Editorial: All We Can Do is Rant?
By Ed Downs
The title of this month’s column is both a statement and a question. Follow along and see if you can decide which interpretation is correct. With patient understanding from the editors and production team of In Flight USA, this writer has been waiting until the last minute, hoping for good news from AirVenture 2013 regarding the outrageous fees assessed by the FAA to support this year’s EAA program.
Regrettably, as of the time this is being written (EAA AirVenture 2013 is underway), the fees still apply and even Congressional efforts have had little or no positive effect.
The FAA tossed in an additional insult by officially announcing that FAA Administrator Michael Huerta was not going to attend the traditional “Meet the Administrator” event at AirVenture 2013. Virtually all FAA activities at the program were canceled, including Wings course participations and safety seminars. The official FAA explanation was that budget constraints prevented the FAA from attending and Administrator Huerta had previous plans made months earlier.
As a frequent participant in FAA meetings and aviation industry events that interfered with my personal needs, I was compelled on many occasions to make changes to personal plans for the “greater good” of the industry I represented. Apparently, such a moral commitment does not exist in the political management of the FAA. Frankly, the excuse was absurd and Administrator Huerta’s unwillingness to face what would have been a hostile crowd is indicative of knowing that the position being taken by the FAA would not stand up to questions from real pilots and industry representatives.
What we see is a growing tradition from both elected officials and high level bureaucrats to simply not answer questions regarding policy and/or behavior. It is as if they have been read their “Miranda rights,” and just say nothing until their lawyer arrives. They simply refuse to answer to those who elected them or pay their salaries. Mr. Huerta is certainly carrying that national policy on to a higher level.
To be sure, AirVenture does not need Mr. Huerta to have a successful event. But just think of what would happen if representatives from the Star Trek franchise failed to show up at Comic-Con International (yes, I am a nerd). Such a “shun” would be considered irreversible and the franchise would suffer considerable financial and editorial fall-out.
But the free market does not work in government, and failure to support those you work for or show no display of common courtesy are simply part and parcel of federal arrogance. And, a lack of communication is only part of the story. The FAA is also making it clear that they do not want to hear from those they are supposed to serve. In fact, the FAA has policies that punish those who openly criticize FAA policies and regulations. Surprised? So was I when it came to my attention.
While attending a recent Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic (FIRC), a heated discussion fired up regarding testing standards and the perceived inequity of how those standards are applied. Truly a righteous discussion, given the wealth of CFI experience in the room. Unfortunately, the discussion turned into an argument and the FAA began to get some strong criticism, spoken in demeaning terms. Personally, I feel this type of discussion leads nowhere and is non-productive. The class instructor skillfully limited insults to the FAA and got the group back on track.
During a break, I congratulated this pro on her fine job in controlling the class, at which point, she added “I have to keep criticism to the FAA to an absolute minimum or our school could be shut down.” The instructor then produced FAA AC 61-83(g) that guides schools conducting the FIRC’s. Such schools operate under FAA approval and are referred to as “FIRC Sponsors.”
I was directed to one sentence that said, “The FIRC Sponsor acts as a representative of the FAA and should at all times, act accordingly.” Fair enough, FIRC instructors should act in a professional manner. The next highlighted sentence went a bit further with, “A FIRC program is not a forum for disagreement with FAA regulations, policies or procedures.” Again, this writer agrees that a FIRC is not a forum for dispute, but differences of opinion and active discussions regarding interpretation of rules and policies are bound to occur in a healthy learning environment. Finally, there came the closing statement from the FAA, “Comments or discussions that are derogatory to the FAA, its policies, or regulations will be grounds for IMMEDIATE withdrawal by the General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800) of the sponsor’s authorization to conduct any further FIRC programs.” There was no mention of a school getting “due process.” Shocked, this writer returned to his seat and kept his mouth closed so as to not cause the instructor any problems.
Basically, FIRC instructors are being told that any form of criticism of the FAA can result in actions that will put them out of business. One wonders if similar threats are not contained in some other obscure AC’s that would affect the typical CFI.
Clearly, abusive criticism purely for the reason of saying nasty things is not correct or effective. But what about reasoned arguments that disclose inadequacies or misunderstandings? Such discussions are clearly forbidden, or at best, left to interpretation by the school’s FSDO principle, who is authorized to make a singular, discretionary call on continued operation of the school. One wonders if such verbiage exists within the guidelines of hundreds of other federal agencies that certify or license some form of business operation. We now see an FAA management that feels open, frank communication is not a priority. Instead, they communicate through political advisors and PR firms. They are also making it clear that any criticism of their regulations or policies can cost you your income. Are jail terms next to come? Are we looking at an FAA that will not talk to us face to face and then avoid criticism with threats?
Perhaps this somewhat unplanned rant has now answered the rhetorical question contained in the title bar. Do we simply go along with a clear violation of our first amendment rights, or simply bow to the power of a bureaucracy that has its own interpretation of the U.S. constitution? Going along doesn’t work for this writer, how about you? Maybe it is time for you to copy the quotes contained in this editorial and send them to your elected officials. It is clear that FAA political leadership is not interested in communicating to us, so how about we communicate to them, before they pass a law against that.
