More regulation will almost certainly not solve the problems.

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As I've stated, there isn't at the FAA administrative level. However, I think your continued use of "threats" and "violence" in this discussion points more to a belief that governments, in general, should not have the appropriate powers to enforce the laws of the land. If anything were to fall under "complete non-sequitur" it would be that ideal in the context of this conversation and your OP.

I think essentially you have hit the nail on the head there, though I don’t believe what has been attributed to me there. I would argue it is exactly the case that governments need to be able to use violence and threats of violence to enforce their rules, the “laws of the land”, in order to function. That is what I meant in my original comment noting this.

I am happy to try and think of another example, but maybe we actually agree then on the following - all government laws and regulations implicitly contain a threat of the use of violence to enforce them. In the context of the OP, this includes FAA rules and regulations.

Would you agree with that? If so, then perhaps we should return to the second point about costs.

 

[rotorwrench]

I think essentially you have hit the nail on the head there, though I don’t believe what has been attributed to me there. I would argue it is exactly the case that governments need to be able to use violence and threats of violence penalties and punishments to enforce their rules, the “laws of the land”, in order to function. That is what I meant in my original comment noting this.

FTFY. We’re talking semantics here. When you use “threats” and “violence” in this context you come across as implying those governmental agencies will act outside the very laws they are enforcing on others. The main reason for this is that “threats of violence” and “violence” are codified as a federal crime. So, is it your view the government will break the law to enforce the law? Or that you simply picked the wrong words to express your thoughts?

If so, then perhaps we should return to the second point about costs.

Reading your last post on this topic (#17), it appears you believe the ICAO agreement does not provide exemptions for international duties/costs. In reality, that is one of the main purposes of this agreement in addition to mutual acceptance of other contracting States (members) certifications.

For example, each time a US aircraft leaves the country it is technically considered exported per US Customs rules, and technically imported at the international destination airport. However, per ICAO Article 24: “Aircraft on a flight to, from, or across the territory of another contracting State shall be admitted temporarily free of duty, […].”

Same for the crew certifications and aircraft AWC per ICAO Article 33: Certificates of airworthiness and certificates of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the contracting State in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid by the other contracting States,[…].

So, for example, without the ICAO agreement Delta would need to pay the importation duty on a 767 once landed at that foreign country airport, pay to have the 767 flight crew pilot certificates validated in that country prior to the flight, and pay to have the 767 AWC validated or be required to pay to have the 767 type certificated in that country. All of which would add up to a regular hefty bill considering Delta flies to many different countries each day, with many different aircraft and crews, each requiring the same additional costs currently exempt under ICAO as a contracting State.

But I’m not sure what other costs you are referring to in your Post #17?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

FTFY. We’re talking semantics here. When you use “threats” and “violence” in this context you come across as implying those governmental agencies will act outside the very laws they are enforcing on others. The main reason for this is that “threats of violence” and “violence” are codified as a federal crime. So, is it your view the government will break the law to enforce the law? Or that you simply picked the wrong words to express your thoughts?

Neither, I mean it precisely with that emphasis. While I do see your point that these statements could be construed a different way, that is not what I mean. I mean to say precisely that the government will act WITHIN its laws and use violence and threats of violence. I said nothing about the government breaking its own laws.

There is another perspective here which is that using phrases like "penalties and punishments" rather than "violence and threats of violence" fails to sufficiently emphasize what actually happens to people when these rules and regulations are enforced. As you note, these differences are a matter of emphasis or connotation, rather than explicit meaning.

But in any case I think we both now understand exactly what will happen if one simply ignores and disobeys these rules and regulations.

 

[administrator]

Subsequent posts regarding ICAO membership and requirements moved to its own thread - https://flyersforum.org/threads/us-membership-in-icao-costs-and-requirements.3502/

 

[Bob Noel]

Is there anything in my proposal which would prevent carriers who wish to fly internationally from voluntarily complying with other countries regulations or international standards? Or even forming their own agency for certification to such standards if they wish to do so?

(caveat: this was true 10 years ago, don't know if anything has changed, but I really doubt it has)

a little fun fact: other countries charge applicants for the country's aviation agency's efforts/costs for certification. Yes, that could mean an agency could generate revenue simply by rejecting an applicant and making them go through the costs again.

How do you propose that carriers show compliance with the regulations of other countries? Right now, that is done via bilateral airworthiness agreements. Remove the FAA from aircraft (and crew) certification and poof.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

We had been discussing some of the technical details of this and moved to the other thread - https://flyersforum.org/threads/us-membership-in-icao-costs-and-requirements.3502/

I don't know all the details of the ICAO rules. But from what has been discussed there, they sound complex. Thus perhaps the best solution for the US would be for the FAA to simplify the rules into two categories.

1. Airlines and aircraft that want to fly internationally. They follow the rules similar to what we have now so the ICAO will be happy.
2. Airlines and aircraft that will stay domestic. The FAA rules are dramatically simplified as I suggested above. Basically for commercial operations, the operators and their insurers decide what they need. For the rest, let tort law resolve any harm that people do. Including commercial operators being responsible for any damage their airliners being used as weapons causes.

 

[rotorwrench]

other countries charge applicants for the country's aviation agency's efforts/costs for certification. Yes, that could mean an agency could generate revenue simply by rejecting an applicant and making them go through the costs again.

The reason for this is the difference in how the civil aviation authorities are funded. In the US they a government funded via taxes. In the most other places like UK or EU, they are user fee funded. For example, if you want to use a runway in the EU each aircraft must pay a fee each time, they land on the runway with some charging the takeoff instead.

Or if I wanted to obtain an EASA approval for my FAA repair station, I would have to shell out about $25k to fly the EASA inspectors over here and pay the lodging, meals, and time they spent inspecting me. Where the FAA would not charge for the same service until “recently” after they shutdown all the overseas IFO locations and now charge a nominal fee for the overseas service.

I don't know all the details of the ICAO rules. But from what has been discussed there, they sound complex.

The ICAO Articles and Annexes are less complex than the FARs. If you want complex read the EASA rules.

1. Airlines and aircraft that want to fly internationally. They follow the rules similar to what we have now so the ICAO will be happy.
2. Airlines and aircraft that will stay domestic. The FAA rules are dramatically simplified as I suggested above.

Very doubtful. As I mentioned in a previous post, a majority of the regulations we have today were existing in the US CAA prior to the founding of the ICAO. And the reason why was operators, both domestic and international, were killing their passengers because they preferred not to follow the existing safety recommendations of the day. It’s the same reason the Aeronautics Branch was cut from the Commerce Department and made into the independent CAA and the CAB and the 1st CARs were written. All to protect the flying public from those cheap operators.

While I don’t know what your experience is with the aviation insurance industry, I can assure you they prefer to place a lot more importance in risk management in making decisions vs how much they pay out on an injured or dead pax. The question is, why haven't they done that now and required more safety compliance if that point is important? But keep in mind, to satisfy those who don't want rules, the FAA provides E/AB and other Special AWC routes so that you can fly/build whatever aircraft you want, free from any oversight.

Perhaps send an email to Southwest Airlines and see what their take would be of your ideas? Or send it to the CEO of Ryan Air in the EU. That guy wanted EASA permission to create a "standing room only" fare and have pax stand in the aisle like in a bus.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Very doubtful. As I mentioned in a previous post, a majority of the regulations we have today were existing in the US CAA prior to the founding of the ICAO. And the reason why was operators, both domestic and international, were killing their passengers because they preferred not to follow the existing safety recommendations of the day. It’s the same reason the Aeronautics Branch was cut from the Commerce Department and made into the independent CAA and the CAB and the 1st CARs were written. All to protect the flying public from those cheap operators.

As always I will ask, are there any real data and analyses that say that these regulations had their intended effect and that they are worth the cost?

The fact that these come from the 20s and 30s argues that probably they aren't. Certainly back then the US government did not assess things this way and perhaps even lacked the technical ability to perform these sort of analyses.

However, a quick search at Google Scholar on keywords "faa regulation aviation safety" does yield a lot of results, some of which look interesting. So I will reserve final judgement until at least initially reviewing.

Though I am frankly rather skeptical there will be much given past searches on the similar items.

While I don’t know what your experience is with the aviation insurance industry, I can assure you they prefer to place a lot more importance in risk management in making decisions vs how much they pay out on an injured or dead pax. The question is, why haven't they done that now and required more safety compliance if that point is important? But keep in mind, to satisfy those who don't want rules, the FAA provides E/AB and other Special AWC routes so that you can fly/build whatever aircraft you want, free from any oversight.

I agree the insurers are the ones who would have to get really serious about this without the regulations in place. However, with this sort of regulation in place, industry and insurers are clearly incentivized to do the _minimum_ needed to meet regulatory requirements. Then they can defend themselves in court by saying "we did everything which was legally required"

Perhaps send an email to Southwest Airlines and see what their take would be of your ideas? Or send it to the CEO of Ryan Air in the EU. That guy wanted EASA permission to create a "standing room only" fare and have pax stand in the aisle like in a bus.

One of the effects of regulating an industry is to favor the established and larger players. I am nearly certain that the last thing these people want is more competition and less regulation.

 

[rotorwrench]

As always I will ask, are there any real data and analyses that say that these regulations had their intended effect and that they are worth the cost?

And as I always reply, analysis or overwhelming data is not always a requirement when regulating industries. For example, it can be as simple as the accidental death of a nationally beloved football coach that became the final straw publicly after a string of high-profile accidental deaths and drove congress to take action to protect the general public.

If I may ask, what is your background and profession? Do any national or international standards govern how you perform your work?

But in reality, others had similar concerns as far back as the 30s. And those concerns culminated in the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in the 40s which requires reviewing the reasons and costs for new or revised regulations. For example, every FAA NPRM to include ADs lists this type of information unless exempt by other rules.

What’s interesting with the NPRM process, is the general public is invited to make comments on these proposed new or revised rules, yet few participate. Have you ever made a public comment on a proposed new or revised FAA regulation?

Though I am frankly rather skeptical there will be much given past searches on the similar items.

FYI: there is much more data and research in the private domain than the public domain or the data is "hidden" in areas normally not part of your average internet search algorithms. For example, most of the consultants or attorneys I worked with had subscriptions to various information entities that provided access to what appeared to be an endless amount of information and data on certain topics.

Then they can defend themselves in court by saying "we did everything which was legally required"

And that would be incorrect. You can be 100% in compliance with every law and regulation in existence and then some, yet still lose in a court of law. The “standard of care” can and will eclipse all rules with the right attorney in the room. And as to the insurance industry their only priority is to its profits. Full stop.

One of the effects of regulating an industry is to favor the established and larger players.

And that’s your ongoing opinion. I respect that. Yet I’ve given you actual examples where that’s not the case especially in aviation. Perhaps you can give some actual examples of where you see this?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And as I always reply, analysis or overwhelming data is not always a requirement when regulating industries.

It should be. I think the standard should be clear and convincing evidence. Otherwise I consider it completely immoral to being using violence and threats of violence to be forcing people to do things they otherwise don’t want to do.

I emphasize the violence that underlies all government “consequences” so as not to sugar coat what ultimately happens to people if they don’t comply.

Perhaps you don’t and think it morally acceptable to use those kind of threats with lesser evidence. Then we disagree at that level and to continue that discussion would have to proceed to moral philosophy.

FYI: there is much more data and research in the private domain than the public domain or the data is "hidden" in areas normally not part of your average internet search algorithms. For example, most of the consultants or attorneys I worked with had subscriptions to various information entities that provided access to what appeared to be an endless amount of information and data on certain topics.

True, but secret non obtainable data is no way to run a nominally transparent government.

And that would be incorrect. You can be 100% in compliance with every law and regulation in existence and then some, yet still lose in a court of law. The “standard of care” can and will eclipse all rules with the right attorney in the room.

Yes one can always get unusual verdicts. But I suspect and have heard from multiple attorneys that doing what is just legally required is normally a rather good defense.

Again this is in principle subject to empirical verification.

can you can give some actual examples of where you see this?

I don’t normally ask people to trust my anecdotes. I look for real studies and analysis. I haven’t completed my initial review of the possible studies for either the parts question or this one yet.

If after I am done with that and conclude there are no real studies, and if we agree that is the case, then I think anecdotes and other epistemological considerations become more important.

 

[rotorwrench]

It should be. I think the standard should be clear and convincing evidence.

Except it does follow the principal of the Rule of Law which has been a foundation for the country for many, many years. But since you are obvious not a follower of the Rule of Law, then you are correct that we will agree to disagree on the subject.

True, but secret non obtainable data is no way to run a nominally transparent government.

Except the private domain is owned by private individuals or companies who provide a service for a fee. It has zero to do with the government. They simply design purpose-built, proprietary search engines that use the same worldwide web and internet structure any other freely available search engine uses but they build very specialized databases that they sell access to.

Yes one can always get unusual verdicts. But I suspect and have heard from multiple attorneys that doing what is just legally required is normally a rather good defense.

Hardly unusual. I can honestly tell you from personal experience, “doing what is just legally required” is merely a prerequisite... to having a good defense.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Except it does follow the principal of the Rule of Law which has been a foundation for the country for many, many years. But since you are obvious not a follower of the Rule of Law, then you are correct that we will agree to disagree on the subject.

Yes, you are correct, I don't think that following the Rule of Law is a good guide to morality. Additionally since we are sort of discussing what the law and regulations should be, doesn't that lead to a circular argument? In others words, the argument would appear to be "It should be the law, because it is the law."

 

[rotorwrench]

Additionally since we are sort of discussing what the law and regulations should be, doesn't that lead to a circular argument? In others words, the argument would appear to be "It should be the law, because it is the law."

Not at all. In reality, laws and morals are both standards of a personal conduct. However, morals tend to come from specific personal beliefs and laws tend to come from a collection of community beliefs. So under the Rule of Law, laws and regulations apply equally to all persons regardless of specific personal beliefs. So it’s more like… “it is the law, because society wants the law.”

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I can see how that does avoid a direct circularity error. I think it raises a number of more philosophical issues, however, I have been starting to focus my effort now on the review of possible studies of the impact of ICAO regulations. The first stage of review of title and abstracts seems to be producing some articles of interest. It does take some time so about 1-2 weeks until finished I think given the fraction of effort I have available.

If you prefer, I can continue here with the philosophical issues if you find that a more interesting line though.

ETA - I will say this - the lack of DOIs for many papers in this field makes this a longer process.

 

[rotorwrench]

I can continue here with the philosophical issues if you find that a more interesting line though.

While its not in my top 10 of discussion topics, I think I should 1st point out that most aviation regulatory authorities already have established "philosophical foundations" especially when it comes to compliance issues. And in general, these foundations are revised as the industry and society changes. However, if this is something you want to expand on why not. It seems to be increasingly hard to participate in any meaningful civil discourse and perhaps someone may actually benefit from our discussion?

 

[Winthrop]

I think we need to end the airline cartel, not strengthen it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flying-delays-cancellations-passenger-airlines-air-travel-rights-refunds-fees-2024-8

So as I pointed out in another thread, US airlines are essentially in the credit card marketing and banking businesses. The whole flying passengers thing is really just a gimmick to sell the credit cards. As to the regulations, well the airline shareholders like those because they make running the airline easier and the government likes to be involved. The fact it is bad for the passengers is not really relevant. If they were politically important they would not be on a commercial airline to start with.