Trump directive delays FAA AD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trump directive delays FAA AD.
According to...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/news/companies/trump-faa-air-safety/
Trump's directive on regulations is delaying Airworthiness Directives issued by the FAA.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/news/companies/trump-faa-air-safety/
Trump's directive on regulations is delaying Airworthiness Directives issued by the FAA.
This probably is the wrong forum for this discussion
I take a difference between in-service airworthiness and new regulations.
The long and short of it is that a new regulation affecting all like products must be founded in a balance of judgements both economically and feasibility to address what is claimed.
However if a specific product in service has been shown to actually not attain the level of safety it was certified to than it must be addressed.
Trump can call for additional what-if studies for the former but I doubt that he can interfere in the later.
If anybody wants clarification just ask those in charge of the FAA and not the White House
I take a difference between in-service airworthiness and new regulations.
The long and short of it is that a new regulation affecting all like products must be founded in a balance of judgements both economically and feasibility to address what is claimed.
However if a specific product in service has been shown to actually not attain the level of safety it was certified to than it must be addressed.
Trump can call for additional what-if studies for the former but I doubt that he can interfere in the later.
If anybody wants clarification just ask those in charge of the FAA and not the White House
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the article:
Shortly after Trump was sworn into office on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order putting all new and pending regulations on hold for 60 days.
The order did note that some regulations could be exempt from the order due to "emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters."
The action is a fairly standard move for a new administration taking over from the previous party. In 2009, after he was inaugurated, former president Obama issued similar directives.
The order did note that some regulations could be exempt from the order due to "emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters."
The action is a fairly standard move for a new administration taking over from the previous party. In 2009, after he was inaugurated, former president Obama issued similar directives.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all gets a little childish and tedious
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN is hardly a worthy news source for this kind of information. Almost all of their aviation related news items are lacking in depth and accuracy. Combine that with their anti Trump bias and are getting mostly fake news. Just sayn.....
To add to Spooky's post, "The order did note that some regulations could be exempt from the order due to "emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters."
If it's not urgent "safety", it shouldn't be an AD...
If it's not urgent "safety", it shouldn't be an AD...
The AD process in the US has been reworked and revamped over the course of decades to what it is today. Strangely, for each(non-emergency) AD issued today, a financial impact statement must be provided, and it is 'open season' for comments from the public, although the commentary period is de-facto clear eye-wash as no amount of negative fiscal commentary has ever stopped or much slowed any AD from being issued.
For example; an AD requiring some changes to cylinders on Conti engines contained a huge bill due to the wide coverage of the AD. Many owners of affected engines made many comments about the cost of compliance. No matter - the AD went into affect pretty much as drafted, notwithstanding the millions spent on compliance.
An emergency AD would fall under all the auspices of those generally accepted exceptions. Trump's directive has had, and will have no effect on the current AD in process. But - it will have an affect on future ADs where the cost of compliance likely will properly have at least a seat at the table during consideration.
In some case, aero-engineers have offered and provided a workaround or alternate means of compliance with an onerous AD, which would accomplish the same gains in safety while minimizing cost(e.g. Fuel selector valves on Ryan/NA Navions), and in times past, that workaround or alternate means was rejected out of hand. In one case from 1998, an AD which was required was rescinded and eventually the alternate means of compliance once rejected by the field was the new corrected action. All knowledge does not flow from the mouths of the FAA, so it would seem.
For example; an AD requiring some changes to cylinders on Conti engines contained a huge bill due to the wide coverage of the AD. Many owners of affected engines made many comments about the cost of compliance. No matter - the AD went into affect pretty much as drafted, notwithstanding the millions spent on compliance.
An emergency AD would fall under all the auspices of those generally accepted exceptions. Trump's directive has had, and will have no effect on the current AD in process. But - it will have an affect on future ADs where the cost of compliance likely will properly have at least a seat at the table during consideration.
In some case, aero-engineers have offered and provided a workaround or alternate means of compliance with an onerous AD, which would accomplish the same gains in safety while minimizing cost(e.g. Fuel selector valves on Ryan/NA Navions), and in times past, that workaround or alternate means was rejected out of hand. In one case from 1998, an AD which was required was rescinded and eventually the alternate means of compliance once rejected by the field was the new corrected action. All knowledge does not flow from the mouths of the FAA, so it would seem.
