DOGE and the FAA

[172andyou]

Motorcycle safety is in part up to the rider - don't be stupid, ride like you're invisible and everyone's trying to kill you. But I wouldn't say "mostly" up to the rider. The fact remains that at any time, a careless driver can kill you in ways that you cannot predict or prevent. This is different from aviation, where your safety is indeed mostly in your own hands. Other people's mistakes (whether pilots or ATC) can kill you, but those situations are less common, your fate is more in your own hands.

And, yet, 75% are single rider or motorcycle at fault. Which is, at least, 'mostly'. I mean, that's the same percentage required to amend the constitution and people view that as being borderline impossible. It's more than is required to defeat a filibuster, which has basically prevented congress from getting anything done lately.

It's also nearly identical to pilot related accidents in GA according to AOPA.

 

[JOhnH]

Perhaps someone with a WSJ subs could review their commentary and post the highlights?
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-an...wer-grab-fa51c020?mod=commentary_article_pos1

This is just the final paragraph:

With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

 

[AvNavCom]

And, yet, 75% are single rider or motorcycle at fault.

Without wanting to derail too much, I'm curious whether these numbers are just accidents or fatalities. If it's accidents, then it's going to include people laying down their bikes, losing control after wheelies, and other such tomfoolery. I suspect (without evidence, I admit, but from some experience) that the serious injuries and especially fatalities are rather more likely to involve another vehicle being a primary causal or at least significantly contributory factor. I also wonder if there is some element of tending to assume fault of the motorcycle rider, similar to the way in which "pilot error" is a catch-all for accidents without an obvious mechanical mechanism.

 

[wanttaja]

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

Whelp, looks like I'm looking for a new job then. No way they're going to drag me back to the city five days a week. Logical fallacy in equating work from home with "not showing up". I can do my job perfectly fine from my own desk, thanks very much. If they were really after cost savings they'd get rid of a ton of the office building square footage instead and let us work from home.

But it's the rich people who are going to work for DOGE for free that *own* those office buildings. Of course they're not going to support remote work. They want those office towers filled.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[JOhnH]

Without wanting to derail too much, I'm curious whether these numbers are just accidents or fatalities. If it's accidents, then it's going to include people laying down their bikes, losing control after wheelies, and other such tomfoolery. I suspect (without evidence, I admit, but from some experience) that the serious injuries and especially fatalities are rather more likely to involve another vehicle being a primary causal or at least significantly contributory factor. I also wonder if there is some element of tending to assume fault of the motorcycle rider, similar to the way in which "pilot error" is a catch-all for accidents without an obvious mechanical mechanism.

I live in the Daytona Beach area. Some call it the motorcycle capital of the world. I have personally seen many accidents. All of the serious ones did indeed involve another vehicle. Cars often pull out in front of oncoming motorcycles and are technically at fault. But IMNSHO, most of those wrecks could be avoided if the motorcyclist had been paying attention and driving defensively. It doesn't matter at all to the coroner if you were in the right. When you are approaching an intersection and there is a car there that obviously wants to pull out, assume he doesn't see you and WILL pull out. Slow down, be ready with the brakes and be looking for an escape route. Assume you are the prey and drive that way.

 

[midwestpa24]

I think that's generally true, although the existence of BasicMed suggests that some level of risk tolerance exists at the higher levels of leadership. The carnage we're willing to accept on our roads as the price of the minimal training and relative freedoms of driving in the USA are another. The benefits to the individual, at least, would be tremendous if it changes a 1-2 year wait into walking out with a CACI issuance. I think that BasicMed has been a wonderful success, despite some reservations expressed a few years back by some aeromedical colleagues at the FAA.

BasicMed was forced down the FAA's throat by Congress after over a decade of resistance to demands from the GA community and its representatives. Had it not been for Congressional force, the FAA would never have budged.

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

Whelp, looks like I'm looking for a new job then. No way they're going to drag me back to the city five days a week. Logical fallacy in equating work from home with "not showing up". I can do my job perfectly fine from my own desk, thanks very much. If they were really after cost savings they'd get rid of a ton of the office building square footage instead and let us work from home.

I visited DC this year and went through several Fed buildings. It was crazy the amount of office space occupied by Federal agencies that were completely empty. Entire floors of cubicles just dead and shutdown. The DOT and FAA spaces were ghost towns, with only enough staff in person to conduct the scheduled meetings with constituent groups like us that were visiting. I think there is some logic to if we aren't going to require in-person work, then why continue to own, heat, and maintain all of the space. That's without even getting into the conversation about productivity of remote versus in person.

 

[AvNavCom]

BasicMed was forced down the FAA's throat by Congress after over a decade of resistance to demands from the GA community and its representatives. Had it not been for Congressional force, the FAA would never have budged.

Precisely, and I think that goes to the point made by StraightnLevel, which is that the FAA leadership (especially the medical department) has very little incentive to take risks, and some perverse incentives to avoid innovation. The FAA budged essentially because the responsibility for the risk of BasicMed was shifted from them to Congress. An action such as increasing the ability of AMEs to issue a broader range of issuances will require either another outside intervention or someone in FAA leadership who is willing to take that risk on behalf of the pilot community. To her credit, Dr. Northrup is probably the most likely candidate of any of the Federal Air Surgeons in recent memory to advocate for such a move, but she still answers to the Administrator.

My own senior leadership is very much interested in asking "why". To apply that to the FAA, we (or an auditor) should be asking for hard data. When are physicals submitted, and when are they processed? Are they getting stuck at certain steps? To what extent does the diagnosis change the processing time? Should certain medical conditions still require a waiver? Can more be CACI conditions?

It may turn out that there are inefficiencies which can be fixed via process change or via technology (i.e. improved electronic notifications and document submission). It may also turn out that the process is as efficient as it can reasonably be and that the FAA simply needs more people to process the workload. Recently the military has been in the bad habit of having one person do the job of two or three people based on "efficiency" (and recruiting shortfalls, truthfully), which instead destroys efficiency (and morale, retention, training time...).

I think there is some logic to if we aren't going to require in-person work, then why continue to own, heat, and maintain all of the space. That's without even getting into the conversation about productivity of remote versus in person.

Spot on. The 9-5, five-day, in-person work-week is suboptimal and we have the data to prove it. Wildly expensive facilities are a waste of time when much of the work can be done virtually, at no cost to the government in terms of facilities and virtually no cost (perhaps a laptop and VPN access) regarding equipment. Productivity (and necessity for that position) can be measured in meeting goals/metrics and who gives a damn if you're doing that work at 9am or 9pm as long as it gets done. Workers don't waste time or money on commuting. Sell the buildings or lease out the majority of the space. Smaller facilities are easier to secure, cost less to maintain, and in-person requirements can be met with group meeting/working spaces. There's an odd sense that if you're not driving in and grinding out work at a desk, you're somehow not working "properly". That view is style over substance, and I hope we can someday get away from that old-fashioned thinking for administrative positions which genuinely don't require in-person presence.

 

[Crashnburn]

Precisely, and I think that goes to the point made by StraightnLevel, which is that the FAA leadership (especially the medical department) has very little incentive to take risks, and some perverse incentives to avoid innovation. The FAA budged essentially because the responsibility for the risk of BasicMed was shifted from them to Congress. An action such as increasing the ability of AMEs to issue a broader range of issuances will require either another outside intervention or someone in FAA leadership who is willing to take that risk on behalf of the pilot community. To her credit, Dr. Northrup is probably the most likely candidate of any of the Federal Air Surgeons in recent memory to advocate for such a move, but she still answers to the Administrator.

My own senior leadership is very much interested in asking "why". To apply that to the FAA, we (or an auditor) should be asking for hard data. When are physicals submitted, and when are they processed? Are they getting stuck at certain steps? To what extent does the diagnosis change the processing time? Should certain medical conditions still require a waiver? Can more be CACI conditions?

It may turn out that there are inefficiencies which can be fixed via process change or via technology (i.e. improved electronic notifications and document submission). It may also turn out that the process is as efficient as it can reasonably be and that the FAA simply needs more people to process the workload. Recently the military has been in the bad habit of having one person do the job of two or three people based on "efficiency" (and recruiting shortfalls, truthfully), which instead destroys efficiency (and morale, retention, training time...).


Spot on. The 9-5, five-day, in-person work-week is suboptimal and we have the data to prove it. Wildly expensive facilities are a waste of time when much of the work can be done virtually, at no cost to the government in terms of facilities and virtually no cost (perhaps a laptop and VPN access) regarding equipment. Productivity (and necessity for that position) can be measured in meeting goals/metrics and who gives a damn if you're doing that work at 9am or 9pm as long as it gets done. Workers don't waste time or money on commuting. Sell the buildings or lease out the majority of the space. Smaller facilities are easier to secure, cost less to maintain, and in-person requirements can be met with group meeting/working spaces. There's an odd sense that if you're not driving in and grinding out work at a desk, you're somehow not working "properly". That view is style over substance, and I hope we can someday get away from that old-fashioned thinking for administrative positions which genuinely don't require in-person presence.

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

 

[AvNavCom]

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

Sure, horses for courses and all that. There's a large contingent of people who need to be in-person to do their work. I'm usually one of them. There's also a large (probably too large) contingent of people who genuinely don't need to be physically present and in fact may do better work for less cost to the employer. I'm temporarily one of them, and hate my hour-long commute in DC traffic. Haha!

 

[Baked Potato]

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

I support IT systems for a division within my agency. I occasionally need physical access to specific resources and can go in to the office when needed, and absolutely do so when it helps any of my users. But I certainly don't need to be there five days per week.

In fact, when we were in emergency mode in the spring of 2020, the workflow changes that I developed and the additional tools that I acquired to facilitate work from home have helped to make the users that I support much more productive, at least in the little sphere over which I have influence. And I've got the metrics to prove it.

 

[Bob Noel]

I do love the concept of remote working... When I was supporting a USAF program office (a variety of them over time), those military types had a real hard time with people supporting them without being RIGHT THERE IN THE DANG CUBICLE WHERE I CAN REACH AND TOUCH THEM.

Maybe it's improved now.

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires? How do you facilitate cross-discipline informal informationi flow? to name a couple of things that happen with in-person work.

Now, about those TPS reports...

 

[Baked Potato]

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires?

Ensuring your procedures are all documented and up-to-date, lots of Teams meetings with screen sharing, and a lot of QC of the new hire's work

 

[Flatiowa]

Not to worry, any job that can be done remotely will be done by artificial intelligence in a few years, and when artificial intelligence really gets rolling it will go full sky net and look back at the lockdowns of 2020 to determine “essential” and “non essential” workers and cull the herd to save the world from environmental collapse caused by over population/consumption…. Being sarcastic obviously, but also in a way a little bit serious.

 

[ateamer]

I've never seen a number that large. Do you remember where you read it?


Motorcycle safety is mostly up the rider as well. Something like 75% of of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle or motorcycle at fault.

And when the rider hasn’t been drinking and doesn’t treat the road like a race track, the chances of a crash are way less. When they wear a full-face helmet the chances of a fatality drop sharply. Adding a jacket and gloves greatly increases quality of life after a crash.

 

[pfarber]

The Falcon 9 was a great success, but not quite that good. NASA provided 278M, which I suspect is where the 300M came from, but in total was 423M (550M in 2024 dollars). And it took more like ten years, because the Falcon 1 was an R&D stepping stone to the 9.

Further, since everyone is excited about the resusable stuff lately, the reusable Falcon 9 was closer to 2B.

If you're going to quote the wiki, please post all the relevant parts:

SpaceX developed Falcon 9 with private capital as well, but did have pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights once specific capabilities were demonstrated. Milestone-specific payments were provided under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program in 2006.[29][30] The NASA contract was structured as a Space Act Agreement (SAA) "to develop and demonstrate commercial orbital transportation service",[30] including the purchase of three demonstration flights.[31] The overall contract award was US$278 million to provide three demonstration launches of Falcon 9 with the SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft. Additional milestones were added later, raising the total contract value to US$396 million.[32][33] (Emphasis mine)

NASA did EXACTLY what I proposed... you want money? Hit specific milestones. If SpaceX didn't perform, NASA owed them NOTHING.

Again from the wiki:
"In 2011, SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were approximately US$300 million.[36] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used.[37] A 2011 NASA report "estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes" while "a more commercial development" approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion".[38]"

That there is what we call a smoking gun. 100% proof that NASA is bloated agency that should not be in the business of building ANYTHING. At most NASA should be little more than a project manager and keep its museum pieces in order.

What NASA does for its funding is they throw money at a project that is little more than an idea. Then keep adding money (and keep bureaucrats/management employed). If there was a published RFP and commercial companies bid on it, and raised their own funds to deliver the project THEN they get reimbursed the contract amount we would already have a moon base and be on our way to mars.