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
Aviation: D
Environmental Regulation: D-
Healthcare: F
Small Business/Economy: B-
Energy: C
Financial Regulation: C-
Technology: C+
Education: C
Transportation: C-
Public Health and Safety: F
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.
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!
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.
Hey Larry, welcome back! I was beginning to worry that you might have flown West or something.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
