FAA Reauthorization Bill

[Evan]

The Senate passed this back in March. It is largely an $34.5B appropriations bill since the language restricting industry collusion, proposed by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and passed in the House version, was stripped out. I expect those practices will continue to poison the system until stronger legislation is passed. The recent damning report issued by the US Office of Special Council will hopefully put those things back on the table.

It does have some baby teeth in the area of pilot certification and training however:

The bill additionally calls for new pilot hiring and training regulations stemming from the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation into the February 2009 Colgan Air Q400 crash that killed 50. It would require "airlines to examine a pilot's entire flight history, including previous tests of flying skills, before the pilot is hired," according to the Senate Commerce and Transportation Committee. It further would require "air carriers to implement a formal remedial training program for underperforming pilots. . .[and] FAA to re-evaluate pilot training and qualification regulations to ensure pilots have the proper skills and experience. Should the FAA fail to do this by the end of 2011, all air carrier pilots will be required to have logged at least 1,500 flight hr. before flying an aircraft with paying customers aboard."

The bill is here (not sure if this is the final version however):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h915rfs.txt.pdf

[AirRabbit]

What kind of "industry collusion" was referenced in the original and taken out of this version?

[Evan]

What kind of "industry collusion" was referenced in the original and taken out of this version?

In 2008, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., introduced legislation that would prohibit the FAA from treating anyone but the traveling public as customers. The legislation also required FAA maintenance supervisors to be rotated from one airline to another, with the aim of ensuring they do not form close relationships with any one carrier. The bill passed the House. But it didn't get out of the Senate.

[AirRabbit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirRabbit What kind of "industry collusion" was referenced in the original and taken out of this version?

In 2008, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., introduced legislation that would prohibit the FAA from treating anyone but the traveling public as customers. The legislation also required FAA maintenance supervisors to be rotated from one airline to another, with the aim of ensuring they do not form close relationships with any one carrier. The bill passed the House. But it didn't get out of the Senate.

Yes, I understand all that. And, again, I ask, what kind of "industry collusion" was referenced in the original and taken out of this version?

[AirRabbit]

Pertinent portion of The Final Text of HR 5900

Well, I was never able to find the kinds of references that were described in several posts. But I was able to get a copy of the "Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010." The area that was the most discussed was that portion that addressed the requirements for the issuance of an ATP certificate..

SEC. 217. AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATION.

(a) Rulemaking Proceeding- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to amend part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to modify requirements for the issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate.
(b) Minimum Requirements- To be qualified to receive an airline transport pilot certificate pursuant to subsection (a), an individual shall--
(1) have sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment; and
(2) have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot, at a minimum, to--
(A) function effectively in a multipilot environment;
(B) function effectively in adverse weather conditions, including icing conditions;
(C) function effectively during high altitude operations;
(D) adhere to the highest professional standards; and
(E) function effectively in an air carrier operational environment.
(c) Flight Hours-
(1) NUMBERS OF FLIGHT HOURS- The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall be at least 1,500 flight hours.
(2) FLIGHT HOURS IN DIFFICULT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS- The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall include sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, in difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by an air carrier to enable a pilot to operate safely in such conditions.
(d) Credit Toward Flight Hours- The Administrator may allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.
(e) Recommendations of Expert Panel- In conducting the rulemaking proceeding under this section, the Administrator shall review and consider the assessment and recommendations of the expert panel to review part 121 and part 135 training hours established by section 209(b) of this Act.
(f) Deadline- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a final rule under subsection (a).

I guess there will be some additonal actions that will have to be taken to bring the full requirement outlined in the above excerpt into full effectivity ... and I guess we'll have to wait to see what that will actually mean and what it will actually do.

[Evan]

Yes, I understand all that. And, again, I ask, what kind of "industry collusion" was referenced in the original and taken out of this version?

I'm sorry. I should have said 'implied', not 'referenced'. The language and intent of the House bill clearly implies a degree of collusion between the FAA and the aviation industry:

In 2008, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., introduced legislation that would prohibit the FAA from treating anyone but the traveling public as customers. The legislation also required FAA maintenance supervisors to be rotated from one airline to another, with the aim of ensuring they do not form close relationships with any one carrier. The bill passed the House.

This falls short of an actual accusation, but you don't successfully pass such 'preventative' measures unless some degree of collusion is acknowledged to exist. The fact that this bill passed in the House is very damning to the FAA.

[AirRabbit]

Hey Evan:

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you should apologize. You've earned my respect ... even though we may, at times, have a different opinion on a particular issue - you'd have to really "screw up" for me to change my opinion of you. I'm not attempting to imply that the FAA doesn't have their own, internal problems ... clearly, they do! or, at least, they did - I guess the jury is still out on some specific issues - and I say that because I, for one, take, with a specific grain of salt, those who cite "whistle blower protection" while shooting at their own employer - regarless of who that employer may be.

I think that the change in policy (or requirement?) that the Agency rotate those who oversee particular certificate holders periodically was established to, first, prevent the likelihood of those persons developing a less-than-objective relationship with those over whom they are charged with surveillance and inspection responsibility; but also, second, to avoid even the appearance that such a relationship has developed.

Having been in this business for as long as I have, it is clear that anyone who is involved in training or checking flight crewmembers, simply HAS to develop an ability to separate personal feelings from professional responsibilities. If someone evaluates his/her best friend as a pilot and that pilot doesn't perform too well, while it may be distastful ... that person has a professional responsibility to "call it like it is seen" and tell the pilot they've failed. Also, if the guy (or gal) for whom someone has really serious personal issues happens to pass the check, again, tlhat result MUST be "called as it was seen" even if that means the guy/gal passes!

Those who have been doing this for as long as I have, usually have little trouble making those differentiations - but, it may well be that as the FAA has hired a lot of relatively "new" folks in the recent past ... it may be that some of those folks have not developed the internal ability to understand what it is they're doing. To help ensure that this does not become a problem - and it HAD become a problem ... very notably in the FAA's Southwest Region, not long ago - it probably makes sense to institute such a rotation policy. But, until I see a lot more evidence that there is "collusion" running rampant within the ranks of the FAA, I'm going to treat individual issues individually - regardless of the outcome.

As I've said, I don't know everyone in the FAA - but I DO know quite a few - and they, like all groups of people, run the gamut of personalities ... however, knowing what I know and seeing what I've seen, I think it is more accurate to say that this group (again, admittedly, not everyone in the FAA) but this group knows full well what it means to "call it like they see it." And every one of them has my respect for doing so. I may or may not agree with each decision someone in the FAA may make - and sometimes, I REALLY disagree - but those are individual issues - and it would be wrong of me to cast the whole group under the same bus.

[Evan]

Air Rabbit ~

I think it's important to distinguish between the people on the ground and the people behind the curtain.

I understand the problem of relationships and objectivity in the field, although I certainly hope that the field inspectors are not losing touch with what is at stake. Extending tolerance can result in injuries and loss of life on a grand scale. I still have a hard time understanding why there is even room for tolerance. Compliance requirements should be very specific.

But the accusations issued by the U.S. Office of Special Council described a resistance from above, where the field inspectors have to fight their way up the management chain. Why? This is where I suspect collusion to exist: not out of personal relationships in the field, but out of business interests, professional advancement, political advantages—and outright favors and rewards—driving FAA policy makers at the top. This is the regulatory body for a very desperate industry, one that lives or dies on small margins. The environment for corruption is quite fertile.

[AirRabbit]

... the accusations issued by the U.S. Office of Special Council described a resistance from above, where the field inspectors have to fight their way up the management chain. Why? This is where I suspect collusion to exist: not out of personal relationships in the field, but out of business interests, professional advancement, political advantages—and outright favors and rewards—driving FAA policy makers at the top. This is the regulatory body for a very desperate industry, one that lives or dies on small margins. The environment for corruption is quite fertile.

Unless you have information that I don't, I certainly haven't seen any FAA field inspectors having to "fight their way up the management chain" for job availability. If you believe that statement is directed at some level difficulty in getting management to recognize the criticisms reported as being fair and accurate ... wouldn't it be just as logical to presume that the manager who declined to process the report as it was submitted was not satisfied that the claim was as valid as the author of the report stated? The fact that someone has apparently agreed that the issues raised are worthy of additional scrutiny does not, in itself, indicate that there is a glaring problem that needs immediate correction. Look at the issue more closely? Sure. Do that. But let’s not shoot the manager (or whomever it was) until we find out that the allegations are fair and accurate and are worthy of shooting that manager.

Also, it would seem to me that for an environment of corruption to exist beyond the odd one or two ethically challenged individuals (and I suspect that any organization the size of the FAA would provide ample opportunity to find a few who are less than the most honest of characters), there would have to be some sort of incentive involved. If what I've seen, heard, and read about the FAA not being allowed to accept even an "off duty drink," paid for by one of the industry, it would seem to be a necessity to have a pretty sophisticated and unseen process to provide those FAA persons with some sort of value to do the things that you believe are being done that provides the kinds of advantages to whomever you think is gaining such advantages. That is, if it is true that some FAA inspectors were "looking the other way" when a series of ADs were supposed to have been accomplished - what would be the advantage realized by the airline in not completing those ADs that were called into question … and what sort of "value" would those FAA inspectors likely receive as “payment” for engaging in that "other direction" vision? Finally, and probably most significantly, would that presumed "value" be worth the disgrace and the loss of one's job and all retirement benefits that would assuredly follow? I'm inclined to believe that any "value" (if it existed in the first place) would pale in comparison – and, therefore it is likely that it didn’t happen the way it is currently being alleged. But, no matter. Let the additional scrutiny take place. >>

[Evan]

Unless you have information that I don't, I certainly haven't seen any FAA field inspectors having to "fight their way up the management chain" for job availability. If you believe that statement is directed at some level difficulty in getting management to recognize the criticisms reported as being fair and accurate ... wouldn't it be just as logical to presume that the manager who declined to process the report as it was submitted was not satisfied that the claim was as valid as the author of the report stated? The fact that someone has apparently agreed that the issues raised are worthy of additional scrutiny does not, in itself, indicate that there is a glaring problem that needs immediate correction. Look at the issue more closely? Sure. Do that. But let’s not shoot the manager (or whomever it was) until we find out that the allegations are fair and accurate and are worthy of shooting that manager.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Your deductive reasoning seems to be leading you to favorable conclusions, but you also seem to want to ignore the evidence that has been reported.

I feel like I'm going around in circles a bit, but here it is again:

The special counsel's office, which is required to report its findings to the president, said in a letter to the White House on Thursday that most of Lund's allegations have largely been substantiated.

Lund has told the special counsel that despite the Northwest-Delta merger, FAA managers are still not backing up inspectors who try to cite the airline for safely problems.

The letter to the president quoted Lund as saying that an inspector "has to typically fight through the FAA management chain" to do his duties, and that the FAA's "culture of placing the interests of the carrier over safety continues to pose a risk to the flying public."

Again, these accusations have been "largely substantiated" by the U.S. Office of Special Council.

Now what do you say to that?

[AirRabbit]

According to the articles posted on this forum, this situation largely sounds like the consternation being raised is centered around union-management friction – certainly most of which has been generated as a result of similar circumstances to those that have gained a lot of media attention in the past – perhaps the most notable example was the strife that existed between union members and management of the now-defunct Eastern Airlines. In the particular case we are discussing (Northwest and an FAA whistle blower), it also seems that a lot of the facts are yet to be known. What IS known is that there are a lot of charges being thrown around – the motives for which are, at best, “murky.”

It would seem that the whistle blower is a member of a union within the FAA. It would also seem that this person had been making allegations of “failure to comply with safety directives” since August of 2005. Those allegations apparently started soon after there was a major management/union conflagration at the airline that led to a mechanic strike, allegedly with the intent of grounding the airline. The airline was apparently under the impression that this whistle blower was “acting unprofessionally by intimidating replacement workers.” Is that accurate? We’ll probably never know for sure. To me, it sounds like the FAA management took a conservative approach by assigning this person “to desk duty,” and assigned other inspectors to continue the inspections of the airline. Again, according to FAA management, of the 80 inspectors assigned to the same airline, none of them reported anything similar to the findings reported by the whistle blower. Is that significant? I think so. Certainly, if there was the flagrant disregard and compromise of safety that was alleged, a least some of those 80 inspectors would certainly have been able to recognize it as well. Was the FAA management so oppressive that all 80 inspectors would see the same things wrong yet be so concerned about management reaction that they chose to allow the safety compromises to continue? Somehow, that just doesn’t ring as logical.

Apparently, again according to the articles posted on this forum, the FAA DID take to heart at least some of the concerns raised by this whistle blower, in that Northwest revised its training programs for replacement workers and the FAA did file for enforcement action to be taken – but the reason for the enforcement was due to administrative problems, not maintenance problems. AND, in that case, the administrative procedure to which the airline decided to revert was a procedure that had been previously approved by the FAA.

Was there a problem in being able to track the accomplishment of the ADs in question? Probably. Does that mean the AD was not completed? I don’t know. Was this particular inspector carrying a chip on his shoulder for having been “assigned to desk duty?” Probably. Would that have played a part in his continuing concern about the way in which the airline was performing its maintenance? It shouldn’t … but it could have. Did it? I’ll have to leave that for others to decide - and I hope they find sufficient facts to make an objective determination.

Because of the allegations made by this whistle blower that “FAA managers are still not backing up inspectors who try to cite the airline for safely problems,” I would presume that the investigation will determine whether or not other inspectors have found the same or similar problems and whether or not the recommendations made by those other inspectors have met the same or similar FAA management response as indicated by this allegation. If true – I would agree that the FAA management personnel involved should be held accountable and be subject to whatever reprimand/punishment that is appropriate. No argument. But, my question is, what happens if those allegations are not substantiated? What happens to this whistle blower? If it turns out that the allegations made were minor discrepancies that were twisted into safety allegations to carry out some sort of vindictive reprisal, what course of action would be appropriate?

[Evan]

Was there a problem in being able to track the accomplishment of the ADs in question? Probably. Does that mean the AD was not completed? I don’t know.

Really, Air Rabbit, that's all you need to say. The agency entrusted with our air transportation safety can't manage to track compliance? That's the job at hand. If the FAA can't do that, Then what good is it?

Even if your assumptions are correct and there is no FAA culpability, in the competitive marketplace, doing the best you can doesn't cut it. You have to do the job required of you or lose that job to someone who is more competent. Why should governmental regulation be any different?

Seriously, Purge the incompetence, if not the corruption. We can't tolerate hand wringing ineptitude from the FAA.

[Curtis Malone]

Even if your assumptions are correct and there is no FAA culpability, in the competitive marketplace, doing the best you can doesn't cut it. You have to do the job required of you or lose that job to someone who is more competent. Why should governmental regulation be any different?

Seriously, Purge the incompetence, if not the corruption. We can't tolerate hand wringing ineptitude from the FAA.

I trust you are similarly intolerant of "incompetence and corruption" in other areas of life as well. By that standard, at least half the workforce should have been purged yesterday.

[AirRabbit]

Really, Air Rabbit, that's all you need to say. The agency entrusted with our air transportation safety can't manage to track compliance? That's the job at hand. If the FAA can't do that, Then what good is it?

Even if your assumptions are correct and there is no FAA culpability, in the competitive marketplace, doing the best you can doesn't cut it. You have to do the job required of you or lose that job to someone who is more competent. Why should governmental regulation be any different?

Seriously, Purge the incompetence, if not the corruption. We can't tolerate hand wringing ineptitude from the FAA.

Evan, have you ever tried to "track" compliance with an AD? Do you know what is involved? IF you answered "no" to either question, I submit that you cannot make the statements you've made. IF there is a problem, there is a problem. A problem doesn't necessarily exist just because someone says it exists. There has to be some sort of measure. In that one inspector was adamant about there being a problem and 80 other inspectors didn't see the existence of a problem ... was there a problem? Probably not. Very likely not. If there was a problem that only 1 out of 81 inspectors noticed, it couldn't have been such a glaring problem.

As I said in my earlier post, the FAA did file a violation against the airline in that the airline decided to revert to the old (previously FAA-approved method of tracking things like ADs), but the violation WASN'T because of not complying with the AD, it was because of recordkeeping issues. The airline had to make the adjustments. No one could find that any AD was not completed. There were a handful of ADs where there couldn't be found "proof positive" that the AD was completed - however, no one could conclude that the AD had not be completed, and inspecting the airplanes invloved found that nothing was in error.

This particular issue sounds suspiciously like a union guy trying to support his fellow union guys by making it difficult on the bad ole nasty airline management. When his ploy didn't work as he had thought it might, he developed a chip on his shoulder that took him 5 years of diligent looking to find something ... anything ... that could give him the satisfaction of being "right."

The programs instituted by the government to be sure that individuals don't abuse the authority they have been given are good programs - but that means that even the most frivolous accusation cannot be determined to be frivolous until it is examined. And, then, there is the problem of what to do with the frivolous accuser ... do you punish him and possibly influence others to NOT point out where legitimate abuses have occurred? ... do you forget the issue and let this guy continue to waste time and effort (read ... money!) by continuing to bring those kinds of frivolous accusations?

When anyone in the government is found to be abusing his/her authority - for whatever reason - that person should be held to all of the legal ramifications he/she deserves. Surely, the FAA, or any other government agency, is not a haven for "angels." Any organizatin with over 60,000 employees is bound to have their share of less than sterling examples of human professionalism ... but that doesn't mean that the FAA is a horrible, rules-saturated domain that has to be cleansed regularly! The safety of the aviation system is NOT totally dependent on the actions taken by the regulator - nor should it be. As I recall, the original ACT that created the FAA to begin with specifically required that each airline operate "to the highest degree of safety possible."

While I agree that there are times when someone's best may not be good enough ... having to live up to someone else's expectations as to "how" something should be done doesn't necessarily hold any water either.