Part 61 rewrite status

P

poadeleted20

Deleted
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
31,250
In case anyone was wondering, according to my source in AFS-800, the Part 61 rewrite that was first published as an NPRM back two years ago last month was finally signed off by everyone in the FAA (including the Acting Administrator) last month and sent up to DoT for approval. Only problem is the President's order to hold all regulatory changes until his new appointees (including the new SecTrans) get up to speed. How long will that take? :dunno:
 
Ron, you should offer yourself for the job. Or, do you still owe taxes as well? :)

Are the changes only as has been previously published or are there other surprises?
 
KennyFlys said:
Ron, you should offer yourself for the job. Or, do you still owe taxes as well? :)
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge, but it seems Mr. Obama is better taken with an airline pilots union chief than a GA pilot/instructor.
Are the changes only as has been previously published or are there other surprises?
Click to expand...
Nobody outside the FAA gets to see what changes were made from the NPRM to the FR until it's approved and published, and those who know are sworn to secrecy.
 
The way things have gone in the FAA of late, I'd see a manager/former hooker from the Cadillac Ranch as better qualified to lead than those who have been picked.
 
KennyFlys said:
The way things have gone in the FAA of late, I'd see a manager/former hooker from the Cadillac Ranch as better qualified to lead than those who have been picked.
Click to expand...

Do you spout off like that in person with the FSDO people, or just on line?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Do you spout off like that in person with the FSDO people, or just on line?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Its not like he's wrong....

Hookers can manage money properly, hookers can impartially administer services, and hookers are actually efficient.

Last time I looked, the FAA was the most wasteful, useless organization this side of the TSA.
 
Trapper John said:
How do you come to that conclusion? What do you compare to, or against?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I take it you don't fly.

Understandable.

Go for a flight some time, and observe what you see with controllers, with airport infrastructure, and what you see with taxes in fuel prices, and tell me that there's not a plethora of money available to do pretty much anything possible....

Where's the money going? Where's the money going.

edit: Get a license and wait for your permanent to come in the mail. Curious how it takes months to come, when you can get a driver's licence in less than a week usually, yet there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more drivers than pilots...

Where is the money going?

There are less than 5,000 airports nationwide, some in horrible disrepair....the FAA has a monsterous budget, but can't pave a couple miles of runway here and there?

Where's the money going?

That's it for efficiency. There's a LOT more, but efficiency has been shown here.

Give me a hooker over Lynne Osmus anyday. At least the hooker will give me a deal for my money.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
I take it you don't fly.

Understandable.

Go for a flight some time, and observe what you see with controllers, with airport infrastructure, and what you see with taxes in fuel prices, and tell me that there's not a plethora of money available to do pretty much anything possible....

Where's the money going? Where's the money going.
Click to expand...


How about specifics? Unless you don't have any...

I don't have any issues at all with controllers. All the ones I've dealt with have been professional and competent, and for the most part, pleasant. Occasionally, a trainee may be a little hard to follow when he talks too fast into the ATIS recorder, but everyone's got to learn, right?

Airport infrastructure? Are you saying there's too much?

As far as fuel taxes go, we've established that they're too low, just a week or so ago.

If you want to know where the money goes, look at the GAO site...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
How about specifics? Unless you don't have any...

I don't have any issues at all with controllers. All the ones I've dealt with have been professional and competent, and for the most part, pleasant. Occasionally, a trainee may be a little hard to follow when he talks too fast into the ATIS recorder, but everyone's got to learn, right?

Airport infrastructure? Are you saying there's too much?

As far as fuel taxes go, we've established that they're too low, just a week or so ago.

If you want to know where the money goes, look at the GAO site...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Perhaps you concluded fuel taxes are too low, but that opinion is not unanimous.

As far as efficiency of the FAA -- mixing apples and oranges.

Airports are nearly all locally controlled/owned. Many towers are contract (and thus run by a private company). The FAA doesn't build runways, airports, hangars, or restaurants. The FAA doesn't keep the runway plowed at any of the airports I use, doesn't replace the light bulbs in the PAPI, and doesn't shoo the deer off the taxiways.

Is there inefficiency in the entire system? Of course. All systems have inefficiencies.

Yet some of the "inefficiencies" are in the eye of the (sometimes jaundiced) beholder.

For example -- it sure is inefficient to pay a bunch of folks to sit in a building, practicing on expensive equipment (that may go unused for years).

But Crash/Fire/Rescue sure is nice to have when you need it.
 
The only issue I have with the FAA are the gray areas in how the FARs are written. They are so vague and left open for interpretation, you can pretty much get busted for anything.
 
dmccormack said:
Perhaps you concluded fuel taxes are too low, but that opinion is not unanimous.

As far as efficiency of the FAA -- mixing apples and oranges.

Airports are nearly all locally controlled/owned. Many towers are contract (and thus run by a private company). The FAA doesn't build runways, airports, hangars, or restaurants. The FAA doesn't keep the runway plowed at any of the airports I use, doesn't replace the light bulbs in the PAPI, and doesn't shoo the deer off the taxiways.

Is there inefficiency in the entire system? Of course. All systems have inefficiencies.

Yet some of the "inefficiencies" are in the eye of the (sometimes jaundiced) beholder.

For example -- it sure is inefficient to pay a bunch of folks to sit in a building, practicing on expensive equipment (that may go unused for years).

But Crash/Fire/Rescue sure is nice to have when you need it.
Click to expand...

Agree. But Nick was claiming that FAA is horrendously wasteful, but isn't apparently able to come up with a concrete example. It would be one thing to say, "I think FAA is tremendously wasteful because they are X years and Y billions of dollars behind on NextGen, and even the benefit of NextGen is mysterious to me, as a typical GA pilot, compared to my trusty controller, GPS and mode-C transponder." Or, "FAA spends C% on administrative salaries, but other parts of the DoT spend only B%, therefore they need to watch their overhead." But all we get is the constant railing against FAA, without which, we'd be pretty well stuck...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Agree. But Nick was claiming that FAA is horrendously wasteful, but isn't apparently able to come up with a concrete example. It would be one thing to say, "I think FAA is tremendously wasteful because they are X years and Y billions of dollars behind on NextGen, and even the benefit of NextGen is mysterious to me, as a typical GA pilot, compared to my trusty controller, GPS and mode-C transponder." Or, "FAA spends C% on administrative salaries, but other parts of the DoT spend only B%, therefore they need to watch their overhead." But all we get is the constant railing against FAA, without which, we'd be pretty well stuck...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I agree -- evidence to support an assertion is always a nice thing.
 
Trapper John said:
Agree. But Nick was claiming that FAA is horrendously wasteful, but isn't apparently able to come up with a concrete example. It would be one thing to say, "I think FAA is tremendously wasteful because they are X years and Y billions of dollars behind on NextGen, and even the benefit of NextGen is mysterious to me, as a typical GA pilot, compared to my trusty controller, GPS and mode-C transponder." Or, "FAA spends C% on administrative salaries, but other parts of the DoT spend only B%, therefore they need to watch their overhead." But all we get is the constant railing against FAA, without which, we'd be pretty well stuck...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I'm not digging up evidence to prove that the pig that rolled in the mud is actually covered in mud either.....some things can be taken at face value....

But now its your turn - how would we be stuck if not for an organization that is out to destroy GA, not help us? An organization that was formed because airline pilots couldn't control their "air grab" enough to not kill a bunch of people. An organization that can't even get their own employees behind them?

Face it, the FAA exists to destroy GA and give the skies to the airlines.
 
SkyHog said:
I'm not digging up evidence to prove that the pig that rolled in the mud is actually covered in mud either.....some things can be taken at face value....

But now its your turn - how would we be stuck if not for an organization that is out to destroy GA, not help us? An organization that was formed because airline pilots couldn't control their "air grab" enough to not kill a bunch of people. An organization that can't even get their own employees behind them?

Face it, the FAA exists to destroy GA and give the skies to the airlines.
Click to expand...

Ummm....

You're confusing bureaucratic preference with malicious intent.

If the FAA was replaced with the ABC tomorrow, the airlines would be preferred.

Why?

The airlines have more political clout, have fewer total units, with far fewer exceptions.

Bureaucracies don't do well with small, many, and lots of exceptions.
 
SkyHog said:
I'm not digging up evidence to prove that the pig that rolled in the mud is actually covered in mud either.....some things can be taken at face value....
Click to expand...

Because you can't support your statement, or your won't? And you haven't provided any "face value", either.

But now its your turn - how would we be stuck if not for an organization that is out to destroy GA, not help us? An organization that was formed because airline pilots couldn't control their "air grab" enough to not kill a bunch of people. An organization that can't even get their own employees behind them?
Click to expand...

This is too bizarre and absurd to respond to.

Face it, the FAA exists to destroy GA and give the skies to the airlines.
Click to expand...

Again...provide something to support your statement. If you can...


Trapper John
 
The proprieties will be observed at all times, including the need for civility here outside the SZ. Please tone down the rhetoric.
 
Trapper John said:
This is too bizarre and absurd to respond to.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read the post you quoted earlier, you'll see there's more substance (I edited it while you were replying, it would appear).

As for bizarre? You tell me, why was the FAA formed?
 
I've yet to see a government agency that wasn't extremely wasteful. Government does few things right and nearly nothing well. The FAA is no exception.

I have no doubt there is someone in that agency more than qualified to take the helm. If the powers that be were smart, they would seek out such a person. But, political favors and clout count for more than experience.

Even the rules process that has gone for for years is extremely wasteful. It has been known since the last re-write issue in 1997 that changes needed to be made to existing rules. But, for some reason it takes many years longer for issues of safety to come up than the few weeks for writing and issuance of a few bills spending some three trillion bucks.

Government is wasteful and this delay continues to prove so. Now, a needed rule change will sit on someone's desk because they are inefficient and illogical in their choice of department heads.
 
SkyHog said:
If you go back and read the post you quoted earlier, you'll see there's more substance (I edited it while you were replying, it would appear).

As for bizarre? You tell me, why was the FAA formed?
Click to expand...

So you're mad it took a long time to get a copy of your permanent certificate? That's the only concrete thing I've seen, and while it's inconvenient, it's hardly dramatic, nor is it evidence of a wasteful agency.


Trapper John
 
Everskyward said:
Yes, a number of times in different locations.

So is your solution no ATC, everything uncontrolled?
Click to expand...

Well, of course not. The Airlines caused the FAA to be created, the FAA should, then, be the Airlines' problems, not GA's.

Unfortunately, the FAA is deadset on charging us for the Airline's system.
 
Fire/EMS and law enforcement are a necessary function of government. A uniformed military is a necessary function of government.

There are many things done in government that are not necessary and while I cannot pinpoint an area (outside of addressing these rule changes) where that is indeed the case within the FAA, I have no doubt that is a problem somewhere within.

My whole point earlier is there is delay due to ineffectiveness of government. That shouldn't be the case.
 
SkyHog said:
Unfortunately, the FAA is deadset on charging us for the Airline's system.
Click to expand...
Like I pointed out in another thread, there are plenty of airports which have ATC and have a big proportion of GA or are GA only. Why should the airlines pay for that?
 
Everskyward said:
Like I pointed out in another thread, there are plenty of airports which have ATC and have a big proportion of GA or are GA only. Why should the airlines pay for that?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. There's probably not much need for ATC there. If you took the airlines away, it probably falls below the threshold.

If it doesn't, we don't need ATC to be safe... you've got 3 planes on downwind, and you're entering downwind, where do ya go? Behind #3. Where does ATC put ya? Behind #3. Same diff, just a chance for a PD if you do something wrong.

Again, if not for Airlines, we would not have the FAA. So why is it our problem now?
 
Everskyward said:
Like I pointed out in another thread, there are plenty of airports which have ATC and have a big proportion of GA or are GA only. Why should the airlines pay for that?
Click to expand...
TO keep us out of their way. Imagine if flight training were going on at KORD instead of KPWK? The airlines should be paying part of the bill for KPWK just because it keeps traffic out of their hair at KORD.

This was the big complaint of the NW Airlines CEO up in MN. He felt he should not have to help pay for all reliver airports around St. Paul. Yet by helping to pay for those he was able to have more operations at his main airport. He was benefitting from what he was paying for. Shouldn't that be the goal of any business?
 
Out beyond aviation issues and into non-aviation politics. Thread closed.

On second thought, offending posts removed -- with prejudice. Next one doing non-aviation politics gets referred to MC and the thread closed.
 
Last edited:
Nick, but I have to take issue with your statement. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is perfect, overall I have found myself generally pleased with the service I get from the FAA. Oklahoma City is not the fastest bunch of people in the world, but they have a system in place that (so far) has gotten me two plastic cards in relatively fast order (I'm waiting for the third as I type). I've been ramp checked by an FAA representative who was courteous, professional, and friendly.

I work with FAA regulations on a daily basis. The majority of the ones I see are logical, and are written in the blood of those who either 1) determined the hard way there should be a regulation or 2) proved that failure to follow the regulation may cost you dearly. Compare this to a number of other industries or activities that are regulated in some way, shape, or form by the government, and I would actually argue that the FAA's regulations are, in many cases, reasonable and logical.

ATC is NOT just an extra set of eyes. When you're flying IFR, they're your only eyes, unless you're one of the folks out there who has TCAS. Even if you did have TCAS, would you really want to be shooting an approach to minimums, knowing that the departure procedure is to follow the back course of the ILS out? How about taking off knowing someone could be on the ILS inbound? When you're in the middle of nowhere, it's probably not a big deal. However for conested airspace, ATC is a life saver. I want to have someone on the other end of the radio when something goes wrong who knows where I am. Maybe around Albuquerque your experience is different, but I have four different bravos within about 90 minutes of flying time from my home base. I have flown in and around those bravos repeatedly, and have been glad to have ATC there. The service they provide is not at all crappy (although I have had a few times when I've had complaints, and filed my ASRS reports accordingly), and it is one that I have no problem with us paying for.

I don't know how much it actually costs to run all of this. I do believe there is waste in the budget, but infrastructure is really, really expensive. It's going to cost a lot of money to operate. I am personally fine with this, because I do appreciate having it there. Sure, there is a lot of romance and appeals to the days of Sky King when you could fly your T-50 or 310 around and just land wherever you felt like, but that's not how things are, at least not these days.

We as a society should always push for things to be better. Complacency and settling will never show a forward progression in society. That does not mean that we should bash what presently exists. A lot of times, you don't see how a good system works for you because al the things behind the scenes are just that - behind the scenes. They still cost money, time, and effort.
 
picture.php


To get this back on track... Ron, do you have a link to some of the proposed changes?
 
Ron, do you have a link to anything which might indicate what they may be thinking about? If not a link, any inside info?
 
And Ted, don't forget the role of the FAA in actually creating those procedures in the first place. The airlines don't have much incentive to have instrument approaches to a small airport that's not serving as a reliever to one of their behemoths.
 
SkyHog said:
They shouldn't. There's probably not much need for ATC there. If you took the airlines away, it probably falls below the threshold.
Click to expand...
You haven't been to many busy GA airports, have you? I wouldn't want to see KAPA uncontrolled, let alone KTEB and many others I can name. Also, many of these airports receive federal funding for improvements. I guess we wouldn't have any IFR approaches either because there would be no one to develop or implement them. Well, maybe some private company would, but they wouldn't do it for free so you would end up paying anyway.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nobody outside the FAA gets to see what changes were made from the NPRM to the FR until it's approved and published, and those who know are sworn to secrecy.
Click to expand...
If I were you I would not bet money on that. In any NPRM situation I have been involved with, industry experts often are brought in to consult and develop the final text. I doubt that the FAA runs differently than any other agency in the goverment is this aspect of rulemaking. The final rule and its drafts is probably known in a few circles but is not avialble to the general public.
 
smigaldi said:
If I were you I would not bet money on that. In any NPRM situation I have been involved with, industry experts often are brought in to consult and develop the final text. I doubt that the FAA runs differently than any other agency in the goverment is this aspect of rulemaking. The final rule and its drafts is probably known in a few circles but is not avialble to the general public.
Click to expand...
There may be outsiders on the regulatory advisory committee, but they are sworn to secrecy about what happens after the comment period closes and before the Final Rule is published.
 
Ron Levy said:
There may be outsiders on the regulatory advisory committee, but they are sworn to secrecy about what happens after the comment period closes and before the Final Rule is published.
Click to expand...
Depends. I have been on committees for the DOJ, DOD, DOC and DOS and was only once sworn to secrecy and that was due to the national defense subject matter of one of the subjects. The rest of the time I was personally under no such obligation, but the company I was a member of did have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. All that prevented the company from doing was to mention the text publicaly. It did not disallow internal discussions. At no time was the information classifed and secret, so no secrecy oaths were required
 
What I don't understand was that Obama's executive order putting a hold on all rulemaking apparently didn't affect the SFRA, but DOES affect the Part 61 rewrite?

Oh, wait, the FoD don't care about the 61 rewrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top