FAA deleting regulations?

[Gilbert Pierce]

This may reduce the workload at our local FSDO's Oh! I forgot they are gone and under new management.

Copied from the Wall Street Journal
BUSINESS
FAA Panel Recommends More
Deregulation
A federal advisory committee has delivered sweeping deregulation proposals on airplane
safety to the Federal Aviation Authority.
By Andy Pasztor
A federal advisory committee’s sweeping deregulation proposals are roiling the world of
airplane safety.
As part of President Donald Trump’s governmentwide drive targeting what he and aides
call outdated or unnecessary restrictions, the panel of industry and labor representatives
has delivered a report urging the Federal Aviation Administration to eliminate or roll back
more than 50 longstanding air-safety rules.
Completed last week but not yet publicly released, the document recommends loosening
controls over everything from pilot training to structural testing of new models. Several of
the specifics are prompting opposition from some union groups, outside safety advocates
and families of crash victims.
The panel, called the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, in a prior report
identified hundreds of other regulations it said were ripe for repeal or modification,
according to one person familiar with the details.
The agency’s initial response was noncommittal, stressing that the recommendations “do
not mean any action will be taken to modify or eliminate existing rules.” A statement from
a spokeswoman over the weekend also said the agency intends to carefully review each
item and determine next steps by applying “the FAA’s prevailing criteria to maintain
today’s historic level of aviation safety.”
The recommendations set the stage for debates in coming years over loosening or entirely
doing away with some rules that are integral parts of the FAA’s safety program but haven’t
been amended or, in many cases reassessed, for decades.
Some of the proposals involve obscure or relatively minor irritants, such as redundant
paperwork, duplicate regulations and outdated requirements for ashtrays outside
lavatories dating back to an era when smoking was allowed on airliners. But others focus
on big-ticket regulatory mandates that entail major costs for industry, including the way
plane makers and the FAA determine the structural integrity and fatigue tolerance of
large airplane parts or sections.
The panel, among other things, urged more flexibility by substituting computer
simulations and inspections of older aircraft for more-expensive ground tests. The
savings “could be hundreds of millions of dollars” versus full-scale testing, according to
the report.
Two other recommendations urge relying on engineering analysis, rather than primarily
flight tests, to determine vibration characteristics or strength of certain parts.
Critics contend neither FAA nor industry experts are familiar enough yet with the longterm
structural strength of certain composite structures to ensure the validity of such
computer-based analysis.
The committee also is seeking to revise certain reporting rules, echoing unsuccessful
efforts in the past by industry officials. One rule submitted for modification deals with
data collection about engine reliability, in-flight shutdowns, oil loss and uncommanded
power changes for twin-engine airliners authorized to fly extended routes over water or
polar regions. The changes appears designed to reduce certain FAA reporting
requirements for this category of aircraft -- as long as the problematic events occur
during trips over land or shorter overwater flights.
In addition, the panel reiterated calls by other FAA-chartered committees and industrybacked
studies to find new alternatives to requiring most co-pilots to have 1,500 hours of
flight time before they can be hired to fly passengers. A Senate bill extending the FAA’s
overall authority, which expires at the end of the month, includes a similar provision.
According to the report, reducing the 1,500-hour minimum is essential to prevent pilot
shortages from reducing commercial service commuter carriers are able to provide rural
communities. Pilot unions and other groups strongly oppose dropping the 1,500 hour
threshold, contending it would erode safety. The report notes that alternate “pathways”
to hiring new co-pilots “would only be approved if they were proven to enhance safety.”
Commercial accident rates across the U.S. have been at record low levels for years, with
the last deadly crash involving a scheduled domestic carrier occurring in 2009.Yet by
challenging certain traditional safeguards—and advocating changes tied to potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars in industry savings over the years—the report primarily
reflects the desires of manufacturers, equipment suppliers, airlines and private aviation
groups.
After months of internal deliberations with mixed results, FAA officials in April asked the
panel to identify regulations that are outmoded, unnecessary or ineffective, “inhibit job
creation,” or “impose costs that exceed benefits.”The Association of Flight Attendants, a
union with nearly 50,000 members, officially dissented from the latest report. It argued
that the package of recommendations amounted to “a grab bag of unfiltered wish lists
submitted by individual” interest groups participating in the process.
Labor representatives also objected to calls for less-stringent pilot training rules
increasing credit for time spent in simulators versus behind the controls of an actual
aircraft. The union representing airline dispatchers dissented from a proposal lowering to
21 from 23 the minimum age for obtaining a certificate to perform such work.
Write to Andy Pasztor

[Stephen]

Gilbert, thanks for the information.

The 1500 hour requirement is interesting. I like the idea of the Captain of airline being experienced. 1500 hours flying may not provide all that much experience considering that an 6 hour flight may involve one take off and landing and lots of watching the autopilot fly the plane.

[MN_flyer1]

Gilbert, thanks for the information.

The 1500 hour requirement is interesting. I like the idea of the Captain of airline being experienced. 1500 hours flying may not provide all that much experience considering that an 6 hour flight may involve one take off and landing and lots of watching the autopilot fly the plane.

I agree. 500hrs flying an Ag plane probably provides more experience than 500 hrs towing banners. I know a check airman for a major airline that says that some people either "Get it" or "don't". Using hours is a poor reference but is a bench mark at least.

[Fred Mayes]

The 1500 hours is a big problem. I have had first officers with 500,750 hours who did a good job and have some with several thousand hours who weren't very good pilots. Also I believe some pilots build time to get 1500 hours with a Parker-51 pen. Training and the individual is the answer. In the right seat he can learn so low time and experience will be gained. He won't be the PIC so they gain experience and learn from the Captain and the procedures flying in all kind of weather. I prefer the individual rather than the hours the pilot has.

[Steve Pierce]

The accidents that the advocates of the 1500 hour minimum rule quote were caused by pilots with more time than minimums. The thing that interests me is the certification standards. The article states that there is not enough experience with composites to determine structures on a computer. I think there is plenty of experience and data on our type of structures and would be very receptive to not holding a Pacer/Tri-Pacer to the same standards of a Boeing.

[smcnutt]

While it sounded like some were arguing against simulator time, I would think you would learn a lot more in 6 hours doing scenarios in a sim than watching the autopilot. Wouldn't want to eliminate actual flight time but I would think sim time would be valuable.

[Fred Mayes]

Sim time is very valuable. They are a lot harder to fly than the airplane and the sim operator can throw a lot at you and is good training, but there is a difference between making a minimum approach in actual weather than in a sim.
Steve Pierce brings up a good point as usual. The Short Wings have proven their structure test over the years and should not have the same requirements as the new materials of the new airplanes with the composites. SW operate in a completely different environment than the airlines. We already know all of this info so why did I write this. I don't know.

[andya]

with simulator technology for the past 25 years, it was possible 25 years ago to get a
corporate jet type rating totally in the simulator

[Homer Landreth]

The accidents that the advocates of the 1500 hour minimum rule quote were caused by pilots with more time than minimums. The thing that interests me is the certification standards. The article states that there is not enough experience with composites to determine structures on a computer. I think there is plenty of experience and data on our type of structures and would be very receptive to not holding a Pacer/Tri-Pacer to the same standards of a Boeing.

I agree with Steve on the experience and data concerning our aircraft and would extend that to Airworthiness Directives. I think AD's generated back in the 60's and 70's and longer and even more recent should have some data reviews to determine whether they were in fact really needed an AD to start with, and further, review of available data from operators and maintenance to see if failure rates or repair action history defends not only their initiation but their repetitive need for compliance check.
Now extending that same thought to technology improvements, I recall way back in the 70's Indianapolis race car driver and pilot Bobby Unser said engine manufacturers should be ashamed that there has been just about zero reliability and endurance improvements made in piston airplane engines. Take that statement and fast forward to now and note that you can buy a car that has a 5 year 100,000 mile engine and power train WARRANTY, and compare it with our airplane engines that if you take a 4 hour out and 4 hour back flight once a week in your airplane, in 5 years you are supposed to OVERHAUL your engine, makes you think Bobby U was right then and more right now in the year 2017. Add to that thought the fact that you will have to have your plane meticulously somewhat taken apart and inspected 5 times in that same 5 year period. That yields to the potential of errors and omissions in re-assembling a previously perfectly good operating aircraft or engine, (as is now the case with Lycoming where the operator or owner on one of their "overhauled" engines will incur all of the major costs of disassembling that "genuine factory overhauled engine" and replacing the non-airworthy part that Lycoming put into their engine at overhaul and you "gotta believe" there is something that needs attention there there.)

[this-is-steve]

The simulator is a good tool for procedures, standard and emergency. Also very helpful for autopilot use. Problem is, there are many young pilots out there with too much training in that area and not enough experience in day to day basic flying skills. This is through no fault of their own, but a sign of the times in the industry. I don't know where the balance is, but it will be a lasting issue. I agree with the thought that some get it, and some don't. I've flown with both.
I think we all would agree we could use a little common sense in our industry's regulation. I just hope they use common sense in finding the common sense.......