Change or Amendment to FARs

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
What is the process that one would have to use in order to introduce a change to the FARs? Write to Congress :nonod:?

Let's say the FARs specifically require something, but it can be found that the principle assumption under which the FAR was written can be disproven, but the FAR is now only in place for administrative or beauracratic convenience (we do it that way because there would be anarchy otherwise).

Original question: What is the process that one would have to use in order to introduce a change to any particlar FAR?
 
I think you need to convince someone within the FAA. Congress doesn't write/pass the FARs. That has to come through the agency.
 
What's the process? Even (some government) administrative bodies have public comment periods, right?
 
Two ways.

You can petition the FAA for a change.
You can work with Congress to pass legislation to force the FAA to make a change.


Of the two, I prefer the first. So far when Congress has told the FAA what to do the results we've gotten have not been good.
 
TMetzinger said:
Two ways.

You can petition the FAA for a change.
You can work with Congress to pass legislation to force the FAA to make a change.


Of the two, I prefer the first. So far when Congress has told the FAA what to do the results we've gotten have not been good.
Click to expand...

If enough people petition the FAA for a change then it is possible to get a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that opens the door for public comment. After receiving comments the FAA then decides whether to implement the proposed regulation. This process is preferred for almost all rule changes. The only hitch is that occasionally the FAA entangles itself in circular logic and their rules become arbitrary, in which case it is only the legal opinion du jour that emanates from the FAA General Counsel's office that determines what the rule means today. While relief may also be sought from the courts, the Administrative Law Judges more often than not defer to the GC's opinions for the final say.

So when the rule making process fails to provide us with relief from arbitrary or capricious regulation, we must turn to the legislature to seek amendment to the underlying law itself. In the case of aviation, it means the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as amended. If a member of the House or Senate agrees to sponsor a bill to amend the FAA Act, then the bill is introduced to the chamber, referred to a committee/subcommitee, hearings ensue, and the bill is returned to the chamber with a recommendation for a vote.

In either case the Agency and law makers look for evidence of broad support for the change. We live in a pluralistic society so it is essential to get the buy-in from as many of the alphabet organizations as possible to demonstrate large block aggregation of support.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What is the process that one would have to use in order to introduce a change to the FARs? Write to Congress :nonod:?

Let's say the FARs specifically require something, but it can be found that the principle assumption under which the FAR was written can be disproven, but the FAR is now only in place for administrative or beauracratic convenience (we do it that way because there would be anarchy otherwise).

Original question: What is the process that one would have to use in order to introduce a change to any particlar FAR?
Click to expand...

I reported a problem with one of the FARs to one of the FAAs engineering leads once. There had been an oversight related to a TSO revision. In talking with him about the options, I got the impression that the legal overhead precluded anything like a rapid correction.

The problem is still there though. It has to do with the transponder types and classes listed in part 43 appendix f. Those classes and types used to be defined in TSO C112. When they revised the TSO to harmonize it with European TSOs, they removed those definitions.

Now they reside in RTCA transponder specs, and classes became types while the types became classes. You really had to be deep in the test requirements to catch it. It technically means those key terms for grouping transponder test requirements are undefined. I don't know if anyone else ever noticed. This was a couple years ago. Things have really rolled on like they always have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top