7 ms·

Some regulations are written and blood but some regulations are written to cover someone's ass and the two should not be treated equally. We shouldn't give equa

Some regulations are written and blood but some regulations are written to cover someone's ass and the two should not be treated equally. We shouldn't give equal respect to the Federal Aviation Regulations and to OPM's Qualification Standards for Federal Jobs; doing so deligitamizes the importance of the former.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
That's entirely true. Thank you for the correction. I spoke overly broadly.
rayiner 2y ago
If everyone writing regulations were as rigorous as the FAA people wouldn’t be clamoring to reduce regulations.
- dylan604 2y ago
  You mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? The FAA is not spotless. I can only imagine how much worse air travel would be without them, but they are only run by humans trying to work in a political controlled environment.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    The FAA is pretty bonkers; Rayiner is right here. Besides, what other system beyond "humans trying to work in a political controlled environment" are you advocating here?
  - craftsman 2y ago
    Congress directed the FAA--by law--to delegate certain aspects of certification to non-FAA entities. This directive was issued by H.R. 302 - FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, 115th Congress.
    - Brybry 2y ago
      Is that the 49 USC 44736 Organization designation authorizations part?[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text/enr#:~:text=%60%60Sec.%2044736.%20Organization%20designation%20authorizations https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...
      - craftsman 2y ago
        Yes, the ODAs. I'm not making a value judgement that this is good, bad, or indifferent. I'm just trying to provide factual context to understand when and why the delegation of certain aspects of certification has occurred.
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > You mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? Reputation lags reality. Boeing used to be a product-first organization, and the FAA relied on that. However Boeing changed and put other priorities first and started cutting corners but their reputation was still good. After all, why would Boeing (unlike, say, tobacco) sell products that would kill their customers: it would be against Boeing's own interests. In the 1980s and 1990s Boeing could be trusted to have less oversight, but since the 2000s that was no longer true, but no one noticed that. Now everyone recognizes that Boeing needs a babysitter.
    - dboreham 2y ago
      > sell products that would kill their customers Because the company ended up being run by people who had no clue what it takes to not kill your customers.
- krisoft 2y ago
  The existence of all the "FAA: We are not happy until you are not happy" funny t-shirts seems to disagree with that observation.
- y33t 2y ago
  Ehh...FAA is kind of crazy and subject to a certain conceit. That's not to say they're bad, or always wrong, but they are a little nuts. For instance there's a rule that says you can't fly under a bridge. A floatplane pilot was on the water, increased his speed so that his floats got on a plane, while still on the water. FAA decided this was flying, even though he was going below stall speed and was by definition not flying. Courts until recently deferred judgement to the agencies that made the rules, and the guy lost his case (and his pilot's license? Don't recall). Also see how shooting a drone flying over your property (even if they don't have a transponder and are literally watching your kids) gets treated as downing an aircraft. Also see the recent kerfuffle between FAA and FCC with 5G. That was just nuts.
randerson 2y ago
FAA is however an agency that regularly tangles with SpaceX and could be seen as slowing them down. Seems like a conflict of interest for the guy tasked with government efficiency.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
addicted 2y ago
Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? There’s a whole YIMBY movement, for example, that has identified specific regulations that are no longer valid and have made tremendous strides in proving and changing these regulations for almost universally better outcomes. So where are all these specific regulations that are so terrible and the evidence that they are indeed net negatives. I absolutely believe such regulations exist. But that’s not what these people care about. They simply care about trashing the govt to make it easier to drown, otherwise they would actually act like the YIMBY movement and identify specific regulations and work on changing those.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  There was an awful lot of complaining about rolling back regulations in the first Trump term, so maybe the administration does care about it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-envir... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-second-trump-administration/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-chang... ^^ includes Trump's first term and Biden's term.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  > Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? That was rude, and didn't at all speak to OP's point. They indicated that not all regulations are equal. Some are important and put into place because people died without them. Others are put into place for less important reasons. And the fact that _some_ regulations were removed doesn't mean that "ones written in blood" necessarily were. There are definitely regulations out there written by people that have no idea what they are talking about, and that are a net negative on the area(s) they impact. Does that mean we should remove Chesterton's Fence? No. But it does mean that, if you see someone removing a fence, you shouldn't immediately accuse them of causing harm.
  - aklemm 2y ago
    Not as rude as ignorant indiscriminate knee-jerk criticism of government work.
freen 2y ago
Ooh… which ones? Classic Edgerton’s Fence: If you don’t know why someone put up a fence, don’t take it down.
- bobnamob 2y ago
  Chesterton's Fence
  - freen 2y ago
    Oof. Correct.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Typically, the ones that protect me are good, the ones that slow me down are bad. Easy!
  - freen 2y ago
    Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
  - ty6853 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      This Waco? --- PBS: > Rumors about Koresh's sexual practices with girls persisted for years prior to the ATF raid. > Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives" who were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant. --- Seattle Times: > Children who left the Branch Davidian cult compound said David Koresh gave girls as young as 11 plastic Stars of David that signified they were ready to have sex with him. ----- PBS: > About six hours after the tear gassing began, flames simultaneously erupted at three separate locations on the compound. Audio recorded by the milk-carton bugs suggests the Davidians started the fires, acting on orders from Koresh. > 1st DAVIDIAN: [surveillance tape] Start the fire? > 2nd DAVIDIAN: Got some fuel around here? > 3rd DAVIDIAN: Right here. Can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compound-reveal-talk-of-setting-fire.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compou...
massysett 2y ago
The latter is how you get a workforce qualified to write the former, rather than a bunch of hacks who know nothing about aviation safety.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

That's entirely true. Thank you for the correction. I spoke overly broadly.

rayiner 2y ago

If everyone writing regulations were as rigorous as the FAA people wouldn’t be clamoring to reduce regulations.

dylan604 2y ago
You mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? The FAA is not spotless. I can only imagine how much worse air travel would be without them, but they are only run by humans trying to work in a political controlled environment.
- camgunz 2y ago
  The FAA is pretty bonkers; Rayiner is right here. Besides, what other system beyond "humans trying to work in a political controlled environment" are you advocating here?
- craftsman 2y ago
  Congress directed the FAA--by law--to delegate certain aspects of certification to non-FAA entities. This directive was issued by H.R. 302 - FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, 115th Congress.
  - Brybry 2y ago
    Is that the 49 USC 44736 Organization designation authorizations part?[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text/enr#:~:text=%60%60Sec.%2044736.%20Organization%20designation%20authorizations https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...
    - craftsman 2y ago
      Yes, the ODAs. I'm not making a value judgement that this is good, bad, or indifferent. I'm just trying to provide factual context to understand when and why the delegation of certain aspects of certification has occurred.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > You mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? Reputation lags reality. Boeing used to be a product-first organization, and the FAA relied on that. However Boeing changed and put other priorities first and started cutting corners but their reputation was still good. After all, why would Boeing (unlike, say, tobacco) sell products that would kill their customers: it would be against Boeing's own interests. In the 1980s and 1990s Boeing could be trusted to have less oversight, but since the 2000s that was no longer true, but no one noticed that. Now everyone recognizes that Boeing needs a babysitter.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    > sell products that would kill their customers Because the company ended up being run by people who had no clue what it takes to not kill your customers.
krisoft 2y ago
The existence of all the "FAA: We are not happy until you are not happy" funny t-shirts seems to disagree with that observation.
y33t 2y ago
Ehh...FAA is kind of crazy and subject to a certain conceit. That's not to say they're bad, or always wrong, but they are a little nuts. For instance there's a rule that says you can't fly under a bridge. A floatplane pilot was on the water, increased his speed so that his floats got on a plane, while still on the water. FAA decided this was flying, even though he was going below stall speed and was by definition not flying. Courts until recently deferred judgement to the agencies that made the rules, and the guy lost his case (and his pilot's license? Don't recall). Also see how shooting a drone flying over your property (even if they don't have a transponder and are literally watching your kids) gets treated as downing an aircraft. Also see the recent kerfuffle between FAA and FCC with 5G. That was just nuts.

randerson 2y ago

FAA is however an agency that regularly tangles with SpaceX and could be seen as slowing them down. Seems like a conflict of interest for the guy tasked with government efficiency.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

addicted 2y ago

Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? There’s a whole YIMBY movement, for example, that has identified specific regulations that are no longer valid and have made tremendous strides in proving and changing these regulations for almost universally better outcomes. So where are all these specific regulations that are so terrible and the evidence that they are indeed net negatives. I absolutely believe such regulations exist. But that’s not what these people care about. They simply care about trashing the govt to make it easier to drown, otherwise they would actually act like the YIMBY movement and identify specific regulations and work on changing those.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
There was an awful lot of complaining about rolling back regulations in the first Trump term, so maybe the administration does care about it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-envir... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-second-trump-administration/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-chang... ^^ includes Trump's first term and Biden's term.
RHSeeger 2y ago
> Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? That was rude, and didn't at all speak to OP's point. They indicated that not all regulations are equal. Some are important and put into place because people died without them. Others are put into place for less important reasons. And the fact that _some_ regulations were removed doesn't mean that "ones written in blood" necessarily were. There are definitely regulations out there written by people that have no idea what they are talking about, and that are a net negative on the area(s) they impact. Does that mean we should remove Chesterton's Fence? No. But it does mean that, if you see someone removing a fence, you shouldn't immediately accuse them of causing harm.
- aklemm 2y ago
  Not as rude as ignorant indiscriminate knee-jerk criticism of government work.

freen 2y ago

Ooh… which ones? Classic Edgerton’s Fence: If you don’t know why someone put up a fence, don’t take it down.

bobnamob 2y ago
Chesterton's Fence
- freen 2y ago
  Oof. Correct.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Typically, the ones that protect me are good, the ones that slow me down are bad. Easy!
- freen 2y ago
  Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
- ty6853 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    This Waco? --- PBS: > Rumors about Koresh's sexual practices with girls persisted for years prior to the ATF raid. > Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives" who were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant. --- Seattle Times: > Children who left the Branch Davidian cult compound said David Koresh gave girls as young as 11 plastic Stars of David that signified they were ready to have sex with him. ----- PBS: > About six hours after the tear gassing began, flames simultaneously erupted at three separate locations on the compound. Audio recorded by the milk-carton bugs suggests the Davidians started the fires, acting on orders from Koresh. > 1st DAVIDIAN: [surveillance tape] Start the fire? > 2nd DAVIDIAN: Got some fuel around here? > 3rd DAVIDIAN: Right here. Can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compound-reveal-talk-of-setting-fire.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compou...

massysett 2y ago

The latter is how you get a workforce qualified to write the former, rather than a bunch of hacks who know nothing about aviation safety.