True cooperation is the key.
On May 1, 2015, the FAA posted a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) in the Federal Register to expand Class D and E airspace around Salem, Oregon’s McNary Field (KSLE).
The summary of the NRPM states, “After a biennial review, the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport.”
The proposal section states, “The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.”
No comments were made. As a result, the NPRM became final on Aug. 20, 2015.
Once the airspace modifications were fully understood by the local community, the uproar was swift and loud.
Fast forward
Just 33 days later, a new Sept. 21, 2015 NPRM summary states, “After further review, the FAA found some airspace unnecessary for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.”
This particular NPRM elicited 71 comments.
March 8, 2016
On March 8, 2016, the FAA posted a Final Rule to the Federal Register regarding Salem airspace. Apparently, a good many Christmas tree farmers under the impacted airspace felt the NPRM would have a significant economic impact.
The FAA’s Discussion of Comments section begins with, “Of the 71 responses received, 19 concerned the potential economic impact to Christmas tree farms in the area. The FAA concurs that approximately two thirds of the Christmas tree farming acreage could be adversely affected. To mitigate the concerns for the agricultural areas, the FAA is creating shelves in the Class D, where feasible, between 4 and 5 miles southeast and southwest of the airport.”
Wait a minute — on May 1, 2015 the FAA’s NPRM stated, “this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Huh…
The Final Rule’s summary also states, “This action brings the controlled airspace into compliance with current FAA requirements, and adds to the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.”
But the original NPRM stated, “the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport.”
So the FAA intended to grab more airspace than “FAA requirements” with the May 1, 2015 NPRM. That’s unacceptable.
This whole process has created much anguish. It is sad, really.
“Nineteen commenters referenced a lack of public input. The FAA conducted a review of the process and found that all public coordination was completed consistent with the process outlined in JO 7400.2.”
Good for you FAA staff. You complied — in your own judgment — with the letter of the law. And yet, for the third time in 12 months, Salem’s airspace will change.
I’ve no doubt airspace design is tough. The various aerospace groups want and need different things. For that reason alone, the FAA and the aviation community must work together.
If the FAA had honored not just the letter, but the spirit of Joint Order 7400.2 — which outlines public notice, among many other things — this mess could’ve been avoided.
Revitalizing General Aviation: The Future Part 23
The FAA thinks cooperation with industry is so important, it produced a video to crow about its efforts on the Part 23 re-write.
The voice over at the beginning says, “For us in the FAA, the critical work ahead is to engage cooperatively with aviation industry leaders to bring those innovative ideas and technologies to market quickly, safely, and under a fresh, forward-looking regulatory framework.”
Since the video has fewer than 1,000 views (as of this writing), I’m guessing most FAA staffers have yet to watch it.
I guess that means it is business as usual. That’s sad. It could be so much better.
I am pleased to see that GA news has moved beyond its initial editorial position that the SLE mess was the result of GA pilots failing to monitor the NPRM system twice a day.
Having spent way more time in the last decade on airspace issues in this region than anyone should be expected to, it has been evident since the beginning of this fiasco that it was the result of a regional office that has lost track of its mandate and in its self-absorbed way spends more time on make work and self-justification than doing the right thing. The discussion of comments section on the final rule makes this self-evident, and a recent public exchange with a regional FAA official on this topic only reinforced this for me.
The current SLE airspace design, celebrated by many as a success because it is not as expansive as the original overreach, should be viewed as a complete failure in both process and outcome. A year ago there was a standardized and understandable airspace with no documented instances of safety issues, and a completely harmonized charting and public text descriptions. Over the past year the FAA’s actions have arguably DECREASED safety and consumed massive amounts of time by users and legislators to push back on. Today Salem is blessed with a non-standard and expanded airspace, bizarre communications requirements for Independence, and no evidence that any actual problem has been solved. Hard to see anything positive in any of this.
The FAA plays an important role in the safe and efficient design and use of airspace; we need them to be better than this.
Reprint of my comments to the original Sept 8, 2015 GA News article follows:
Ben, I appreciate and agree with your encouragement that “we all step up” as it relates to user awareness of proposed changes in the NAS. This is the regulatory equivalent of “situational awareness” that we all practice in the cockpit.
That said, even a casual review of what is taking place at Salem provides an unambiguous picture of a regional office operating without adequate process control or consideration of the impact of their decisions beyond the four walls of the conference room where this D change was born. The statement “There is no other ‘official’ means for notifying the public that a change is imminent other than the Federal Register” comes across as management denial and rationalization. I know from first-hand involvement in airspace review work in this region that if there had been a desire to engage local users in this process there were any number of ways to do so if they had chosen to. The FAA protects a vital national interest ensuring safe and efficient operation of the NAS; the attitude reflected in their comment if properly quoted disrespects both the FAA mission as well as the work of thousands of dedicated FAA employees that we depend on as pilots, and that the public expects.
More sunlight on this issue might be created by investigating and reporting on questions such as:
1. “Where did the belief come from that doubling the radius of the D airspace at SLE was required to improve safety when the SLE tower was slated for closure as recently as 2013, and continues to fall below the FAA’s own annual operations guidelines for having a tower to begin with?”
2. “Given that a review of the AIDS, ASRS, NMACS, and NTSB databases reveals no examples of accidents or incidents that this expansion would resolve, what data was actually used to come up with this proposal?”
3. “Given that prior removal of two navaids (ARTTY fan maker and Turno NDB) has been described as the justification for this airspace change, was there not an SRMP conducted as part of their removal?”
4. “How was it possible to conduct a valid SRMP process on this most current change with apparently no local subject matter experts involved, no obvious data (point 2) supporting risk assessment, and which clearly decreased safety of airspace around Independence State airport (7S5)?” Moving risk from one part of the NAS to another part of the NAS without review is not consistent with the intent of the SRM process. Also, “were there any qualified pilots involved in the process whether FAA employees or not?”
5. “Assuming that there were inadvertent and legitimate TERPS issues created for the SALEM THREE Radar Departure by the past removal of ARTTY and Turno, what other options were considered in the latest SRMP and what were their relative risk scores?” As an example, why not simply require departing IFR traffic to remain on runway heading until reaching 2,700 before turning them on course?
6. “What assumptions drove the apparent view that there would be no economic or environmental impact with this NPRM?” In fact there is significant impact on local agricultural operations. Also, the change would arguably increase traffic around the edges of the proposed airspace over several communities that I am confident are not regularly checking the Federal Register.
7. Once called out on the impropriety of the airspace expansion the FAA has appropriately stepped back from the original proposal. That said, “what logic has driven the creation of a smaller airspace expansion in a second NPRM rather than simply withdrawing the proposal completely?”
As for the notification process – the point of your piece – to believe that weaknesses in the NPRM system caused this issue one must also believe that during the likely month’s long planning process and 45 day comment period the SLE tower also remained unaware. If this is true, the internal communication failure is not very flattering to the FAA. If this is not true, one has to further conclude that for whatever reason somewhere in the FAA a decision was made to simply hope that this one slid through without notice.
As a pilot I support the important work of the FAA and also believe we have an obligation to thoughtfully hold them accountable for upholding the standards of excellence that the work demands. Someone knew or should have known that this change was significant, unprecedented, and based on weak logic. To not attempt outreach beyond that minimally required by law and to then implement the change in text form outside of the charting cycle, including notices on ATIS (to aircraft in flight) advising to check the Federal Register looks like malpractice, not a communication issue. As I am writing this letter, Salem airspace is depicted one way on the latest sectional, another way depending on what GPS or EFB you subscribe to, another way in text in the back of the current AFD, another way on a letter of agreement from the FAA that is being disseminated by AOPA and OPA – all while there is no notam or LTA on federal notam system giving a clue to any of this. The Agency is capable of much, much better.
Pilots, keep your ASRS forms handy for airspace busts.
Thanks for repeating this post from last fall, Paul. The content is very interesting and at least for me turns on a light about what is driving all this bologna. Specifically, you mention SRMP and the removal of the two navaids ARTTY and TURNO. Had not thought about the ‘implications’ perceived within the FAA bureaucracy, but it makes sense to see it this way: with the removal of these two land-based navaids, and with implementation of more flexible satellite-based routings, FAA is essentially grabbing larger chunks of terminal transition airspace, to protect more random arrival tracks. Of course, you point is spot on, that Salem is an absurd airport to grab so much airspace, as slow as it has become.
Also, three thoughts responsive to your questions #5 through #7 from last Fall:
re #5, ‘Why not simply climb straight out to 2,700 before turning?’ … I am guessing FAA is so focused on enabling turns close in to the airport (the overarching design being implemented with NextGen, and causing huge impacts at Phoenix and other major airports) that they are not even considering such simple and effective ideas. And, at the same time, FAA is forgetting they have professionals employed, and using lots of technology, to enable turns practically right off the runway. Oddly, it seems FAA has no confidence that the controllers at both the federal contract tower and at Seattle Center (using both radar and NextGen technologies, too!) can scan the airspace and approve early turns on a case-by-case basis.
re #6, ‘what assumptions led to a no-impact conclusion’ … well, this is just today’s FAA; prone to broad and unsupported positions/statements, that serve their agenda, which frankly is not so much ‘FAA’s agenda’ but the needs/desires of the main stakeholders: the airlines, and the lobby groups.
re #7, ‘why didn’t FAA drop the whole thing when called out on SLE airspace?’ … this too is typical of today’s FAA. Indicative of the politics, too. They are saving face and looking busy by scaling back and pressing onward. A crappy to serve all of the REAL STAKEHOLDERS – those who use the system (solely GA at SLE), and those who fund the system (the passengers, as well as other citizens who do not even fly the airlines).
In sum total, an agency adrift and unaccountable. Time to reform.
Due my recent visit to the FAA in Renton I receive the following email.
On May 18, 2016, at 2:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Mr. West.
The FAA has reviewed the Terminal Airspace Data Requirements (TADR) worksheet for SLE LOC/DME BC RWY 13 and found that the information originally provided to the Operations Support Group (OSG), for the design of the airspace, was incorrect. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Western Service Center, OSG has directed the Airspace Specialists to design and implement airspace changes consistent with the new information received from Aeronautical Information Services and the new TADR. It is anticipated this new airspace will be effective November 2016.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Mindy Wright
All pilots should be on high alert when flying in marginal weather conditions the IFR approaches are not contained in controlled airspace.
Good to see someone is following through on this. Thanks, Charles. Must not be urgent if FAA is OK with nearly 6-months in the implementation (oh, wait, that is FAA’s speed of light!).
Not really sure how my comments got construed as disagreeing with anything anyone said or wrote.
I happen to think that ManyDecadesGA makes a lot of good points but his lack of a real name and failure to define all of his acronyms undermines his credibility.
I was simply theorizing why he may not use his actual name and simply asked for more clarification. I wasn’t necessarily piling on with Jeffrey.
As much as I get VERY tired of reading “Many Decades GA”s usual ADS-B mumbo-jumbo tirades, I hate to tell you Jeffrey and DeWayne … he’s RIGHT this time. You guys misread or misunderstood?
Ben wrote about two subjects here: the Salem airspace grab and the FAR Part 23 changes announced by the FAA as it introduced its NPRM on the subject. This was dictated by the Congress under the 2013 Small Airplane Revitalization Act (SARA). Ben previously wrote about SARA in his March 1 editorial asking, “Where is SARA” and nine days later, he’s reporting on the FAA finally announcing an NPRM on the subject. BTW: The FAA was SUPPOSED to finalize the update NLT December 15, 2015. They were — as usual — LATE !!! An Agency that has billions of $$ in budget with hoardes of GS-13’s running around and can’t meet Congressionally mandated (reasonable) dates. Geez.
“Many Decades” didn’t do a great job of making the transition between the ‘Salem’ subject and the ‘FAR Part 23′ subject other than both were examples of an Agency run amok. That’s where you guys got confused. He was talking about two things here … just like Ben was. You may not like the messenger’s tactics but — I gotta tell you — he knows what he’s talking about this time. AND … the acronyms he was using are generally understandable as FAA major office ID’s. No big thing there.
I urge both of you — et al — to go back and read (first) the March 1 editorial and then the March 10 edition. THEN it’ll start falling into place.
I watched the FAA / YouTube “dog and pony show” and was actually incensed. Who paid for that slick video. A couple of days after Mr. Huerta unleashed that, Anthony Foxx, Secretary of Transportation jumped on board. It was obvious to me that they were all patting themselves on the shoulder … for doing nothing. WORSE! I read the NPRM and noted that it didn’t really say anything. IF what I read is the final product, someone at the FAA needs to go to jail! Strong words to be sure.
I am intimately plugged into the FAR Part 23 update because I own two older GA low end airplanes, am an A&P (to maintain them) and would like to install some of the wonderful new avionics stuff into them … but cannot. I followed the FAR Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s (ARC) work to their final product presented to the FAA’s Earl Lawrence, Manager of the FAA’s Small Aircraft Directorate in Kansas City on June 5, 2013. THAT voluminous document did superb work but what I read in the FAA’s NPRM was a substantially smaller subset of same.
The largest issue I saw was that the ARC recommended a new category of airworthiness which GA airplanes older than 20 years could be moved into — Primary non-Commercial. The advantage of doing that is two fold. First, non-TSO’ed equipment which meets the performance standards could be installed. Kinda like an RV-7 can use non-TSO’ed ADS-B equipment but my C172 cannot … yet they fly in the same airspace. Second, an airplane in that new category would need only a condition inspection which an A&P could conduct (without an IA). The ARC recognized that only about 1,000 new certificated airplanes are being produced yearly but about 200,000 exist … ergo it’d take 200 years to replace them all (sic). Well, guess what, the P-NC airworthiness idea isn’t in the new NPRM.
I URGE all readers here — especially those with older GA airplanes — to comment about this shortcoming. It’s worth noting that more than 100 (sic) people representing every aviation entity you ever heard about took part in the ARC Recommendations and yet the FAA blew them off.
Ben, I would like to compliment YOU on something. You are willing to go out on a limb with your comments speaking the truth (many times derogatory) about the very poor performance of the FAA. Thank you, sir!
Finally, I would like to register MY enmity for the FAA, as well. The Agency has now descended to the point where they have to be TOLD what to do by the Congress and given dates certain to perform. How sad! Just last night, I read the (now Senate) version of the FAA Reauthorization Act. It contains the medical relief I want to see but seems a bit onerous, as well. The Congress is now doing what the FAA themselves ought to be doing. I say, do away with the FAA … we don’t need ’em except for ATC. I hate to agree with ‘Many Decades’ but … I do.
Google the FAR Part 23 ARC report and then go read the just released NPRM. You’ll see what I mean. Pay special attention to Appendix G.4 which establishes the P-NC category.
Thank you, Larry, for taking the time to lay this out, and thank you Ben, for pushing this story.
I think you are correct that the two earlier comments misunderstood the points made by ManyDecadesGA. I am a retired ATC; I actually worked at the KSLE tower for a couple years in the early 1990s, and during that time wrote a couple articles for GANews about the tower contracting proposal. I did NOT find his/her comments to be by an FAA employee, nor were they too acronym-laden, nor were they off the mark. Good comments all the way around, re an agency out of control and increasingly serving only to prop up its own wasteful and growing bureaucracy. I saw this on the inside for more than two decades, and still see it while researching FAA for the aiREFORM blog.To shine a light on this, at KSLE or anywhere, is necessary, and a great service by GANews.
And, regarding your viewing of the dog-and-pony show video, yeah, it bugs me too that they spend money making this crap. I have been studying a few of these recent online propaganda videos lately and, they are so full of unsubstantiated bologna, it is sickening. I can imagine the next FAA video will be 4-minutes of awe expressed over the fact that somebody’s kid made it to school and back, and did not even lose their lunchbox. Really, the content is that stupid, but it always effuses with FAA’s ‘great success’.
People in aviation, as well as the many who have no personal/professional attachment to this industry, are sick and tired of FAA’s spin and smoke and mirrors. The gross misrepresentations being made to sell ATC privatization and NextGen funding are as bad as I have ever seen. Same old, same old: take something already existing or already functioning fairly well and repackage it, with grandiose claims that we can create huge benefits, if we just follow Shuster/A4A’s plans.
Jeff,
Thank you for the comments. Yes, I had to re-read the whole article 5 times to really understand it. Obviously the way it was written it was very jumpy and some things were lost in translation. For the record. I stand by my comments. Thank you.
I do agree with many of your and others comments. The article could have been written better by narrowing it down to two or three different but close subjects. That is what I think would have gained more clarity.
I also am appalled at the totally B.S. video the FAA made as a feel good type of thing. It really irks me to think that much of our hard earned “Tax Payer” monies went into a project like this. And we still all wonder how the monies get squandered away.
Again, Sir and to All, thank you for the comments.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey Aryan
Way back in the early 1990s, when the U.S. adopted the airspace configuration established by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) that one of the factors was to make airspace consistent around the globe. Instead of several airspace systems, there would be just one…consistent.
The beauty of that is, class D (every class D) would be a circle, 4 to 5 NM radius, from the surface up to 2500 ft. AGL. Easy. Now the FAA has taken to making each one different. The diagram posted looks like a mini class B. No wonder there are so many airspace violations.
Lets all take a pledge to see if we can simplify things rather than make them more complex.
My name is Charles West. You may have noticed that I provided the pictures for the comments in the edititoral. I have been a major pain in the a_ _ of the FAA regarding the reversal of the airspace that became effective August 20, 2015 to what it will be May 26, 2016.
I would like to say at this time for public record, the pain will not go away until the airspace conforms to FAA Order 7400.2K.
I am no spring chicken and have always believe in leading by example. It difficult to believe the FAA is leading by example. It is clear to me the FAA is not following the policy of FAA order 7400.2K.
Just a bit of background information on myself. I have been flying since 1971, have just over 5000 hours, hold a commercial rating, CFI and have worked as part 135 pilot for over 12 years in Alaska, Idaho and Oregon. I have been living at a great little community of Independence Oregon (7S5) since 2005.
This my first time writing to a blog or edititoral and hesitate to do so because of my writing skills. But let’s be clear this airspace change had nothing to do with IFR procedures or airspace safety as the FAA would like you to believe.
Now for the facts.
The airspace change that is in question became effective August 20, 2015. The change was discovered by one our community pilots on August 26th and brought to the attention of the morning coffee group at EAA 292. That very day several things happened regarding the issue of the new airspace configuration.
1). I called for a emergency meeting of our community at the EAA hanger. A total of 42 individuals attended that meeting. At that meeting in attendance was representives of our Senators and Congressmen office. I even think one individuals was a spy for the FAA. A rooster was sent around the that evening and everyone signed in except for Mr Spy. This person will remain unnamed at this time and we will call him Mr. Spy. I discovered in my research and FOIA request Mr Spy sent a letter email the next day at around 7:30 AM. to the FAA. The email complained on our behalf of the problems with the airspace change. This email was the only email that got any internal response by the FAA. This email had comments made in red by the the FAA and sent all the way up the chain of command at Renton in the same day.
2) Myself and another person went to the Salem tower manager to get more information regarding the changes to the airspace. He denied having any information as to the airspace change prior to it happening. That was a misrepresentation of the facts. I can clearly say that because I filed for and have received a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request regarding the airspace change. The manager of Salem tower knew of changing airspace from day one.
3) Calls to the FAA, AOPA, to our senators and congressmen started happening.
Since that that time many things have happened regarding the Salem Airspace. The FAA moved in at a unprecedented speed and had a new NPRM published within 3 weeks. Even with that NPRM they did not adhere to FAA Order 7400.2k chapter 2-1-4. Disclosure. Plus, the FAA clearly did not complie with 7400.2 chapter 17-2-5 in the final notice.
However, FAA order 8000.369 says they can do what ever they want to do. So much for law/order and leading by example.
Oh, by the way the FAA redacted over 27 pages of documents and records from the FOIA request! What do they have to hide?
I think, we have a serious problem with the airspace at Salem, Oregon. The IFR approaches are no longer protected as well as before. Is it a serious problem? Only time will tell until the first near midair collision happens.
If you have any questions on what I know, fell free to contact me.
Ben Sclair knows how to contact me, or feel free to visit me at Independence State Airport.
For a footnote:
Mr Spy sits on the Salem airport advisory board.
Plus, my records are probably on some FAA desk at this time. I would be a fool to think that was not possible.
Charlie, Jeff … thanks for filling us all in on the shenanigans of ‘our’ FAA at Salem.
That 27 pages of FOIA info had to be redacted should not only be appalling but also frightening. We have now arrived at the point where one part of ‘our’ Government — Congress — has to tell another bureaucracy embedded within it how to do it’s job via Legislation, when to do it and then follow up because that Agency IS run amok. VERY sad. What the hell do we need the FAA for if that’s the way the ‘system’ is operating. No wonder Rep Schuster wants to break ATC out of FAA! Right or wrong … sad! And these people get away with not doing their job while simultaneously producing those pony shows.
Circa 1990, I looked at 7S5 as a potential retirement location but didn’t act on my interest. It was too early. Sounds like I should have. That there’s such a strong and doggedly determined group of people willing to go out on a limb for the common good is superb! BTW: Can you still tell the “natives” there by their webbed feet? 🙂
A few decades ago, as in at the time from Tom McCall through Ronald Reagan, there were a lot of people here in Oregon not too happy about people moving in from out of state. Sometimes we would joke, ‘Don’t Californicate Oregon!’. But since, so many have moved in it really has become their state, too. And, not a small number have moved away later, because though the winters are not unbearable, they can be wet and grayish for weeks on end.
I have been deeply looking at FAA for a full three decades, and even more intensively post-forced-retirement (common, for whistleblowers!) with the blog work I do. I deeply believe that Shuster is not acting on FAA’s failure, just taking advantage of it. He is motivated to serve the industry players with ATC privatization and NextGen implementation as his lead projects. Both accrue huge money to industry players, and of course along with that more esteem and campaign funding support returned to Shuster and all the ‘Yes-Men’ on his committee.
IMHO, if we do not break free of the duopoly by the two political parties suffocating this nation, and the entrenched unaccountable bureaucracies (and FAA is a leading example) that are killing our liberties and laughing at our once-respected Democratic process, we are toast.
I can’t agree with you more. The way things are today are much different than during the Regan era. There was a sense of pride and doing the right thing.
Now it’s just plain bulling tactics to show you that they are the tough guy on the block. I can only say, it seems that our schools are to blame. What have they taught these people for the last 35 years. It’s got to be something like that. Little or no common or good sense.
Let’s continue the good fight and be a thorn in their side because eventually we will prevail.
Jeff and Jeff … well, the Schuster comment is a fair assessment and maybe I need to keep that in mind, as well. The IA I work with told me a horror story in the last days which corroborates your comments that the FAA operates with a “Jackboot” mentality.
The guy works on a couple of GA airplanes used commercially and so by FAR he must have a drug program in place for his one man shop. He hires that function to some small company who specializes in that work. In addition, he sometimes drives a commercial truck for farm purposes and is covered by that Company’s DOT drug program, as well. Bear in mind that the CDL Safety program is a DOT program … and FAA is a part of DOT. Well, the FAA FSDO inspectors come along, discover some minor shortcoming in his program and immediately goes into we gotta “get” him mode and are threatening a substantial fine … even though he has the DOT level program covering him in parallel. It gets worse. A CFI we both use had his airplane signed off by a different IA who had a similar problem. The FAA finds out and fines the CFI $10K! How is the CFI supposed to know his IA has a drug program issue? The CFI had to retain a lawyer to get the fine reduced to $500. THAT is the mentality we’re all up against. The tenets of the FAA Compliance Policy order 8000.373 signed by Michael Huerta last June 26, 2015 portend that the FAA is supposed to use common sense and be “kinder and gentler.” In fact, he did a dog and pony show on that, too … but it turns out it’s all smoke and mirrors.
In researching this, I find out that the FAA levies a fine and you either pay it or they get stiffer. And, they have a website where you can automate your payment. The ‘system’ is almost like the traffic tickets issued by small cities looking to augment their income streams. Geez.
For this reason and others, I have no respect for the FAA. I, too, blog incessantly hoping that guys like you will read and maybe help create a movement to ‘do something’ proactive toward saving GA in this Country from the very entity which WAS supposed to promulgate it.
I know there are good hard working Americans within the FAA that are trying hard and would like to do a good job but are constrained from the top levels of the Agency. Taken in the aggregate, however, they are harming GA.
Thanks.
Larry,
Thanks for the comments. It just seems that an agency that keeps calling itself “Friendly-er to their Customer, helpful, etc. and other feel nice comments has a real internal problem from the top down. It has to be that way because why would any Head or leadership admit that his or her agency operates like that. Remember, it is a taxpayer agency and they all work for us. The FAA leadership has lost touch with reality and the people they deal with. I dare you to call and complain about an issue with a certain FAA employee and see if they get disciplined by either removed from office, time off without pay, or fired. It just doesn’t happen.
If you call your local law enforcement agency and complain about a certain officer. I can guarantee you that the incident will be investigated while he/she is working at a different assignment. The officer will also receive plenty of non verbal comments about why they screwed up or did the things they might have did. Those non-verbal comments also include. Hey buddy, maybe they should start looking at a new career field, etc. You get my drift.
I think the biggest problem within the FAA is they are so reliant on dollars and the budget they get very fidgety everytime someone talks about reducing it. This has to be their “Achilles Heel”. They have thrown themselves into so many directions it’s no wonder why they flinch whenever the budget word comes up. While some say ATC should be privatized to save the FAA from itself. I say ATC should not. because that is one of the primary jobs they are suppose to do. Privatize some of the FAA’s ancillary function’s, such as Research and Development, Cartography switch it back to NOAA or whoever, keep GPS stuff within the military and stop relying on it. When a satellite fails what happens then. Let those people who put it up there repair the problem.
I can go on but why, Especially since that an agency is run by a transportation guy and not a Pilot and whos’ official name has Aviation spelled out from the beginning is just ludicrous in my opinion. No wonder why things are so screwed up. I guess the best we can hope for is continue to be a thorn in their side because eventually the good and correct do win.
Thanks for the comments,
Jeff
To ManyDecadesGA,
Sir, Where in the hell do you live ? You seem to be a broken record about breaking up the FAA and have it become Privatized. That’s your opinion and that’s ok. But with this comment about the airspace around Salem is just plain weird. Your are naming certain items such as RTCA TF4, AOA-1, AVS-1, etc. Many of those items are not explained by you so how is one to understand your arguments against them.
Yes , you and I have butted heads on the subject of privatization before. But this is a completely different issue. Salem airspace It is not a Privatization issue. I can say that because in my 35 plus years of being a certificated pilot and one who has lived in a very busy airspace area (Los Angeles) I have been to numerous pilot meetings about proposed changes to airspace over the years. In all those years I have never seen the FAA change stuff on just a whim or without good cause. It just doesn’t happen because there is too much at stake from pilots to economic factors.
So in conclusion, I understand your insistence on privatization is a good thing. But in my opinion, you are just plain wrong. Privatization will not work for the FAA or Air Traffic Control.
Again, Like I have said this in the past, Please post your name, which you don’t and do state your argument position from that. This is the American way. For example, It was started by a simple document about 227 years ago that led to the creation of our great country. Stand-up and be counted. Don’t hide behind a pen name.
Regards,
Jeffrey Aryan
Jeffrey,
I would guess that ManyDecadesGA is an FAA employee which is why he won’t identify himself. It would explain his extensive knowledge of parts of the FAA that most of us would have to spend an hour looking up.
ManyDecadesGA, if you are still listening…for the love of god please start defining the acronyms you use. It makes it easier for folks to lookup what you have written and will help educate folks in general.
The Salem airspace FAA fiasco is but one more example of the utterly failed regulatory policies of FAA, that represent little but the tip of the iceberg of a poorly informed, completely aviation inexperienced, technically illiterate bureaucracy, massively out of step with modern aviation needs, concerns, and safety requirements.
This slick FAA PR ruse, feigning FAA making progress on adjusting decades of obsolete FAR 23 provisions, and other regulatory provisions related to both the operating and airworthiness rules and policies, is a completely empty promise.
RTCA TF4 made these same arguments long ago, and they went right into FAA’s proverbial “File 13”. Sadly, FAA management from AOA-1, down through AVS-1 (Ms. Gilligan), down through AIR-1 (Ms. Baker), and AFS-1, have no clue what they’re doing, and haven’t had any clue for decades now.
Is there any doubt remaining that it is time to now break up FAA, and start over with a completely new set of aviation experienced technically qualified leaders, and a reorganized FAA, while at the same time, likely splitting out the entire Air Traffic Service function as a separate non-profit ANSP, and then closely supervising it more directly, with an actual aviation qualified and experienced board, not allowing the likes of FAA’s AVN organization (under Ms. Gilligan) to essentially unilaterally impose the ridiculous unnecessary airspace changes that were attempted at Salem.