without flying blind.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ Raf

Larry_S

Wait a minute, Raf. You’re giving grades to areas of governing that have nothing to do with aviation? But assuming you’re assigning a grade based upon performance to date in those sectors of Governing, the incoming President hasn’t been in office for four years. So what is your point? You lost me.
Just tonight, I heard that the population had increased 2% in – I think it was five years? – but the cost of Government had gone up 50% during the same time. We cannot keep going this way; the economy will implode. And if nothing is done, nothing will change.
The FAA is a bloated, inefficient and top heavy entity. It IS time for it to back off. Their incessant hiding behind “safety” is getting old to me. In almost every interface I’ve had with them, they hide behind the FAR’s and do too little and do it WAY to slow. It’s as if throwing rocks in the path of progress is their main job. If we ‘say’ we want change, then things have to change … else they won’t. As the saying goes … ‘lead, follow or get out of the way.’
I’ve taken on mentoring a young man who has the aviation fever. I got him some intro books and realized when I picked up the FAR / AIM manual just how complicated it all is. It’s no darned wonder 80% of pilot starts don’t finish.
I hope MOSAIC doesn’t get slowed down or tossed as a result of the new MO BUT – that said – it’s also very sad to me that Congress has to order the FAA to get something done by a date certain. Even then, FAA is blowing some of it off. Basic Med came to be by Sen. Inhofe forcing it upon the FAA, as an example.
I – for one – look forward to seeing what comes of this idea. I’ll buy the gas for the chainsaw … I’d have the DOGErs start with canceling the NASA X-59!

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ Larry_S

Raf

Larry,
You’ve got solid points, and your focus on FAA reform cuts through a lot of noise. My comments on the “Two-for-One Rule” weren’t about assigning blame but pointing out how chopping regulations without considering their connections can cause problems in sectors like aviation. (Read GAO Report: Deregulatory Executive Orders Did Not Substantially Change Agencies’ Processes)

BTW, on government growth: between 2019 and 2023, federal spending jumped about 40%, from $4.45 trillion to $6.21 trillion, while the population only grew by about 1.8%—from 334 million to 340 million. That’s significant but not quite the 50% spending increase you mentioned.

The FAA’s inefficiency adds layers of baffling complexity. Sure, the FAR/AIM manual doesn’t help, but the 80% dropout rate among student pilots is a bigger issue. It’s not just about rules—it’s the cost of training, the time it takes, and keeping people motivated. Fixing that means tackling all those factors, not just trimming one manual.

Cutting programs like the X-59 might save some cash, but that kind of thinking risks losing innovation, which is as critical as maintaining safety. MOSAIC could be a big step forward, but the FAA’s habit of dragging its feet—needing Congress to force things like Basic Med—shows a deeper problem. What we need is targeted reform that improves efficiency without messing with the safety standards that make aviation the gold standard.

You are correct, we’ve got to keep pushing for fixes that actually make sense on the ground—and in the air.

Raf

December 2024 ▶ SafetGuy

jbmcnamee

Ooh, SafetGuy, be careful. You are making way too much sense here. Keep that up and you might wind up on The Donald’s enemies list! :wink:

December 2024 ▶ Larry_S

jbmcnamee

Hey Larry, welcome back! I was beginning to worry that you might have flown West or something. :wink:
On the subject of NASA, any thoughts on the new guy nominated to replace Bill Nelson?

But getting back to the subject at hand, I wonder if this might be one of those things that could be better served using AI for the regulatory review. All of those thousands of pages of “stuff” in the Federal Register are contained in computer files. Why not have them reviewed and analyzed by an AI algorithm instead of expecting humans to decide where to make changes or cuts? AI could easily review for duplications and/or contradictory standards and produce a list of where changes could/should be made. If properly set up, it could be done without political or human prejudice.
One other area where I think the Trump administration could make real change is to eliminate Congress’ habit of attaching riders to pending legislation that often have nothing to do with the intent of the law under consideration. If a piece of legislation has little or no chance of passage on its own, then it should not be sneaked abord a bill that has a better chance of being passed. AI could also scan pending legislation to spot such riders and call them out. True change comes from reasonable and logical analysis, not cute catch phrases or dumb photo ops.

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ jbmcnamee

LarryS

Thanks for your concern, JBM. No … I’ve been busy with some other things, made the transition to my winter place and – most of all – I don’t like the ‘new’ format compared to the ‘old’ AvWeb. I’ve been here reading … just been silent. All is OK here :sunglasses:

I absolutely agree with your AI idea. IF it’s all that everyone says it is – I don’t know anything about it – then it ought to be able to do what you propose. As to ‘line item legislation,’ I have long espoused that, as well. Problem is, getting THAT many people to agree on anything is tough so the carrot and stick method is the way they do it. I had a long talk with Sen. Inhofe about BasicMed at Airventure; he told me what he had to go thru to get enough Senators to sign onto the Bill containing the idea. And, I’ve sat on Boards where trying to get far fewer people to agree is tough so … I think we’re stuck with that MO in the Congress. But … I agree with you.
As for the new NASA nominee … I know nothing. What I DO know about is that NASA Dryden cum Armstrong ought to be ashamed of themselves for the waste of nearly $3/4 of a billion on two airplanes. The X-57 Maxwell yielded nearly nothing; not even a usable airplane meeting the spec. Even NASA recognized the folly and shut it down themselves. The X-59 is testing sonic booms on the population that I was involved with on another airplane (SSBD) over two decades ago. The follow-on testing ought to be done by whoever wants to fly an airliner style airplane supersonically … read: Boom Aerospace, et al. Those two programs are MY number one peeve with respect to NASA. And now they’re delaying the moon endeavors, as well. Meanwhile, the good Mr. Musk is showing them up at every turn. I think it’s time to shut NASA down and turn the projects over to private entities like SpaceX. Anytime the Government gets involved in anything … it gets mucked up. I spent 27 years on and near Edwards AFB so I know a thing or two about how NASA there operates. “Just throw money at everything … something will stick.” :unamused:

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ LarryS

LarryS

Another point just popped into my thoughts, JBM. Today, I heard that during the Reagan Administration, the Navy had 600 ships and was being run by 135 officers of Admiral rank. NOW, the Navy has half as many ships and has 400 Flag Officers and SES civilians running it… This info came from the former Commander of the USS Cole, BTW. THIS is the problem. Elon and Vivek need to get their chain saws out and start cutting but they don’t have anything but recommendation power. Still … one can hope.

December 2024 ▶ jbmcnamee

Raf

JBM: Read the memo to Larry. Excellent idea. I’ve all ready done that with Part 61. There are AI limitations, representing a good deal of work, but sets the organizational process well.

UPDATE:

The AI-assisted draft rewrite of Part 61 reduces the text by approximately 18,590 words, a 37% reduction in length, while retaining critical regulatory details. Readability is significantly improved, making the regulation more comprehensible and accessible to pilots, instructors, and regulators. This streamlined draft serves as an initial framework, but it requires further review, evaluation by stakeholders, and professional proofreading to ensure precision and clarity.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ Raf

Raf

In a nutshell and in ending, simplifying Federal Regulations, including CFR 14, is a large but feasible task. Spanning 188,343 pages across 245 volumes, the CFR covers areas from aeronautics to public health, 50 titles., and according to OpenAI, this effort would cost $30–$60 billion, take 10–15 years, and involve 32,500–35,000 people. All under a new agency under the name of the Federal Simplification and Efficiency Agency (FSEA). Got to have an acronym.

A Data-Driven Approach (hardware, software, algorithms, automation, and more) is key to identifying outdated rules and proposing efficient alternatives. By combining technology with expert and public feedback, the system can be modernized while preserving critical safeguards.

The Two-for-One policy, when applied thoughtfully, should help by targeting costly, redundant rules, merging overlapping ones, and ensuring essential regulations remain intact. Your tax payers $ at work.