Back to Squawk list
  • 28

Trump directive stalls FAA safety warnings

President Donald Trump's executive directive to restrict or postpone new government regulations for 60 days has hampered the ability of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue safety orders about aircraft. The instructions, known as "airworthiness directives," are issued frequently, and formalize mandated inspections or modifications to correct unsafe conditions on U.S. aircraft. The stalled directives do not mean that airlines and aircraft operators are unaware of serious… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Flight safety is a concept that is perhaps easier to understand than clean water or air quality, food supply protection, drug safety and efficacy, fiduciary integrity, sound banking practice or other regulatory subjects. All are aimed at public safety.
djames225 3
How true Allan...and dont forget, the EPA has almost completely been shut down.
Oh, lovely. This is exactly what I was concerned about when Trump signed that two-for-one executive order: many regulations involve public health and safety, as well as consumer protection....
joel wiley 10
So, who is going to determine which two Airworthiness Directives are to be rescinded for each new one issued?

From the January 30 Order:

Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.

Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.
djames225 15
Don't try and figure it out will just giver yourself a whopping hell with safety, it's the money that counts? @.@

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

joel wiley 20
In part, I agree and disagree with you. It IS political but I disagree with your assertion on prudence. It was not intended as sarcasm. The reasonable and prudent person would view that this, and certain other, Executive Orders were not thought through. It appears to be an indiscriminate attack on the machinery with a fire axe. IMO, this is not governance. It is also one more indication of President Bannon's agenda.

And since it affects AD, it is also aviation related.
Jim Myers 15
Any sane person would realize that this executive order(NOT a regulation) was written to do exactly what Trump said - stop ALL government regulations(Safety IS part of ALL, you do realize).Therefore, there is no sane reason to believe that it will be altered in any way.

Further, as any person that has passed a 6th grade civics class knows, an executive order cannot be "adjusted." It can only be undone by a new executive order specifically stating that it overrules the previous one.

The post by Joel is very prudent, as it asks a question about AD's based upon the REALITY of the executive that Trump signed and what Trump said the intent of that executive order was, and THAT also is what the entire article was discussing.

In fact, the ONLY person that brought politics into the discussion was YOU. To a sane person that makes YOUR post the imprudent post. Funny how FACTS and REALITY work, isn't it?

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 12
The issue is, the orders are being written without thought of consequences...this order is a perfect I said originally "to hell with safety, it's the money that counts?"...if there is an emergency safety regulation mandate, of ANY branch in the government, that has to be placed, meetings will have to be held first and that is playing with a HUGE fireball...this is a very prudent post!
Jim Myers 14
Do you even read before replying? I said an executive can only be undone by a new executive order, you said I was wrong, then stated that an executive order had to be overridden or replaced by a new one.

Provide the white house press release that states he is working on a new executive order, because this is what the white house actually said "The White House communications office did not respond to a request for comment", which means they said nothing. Your fake news does not cut it with me, you don't get a doctoral degree by living in la la land, it takes a firm foundation in reality.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

ToddBaldwin3 2
Ok folks, not just allench1, but everyone. Since a certain someone is no longer haunting this web site with his snide remarks and personal attacks, this site has been much more pleasant to read and comment in. Lets not bring back his attitude and vitriol with more of the same. Please?
drdek 3
Two for one! Would you like fries with that?
Bernie20910 3
Are airworthiness directives published in the Code of Federal Regulations? If not then it would seem logical to me that they are not subject to this directive. If they are, then a new directive exempting them from the previous one would fix the problem.
Brent Bahler 7
They are published in the CFR, but they are not codified in the annual edition. So I'm not sure what their status is as "stand alone" regulations. As an aside, propsoed executive orders are typically reviewed by the Office of Management & Budget before being issue. OMB would seek comment from the affected agencies, and - again, typically - recommend issuance or modification before issuance to the president. But as we all know, there is nothing "typical" about this Administration.
joel wiley 4
I believe regulations must be published in the Federal Register to become effective, and later get sorted into the appropriate CFR.
Brent Bahler -1
The executive order requires that for every new regulation enacted, two existing regulations be "identified" for elimination. It does not mean two regulations will be eliminated. Whether Air Saftey Directives are regulations per se (as opposed to clarifications of existing regulations) could also be debated. Regardless, it would be the FAA itself that would idenitify regulations that could be eliminated.
djames225 4
Agreed Brent as far as the FAA being the regulations oversight...however, the Executive order is all govt agencies so basically ties their hands until either amended or expired.
N5827P 7
All airworthiness directives are amendments to the Federal Air Regulations Part 39. Thus they are "new regulations" Your chances of being killed by a dangerous situation that was ignored in an aircraft are only slightly more than your chances of being killed by an Islamic terrorist
Taylor Jones 7
Agreed. ADs come about because of something bad that happened. One of my professors often said "Most of the regs are written in blood" because they're the direct result of deaths or other negligence. AA 191 and AS 261 aren't going to happen again, because of changes in mandatory aircraft service. However, something akin to this accidents are more likely to happen than a terrorist attack.
This is TOTALLY untrue! Ads were not a part of his directive..
joel wiley 5
What part of the EO specifically exempted ADs? I did not seem to find that part.
cowboybob -7
only CNN would gin something like this up...along with lifers at the FAA trying to protect their feather-beds...what a bunch of nonsense to suggest that legitimate public safety would be stifled. However, as we all know in the flying world, many AD's are not well thought out nor require urgent compliance...some are so ridiculous they should have never been many 210 owners can attest to. So much of what comes out of the FAA is politically calculated these days.

CNN should just crawl under a rock and shut up if they can't simply report The News without propagandizing every little thing. Where the h where the last 8 years when Zero was usurping Congress every damn day with his ridiculous Executive Orders.
joel wiley 7
So, you are of the "if it didn't appear on id didn't happen" school?
This is a prime example of FAKE news..consider the source..CNN..about as far left as you can get. The pilots I know have a since of integrity and honesty. Let's keep this site aviation...and not political.
djames225 3
Why dont you learn to read the complete listings of ALL comments..yes the pilots I also know have a great SENSE of integrity and want to keep the site aviation related and not political and yet come on and lambaste a news site as being "far left"????????
joel wiley 3
Your assertion that the article is 'FAKE news', 'CNN about as far left...' sort of runs counter to your admonition to keep this site 'not political'.

What is not fake news is that the White-house issued this memorandum on 1/20/17 directing agencies not to publish regulations in the Federal Register:

Another item that does not fall into the category of fake news is that the FAA did not publish ADs between 1/18/17 and 2/7/17:

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. The lack of AD issuance and the WH memo coincided. Coincidence does not imply causality. I interpret that those facts demonstrate a cause and effect relation between the memo and AD absence.

A little fact checking helps to separate fake news from real news.
djames225 3
I like the way you slap heads better than mine

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

drdek 8
Fake news? The following is bonafide fake [aviation] news:
The irony is that Trump supporters actually believe this stuff... even after it has been debunked!
Mike Petro 7
Stopped watching the video as soon as I heard it was Sean Hannity's verbatim remarks. Talk about fake news, he's not even a purveyor of "news", just BS.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225 13
Ok enough of this political garbage and please learn to read the Executive Order which was signed on January 30th WHICH AMENDED the Executive Order signed on January is an excerpt of the AMENDED ORDER
Sec. 4. Definition. For purposes of this order the term "regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:

(a) regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(b) regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; or

(c) any other category of regulations exempted by the Director.


If you have issues with folks opposed to government blockage of regulations or discussing said blockages, do it in a cordial way!
joel wiley 7
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

Herr Goebbels didn't invent the idea, he lifted it from Woodrow Wilson.
Scott Wiggins -7
Yes, the smear campaign is alive and well. I'm surprised many posters here not only fall for fake news but participate in the smear campaign as well.
djames225 7
Too bad you do not have the ability to read!...that excerpt I posted was a DIRECT from the AMENDED Executive Order signed January 30th 2017...there is nothing fake about it and NO SMEAR was involved!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.