Trump - Eliminate 2 Existing Regs for Every New Reg

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maxed-out

Maxed-out

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
Maxed-out
This ought to throw a wrench in things down at the good old FAA, especially considering the Part 23 re-write and BasicMed regs that were just completed. Your government in action.

A White House directive requiring federal agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation could require a major overhaul of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Click to expand...

Here's the link from the Flying magazine article -

http://www.flyingmag.com/trump-executive-order-on-regulations-means-potentially-big-changes-for-fars
 
I have no problem with that concept.
 
He is setting stretch goals. It's what business executives to do. He knows he won't be able to make that stick 100% of the time.
 
MAKG1 said:
I do. The implication is that no regulations will change, even if completely broken.
Click to expand...
Have you read the order? It doesn't address revisions to existing regulations, only "new" ones.
 
Where's Obi-wan when we need him? "This isn't the political discussion you're looking for"
 
I think it would be highly ironic if this were to work in our favor. All that lobbying money wasted!
 
paflyer said:
Have you read the order? It doesn't address revisions to existing regulations, only "new" ones.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Everything will just become a revision and avoid this "rule". This is one of those things that sounds great but in reality there are a lot of regulations that are written in blood getting rid of those is dangerous.
 
Cykoguy said:
Bingo. Everything will just become a revision and avoid this "rule". This is one of those things that sounds great but in reality there are a lot of regulations that are written in blood getting rid of those is dangerous.
Click to expand...
I think any "revision" that is more onerous than the existing one is going to get flagged as "new."
 
N659HB said:
I think it would be highly ironic if this were to work in our favor. All that lobbying money wasted!
Click to expand...
Whatever works, it's all sunk cost anyway.
 
Well we have two regulations which are 1) Must wear shoes and 2) shoes must be purple.

So we'll replace it with 3) must wear purple shoes on days ending in the letter Y and get rid of 1) and 2).
 
It's dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This has to be at least part of Trump's plan to drain the swamp and take on federal bureaucracy. Throw in the his "federal hiring freeze" and we have the makings of a real goat rope. And the FAA better not even think about hiring contractors to help with the increased workload. Trump's got that covered to - "Contracting outside the Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum (hiring freeze) shall not be permitted." Looking at the bright side - this could mean a lot of overtime pay if you're a federal worker.
 
Oh gosh....Narrowing a complex issue down to a feel good soundbite.

Regulations aren't a simple matter of more=bad, and regulations by necessity will always expand especially with the faa.
 
So far, the indications are that the administration is not trying to drain the swamp as much as it is trying to privatizing the swamp.
 
Walt said:
So far, the indications are that the administration is not trying to drain the swamp as much as it is trying to privatizing the swamp.
Click to expand...
Where do you see that?
 
The result is that every new regulation will now absorb two old regulations. Kind of like "The Blob" Remember that movie?
 
Walt said:
So far, the indications are that the administration is not trying to drain the swamp as much as it is trying to privatizing the swamp.
Click to expand...
I guess that is why we see so many non politicians getting on the cabinet.. and the democrats not showing up to vote.
 
Silvaire said:
The result is that every new regulation will now absorb two old regulations. Kind of like "The Blob" Remember that movie?
Click to expand...

Thought it was a good idea to rent that in elementary school for a sleepover I hosted. May not have slept for a week.
 
wrbix said:
Simple minded approach to a complex set of issues.
Click to expand...
No, it's brilliant. Why does this have to be more complicated than it is? To support a bunch of un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats to run our lives?
 
Tom-D said:
I guess that is why we see so many non politicians getting on the cabinet.. and the democrats not showing up to vote.
Click to expand...
Democrats are scared, with good reason. Midterms are going to finish them off.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I'd rather see @eman1200 's dikpik posts on here than political ****. For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

I like a good discussion.

I don't like snide partisan nonsense. And there's one person in particular that just spews ignorant talking points instead of having anything rational to say that usually ignites the powder keg.
 
paflyer said:
No, it's brilliant. Why does this have to be more complicated than it is? To support a bunch of un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats to run our lives?
Click to expand...
But an arbitrary 2 for 1 rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Imagine in say 5(or 50) years when drone rules get written. The hundreds and perhaps thousands of rules that will govern certification of airmen, training requirements, all the operational requirements, rules regarding commercial applications, equipment requirements for drones, for abcdeg airspace. None of these rules will likely be unreasonable or complex but it will still entail a ton of regs.

Imagine just the training requirements regulations for private pilot "drone" equivalent. You need rules regarding required areas of study , level of equipment to train on(ie you cant train on a dji phantom then be handed the keys to a RQ-9 sized drone, regs on who can train you ie CFI-"D" all the rules for them, rules on simulator usage, rules on what simulators are eligible, rules on eligibility (age etc). Just that little bit will equal pages and pages of regs none of it likely bad or onerous but to turn around and say hey you made 3000 regs regarding the training, operation, and maintenance of this now you have to cut 6000 regs somewhere seems way too vague to be a good policy.
 
It has a lot of flexibility. It's aimed at the private sector to make it easier for them to do business.
 
It's more an effort to freeze the landslide of costly regulations that have not helped the business environment in this country. We are talking thousands of pages of new regs being added each year to different sectors, many redundant or based on politics gestures, not genuine protection and maximum efficiency.

The FAA will likely be waivered to get done what's needed if it comes to that. Especially those things directed by Congress being mentioned in this thread. So let's not set our hair on fire just yet.
 
Silvaire said:
The result is that every new regulation will now absorb two old regulations. Kind of like "The Blob" Remember that movie?
Click to expand...

Taken to its logical extreme, would we not eventually end up with just one regulation?

Something like, "Do unto others..."

That said, I think it's a dumb idea.
 
FastEddieB said:
Taken to its logical extreme, would we not eventually end up with just one regulation?

Something like, "Do unto others..."
Click to expand...

Or maybe 10 commandments? Now we can have Politics AND Religion in a single thread.

Oh the humanity.
 
RalphInCA said:
He is setting stretch goals. It's what business executives to do. He knows he won't be able to make that stick 100% of the time.
Click to expand...


And that is effective in many business environments. Heck, I've done it myself.

How well it will work in a gov't bureaucracy remains to be seen.

Much of what Trump is doing, and how he's doing it, looks quite familiar to those of us who've been in corporations all our lives. To the federal agencies and to the media, it's like watching an alien from Alpha Centauri. Their minds seem blown by dramatic change, but "change" is what the electorate chose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top