Executive orders & MOSAIC

* It sounds like the "close to 70% of GA aircraft" quote actually comes from the EAA, and is the proportion of GA aircraft that would be covered if the stall speed limit was increased to 58 knots, but that is what the EAA was recommending, and it doesn't sound like the FAA has said either way on whether they have accepted that recommendation.
I did the analysis for EAA, on the number of aircraft eligible vs. the final stall speed. The percentage is based on the number of single-engined fixed-wing aircraft in the registry.
1743803920789.png
Note that the total also includes aircraft that already qualify under Light Sport.

Ron Wanttaja
 
In general, MOSAIC aligns with the mindset of the current administration, so timing could be fortuitous to slip through a maximal approach.
 
What's notable in all this talk of MOSAIC is how little of it comes from anyone with any authority to actually enable it. Advocates paint a rosy picture, but that's their job.

Nauga,
sourced
 
What's notable in all this talk of MOSAIC is how little of it comes from anyone with any authority to actually enable it. Advocates paint a rosy picture, but that's their job.

Nauga,
sourced
Unfortunately, no one is "Confirmed" and thus "really" in charge of the FAA at this current instant of time. Be interesting to see how "Active Acting" the "Acting Administrator" may be.
 
Unfortunately, no one is "Confirmed" and thus "really" in charge of the FAA at this current instant of time. Be interesting to see how "Active Acting" the "Acting Administrator" may be.
The advocacy orgs have been breathlessly supplying details and dates since at least 2018 and there have been 4 acting directors and two confirmed directors in that time. The supposed commitments and lack of change are not simply a result of the current political environment. My point, in fact, has *nothing* to do with politics and *everything* to do with coverage and willful suspension of disbelief.

Nauga,
and Willard Duncan Vandiver
 
What's notable in all this talk of MOSAIC is how little of it comes from anyone with any authority to actually enable it.
Given the rulemaking is an administrative process, one seldom hears from the individuals involved in that process except when collectively responding to NPRM public comments. Whether thats by design or policy I don't really know but its the norm with all the NPRMs I've tracked over the years. One of the hurdles with the MOSAIC NPRM that slowed it down was it has gone through 3 separate public comment periods which is more an exception than rule. So that additional review can add a significant amount of time in the big picture given new NPRMs are added daily. The Part 23 rewrite went through a similar delay given the importance of that rule change. And since MOSAIC has been at the NPRM level for only 20 months or so, given its review history and proposed changes to several FAR Parts I think even August is a push.
 
The advocacy orgs have been breathlessly supplying details and dates since at least 2018 and there have been 4 acting directors and two confirmed directors in that time. The supposed commitments and lack of change are not simply a result of the current political environment. My point, in fact, has *nothing* to do with politics and *everything* to do with coverage and willful suspension of disbelief.
Looking back, we saw the same sort of waffling and delay for Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft. IIRC, that took about five years, and wasn't in an environment of major political upheaval (albeit there were 9/11 associated events).

The FAA is under a microscope regarding aviation safety right now, and a program that relaxes standards may not be well-received. As mentioned, the policy of eliminating ten regulations for every new one might be a factor. Does GA have enough "clout" to allow the policy to be waived? It helps a small number of pilots, and probably benefits foreign manufacturers better than domestic ones (they already produce small aircraft that are outside the US Light Sport rules yet are smaller than typical products from Cessna or Piper).

Ron Wanttaja
 
The advocacy orgs have been breathlessly supplying details and dates since at least 2018 and there have been 4 acting directors and two confirmed directors in that time. The supposed commitments and lack of change are not simply a result of the current political environment. My point, in fact, has *nothing* to do with politics and *everything* to do with coverage and willful suspension of disbelief.

Nauga,
and Willard Duncan Vandiver
Agree and my point is that this speculation contest hasn't gotten this close to a "consensus" (or dream) date for release, to wit August 2025, to date so Acting or Confirmed hasn't been of much import. If the Nominee gets Confirmed before "August", who knows what will happen. If he doesn't by "August" will the Acting release it?

Enquiring Minds want to know.
 
Semantics matters in this life: The word is not 'speculation' kids, the term is wishcasting.

So let's recap. Now we're on to "perception of the DCA crash/media coverage of crashes" as the political inflection that'll stop MOSAIC dreams from coming true over at the federal pension farm? LOL This is the space aliens equivalent of the spatial-D, Occam's Razor denialism in the accident threads.

The level of cope from the MOSAIC opus dei is next level. Sometimes you gotta let people lose their religion in public for the greater good, and just eat the opportunity cost of being maligned of schadenfreude.
 
While not related to MOSAIC, RCOs are going away via NPRM. I wonder what 10 other existing rules are going away, too.

In its notice of intent, published in the Federal Register, the agency wrote, “In the mid-1980s, Flight Service received 22,000 service requests per day across this network, while today they receive fewer than 300 per day. In turn, from over 350 Flight Service stations with over 3,000 employees 40 years ago, there are now only two (2) facilities with fewer than 200 specialists.”

In 2017, the FAA decommissioned 404 RCOs and 237 VHF omnidirectional radio range navaid outlets for a cost savings the agency estimated at $2.5 million in annual maintenance costs. Under the latest plan the FAA would close the remaining 936 RCOs in the continental United States, saving around $16 million.


 
Semantics matters in this life: The word is not 'speculation' kids, the term is wishcasting.

So let's recap. Now we're on to "perception of the DCA crash/media coverage of crashes" as the political inflection that'll stop MOSAIC dreams from coming true over at the federal pension farm? LOL This is the space aliens equivalent of the spatial-D, Occam's Razor denialism in the accident threads.

The level of cope from the MOSAIC opus dei is next level. Sometimes you gotta let people lose their religion in public for the greater good, and just eat the opportunity cost of being maligned of schadenfreude.
I suspect id like a lot more of your posts if I was smart enough to know what the heck you are saying.
 
This g-damned monosyllabic literalism people are so enamored with. Frankly, the purview of those who just can't decipher allegory if it came in paint by numbers. It's not fun for me if if I have to be that prosaic.

Let me see if I can give this much clamored linguisitc mediocrity a try. I'll use bullets this time, or is that too condescending? Don't answer that I'm being rhetorical (I.just.can't.help.myself. :rofl:)

-MOSAIC wishcasters are blind to reality.
-People who think anything negative "is a matter of wrong perspective" are equally blind.
-Group 2 picks any causation to blame why MOSAIC hasn't happened. It's a feedback loop between them and the group 1 (the wishcasters).
-Faced with significant delays to disinterest most rational observers, gp#1 have turned to religious cult levels of fanaticism to support their continued speculation on the fantasy of their ask.
-I finish my, per usual underappreciated masterpiece, by reminding folks not to take my critique as taking pleasure in these peter pans getting their dreams dashed in public. I merely offer a reminder that sometimes it is useful to witness people suffer for the greater good.

*yawn* That bored me. I'm going downstairs and play some helldivers with the kid, now that the wife took off again to her hospital shift. One of the benefits of not having an airplane anymore is I don't get caught no-show/no-call like some airline newhire sitting short call in his monkey uniform at his house..out of state lol.

Snark aside, you know I love you guys. Even my x-platform free-rent providers.:thumbsup:
 
Not exactly. Exceptions are allowed. Further, individual union CBAs may have different provisions. Like most executive orders, it's easier said than done, and implementation is never as cut and dry as it initially seems.

Here's the actual text of the order, note the last clause of the first paragraph. For better or worse, that leaves a lot of wiggle room.

"Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.

This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law."
Fast forward a couple months and we see that union agreements were mostly circumvented (non probationary) by disbanding entire units. This way they don’t need retention registers and other things (need them to follow the rules but not in reality, since they aren’t bringing people back. Friends of the administration trot out crazy answers like “they’ll bring back the good ones, it’d take too long to figure out who is good first” as if they aren’t still looking at substantially the same pool of people)

Return to office is problematic since the government has been downsizing space since the telecommunications act of 2010. Too many people for available parking/desks/lockers etc. You must show up 30 minutes early to get through security. Why? Because they refuse to open more than one security line for a building with a thousand people in it.

Why remove federal employees first (better training, more time in service, much more expensive to remove) instead of contractors (who generally have 30 day termination for convenience clauses?) Super efficient!
 
In my current and past offices, if we went to 100% back to the office, we would lose some people. Not because of their work ethic or performance, but simply because they were hired under the "100% work from home" COVID-era rules and many don't even live anywhere near the office. I'm talking as in other states. But they were hired with the management fully knowing where they lived, nothing was a secret in the interviews, nobody was hiding anything or being sneaky, everybody knew they lived out of state and that was okay - because it's remote work, so who cares where you live. Now, if they are forced to come into an office that they haven't ever even been to before that can be many hours away from home, they will almost certainly resign. In my opinion, that falls under "breaking the faith" with your employees, or "bait and switch". No reflection on their work ethic at all.

This is why that everyone I hired during COVID was officially on 80% telework.

The other issue was, if they were 100%, they could live anywhere. And if I needed them to come into the office, it would have been official travel paid for by our travel budget.
 
That’s up to the company. The federal government pays a base salary and a variable locality pay. Private party trash collectors are paid 2x the national average in HCOL areas.

The question I’m getting at is if your current company implemented locality based pay adjustments, would you stay with them if your pay was reduced to account for your COL location?
This caught out a number of GOV workers. They moved out of the HCOL area where their office was located, but since their workplace was now in a LCOL, they lost the high locality pay.

TANSTAAFL
 
This caught out a number of GOV workers. They moved out of the HCOL area where their office was located, but since their workplace was now in a LCOL, they lost the high locality pay.

TANSTAAFL

Happened with one of my employees. We hired him to work on a contract in a federal agency in DC. After a year, he talked the government into letting him work remote with monthly visits. Then he moved to Puerto Rico and began claiming travel cost.

If he had been a rock star, we might have worked something out. But he was a marginal performer, and the govvies started complaining. I cut his pay $20K and told him he was responsible for his own travel. After a few months he quit. Problem solved.
 
The replacement was a significant improvement.
:biggrin:

If my IRA drops much farther I might be sending you a resume....

(I tried telling SWMBO that she should start looking for a job. That didn't go over real well, but I should be able to walk again by the middle of next week.)
 
Back
Top