‘We’re Working On Things’ Does Not Represent An Accomplishment

By John Ylinen

The  AirVenture 2015 edition of the annual AirVenture 2015 was held Thursday, and as I predicted in my pre AirVenture article, the time was monopolized by the administrator (30 minutes) and Mr. Pelton for 30 minutes for his Q/A.  The good people that came got 10 minutes and 4 questions.

What we learned is that the Administrator cannot sell his Third Class proposal to his boss (DOT Secretary) and the President (Through the OMB).  He wants us to trust him and just sit and be quite.  He did hint that we should turn to our elected officials since he cannot be effective.  We have hope there since some Senators have attached the PBOR II language to the Senate Highway bill.  Maybe it will sneak its way there and be signed.

The Administrator also said that his agency is working on the rewrite of part 23, and a UAS Commercial regulation.  That seemed to be a theme.  We are “working” on things.  Not accomplishing things, but working on them.  As if working is an accomplishment.  I would love to see the performance objectives for you and your employee.  Did the folks working on the Part 23 write get “Exceeded” or “Outstanding”.  They are only going to miss the LAW by 2 years and that is with having Congress ask you what date you wanted in the law so you could make it. The Administrator keeps telling us that we want the safest system possible.  Really, if so why are all your people making daily decision that are not in the interest of safety?   During the Q&A when he was trying to explain how hard it has been to convince his boss of the merits of removing the third class medical, he did speak the truth. There are more deaths from boats and automobiles.  That we have 10X the manpower and resources regulating light airplanes than all the automobiles.  That people are scared of planes. 

The Administrator and Mr. Pelton talked about all the innovation happening in light GA.  Really?  Let’s use this AV for example.  Let’s exclude Amateur Built experimental where the FAA oversight is the right balance.  No new airplanes were announce.  One new LSA was certified and it took 11 years.  One engine was certified, no new engine announcements except a slightly more powerful Rotax Engine.  No new certified avionics products.  I could go on and on.  The “Innovation” hall had lots of drones though.  The FAA administrator even ridicule their approach as being Silicon Valley-like.  Beta test in the field.  As if his certification process is so thorough.  If so why do  ADs get issued many times shortly after the certification.  Is your process not rigorous and through?  Whoops missed that one.  He makes it sound bad that they can issue fixes to deficiencies found in short order.  Compare that to our avionics manufactures that take 12-18 months to get a fix out.  Some of us are still waiting for the Avidyne R9 fix to stop the flap alarm.

The Administrator even bragged about the lower ADS-B cost, as if his agency had something to do with it.  The little secret is that because of the FAA, avionics manufacturers are having to do GPS to transponder testing and certifications to get the STC for each individual configuration.  Plane owners will therefore be limited in the choices each has because one device (GPS) may not be system certified with the other device (ADS-B transmitter or transponder).   He said he was not changing the mandate of Dec 31, 2019,  but the reality is only 5% of the airline fleet is fitted and those are only the new aircraft.  The airlines are playing chicken because they want the taxpayer to pay to install their equipment.  Mr. Huerta are you really going to ground them on Jan 1, 2020?  If so, it should be really great flying on that day because we will be the only ones in the air.  What about the military aircraft.  Very few are equipped and those are the commercial equivalent models not tactical.  Going to ground them?  I don’t think so.

The administrator said that certification is not hard, that people with innovative ideas should come and TALK with his people.  Really, when you talk to the FAA personnel it is a one way conversation.  If the FAA disagrees with the ASTM or the way the manufacturer has designed or tested his product, the manufacturer has no REAL recourse.  And what one inspector says is different from another and one FSDO interprets differently from another. They say, you can go to that person’s supervisor.  Talking to the manufacturer community, no supervisor has overturned their employee in 999 out 1000 cases. Manufacturers will not push it for fear of being blackballed, and GAMA will not push it for the same reason.  The FAA is not a regulator.  they are a bully. There is only their way or the highway.

So Mr. Administrator, if you really want to improve safety you have to put in place a process that really does it.  You claim that a Risk Based Analysis approach does it, but your implementation only uses it to prioritize the order in which your people spend their time.  See the letter to Avidyne on the IFD440. Your project is deemed low risk so we will get to you when we can.  No you can’t have a DER like Garmin.  Sit in line and shut up.  No matter that you have many orders and spending many dollars in development and awaiting production.

You claim your rewrite of the Part 23 will be a “requirements based” regulation not a process one.  You won’t specify HOW, but WHAT.  I have a simple question.  What gives you the right to define what an airplane should do?  What gives you the right to say when an airplane stall must be?  That would be like NHTSA saying that a car can only go so fast or stop so short.  That a Ferrari and Ford F150 must have the exact same 0-60-0 distance.  If I want a really fast airplane that lands really fast.  Why should I not be able to have one?  Are you my mother? Is it more risky? you bet. So is a Ferrari.

Why don’t we try a revolutionary new thing? Why not use the same process and rules that we have for Amateur Built aircraft for the “Certified” ones under 6000 lbs non TP/Jet.  In other words remove the certification of light aviation, avionics, and engines.  The one difference would be that the owners would not have to build 51%. Let’s put in place a real process to allow those of us to appeal an FAA employee decision. One that is not a CYA process, but one that has true independence.  I am not saying all these matters should go to a court of law to decide, but one that allows for a fair hearing and that prevents Blackballing.  If this were not a real problem Senator Inhofe would not have spent so much effort on PBOR-I and now PBOR-II.

One more thing on Class 3 medical.  I have a simple suggestion while you are trying to get your boss to agree to let you put it out for public comment.  Something that does not in any way lock the FAA in to a rule. Why not pay for the test that your doctors say they need to make an informed decision.  Right now the pilot has to pay for all the tests they ask for and many insurance companies will not pay as it has nothing to do with the patient's health.  If the regulator does not have to pay, they will ask for every test that is possible so that they protect their decision.  It is just as bad as doctors who test so they don’t get sued.  I bet if it came out of your budget, the test needed would be just the right one to do it. That would do more to help those that are waiting for you to do your job than anything on that topic. What did you get on your last performance evaluation?  Did you get a bonus?  I wish the American public got to have input into public sector employee evaluation.  Wonder if your performance and priorities would be the same.  Wonder how differently your staff would work, when the metric of success is not on how much you are working on things, but what you really accomplished.

FMI: www.faa.gov