Reader Response To Our Ten Question Editorial Rant  Was Overwhelming... And Thought-Provoking

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Steve Jobs

A few days ago , I noted that I was learning a lot in the process of researching the necessary issues to be pursued at the upcoming Aviation transformation Conference. I learned a lot from hundreds of conversations... both in what people said... as well as in what they questioned.

This inspired the Ten Questions Editorial that I published a few days ago... and ANN readers responded in great numbers and even greater detail. So much detail, in fact, that I think it behooves us to whittle down some representative selections from the flock of responders and allow each question to be answered via the many thoughts, comments and even more questions raised by those who took SO MUCH time to respond with extensive replies.

Herewith, are some of the responses to Question #2...
We have dozens of reports indicating that the FAA mandated process of aircraft Re-Registration is slow, complex, unnecessary and invasive. How did Re-Registration get shoved down our throats without a much bigger fight from the aviation community (and would that have made a difference)?

ANNRep--ANN Reader Responses

ANN Reader George P: To answer the question, I'll begin with another; albeit a rhetorical one… Would you expect anything else from the FAA? It's such a bureaucratically focused organization; for private aviation, the FAA has become an impediment to progress. As to the question of whether or not the GA community should have put up a bigger fight, I don't believe so. It's not unreasonable for the owners of aircraft to register their aircraft just as we are required to register our automobiles. There are a myriad of valid reasons to have an up-to-date aircraft registry. However, the FAA's re-registration implementation effort was sophomoric at best. Additionally, the FAA entered into this with the flawed fundamental premise of, "We ask - You answer".
In this day and age, why is anyone sending information through the US Postal service? Rather than operating as they did in the 1960's, the FAA should embrace technology and put it to work for them. Take the registration process online and make it simple. Get rid of the "phased mailing" approach and open the process up to everyone immediately via the Internet. There are many successful commercial examples to pattern the process after.
Assuming the actual "owner" receives the mail after the FAA mails the registry notice, the only incentive for anyone to respond is certificate expiration, and that's not a strong motivator. The re-registration process should be tied to ATC services or insurance renewal. Make ATC services or insurance renewals unavailable to unregistered aircraft and the current owners would proactively update registry information. Again similar to the requirements we all accept when it comes to our automobiles.

ANN Reader David T: It wouldn't have made a difference. Obama hates anybody who could actually afford an airplane. It's all part of the class warfare.

ANN Reader Dale S: Good question: what were the alphabet groups doing when this was being proposed? Don't know if would have made a difference, but an attempt would have been nice.

ANN Reader Scott K: The FAA did the right thing. If your airplane was properly registered, you will receive a simple re-registration form - no big deal. However, the FAA and any rational person knows that their database is hopelessly inaccurate. Planes have been registered in exotic, far away locations (like S. Dak) to avoid local state taxes. Planes have been bought and sold without the proper reports to the FAA (in some cases to avoid transfer taxes). Some planes, flown in remote parts of the country, are not properly registered or maintained to avoid the costs of doing so. The database needs to be accurate so the ludicrous estimates of GA flight hours vs accidents can be more accurate (Hmmmm - an oxymoron perhaps). The aviation community, composed of mostly law/regulation abiding folk, does not have a problem with the re-registration. The problem lies with those not in compliance - a few vocal owners with bad attitudes. As the Aero-News editor, you should support and clarify this positive attempt by the FAA to fix their stinking records.

ANN Reader Ralph R: Because we are stupid naive and thought that any government/governance body that was going to re-register aircraft just to get their books cleaned up couldn't screw up the situation so badly - wait, go back, we were stupid and look at the quality of folks working for the government - a helpful bunch aren't they.

ANN Reader Tom B: I have no idea, I imagine that the AOPA saw it as a give back, it is only a few dollars, and there is some tangible benefit, at least to them, and it isn't a "user fee", since we re-register our cars every year.

ANN Reader John Y: The issue of having the government register your vehicle should be a very straight forward and simple process. I find it interesting that cars and boats are done by states and generally it works well. Only airplanes are done by the federal government. That should say it all. Autos and boats cross state lines and operate nationally. Maybe it is time to rethink why we need the federal government oversight of private aviation. Citizens have limited ways to get recourse from Federal Agencies. The FAA did a very poor job developing the web site and procedures. There was not a beta period with feedback so that it could be made adequate. Also; now that data comes in; there are discrepancies sometimes going back years and previous owners and current owners are not getting their registration in a timely manner that is effecting their ability to use their plane. This is wrong. This is another case of government not being able to bring new processes and rules on line smoothly and not willing to be responsive to citizen concerns.

ANN Reader Dan H: I don't own an airplane. But I suspect the new re-registration process, while onerous compared to the old process, only makes the overall experience of owning slightly more onerous than it already had been for decades. Coordinating and maintaining documentation, maintenance, hangars, etc etc etc is a tremendous amount of work. I suspect a substantial segment of the community are people who don't deal with those things already: individuals who rent or club, businesses that own aircraft, and individuals who own an aircraft through their business. In all of these cases, the "aviation participant" is not the one handling the details, that's outsourced to someone who does all that stuff as part of their job. I submit that the individual owner who handles that paperwork himself is a distinct minority in the GA community. That's why there's no pushback

ANN Reader Pat M: We are a bunch of sheep.

ANN Reader Richard E: Re-registration was a spin-off of the emotional "protect our citizens" over-reaction by government following the 9/11 scare. When the TSA couldn't find out all the information they wanted about pilots and flyable airplanes to "ensure safety from terrorism" - the FAA was caught with their pants-down in the political "in-fighting" that prevails in Washington; and found it necessary to rush into a program that they could just as easily done with a little internal self-management over probably the same period of time; without all the "fuss."

ANN Reader D H: The FAA is basically inept at record keeping. But I applied the first week mine was scheduled and I got my registration in 6 days.

ANN Reader Bart T: The alphabet groups totally dropped the ball on this one.

ANN Reader Skip L: Although the re-registration was based on an inexpensive method to maintain a current registry, it is a prelude to not only much more costly registrations, but also to the EURO style user fees. And that is just as obvious to the Orgs as it is to the aircraft owners. This is not a major problem to business aircraft owners, as costs are deductible. But for the personal owned aircraft it seems that EAA and AOPA chose not to dispute the proposal for reasons not apparent. Perhaps the rising costs of operating the Orgs caused them to refrain from a costly disputing of the proposal. Or maybe it would distract from the Wine Club. Lucky us!

It would seem that with the considerable funding problem that the FAA currently has, the launching of a new, troublesome and costly re-registration scheme would be ill advised. Unless it will lead, in the near future, to an even greater revenue generating rule to be paid by all who own aircraft. Stay tuned.

FMI: ANN Readers Respond To Our 'Ten Questions' Editorial (FAA Re-Registration Program)