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.