Over Regulation

N2124v

N2124v

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
633
Location
Austin, TX
Display Name
N2124V
Home Airfield
KEDC
Maybe it is the fact that I am involved in real estate, aviation, and firearms, but man, I am tired of all the silly little nitpicky rules out there. I wonder how many great ideas have never even left the drawing board because of fear the inventor was going to break some law?

Just a rant, I do think we need reasonable regulations, but it has gone way to far. IMHO

What is the biggest wtf regulation that you can think of? Let's keep it to aviation, the IRS is to easy of a target, along with the TSA. :-)
 
I was thinking today about the whole certification process, recent Chief Counsel opinions, and NextGen, and wondered if maybe it wasn't time to rebuild the FAA from scratch.

I just don't have a good way to do it without huge disruptions to the parts of the system working in spite of all the mess.

This applies to nearly every other regulatory agency I can think of, too.
 
SFRA/FRZ and the new requirement for ATP to be a 121 first officer.

But, to be fair, BOTH of these were forced on the FAA by outside sources.

Internally, the instrument currency rules as written for airplanes, FTD/Sims, and ATDs. I really want to know how my proficiency is better if I fly 5 approaches in an airplane and 6 in an ATD versus 5 in the airplane and 1 in the ATD.
 
TMetzinger said:
I was thinking today about the whole certification process, recent Chief Counsel opinions, and NextGen, and wondered if maybe it wasn't time to rebuild the FAA from scratch.

I just don't have a good way to do it without huge disruptions to the parts of the system working in spite of all the mess.

This applies to nearly every other regulatory agency I can think of, too.
Click to expand...


It'll never happen, people are too afraid. The FAA is way down on the list of the bureaucracies that need overhaul. We really need to just dump the whole government and start over if you want to try to fix things.
 
TMetzinger said:
SFRA/FRZ and the new requirement for ATP to be a 121 first officer.

But, to be fair, BOTH of these were forced on the FAA by outside sources.

Internally, the instrument currency rules as written for airplanes, FTD/Sims, and ATDs. I really want to know how my proficiency is better if I fly 5 approaches in an airplane and 6 in an ATD versus 5 in the airplane and 1 in the ATD.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the FAA created rules make sense if you understand their history and development. It the knee jerk Congressional actions that always cause the WTF issues.
 
When Jesse mentioned that he showed up for his CFI ride with 4000 FAA Advisory Circulars on his laptop, fully text-searchable...

I knew right then and there that Aviation regulation is royally f---ed up.

Mix in the recent continued sentiment by most students of Aviation that they can get in an aircraft and be admonished by different instructors for something they were *just taught by another instructor the day before* and it's easy to see the priorities are also completely screwed up.

If CFIs at large can't standardize how they teach a topic that hasn't changed since "Stick and Rudder" to a specific conventional method and describe either a) why it's the convention, or b) why you go against convention... there's a huge problem.

My industry can't throw stones from a glass house either. IT used to teach "ground up" -- what is I/O, what is a processor, what conventions are utilized for data transfer, etc. That type of instruction was dropped over a decade ago in lieu of "here's a compiler, write a program". Now coders can't figure out why you never thread-pool a socket connection without a watchdog overseeing the connection ("never trust the network") or why not to put data in an RDBMS vs when to definitely do it. No concept of the basics.

It's rampant. No one wants to put in the time it takes to be disciplined and organized or follow a specific method.

Leadership seems disinterested in forcing that level of organization into their staff.

Which going back to FAA, is exactly where Aviation is at. No one driving the bus. Lots of leftover assumptions about training and methods from the mainly military-based history of Aviation training.
 
denverpilot said:
<snip>
My industry can't throw stones from a glass house either. IT used to teach "ground up" -- what is I/O, what is a processor, what conventions are utilized for data transfer, etc. That type of instruction was dropped over a decade ago in lieu of "here's a compiler, write a program". Now coders can't figure out why you never thread-pool a socket connection without a watchdog overseeing the connection ("never trust the network") or why not to put data in an RDBMS vs when to definitely do it. No concept of the basics.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Heh. I designed, built, installed, and operate the data center network for a large Government application system. At least once a week I have a DBA asking me "is there something wrong with the network" when their application doesn't behave the way they expect. I have a large rubber stamp that reads INTN (It's Not The Network) that I stamp on their hand (the first time) or their forehead (if they're slow learners) when I pull the packet captures and show them what they've done wrong.

I sometimes wonder if Oracle has a little checklist they give out in their classes that reads:

1. Blame the network
2. Blame the operating system
3. Blame the hardware.
4. Take a look at the Oracle stack.
 
4000 advisory circulars... Rules made by bureaucrats with little or no oversight and subject to interpretations by other bureaucrats. Talk about trying to hit a moving target.
 
N2124v said:
4000 advisory circulars... Rules made by bureaucrats with little or no oversight and subject to interpretations by other bureaucrats. Talk about trying to hit a moving target.
Click to expand...

How many of the FARs & ACs have you read? Your assessment is not very accurate. While certainly there are a few silly issues and rules involved with the FAA, for the vast majority of all those ACs; they deal with technical or complex issues. The reason we have 4000ACs is because 80% of airmen are too stupid to understand the short version. Most of the rules that govern pilots are written in blood spilled by stupid pilot tricks.

The FAA also has a hell of a lot of pilots with way more time and experience than you writing the rules.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
How many of the FARs & ACs have you read? Your assessment is not very accurate. While certainly there are a few silly issues and rules involved with the FAA, for the vast majority of all those ACs; they deal with technical or complex issues. The reason we have 4000ACs is because 80% of airmen are too stupid to understand the short version. Most of the rules that govern pilots are written in blood spilled by stupid pilot tricks.

The FAA also has a hell of a lot of pilots with way more time and experience than you writing the rules.
Click to expand...

And if they didn't turn them over to the legal branch or whoever translates them into Fedlish, I think we'd be better off.
 
denverpilot said:
It's rampant. No one wants to put in the time it takes to be disciplined and organized or follow a specific method.

Leadership seems disinterested in forcing that level of organization into their staff.

Which going back to FAA, is exactly where Aviation is at. No one driving the bus. Lots of leftover assumptions about training and methods from the mainly military-based history of Aviation training.
Click to expand...

This is true in so many instances. I've seen it grow worse for the last 20 year in industry and government. My retirement job is a Technical Advisor for the EPA, and I see decisions made more by touchy/feely methods than scientific. No one wants to take the time to gather the facts and data and truly analyze them. Of course that fact that a large percentage of the employees are 'environmental wackos" doesn't help either.
 
Henning, I have read all the AC's or FAR's that dealt with how I was operating or owning aircraft. I also have found that a lot of times more questions were raised as to how to do something and when you ask your local FAA person you can get different answers.

I don't profess to know all of the answers, but you can't regulate all of the risk out of aviation. Pilots will still do stupid things with airplanes. Like people will do stupid things with boats and cars. In my opinion an over abundance of rules will force people to cut corners on other safety areas (like training) to keep equipment serviceable and legal.
 
Chasing geese off of the airport is definitely aviation related. I have been using something like a screaming bottle rocket except that it is launched with a .22 blank from a starter pistol. This spring, I was notified that, if I wanted to keep buying these things, I would have to get an ATF license requiring finger printing, photo ID, and background check - with fees of course. Additionally, they would have to be stored in a category 4 magazine (2 padlocks with minimum 3/8 inch hasps and each padlock shielded by 1/4" plate. These dangerous devices would have to be logged out and in daily and usage recorded. The range of these "projectiles" is 150 to 200 feet. They are classified as Explosive Pest Control Devices (EPCDs).

I can get a real shotgun and real shotgun shells and kill the geese without such ridiculous controls or I can buy actual bottle rockets as fire works and avoid the regulations.
 
Is there an equivalent to Airworthiness Directives anywhere else in government law or regulations?

As I understand it, ADs are product specific regulations that owners of the product must comply with in order to legally use the product for its intended use.

I know of no such concept like ADs for riding lawnmowers, automobiles, household appliances, ultralights, experimental aircraft, or pretty much anything else.

The FAA's treatment of certificated aircraft appears to be unique. On the one hand they write broad regulations like the "see and avoid" set, and on the other hand write ones specific to certain technologies. Or as in ADs they can literally get down to nuts and bolts.

Maybe if they ever establish a consistent meta-philosophy on how fine-grained their regulation writing should be they, could dig themselves out of the morass that yields so many unintuitive, inconsistent, and sometimes contradictory regulations.
 
In other industries, they're called recalls and the manufacturer is responsible for fixing them.

On the other hand, not many recalls on 35 year old cars, trucks, etc.
 
How many other consumer products do you own that are older than you and have the potential to fall out of the sky causing a burning wreck in the middle of someones house (or kill the several hundred commercial passengers onboard)? How many are so complex and limited in production runs and manufacturer's profit? The only one I have is my plane.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
How many other consumer products do you own that are older than you and have the potential to fall out of the sky causing a burning wreck in the middle of someones house (or kill the several hundred commercial passengers onboard)? How many are so complex and limited in production runs and manufacturer's profit? The only one I have is my plane.
Click to expand...

This.

Edit:

Not that I approve of all ADs, not at all, but the broad concept is to be protective of life safety. In most instances, I believe the FAA truly intend to promote safe operation.
 
:idea:Being in the construction industry I find the constantly changing building codes to far more troublesome then the FAA's stuff....

Case in point.... I few years back I was contracted to add a 50'X 130" metal building onto an existing 130'X130" metal building. To top this off the structure is in a National Park so federal guidelines had to be met too.. Conforming to the international adopted IBC platform was a cakewalk compared to the feds add ons and the biggest hurdle was the "local" amendments crafted by the 'then' Fire Marshal. This guy looked at the entire project and in his polluted thinking to ensure his job longevity came to a bizzare conclusion...

To prevent one metal building, that is not flammable, from causing the adjoining metal building, that is not flammable, from catching fire his solution was to have me install a "firewall"... This firewall consisted of a floor to ceiling, 2X6 wood framing, on 16" centers with two layers of 5/8" sheetrock with seams that could not overlap, firetaped, on both sides...... The wall was 26 feet tall.:(

It took about 1/2 of a forest worth of wood and 3 Semi's of sheetrock and over 150,000 bucks to create this feel good approach. A year or so after I finished the job that marshal was run out of town for being an idiot..

Now for the ironic part.... :yesnod::yesnod:

New fire Marshal shows up one day to review the structure to update their records in case they have to fight a fire on the property.

These are his words as best as I can remember him saying it.

" Let me get this straight, you have a 26' tall wall full of flammable wood that is used to keep two metal building from catching fire?:dunno::dunno:

On top of that, if for some reason fire (was) able to get into it to start the wood on fire the other side of double 5/8 sheetrock would act as a barrier so we could not get to the actual fire so the thing would burn like a well insulated oven... and... when the top wooden plates burned off that would act like a flue to enhance the intensity of the fire... Hmmm:idea::idea::idea:.

Keep in mind this wall was incorporated into the design of the structure. His initial thoughts where to remove it NOW,,, but that could not happen unless we demolished the new building.. Calmer minds prevailed and it stayed the way it was built.

So, In regards to the topic I say ... YES, :yesnod::yesnod: there is over regulation in todays world. :mad::mad::mad:. IMHO.

Ben.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
How many other consumer products do you own that are older than you and have the potential to fall out of the sky causing a burning wreck in the middle of someones house (or kill the several hundred commercial passengers onboard)? How many are so complex and limited in production runs and manufacturer's profit? The only one I have is my plane.
Click to expand...

Heh. You probably don't want the real answer to that question.

Anyone with a PC could do more damage to more people's lives with the correct knowledge than any aircraft will ever accomplish. We're talking utter ruin here, honestly.

A number of huge financial services companies allow iPads on their internal Corporate network. That's enough to keep anyone who knows anything about Computer and Network Security awake every night, right there.

;)
 
Henning said:
How many other consumer products do you own that are older than you and have the potential to fall out of the sky causing a burning wreck in the middle of someones house (or kill the several hundred commercial passengers onboard)? How many are so complex and limited in production runs and manufacturer's profit? The only one I have is my plane.
Click to expand...

Rhetorically loaded questions and erroneous assumptions. Look up the number of experimental aircraft now flying. Then ask those questions of those aircraft and compare the answers you get for type certificated aircraft.

P.S. Good luck fitting several hundred commercial passengers into the average GA airplane.
 
denverpilot said:
Heh. You probably don't want the real answer to that question.

Anyone with a PC could do more damage to more people's lives with the correct knowledge than any aircraft will ever accomplish. We're talking utter ruin here, honestly.

A number of huge financial services companies allow iPads on their internal Corporate network. That's enough to keep anyone who knows anything about Computer and Network Security awake every night, right there.

;)
Click to expand...

But that is only with intent. With an airplane it can happen by omission.
 
Henning said:
But that is only with intent. With an airplane it can happen by omission.
Click to expand...

Not true. Anyone worth their salt would do this nefarious stuff via the hundreds of thousands of neglected PCs on the Net.

BotNets are the real threats and big money pays for access to them in the organized crime world. Neglect your system security and you're now part of the problem.

StuxNet targeted the very specific target of Iran's nuclear program and while that was believed to be an inside job to deliver the payload to the control network, how many companies allow employees to take computer hardware outside of the office and connect it to any old unsecured WiFi network while on the road?

It's a mess. A big one. Root cause: Very soft underbellies on modern Operating Systems. All are quite vulnerable to attack. Mobile devices, perhaps moreso if the attacker can get their hands on the device physically for short periods of time unattended.

Not even any good tools to check a mobile device for tampering yet.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Rhetorically loaded questions and erroneous assumptions. Look up the number of experimental aircraft now flying. Then ask those questions of those aircraft and compare the answers you get for type certificated aircraft.

P.S. Good luck fitting several hundred commercial passengers into the average GA airplane.
Click to expand...

Experimental aircraft are only going to kill a very limited number of people, typically the owner and one other, both of whom accept the risk. You too could join the ranks of experimental owners. Ex/AB is a good example of how the FAA is actually reasonable. The FAA doesn't really care if you kill yourself or one informed individual, it's when there are commercial operations involved they get critical and there is more insurance company influence on that than you may think. Much of it is designed to clarify issues for liability proceedings.

There is another factor semi unique to Air Carrier Service (which is what the primary focus of the FAA is) and that is Strict Liability. When strict liability is involved the insurance companies want paper trails on EVERYTHING to broaden the net of subrogation as far as possible.

When you complain about government regulation, you have to complain about the industries that request it. Many of these rules exist to protect Wall Street not life.
 
denverpilot said:
Not true. Anyone worth their salt would do this nefarious stuff via the hundreds of thousands of neglected PCs on the Net.

BotNets are the real threats and big money pays for access to them in the organized crime world. Neglect your system security and you're now part of the problem.

StuxNet targeted the very specific target of Iran's nuclear program and while that was believed to be an inside job to deliver the payload to the control network, how many companies allow employees to take computer hardware outside of the office and connect it to any old unsecured WiFi network while on the road?

It's a mess. A big one. Root cause: Very soft underbellies on modern Operating Systems. All are quite vulnerable to attack. Mobile devices, perhaps moreso if the attacker can get their hands on the device physically for short periods of time unattended.

Not even any good tools to check a mobile device for tampering yet.
Click to expand...

It still took nefarious intent to set it in motion.
 
Henning said:
It still took nefarious intent to set it in motion.
Click to expand...

True but systems have been brought down by accidents that were amplified by poor maintenance practices in computers.

The first worm had no malicious intent but propagated and caused problems, nevertheless.

The first "bug" was a real moth, caught in a relay.

No AD was mandated to fix either one. People fixed it to avoid problems on their own.

No law that says "thou shalt pay a certified professional to do X Y and Z on your computers or you might lose your computer operating privileges for life".

ADs are also unique in that they're the machine operator's responsibilty to comply with, shops aren't mandated to stop someone from leaving with their unairworthy aircraft.

Certainly not a law in anything related to computers that can only be reviewed by an ALJ and full appeal to the NTSB with no jury of your peers.

Same thing with cars. Nothing like it.

Safety inspections are (here anyway) a long lost thing of the past in lieu of "emissions" inspections.

You can have brake lights out, no brake pads left, broken e-brake, fenders held on with bondo and bailing wire, door latches busted, whatever... You'll still pass the only government inspection the vehicle ever gets.

Have a leaky gas cap however, you're failing. ;)

I'm not arguing against or for ADs, just pointing out that there are FAR more dangerous things out there than aircraft that are virtually or really unregulated compared to the AD process in aircraft.

Bad guys get into Utility company SCADA systems, hang on to your butt. It'll be far far worse than anything a C-150 without a rudder stop will do to anyone but the occupants and anyone unlucky enough to be in a 100 yard area where it comes down. SCADA system attacks will at the very least, panic a large portion of the herd. At worst, kill a lot of folks.

The "no risk is acceptable" mentality of aircraft maintenance and backing it with the threat of privilege enforcement is significantly different than most of the real risks on the planet. ;)
 
As I said, the regulation is not about the damage, it's about clarification for liability in court to benefit the insurance industry. Who is insuring the internet?
 
Now you've hit the nail on the head. "Use at your own risk" isn't allowed in aviation but is in far more dangerous aspects of our lives.

In computers, automobiles, flood insurance (ha), etc... The "You must be this tall to ride the ride" yardstick is only about 1" high.

In aviation, the yardstick gets taller with every Advisory Circular and AD issued. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Now you've hit the nail on the head. "Use at your own risk" isn't allowed in aviation but is in far more dangerous aspects of our lives.

In computers, automobiles, flood insurance (ha), etc... The "You must be this tall to ride the ride" yardstick is only about 1" high.

In aviation, the yardstick gets taller with every Advisory Circular and AD issued. ;)
Click to expand...


Aviation is a visceral fear, internet not so much so. Aviation was also the original 'Advanced Technology' and therefor carries some of the overburden of the learning curve of how to deal with these risks.
 
We can not stop our ever increasing mountain of regulations, nor can we control how our bureaucrats interpret those regulations from one day to the next. This is what we have built, it is what we voted for, it's what we support, it's our government.

We can howl and scream till we're blue in the face, it will do no good. They will make a regulation against howling and screaming is about all it would accomplish.

We are a nation of law, millions of laws, we love laws, we vote for lawmakers so they can make more laws. Law is our single biggest industry, public or private, it's who and what we are.

If we had our say in the matter, we would make every nation on earth adopt every single one of our laws and regulations, and keep adopting them as we dream new ones up.

Your only recourse, as an individual, is to move to a country with less regulation, then hope like hell we don't get our way about regulating everyone and everything on the face of the earth.

John
 
John Baker said:
Your only recourse, as an individual, is to move to a country with less regulation, then hope like hell we don't get our way about regulating everyone and everything on the face of the earth.
Click to expand...

If you haven't already, consider reading Robert Heinlein's novel"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - particularly the short fable of the brass cannon.
 
Jim Logajan said:
If you haven't already, consider reading Robert Heinlein's novel"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - particularly the short fable of the brass cannon.
Click to expand...

I have hundreds of books, in boxes, and on shelves, stowed anywhere I can put them in a way that my home does not look like a library or a hoarders heaven, but I do not have that one.

I will keep my eyes open for it.

Thanks,

John
 
John Baker said:
I have hundreds of books, in boxes, and on shelves, stowed anywhere I can put them in a way that my home does not look like a library or a hoarders heaven, but I do not have that one.

I will keep my eyes open for it.

Thanks,

John
Click to expand...

Oh heck, pm me your address and I'll loan you a copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top