[Peetwo]

Mandarins in a parallel hemisphere...

In a matter of a fortnight from his inauguration Trump has turned the world on it's head..

Unlike the now largely abandoned Abbott RTR (Red Tape Reduction program), the first signs are good that Trump is deadly serious about reducing the regulatory burden in the interest of promoting big, middle and small businesses, like those that exist in the aviation industry:

Report: Trump halted $181 billion in regulatory costs on first day in office
By Elizabeth Harrington
Published January 31, 2017
Washington Free Beacon

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump effectively halted nearly $200 billion worth of regulations, according to a new analysis.

President Trump has taken aggressive action to curb regulations in his first week, promising to cut 75 percent or "maybe more," and signing an executive order Monday to cut two regulations from the books when every new rule is introduced.

The first move came in the form of a memo to all federal agencies from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, freezing all recently finalized and pending regulations. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, found the action resulted in stopping rules that would cost the economy $181 billion.

"On day one in office, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, signed a memo to all executive agencies imposing a regulatory moratorium," wrote Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum. "This may sound like an extraordinary action, but President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, penned an almost identical memo eight years ago."

"According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, this memo put a hold on $181 billion in total regulatory costs, including $17 billion in annual costs, and 5.5 million hours of paperwork," Batkins wrote. "This moratorium freezes 22 rulemakings with annual costs above $100 million and 16 measures with more than $1 billion in long-term costs."    

However what does it mean in the US for their aviation, aerospace and associated industries?

Well to start here is Christine Negroni's take, via Seattle PI blog:

Trump’s Somewhat Less-Than-Alarming Attack on Air Safety
By Christine Negroni on January 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM




The Washington Post tagged a story on Donald Trump’s first days as U.S. President with the alarming proclamation that he was “blocking regulations, including one to prevent plane crashes.” Without wading into the morass that is federal politics in America these days, let’s just be clear about what Trump actually did.

Shortly after taking office Friday, Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, ordered a number of government agencies to withdraw proposed rules from publication in the federal register, the last stop before the “proposed” comes off and the rule becomes law.



From the Department of Housing to the Interior Department, senior lawyers must have worked through the weekend, because come Monday (Monday, Monday, Can’t trust that day) the director of the office of the Federal Register was the recipient of letters from all of them.

Of particular concern to the flying public, according to the Post, was the letter from Jonathan Moss from the Department of Transportation.  “Please withdraw from publication”, it read, a rule scheduled to be published the following day.

Like the leak in your basement that just keeps seeping back no matter what you do, Boeing has been working for decades to deal with cracking on older models of the world’s most popular airliner, the Boeing 737.



Since 1988, when an Aloha Airlines 737 lost a chunk of its roof on a flight to Honolulu and a flight attendant was tossed to her death, the airliner has shown a propensity to metal fatigue and cracking. A number of fixes have been ordered since that time. The one sidetracked by the Trump administration got its start in 2005.

The Federal Aviation Administration issued a new rule that year which was modified in 2011. Had Trump not intervened, it would have been boosted again with an airworthiness directive expanding the areas on the fuselage that should be examined.

“We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin panels, which could cause rapid decompression of the airplane,” the rule reads.
All of which does sound alarming if the traveling public believes they are at risk of stepping onto one of these airliners. That’s unlikely to be the case. The rule applies to just nine planes in service in the USA, the very old 737-100, 200 and 200c series.

Southwest is the largest operator of the 737. I’m waiting to hear whether any of these antiques are in its fleet. Southwest has up-close-and-personal experience with fatigue and the rapid decompression that can sometimes result. No doubt its learned its lesson to inspect very, very carefully regardless of the latest iteration of the rule from the FAA. The Trump-imposed delay in inspections probably doesn’t amount to much.

Trump’s four year term in office has just begun. He will have plenty of opportunities to interfere with flight safety, but contrary to the Post headline writers his first action in office, doesn’t appear to be one of them.

 
Next JDA reviews what lies ahead for Trump's (nominee) DOT Secretary Chao:

1st Day at DOT: Secretary Chao’s Aviation Inbox


Posted By: Sandy Murdock January 31, 2017

DOT Secretary Chao’s 1st Day

3 High Profile Cases

The national news has been consumed over the Trump Tumult and it is possible that the Administration’s initiatives will flow into air transportation. [This will not be as heavily safety-oriented as normal content.]

As the Senate votes to confirm her nomination, here are some high profile aviation cases which Secretary Chao will find in her inbox (paper and/or electric) on her 1st day at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SW:
 
a)  Norwegian Airlines Awaits FAA Approval To Fly From Stewart International Airport


If you would like to earn some support from ALPA, here’s your chance to show your pro-Labor stripes. The airline pilot union thinks that this multinational low cost carrier poses a great risk. Though the debate over NAI’s economic rights may have been decided (maybe not irreversibly?), you could direct Administrator Huerta to assess whether the Irish Aviation Authority has the competence (technical and human resources) to surveil that sovereign authority of an airline which

a.  will be flagged in Ireland,
b.  will draw employees from around the world,
c.  may originate flights from anywhere within the EU and may operate from points within the EU and to cities around the world (subject to approvals).

This scope raises significant questions such as:

a.  Does the IAA have the human resources and the budget needed to be able to actively surveil NAI’ people and procedures at places around the EU and the world? For example, how will IAA assess NAS’ opening of a new station in East Asia prior to its first flight and over time?

b.  Will the NAS headquarters, not just the local Irish office but the facility where manuals are written and maintenance policy decisions are made, be in Ireland or Norway? If it is out of Ireland, will IAA have the sovereign powers needed to compel the production of documents and witnesses? If there is a need to take enforcement action, will the courts of Norway give the deference which a court normally affords to its executive branch?

c.  Will/can IAA rely on its own inspectors to watch over NAI? Must the Irish regulator use the staffs of other EU nations to help observe the daily operations of this far flung airline? If yes, what can be IAA’s expectations for consistency of interpretations from a multi-jurisdictional work force?

At a minimum, that review will require several months of study, during which the carrier will be estopped from flying to the US. Presuming that a country, particularly the IAA with limited regulatory resources, will be able to sustain the level of scrutiny over multiple countries in which the CAA has limited investigatory powers IS NOT AN INTUITIVE DECISION. If this is an acceptable safety structure, other nations may attempt to replicate this obvious “flag-of-convenience“ which has led to the diminution of global maritime safety. NAI’s approval to fly to Stewart may set a dangerous global precedent.
 
b)  New Emirates flight violates aviation agreement, say US airlines


Emirates proposes to fly from Dubai to Athens to Newark. In aeropolitical terms, that is a request to fly 5th Freedom traffic and an aviation coalition has declared that Emirates application is “flagrantly violating” the air services agreement between the US and United Arab Emirates. By deciding against Emirates, you will be pleasing both Partnership for Open & Fair Skies (ALPA and A4A). In a rare show of policy concurrence, they have created this lobbying organization. (American Airlines, Delta Air Lines United Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, Allied Pilots Association, the Airline Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Communications Workers of America, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association) to restore a level playing field under the Open Skies agreements with Qatar and the UAE.
 
c)  Trump’s Somewhat Less-Than-Alarming Attack on Air Safety
Plus Trump’s Bid to Slash Regulations Faces Bureaucratic Roadblocks

Higher Barriers
Higher barriers to implement new rules, and periodically culling old rules may be effective, Gattuso said.

The Federal Aviation Administration enacts dozens of regulations a month to require critical repairs on aircraft. While Trump’s directive permits the budget director to exempt a category of rule from the two-for-one requirement, it’s not clear what would apply to the FAA’s safety actions.

“Are we really going to prohibit the FAA from putting out urgently needed rules for flight safety, which is their mandate?” said Steven Wallace, a former agency official who oversaw accident investigations and helped draft some regulations.



This article from the Seattle.pi demonstrates the degree to which the press is scrutinizing your Administration’s regulatory action, particularly where safety is involved. A number of Libertarian think tanks have published broadsides by authors with little or no aviation experience or competence urging that the FAA’s safety rules (i.e. Uber Plane Taxis, UASs and SSTs) should be drastically reduced or eliminated. Their primary, if not sole, policy driver is “free enterprise uber alles.” Any professional, with the credentials to qualify as an expert in this subject matter, would testify that the FAA’s rules attempt to balance the economic impact of a proposed rule with an effective safety line. Have there been instances in which the FAA may have leaned a bit toward the protection of the public? Yes, but not egregiously so. Secretary Chao, whether the author is Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or David Thoreau, a good rule to follow is “she that governs least, governs best”. In aviation safety, there should be no zero sum games, safety and free enterprise should be balanced. “Least” does not mean the absence of anything, just minimizing in proportion.

Finally from US GA 'FLYING' magazine...

Trump Executive Order on Regulations Means Potentially Big Changes for the FARs

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.
By Stephen Pope February 3, 2017


Enlarge
Wikimedia Commons/MBisanz

The FAA will likely be kept busy responding to an executive order that requires federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation.

When President Donald Trump in his first days in office made good on a campaign promise to cut red tape by eliminating unnecessary regulations, workers at federal agencies knew they’d suddenly be very busy. Perhaps nowhere was this more true than at the FAA, where the enactment of new rules in the near future would seem to require a top-down review of the Federal Aviation Regulations aimed at combining, rewriting and eliminating rules already on the books.

Ironically, many of the new rules the FAA is about to introduce — for BasicMed third-class medical reform, the Part 23 rewrite and those dealing with operational credit for use of infrared enhanced-vision systems, to name a few — are aimed at reducing regulatory bureaucracy and benefiting pilots and aircraft operators. It’s unclear at this point whether the president’s executive order and a temporary freeze he has put on new regulations will lead to delays in enacting BasicMed or the Part 23 rewrite, but what we do know is the FAA will have its hands full trying to determine which regulations to jettison to make way for new ones.

The good news is that the Federal Aviation Regulations are rife with duplication and rules that are no longer necessary. The FAA through its history has preferred to tackle regulatory issues by heaping new rules on top of old ones, in many cases without regard for regulations that came before.

“There are plenty of regulations on the books that are outdated,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Together we can find ways with the FAA to reduce cost and provide less bureaucracy. By looking closely at those old and dated regulations, we can come up with a list of rules to eliminate that could be beneficial to all of us and focus the FAA’s resources on the right things.”

BasicMed and the Part 23 rewrite are special cases, however, since these reforms were ordered by Congress. With the confirmation on Tuesday of incoming Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the Department of Transportation and FAA can begin the task of determining how they proceed with the enactment of these mandated reforms while satisfying the requirements of the Trump

Again 'pea-green' with envy...


MTF...P2  

Ps Funny how the DOT HQ building has a similar look to CASA's Fort Fumble...



...shame that's where the similarities end...