Part 61 rewrite status

[ScottM]

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.

Tim,

The SFRA became a permanent rule on 15 Dec 2008. Obama was not in office for another month so there is no way he could retroactively repeal the final rule.

The effective date for the rule to be enacted was in Feb of this year. But that is just a moot point by then. To overturn the rule would have required Congressional interaction or a new rule proposal.


http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-12-16_adiz.asp

 

[kevin47881]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-1467.htm is the NPRM. Beyond that, all I know is that the folks in the office which writes this part of the rules want to get it finalized and implemented yesterday, if not sooner.

Thank you, Sir.

 

[Ted]

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.

Excellent point, Grant, and most correct.

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim,

The SFRA became a permanent rule on 15 Dec 2008. Obama was not in office for another month so there is no way he could retroactively repeal the final rule.

The effective date for the rule to be enacted was in Feb of this year. But that is just a moot point by then. To overturn the rule would have required Congressional interaction or a new rule proposal.


http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-12-16_adiz.asp

Not quite - He has already "rolled back" rulemaking by executive order that went final before he took office. I agree that the rule became permanent, but the FAA WAS ordered to review it, and could have delayed/denied implementation if they'd wanted to (and of the FoD wasn't still pushing for it).

 

[ScottM]

Not quite - He has already "rolled back" rulemaking by executive order that went final before he took office. I agree that the rule became permanent, but the FAA WAS ordered to review it, and could have delayed/denied implementation if they'd wanted to (and of the FoD wasn't still pushing for it).

Again President Obama was NOT the president in December of 2008. Therefore when the SFRA rule became FINAL on the 15th of December 2008 that was it. In January when Obama did take office the only rules he could roll back where those that had not become FINAL rules and were still in the PENDING period to become final rules. There is a bunch of process stuff here that can really get interesting if you are into that sort of thing.

 

[TMetzinger]

The rulemaking was final in December. It didn't go into EFFECT until February. The FAA did in fact conduct a cursory "review" of the rule as demanded by Obama's Executive Order, and found that the rule was already Final, and that it was still needed. The NCR (National Capital Region) security folks also weighed in, and the rule went into effect as scheduled.

What AOPA/EAA had hoped for was a longer "review" process so they could marshal resistance to it. They didn't get the time. So now either congressional action or an Executive Order would be needed to get rid of the SFRA (new rulemaking COULD do it, but it's not likely).

I'm very familiar with the process, having been involved with rulemaking on the federal side as well as being a consultant on the private side. Unfortunately, my attempts to be a voice of reason always failed, and as a result you have to sign for your psuedoephedrine, and some of the uglier provisions of CALEA were made law.

In general the folks who regulate industries and activities pay very little attention to the "systems" effect their regulations have, or any sort of Cost/Benefit analysis. This only gets worse when there's external pressure placed on the agency (like by the TSA or USSS on the FAA). The FAA actually is in my opinion one of the better agencies when it comes to rulemaking process, when they're left alone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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

Um, Nick...

There are a lot of VERY busy controlled fields that DO NOT HAVE ANY AIRLINE SERVICE WHATSOEVER. Mari's home field at Centennial is one of them. There are many others. Teterboro. Addison. Palwaukee (I am NOT going to call it "Chicago Executive"). Du Page. Westchester. Ellington. etc. etc...

There is a lot of government waste and regulation, but frankly, the FAR's make more sense than any other group of government regs I've ever seen, by far. Yes, there's some level of waste, but not nearly as much as you might think. I, for one, am really glad for the many millions of dollars per year we spend for John and his friends to go out and fly a jet to a lot of small airports so that we have instrument approaches available. Even though the airlines are the biggest user of ATC, I'm really happy that they're there, from the sleepy Timmerman Tower controllers, the many TRACONs (except Chicago), and all the way up to the excellent Center controllers that let us little flivvers go direct much more often than the airliners get to (or so it seems to me, at least).

I'm not sure exactly what your issue really is... ???

 

[TMetzinger]

From my interaction with the FAA, the biggest inefficiencies seem to come from the various fiefdoms internal battles. And then you have battles within the fiefdoms, where different FSDOs (all part of flight standards) can't agree or get along. These battles, and what seems to be to be a corresponding lack of authority (or willingness to use it) on the part of the various major program managers is probably responsible for the various delays with ATC modernization. Having a hostile union(s) doesn't help, nor does the fact that the ATC system is quite frankly very very complex, and there's a lack of will to understand and accept that by the time you get something that big and complex replaced in a way that doesn't interfere with current service it will have to be somewhat out of date. The technology simply advances faster than it can be deployed.

I'm personally aware of a local CFI who left several messages with her school's inspector at the Baltimore FSDO over months. None were returned, nor was any e-mail answered. She finally asked someone in the Washington FSDO for the answer. The Washington FSDO guy forwarded her question to the Baltimore FSDO guy with what probably came across as a criticism to service his customers. The Baltimore FSDO guy called up the flight school owner and manager and chewed on them for the actions of the CFI.

The question's STILL not answered.

That sort of behavior would cause both the Baltimore and the DC FSDO guys to be fired in any well-run private company.

In lots of government agencies the HQ guys fight amongst themselves and with other agencies, and the field guys generally work to get the job done, cooperating with each other. That's not my experience with the FAA.

The FAASTEAM seems to work a bit better - it's broken up into regions and the federal program managers may have an office in a FSDO but they don't work FOR the FSDO. When I've had the occasion to talk to other FAASTEAM folks outside my region it's (so far) been a pleasant experience.

I agree with Kent (as I said earlier) that the FARs are some of the best written regs in the Federal space. Compare them to the Tax code sometime, or OSHA or EPA regs. Yes, they could be better.

 

[ScottM]

The rulemaking was final in December. It didn't go into EFFECT until February. The FAA did in fact conduct a cursory "review" of the rule as demanded by Obama's Executive Order, and found that the rule was already Final, and that it was still needed.

Good then nothing I said should have been a surprise to you and you now you know that the effective date of implementation had nothing to do with the ability of the president to turn over the final rule. . The only way that the Obama administration could have rolled back a final rule, such as the SFRA, would have been to request Congress to use their authority under the Congressional Review Act and bring it to a vote on the floor where a simple majority would have over turned the final rule. There is a short window of opportunity for this to occur after a rule has been made final, something like 60 days if memory serves.

 

[poadeleted20]

Personally, I've found the Baltimore FSDO to be very responsive and helpful in all my engagements with them.

 

[KennyFlys]

Personally, I've found the Baltimore FSDO to be very responsive and helpful in all my engagements with them.

Ditto with San Antonio FSDO.

Of course, we've got 'em hooked on our Baron 55's. Different inspectors come up often for currency flights. Last week, one was gonna take a ride in our old straight-tail Skyhawk until we noticed the registration certificate was missing.

 

[tonycondon]

PJ - Post of the Week!

 

[Palmpilot]

There are a lot of VERY busy controlled fields that DO NOT HAVE ANY AIRLINE SERVICE WHATSOEVER. Mari's home field at Centennial is one of them. There are many others. Teterboro. Addison. Palwaukee (I am NOT going to call it "Chicago Executive"). Du Page. Westchester. Ellington. etc. etc...

Palo Alto would be a disaster without a tower, and there is certainly no scheduled airline service here. A little air taxi stuff I guess.

 

[Joe B]

From my interaction with the FAA, the biggest inefficiencies seem to come from the various fiefdoms internal battles.

Whooohoooo. Anybody remember the 10 years and $2Billion that the WAAS program went over budget? Or the decades and billions that the FAA spent on rewriting the ATC Center software, only to scrap it all? Flown an MLS lately? Yessir, those boys down at the FAA really are efficient....

 

[Ted]

Whooohoooo. Anybody remember the 10 years and $2Billion that the WAAS program went over budget? Or the decades and billions that the FAA spent on rewriting the ATC Center software, only to scrap it all? Flown an MLS lately? Yessir, those boys down at the FAA really are efficient....

I don't think Tim was declaring the FAA to be a paragon of efficiency, nor do I think anyone else has. The point is that everyone seems to complain about the FAA, when in reality we get a lot of good stuff from them. There is always room for improvement. That doesn't mean that we should criticize so heavily for something that is less than heavenly perfection.

 

[KennyFlys]

Geeze, what a concept! One should practice what they preach.

 

[dmccormack]

Whooohoooo. Anybody remember the 10 years and $2Billion that the WAAS program went over budget? Or the decades and billions that the FAA spent on rewriting the ATC Center software, only to scrap it all? Flown an MLS lately? Yessir, those boys down at the FAA really are efficient....

An the contractor for WAAS was....?

(http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Airport-Review-95/WILCOX-LED-TEAM-WINS-475M-WAAS-CONTRACT.html)

And the contractor for the Advanced Automation System....?

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E1DB113EF937A25757C0A962958260)

Let's toss in FS21, also (Lockheed-Martin)

 

[TMetzinger]

An the contractor for WAAS was....?

(http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Airport-Review-95/WILCOX-LED-TEAM-WINS-475M-WAAS-CONTRACT.html)

And the contractor for the Advanced Automation System....?

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E1DB113EF937A25757C0A962958260)

Let's toss in FS21, also (Lockheed-Martin)

Before we go blaming contractors, remember that the MANAGEMENT of these programs normally remains in the hands of the Gov't, and the one of the key things that normally leads to overruns is changes in requirements from those originally specified.

I've been on both sides of the table (Gov't and Contractor) for projects and in over 90% of the situations where things came in over budget or late, it was due to errors/changes on the government side. Sometimes we just drastically underestimated and misstated the complexity of the task, sometimes we had changes brought about by legislation, and sometimes we had delays because we didn't respond as called for in the approved schedule.

 

[dmccormack]

Before we go blaming contractors, remember that the MANAGEMENT of these programs normally remains in the hands of the Gov't, and the one of the key things that normally leads to overruns is changes in requirements from those originally specified.

I've been on both sides of the table (Gov't and Contractor) for projects and in over 90% of the situations where things came in over budget or late, it was due to errors/changes on the government side. Sometimes we just drastically underestimated and misstated the complexity of the task, sometimes we had changes brought about by legislation, and sometimes we had delays because we didn't respond as called for in the approved schedule.

Agree -- completely.

But it takes two to tango. Laying ALL the blame at the FAA's feet may be good venting, but doesn't responsibly assess blame.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Imagine if flight training were going on at KORD instead of KPWK?

My dad did his training at DTW.
And - he landed his Navion gear up on one of the (at the time) two parallel runways shutting it down for an hour or so... (probably 21R)

Really.

 

[Ted]

Before we go blaming contractors, remember that the MANAGEMENT of these programs normally remains in the hands of the Gov't, and the one of the key things that normally leads to overruns is changes in requirements from those originally specified.

I've been on both sides of the table (Gov't and Contractor) for projects and in over 90% of the situations where things came in over budget or late, it was due to errors/changes on the government side. Sometimes we just drastically underestimated and misstated the complexity of the task, sometimes we had changes brought about by legislation, and sometimes we had delays because we didn't respond as called for in the approved schedule.

This reminds me of some projects I've been involved with. The visualization is something like this:

Close up:

 

[TMetzinger]

On one job we BEGGED the Gov't to make the contract be completely T&M, but nope, they said "do this stuff for a firm fixed price and we'll handle changes as T&M." The PM wanted to be T&M but the Contracting shop insisted there be FFP to "minimize risk to the government".

So, we put out our FFP bid for about $5M, being very specific in our response where the Gov't had been vague (to minimize our risk). We also specified a formal change order process where any change or out-of-scope work would generate a $2500 flat fee which covered the cost of analyzing the change and providing the schedule/cost impacts and LOE and SOW for the T&M work. The PM actually liked that provision, because he could tell the folks requesting the change "it's gonna cost you $2500 just to look at this, are you SURE you need it?".

$1M in change fees (400 changes later) at the end of the year, they'd spent $4M in T&M in addition to the $5M in FFP, for a total of $10M. We could have done it ALL under T&M for $5.5M. All that waste because the Contract shop didn't want to listen to the PM (who actually knew when T&M was appropriate and when FFP is).

So sometimes you can't even blame the PMs.

In general, at least down at the "working" level of the contractors (PMs, managers, techies) I haven't found any real desire to "screw" the government. Even higher up the attitude seems to be "Well, SOMEBODY's gonna make a lot of money off this horrible process, it might as well be us." With that said, I've never worked in the Defense sector, only the Civilian Agencies side, so DoD contracting might be a whole different story.

 

[dmccormack]

In general, at least down at the "working" level of the contractors (PMs, managers, techies) I haven't found any real desire to "screw" the government. Even higher up the attitude seems to be "Well, SOMEBODY's gonna make a lot of money off this horrible process, it might as well be us." With that said, I've never worked in the Defense sector, only the Civilian Agencies side, so DoD contracting might be a whole different story.

Nope, DoD is just as hosed.

But the strategy in DoD is to get the PMO in deep enough that they have to plus you up to finish the project.

It's downright artistic, at times.

A certain contractor with the FS21 contract has this down to a science.