New FAA strategy... Maybe?

ppragman said:
Wow. This is...disgusting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. It wasn't the sole cause of the accident. But it goes a long way to show what a FSDO inspector on a power grip can do.

I didn't catch if there was a link to the full NTSB report. What medication was he on?
 
mshunter said:
Yeah, pretty much. It wasn't the sole cause of the accident. But it goes a long way to show what a FSDO inspector on a power grip can do.

I didn't catch if there was a link to the full NTSB report. What medication was he on?
Click to expand...
On iPhone so I can't find it, but I believe they were anti-depressants related to the FSDO safety inspectors hounding him and ruining his reputation and career.
This is why I take any new "kinder and gentler" FAA with a grain of salt. Even these guys had no action taken against them even though they were found to have contributed to an innocent man's death. If they been in private industry they probably would have been sent to jail, but as employees of the federal leviathan they were immune to even minor job action.
I've heard this song and dance before. People lay low for a while, administrator leaves, bad safety inspectors go back to their old ways.
 
Last edited:
This isn't the action of the administrator. This change is the result of a huge swath of the FAA pushing for change. The current administrator provided the top cover for the change that has been in process for a decade. The only true holdout was FAA legal, and they've finally gone along with it.

I understand a certain level of skepticism...I guess. But this isn't a minor change, and it is in force now.

If I were hearing pushback from various inspectors in the meetings I might agree that it won't stick, but in every meeting I've been a part of this has been a celebrated change.
 
z987k said:
It's just that all the evidence to date shows the FAA has almost no interest in safety.

As a whole, we're going to have to see it in action before many of us believe. I know I wouldn't bet my career on this change being real at every or even most FSDOs.
Click to expand...

If it were only a proposed change I might agree with you. My frustration with you guys is that it is in effect right now as we speak, and I've seen it first hand. I've seen the written order. I've seen the result of the change in an ASAP meeting. I was at the last InfoShare meeting when all the FSDOs were present celebrating the change. I'm not sure what more it would take to convince you.
 
And I disagree that the FAA doesn't have an interest in safety. They just have had a lot of traditionally minded people in the past (who are now retiring in droves) who didn't understand that enforcement doesn't equal safety.

By the way, quite a few of you on this board exhibit the same tendencies. Just read the thread about the Mesa wing strike to see examples.
 
It's not like the bad inspectors jump up and complain when the "kinder gentler FAA" cycles begin. Like cockroaches they go scurrying to their dark hideouts only to reappear when the next cycle begins.
I'm not saying all safety inspectors are bad, nor even a majority. I've met some great ones over the years. Unfortunately those bad ones carry so much power that the little guy gets crushed. Until a way is found to actually weed out the bad ones nothing will change.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
If it were only a proposed change I might agree with you. My frustration with you guys is that it is in effect right now as we speak, and I've seen it first hand. I've seen the written order. I've seen the result of the change in an ASAP meeting. I was at the last InfoShare meeting when all the FSDOs were present celebrating the change. I'm not sure what more it would take to convince you.
Click to expand...
If you work for who your avitar depicts, I completely believe this. However, there is a significant population on this site that fly for 135 carriers that have varying degrees of oversight. Knowing that, I hope you can understand why many of us find it very hard/impossible to believe that the FAA would make/implement such a change when they have such a distinguished history of selective enforcement on the operating certificate level. The agency has a history of reactive safety rather than a proactive approach.
 
tiredcfi said:
If you work for who your avitar depicts, I completely believe this. However, there is a significant population on this site that fly for 135 carriers that have varying degrees of oversight. Knowing that, I hope you can understand why many of us find it very hard/impossible to believe that the FAA would make/implement such a change when they have such a distinguished history of selective enforcement on the operating certificate level. The agency has a history of reactive safety rather than a proactive approach.
Click to expand...

Well call your FSDO. Ask them. This isn't secret or a minor change.
 
tiredcfi said:
If you work for who your avitar depicts, I completely believe this. However, there is a significant population on this site that fly for 135 carriers that have varying degrees of oversight. Knowing that, I hope you can understand why many of us find it very hard/impossible to believe that the FAA would make/implement such a change when they have such a distinguished history of selective enforcement on the operating certificate level. The agency has a history of reactive safety rather than a proactive approach.
Click to expand...
Then throw in how they're treating the aging GA fleet. Going as far as revoking PMAs on products that bring incredible safety or innovation to old airplanes. Disallowing almost any improvement that doesn't carry a price tag more apt for a large cabin jet.
Then the already mentioned cargo carve out, the disregard for almost all of their own rules on the 135 side and refusal to enforce things universally.

PhilosopherPilot said:
Well call your FSDO. Ask them. This isn't secret or a minor change.
Click to expand...
Good idea.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I understand a certain level of skepticism...I guess. But this isn't a minor change, and it is in force now.

If I were hearing pushback from various inspectors in the meetings I might agree that it won't stick, but in every meeting I've been a part of this has been a celebrated change.
Click to expand...

Sadly it will take decades for the pilot community to change our view of the Feds. I view FSDO inspectors pretty much the same way minorities see cops. I know a couple socially, and I agree that most are good guys just trying to do their jobs, but I don't trust any of them when they are on the clock.

If the FAA really want's to see change, then they need to give pilots and mechanics whistle-blower protection for when they are pressured to violate the regs or loose their jobs. Sure it's easy to say that a pilot should refuse, but reality is very different when you have kids to feed and management has 10 resumes for your job. Even if the Feds do investigate, the company has plenty of money for lawyers, while the pilots have none. The FSDO will go after the soft target that can't fight back, meanwhile the company will get off with a warning or small fine.


As many have said, we all hope the FAA embraces a "compliance, not convictions" mindset where they actually pursue safety improvements, but I'll keep my policy of "never speak to a Fed unless absolutely necessary" in place for the foreseeable future.
 
I'm not without my own skepticism. In fact I personally caused some stir by asking if there was any standardization proposed between CMOs. The answer I got was "We are encouraging critical thinking between FSDOs, and the results one airline sees will not necessarily match another because the circumstances will be different." By that they meant that one airline may be approved for one thing while another may not, all depending upon the circumstances involved. Naturally that raised some eyebrows. We (the airlines) are eager to see how the shift plays out too. It has only been in place since Oct 1.

So yeah, there's room to grow. There's going to be stumbling along the way as some traditionalists are brought into the 21st century. But this is a wholesale change (GA too), and I really can't see it rolling back, even with a new administrator.
 
I met with Tony Ferrante yesterday in person. This was discussed at length. This has support from the top down at the FAA, and at least at the 121 level, we already see the change.

Good luck guys. I've said all I can say on this subject.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
But this is a wholesale change (GA too), and I really can't see it rolling back, even with a new administrator.
Click to expand...

My experience is that culture change in government organizations doesn't happen anywhere as fast as you're offering.

ATN_Pilot said:
When it's an agency-wide change in policy, it does.
Click to expand...

I have had quite a few examples where an agency said "That's the policy, but we aren't implementing it yet"
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I met with Tony Ferrante yesterday in person. This was discussed at length. This has support from the top down at the FAA, and at least at the 121 level, we already see the change.
Click to expand...

Sadly the FSDOs seem happy to ignore National in order to protect their smaller carriers. From what I understand USA Jet is still 24/7 on call. They are Supplemental 121/135. I highly doubt we will see their 24/7 schedule disappear due to these changes.

Many 135s and Supplemental 121s actively flaunt (Pilot recruiting) their illegal 24/7 schedule in the FAA's face and yet no one acts.

I believe the FSDOs will implement these changes at the larger air carriers since they will have ALPA and such to contend with but smaller carriers will be ignored unless FAA national decides to finally fix the FSDOs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top