FAA Spokesperson Can't Quite Grasp The Concept of Parody

Under the heading of "we can't make stuff up that's this crazy," ANN finds itself in the midst of a genuine 'WTF' moment (to use colloquial Internet parlance). Shortly after noon this day (Monday), ANN Editor-In-Chief Jim Campbell got a phone call from a person claiming to be calling on behalf of the Administrator of the FAA. The initial tone was serious and somewhat stern... and the caller claimed to be Sasha Johnson, currently the FAA Assistant Administrator for Communications.

Ms. Johnson seemed to be upset over a parody piece ( Babbitt Mulls Fees For Low-Time Pilots) we wrote for our infamous April 1st edition... a piece clearly labeled as such (an April 1st Special Edition) and accompanied with a number of supporting documents (as well as a prominent "FUNNY" tag preceding the title) that noted the nature of the day and our customary annual break with reality to enjoy a little fun and games with an industry that has had to deal with way too much dreary news, of late. Ms. Johnson wanted us to provide additional clarification as to the piece's parody orientation and apparently was dealing with some indignant folks who either did not read the piece on ANN (where the labeling was clear) or chose to believe it despite the numerous warnings and attributions affixed to the day's parody process. Ms. Johnson was NOT happy... claiming that Randy Babbitt had directed her to fix this confusion and was demanding some kind of response from us... the nature of which wasn't altogether clear.

The annual April 1st gig has been going on for well over a decade and actually has roots in things we did several decades ago when working in the print magazine genre... it has been lauded far and wide, hundreds of thousands (literally) have written to us over the years to express their amusement and we have actually had submissions from FAA personnel, even HQ personnel, themselves. As a matter of fact, Babbitt noted his enjoyment of one of our previous parody pieces in a prior year and certainly seemed aware of the nature of the joke.

ANN tried to explain to Ms. Johnson that making a fuss over this would only create greater notoriety for the article, add more confusion to the mix, and not let the joke die when it should have... on April 2nd. Ms. Johnson seemed annoyed and engaged in a heated exchange which included her statement, at one point, that "well, then, you better stop writing about the FAA." Ms. Johnson did not indicate how far such a restriction was likely to be applied but regardless of the issue at hand, for ANY authorized representative of the FAA Administrator to tell ANY journalistic organization to stop writing about them is a line that should never be crossed... in anger, or otherwise. Further; when explaining to her that such a statement was, at best, offensive and an over-reaction to the matter at hand (even invoking Benjamin Franklin and this nation's protection of the right to parody), she responded that it made no sense to talk to me any further since, "...You obviously don't care." Again... about what, we're not quite sure... but the matter definitely went out of bounds and we politely explained that there was nothing further to discuss until cooler heads prevailed.

The sad part of the matter is simply this... for a number of people to believe that FAA would do something so stupid as to target struggling pilots with additional and onerous user fees was apparently way too believable for a number of folks who were either not aware the piece was parody or jumped the gun because the FAA is held in such disdain amongst so many in the aviation community. We thought the piece was pretty outlandish, fairly silly, and well beyond the FAA's ability to sink so low... and, most important, plainly not believable. BUT... its obvious that a few thought otherwise, and not understanding the well-publicized parameters involved in our April 1st issue, chose to complain to the FAA. That's sad... but now that we think about it... probably a LITTLE bit understandable. The FAA has set itself up, again and again, as working against the proper aims of the aviation community and despite a number of attempts to proclaim each new Administration's intent to be kinder and gentler, the FAA has fallen well short of that goal.

So... believing that the FAA is THAT foolish may not be so outlandish, after all.

It's sad that the FAA doesn't have a sense of humor, it's sad that bullying a journalist seems to be the way to get their point across (and, mind you, this is far from being the first time we've had to deal with such nonsense), and it's sad that the FAA has so eroded the flying public's trust in its innate sense of fairness and propriety that even a well-documented April 1st parody is seen to be believable by a few.

We're sure we haven't heard the last of this... and we'll keep you informed as to what develops in this tempest via telephone. Yeeshhh... Honest to God, Folks... even we can't make this stuff up.

Late Monday Update: The FAA's Chief Counsel's office called us back... and Marc L. Warren, the FAA's Deputy Chief Counsel has invited us to call Ms. Johnson and 'clear up' the misunderstanding. We called her office in mid-afternoon, left a polite message, and have yet to receive a return call. We'll keep you informed...

FMI: www.faa.gov, www.aero-news.net/SpecialContent.cfm?cat=40