FAA to 'Clean House From Top to Bottom'

[dfish]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ip16ZMKty-WO9EbnBaC2NksBGpsgD8V968SO0

Safety Probe Puts FAA in Hot Seat
By SUZANNE GAMBOA – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Aviation Administration should "clean house from top to bottom" and has too cozy a relationship with the airlines, the head of a congressional committee investigating airline safety inspections said Friday.

The problems have led to the sort of lax enforcement that allowed Southwest Airlines Co. to fly at least 117 aircraft past mandatory inspection deadlines, said Rep. James Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman.

David Fisher

[a convict]

"Forty-seven of the Southwest Airlines aircraft were overdue for fuselage inspections and 70 were overdue for mandatory inspections of critical rudder control systems. Those numbers may overlap, he said. They flew at least 1,457 flights, he said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/congress-faa-should-cle_n_90553.html

[jimworcs]

There is a big difference between "to" and "should"

[merlinxx]

Who's gonna do the cleaning? ICAO don't enough bodies! Maybe just let the NTSB an open door?

[Airbubba]

Instead of promoting aviation maybe the FAA should follow the example of other countries and add exhorbitant license fees and additional layers of bureaucracy. My friends across the pond and downunder are always bragging about how expensive it is to get some sort of "frozen" ATPL. I took a CAA style written exam a while back, it had wacky questions about the color of the light in the laser gyros and how many notches on the speedbrake quadrant. I remember a friend at KLM telling me he had to draw block diagrams of radio receivers.

FAA licenses don't expire, some overseas do and have a myriad of signatures with different dates for base checks, emergency checks and so on. In the U.S. this information is contained in training records.

The FAA isn't perfect but after seeing some alternative systems in other countries I think the level of oversight and support for airline flying is appropriate. A sound bite from a posturing congressman isn't exactly a convincing indictment of the organization in my opinion.

"We're here to help you..." - unofficial FAA motto (or one of the world's biggest lies):)

[con-pilot]

No, it's more like.

"We're not happy until you're unhappy." :p

(My ex-boss wanted to mount a painting, rather expensive one, on the aft bulkhead of the mid-cabin divider on a new aircraft we were buying. The FAA said that we would have to burn test it first, and they were serious. We mounted the painting after it left the factory.)

[742]

Oberstar is from Minnesota, home of Northwest Airlines. So just another slimmy political hack trying to maximize Southwest’s bad press.

[Huck]

I would submit that congress (Oberstar, et al) are holding the hammer over our careers much more than the FAA these days:

- Age 65

- User fees (A big threat as long as W is in there - a sure thing if Mac replaces him)

- Open skies (another big threat / sure thing).

Meanwhile, the FAA can't even accomplish simple rule changes like the Oxygen Mask At 25K rule or the Naps In The Cockpit Rule.

[a convict]

..well, what do you know. Enough said!

'The Dallas-based carrier took 38 Boeing 737 planes out of service to check for cracks in the exterior above and below passenger windows in the wake of a congressional investigation into its airplane inspections. It also checked five planes that were already parked for maintenance, and one plane that had recently been retired from the fleet.'

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30313.html

[Icarus2008]

The FAA in USA Main land and territories is not the only ones to be cleansed. The present FAA board and Directors overseeing Saudi Arabian General Airworthiness Civil Aviation G.A.C.A in Jeddah received several reports of Saudi Arabian Logo aircraft showing serious deficiencies of safety, from navigation to maintenace and general condition of aircraft. This officials, like the ones found in SWA collusion dance with generous checks under the table received from the airlines themselves to extend the safety envelope, and brand those professional airline pilots trouble- makers for bringing this issues to the fore. It will be in the best interest of the public safety and Airline professionals to have this contaminated FAA officials removed for good. How irresponsible!! I wonder if they ever thought on the possibility of having their mother or daugthers flying this airplanes while ignoring the issues of safety now in the hands fo the press. Thank God we can use the media for some good scrutiny.:ok:

[rottenray]

Not defending the FAA...


But understand that since it was established (after some horrible collision over the Grand Canyon by two airliners sight-seeing in the 1950s) the FAA has had a confusing mission...

Promote commercial air transport
... and ...
Keep ALL air operations safe

I'm sure a number of dedicated folks have suffered a lot of job related stress over the years with this psychotic mission.

Can't really find too much fault with the job they've managed to do, all things considered. There is room for improvement, but we could all be superman, too.


///

[lomapaseo]

Not defending the FAA...


But understand that since it was established (after some horrible collision over the Grand Canyon by two airliners sight-seeing in the 1950s) the FAA has had a confusing mission...

Promote commercial air transport
... and ...
Keep ALL air operations safe



From my read I don't think that this mission statement was the issue. It sounds like a procedural issue that wasn't followed. That to me is a management issue between an operator and his regulator and not an industry wide problem.

[PAXboy]

I think that lomapaseo is correct but that is symptomatic of deeper problems. In the UK the CAA also has the conflict that rottenray highlights:
Promote commercial air transport
... and ...
Keep ALL air operations safe

Whilst I am not in favour of more bureaucracy, splitting the two functions is important. There is a general perception (sweeping statement) in the UK that the CAA is too close to the carriers and the airport operators, not least as they are largely staffed by ex-employees of them. What is the balance between hiring people who have worked in the biz for 20 years and understand it and hiring people who have worked in the biz for 20 years and don't want to change anything?

[barit1]

Let's not get too hung up on the dual mission of the FAA or CAA.

Manufacturers and indeed carriers too feel the same duality: Make a profit (keep expenses under control), but compete with others in terms of reliability, safety, and other perceived qualiy attributes.

Regulators CAN go too far (need I mention Spitzer?)

[vapilot2004]

One of the worst administrators in recent history was Mrs. Marion Blakey. Under Administrator Blakey's watch we saw years of record delays in the air traffic control system and a devolution of trust and safety within. The administration lost key people in the investigative branch which some say was due to her top heavy management style. Blakey now heads up a lobbying firm in the DC area for aerospace. Her acceptance of that job is considered controversial by some.

On the good side, Mrs. Blakey's career before the FAA was peripherally involved in the commercial aviation lobby and greatly assisted Airbus and others in the US marketplace. Another good turn by Blakey was the recommendation of the new acting administrator Mr. Robert Sturgell, formerly of the NTSB.

Improvements are already underway with Bob Sturgell as the acting administrator. Bob is a former United pilot and Navy Top Gun instructor. He understands the system from our perspective. Change for the better will take time - course adjustments for such a vested bureaucracy usually comes in small increments.

[Contacttower]

Whilst I am not in favour of more bureaucracy, splitting the two functions is important. There is a general perception (sweeping statement) in the UK that the CAA is too close to the carriers and the airport operators, not least as they are largely staffed by ex-employees of them. What is the balance between hiring people who have worked in the biz for 20 years and understand it and hiring people who have worked in the biz for 20 years and don't want to change anything?

I think our CAA, with the Safety Regulation Group at the Belgrano and the others in London has the 'split' about right. The two seem to work reasonably independently of each other as you'd hope. As long as the CAA employs people from across a broad range of the aviation industry then it should avoid a situation where people no longer wish to improve things.

I've always regarded the FAA as being generally very good (perhaps in the past they could have been better at listenning to the NTSB sometimes?), but from time to time large organisations need big shake ups to keep them in good running order.