![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Have you come across something that's arcane, anachronistic or just plain useless in your travels through the regs? Well, the FAA says it wants to know about it. The agency has issued a Review of Existing Regulations that invites anyone with a beef about how the law of the air is now set to drop them a line. "Getting public comments is a necessary element of our effort to make our regulations more effective and less burdensome," the agency claims in the document. It's asking that you list the top three aggravations in descending order for it to consider. The FAA has to do this under Executive Order 12866 and provides a long list of efforts toward that end. "Our goal is to identify regulations that impose undue regulatory burden; are no longer necessary; or overlay, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations," the document says. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Have you come across something that's arcane, anachronistic or just plain useless in your travels through the regs? Well, the FAA says it wants to know about it. The agency has issued a Review of Existing Regulations that invites anyone with a beef about how the law of the air is now set to drop them a line. "Getting public comments is a necessary element of our effort to make our regulations more effective and less burdensome," the agency claims in the document. It's asking that you list the top three aggravations in descending order for it to consider. The FAA has to do this under Executive Order 12866 and provides a long list of efforts toward that end. "Our goal is to identify regulations that impose undue regulatory burden; are no longer necessary; or overlay, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations," the document says. This is hilarious! Knowing the FAA as I have I'm guessing the most likely scenario as this plays out will probably be the hiring of 400,000 new government workers to handle the suggestions from the aviation community as the 165 million mailings that will be generated by this announcement begin to come in. This will be followed by 117 meetings by a specially convened panel formed to study the suggested changes followed by a letter from the FAA to the aviation community at large announcing that the comma in sentence 13 in paragraph 6 sub part B of FAA regulation Part 1,086,359, 012 has been changed to a semi-colon; all at a savings to the tax payer of one million five hundred thousand dollars and sixty five cents from the five hundred and sixty three million dollars it cost the FAA to conduct the study. -- Dudley Henriques |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message ... Have you come across something that's arcane, anachronistic or just plain useless in your travels through the regs? Well, the FAA says it wants to know about it. The agency has issued a Review of Existing Regulations that invites anyone with a beef about how the law of the air is now set to drop them a line. "Getting public comments is a necessary element of our effort to make our regulations more effective and less burdensome," the agency claims in the document. It's asking that you list the top three aggravations in descending order for it to consider. The FAA has to do this under Executive Order 12866 and provides a long list of efforts toward that end. "Our goal is to identify regulations that impose undue regulatory burden; are no longer necessary; or overlay, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations," the document says. How about eliminating the whole FAA? That would solve a lot useless rules. g -- Jim in NC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
They need to let me rewrite the rules so they meet common sense...
However, reality is that they will never consider that... The other reality is that they are doing this under duress and have the absolute intentions of not changing even one comma... denny |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My first suggestion: Allow us spamcan drivers to place our antique
spamcans under an experimental-antique/owner maintained airworthiness certification and let us maintain and alter them just like the amateur- built experimentals. Organizations like the EAA and AOPA, type clubs, and a network of DARs could provide all the technical guidance and oversight for keeping the antique fleet safe and flying. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:56:19 -0800 (PST), Denny
wrote: They need to let me rewrite the rules so they meet common sense... However, reality is that they will never consider that... The other reality is that they are doing this under duress and have the absolute intentions of not changing even one comma... denny So you don't know of any regulations that you feel meet the criteria for this? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Please post all the email addresses you think we should send our
comments to. Rex Have a good day and stay out of the trees! See ya on Sport Aircraft group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/ On Dec 11, 10:22 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote: Have you come across something that's arcane, anachronistic or just plain useless in your travels through the regs? Well, the FAA says it wants to know about it. The agency has issued a Review of Existing Regulations that invites anyone with a beef about how the law of the air is now set to drop them a line. "Getting public comments is a necessary element of our effort to make our regulations more effective and less burdensome," the agency claims in the document. It's asking that you list the top three aggravations in descending order for it to consider. The FAA has to do this under Executive Order 12866 and provides a long list of efforts toward that end. "Our goal is to identify regulations that impose undue regulatory burden; are no longer necessary; or overlay, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal regulations," the document says. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 0 | December 1st 06 01:36 AM |
US Rules Committee Election and Rules Poll | Ken Sorenson | Soaring | 1 | September 27th 05 10:52 PM |
Eliminating Opening Screen | Blue | Simulators | 7 | February 8th 04 07:02 PM |
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? | SoarPoint | Soaring | 1 | February 3rd 04 02:36 AM |
New SRA Site - New 2003 Rules Minutes and 2004 Rules Summary | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 0 | December 17th 03 03:38 AM |