Shortchanged again?
Dear Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood:
You know, with your background and credentials, having a real pilot back at the head of the FAA, you really gave a body hope that this Administration's approach to aviation would be more multilateral, if you will, than we've seen in the past. Presidential and Congressional misstatements denigrating the use of aircraft for business notwithstanding, the Administration seemed to take seriously the proposition that all aviation should be treated equally.
And then, today, the news flashes came pouring into my In Box, the stories covering your announcement of the membership of DoT's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Mr. Secretary, you've gypped General Aviation -- just like the string of prior DoTs and Presidential administrations. You don't seem to get "it."
If this was an election I'd be demanding a recount.
I do want a recount. You've got a panel of nearly 20 people. Filling one slot with a single GA representative -- and one predominantly tilted toward turbine-aircraft manufacturing -- makes it look to me like GA doesn't count.
And only a few days ago, NATA President Jim Coyne was commenting on how right now the FAA and TSA seem to recognize that "aviation" means more than "airlines". I felt so, too.
But this panel's make up makes me question my prior judgment -- and yours.
As much as I admire and respect Jack Pelton and his accomplishments at Cessna, to me his appointment to your committee represents that head-smacking moment when you realize you didn't invite an important relative to a family event -- the one who brings a major share to the event. "Oh, man, amid getting those half-dozen airline execs, the big-airports people, the airline-union folks and the academics, we almost forgot the token spot for general aviation...Say, how about that guy from Cessna...he'll appreciate the smell like kerosene like all the others...wouldn't want to leave out GA...Don't want people thinking we don't see anything else as important as airlines, do we?"
Well, it sure looks like that's the philosophy -- all airlines, all the time.
It doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Secretary. You could still tap people who represent the several hundred thousand American pilots who don't fly for the airlines, who fly for their own businesses, who actually own aircraft and patronize those thousands of airports that don't get kissed by the wheels of airliners.
You could still snag a people with real insights about the world beyond the Human Mailing Tube -- people from AOPA, EAA, NATA, NBAA. Who are they? Well, I know you know -- but for the guy reading this who'll clip it to your dailies, those are only the organizations who represent the majority of pilots flying the majority of the airplanes serving the majority of the airports and the majority of the Fortune 500.
You could even tap a couple of state aviation directors -- whatta concept! -- or even the head of the National Association of State Aviation Officials itself.
Why not? Is it because to you nothing counts unless the aviation is related to a San Diego or Port Authority of the Big-assed Apple, or mass air-transit companies? Don't the rest of us count?
How about the tens of thousands of pilots who fly solely for their own personal needs, family travel to business or to save the environment? How about those who fly only for fun?
You could appoint someone from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association or even the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association. But your manufacturing membership qualifications seem to require that representative come from a planemaker making products designed to carry hundreds at a time or have a fleet average speed up in high Mach territory.
One guy directly involved in GA is insufficient, unacceptable and actually quite insulting.
It's short changing a huge spectrum of that which makes up America's best-ever invention -- aviation. Long before million-dollar CEOs started trying to squeeze a penny out of an olive on a revenue flight, there was General Aviation. When the airlines can't fly -- like across the Atlantic because of a volcano -- there's still a General Aviation world flying across that ocean.
Sorry to say, Mr. Secretary, but like so many of your predecessor, where the future of aviation is concerned you seem to see only air carriers or kerosene burners.
There's time to correct this insulting shortsightedness before your Advisory Committee meets for the first time later this month. How about adding a few to your panel to represent the concerns and hopes of the rest of us in aviation?
Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry to tell you: you blew it. And I'll not look at your tenure with as much optimism or confidence again.
Respectfully,
Dave Higdon
Wichita
You know, with your background and credentials, having a real pilot back at the head of the FAA, you really gave a body hope that this Administration's approach to aviation would be more multilateral, if you will, than we've seen in the past. Presidential and Congressional misstatements denigrating the use of aircraft for business notwithstanding, the Administration seemed to take seriously the proposition that all aviation should be treated equally.
And then, today, the news flashes came pouring into my In Box, the stories covering your announcement of the membership of DoT's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Mr. Secretary, you've gypped General Aviation -- just like the string of prior DoTs and Presidential administrations. You don't seem to get "it."
If this was an election I'd be demanding a recount.
I do want a recount. You've got a panel of nearly 20 people. Filling one slot with a single GA representative -- and one predominantly tilted toward turbine-aircraft manufacturing -- makes it look to me like GA doesn't count.
And only a few days ago, NATA President Jim Coyne was commenting on how right now the FAA and TSA seem to recognize that "aviation" means more than "airlines". I felt so, too.
But this panel's make up makes me question my prior judgment -- and yours.
As much as I admire and respect Jack Pelton and his accomplishments at Cessna, to me his appointment to your committee represents that head-smacking moment when you realize you didn't invite an important relative to a family event -- the one who brings a major share to the event. "Oh, man, amid getting those half-dozen airline execs, the big-airports people, the airline-union folks and the academics, we almost forgot the token spot for general aviation...Say, how about that guy from Cessna...he'll appreciate the smell like kerosene like all the others...wouldn't want to leave out GA...Don't want people thinking we don't see anything else as important as airlines, do we?"
Well, it sure looks like that's the philosophy -- all airlines, all the time.
It doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Secretary. You could still tap people who represent the several hundred thousand American pilots who don't fly for the airlines, who fly for their own businesses, who actually own aircraft and patronize those thousands of airports that don't get kissed by the wheels of airliners.
You could still snag a people with real insights about the world beyond the Human Mailing Tube -- people from AOPA, EAA, NATA, NBAA. Who are they? Well, I know you know -- but for the guy reading this who'll clip it to your dailies, those are only the organizations who represent the majority of pilots flying the majority of the airplanes serving the majority of the airports and the majority of the Fortune 500.
You could even tap a couple of state aviation directors -- whatta concept! -- or even the head of the National Association of State Aviation Officials itself.
Why not? Is it because to you nothing counts unless the aviation is related to a San Diego or Port Authority of the Big-assed Apple, or mass air-transit companies? Don't the rest of us count?
How about the tens of thousands of pilots who fly solely for their own personal needs, family travel to business or to save the environment? How about those who fly only for fun?
You could appoint someone from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association or even the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association. But your manufacturing membership qualifications seem to require that representative come from a planemaker making products designed to carry hundreds at a time or have a fleet average speed up in high Mach territory.
One guy directly involved in GA is insufficient, unacceptable and actually quite insulting.
It's short changing a huge spectrum of that which makes up America's best-ever invention -- aviation. Long before million-dollar CEOs started trying to squeeze a penny out of an olive on a revenue flight, there was General Aviation. When the airlines can't fly -- like across the Atlantic because of a volcano -- there's still a General Aviation world flying across that ocean.
Sorry to say, Mr. Secretary, but like so many of your predecessor, where the future of aviation is concerned you seem to see only air carriers or kerosene burners.
There's time to correct this insulting shortsightedness before your Advisory Committee meets for the first time later this month. How about adding a few to your panel to represent the concerns and hopes of the rest of us in aviation?
Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry to tell you: you blew it. And I'll not look at your tenure with as much optimism or confidence again.
Respectfully,
Dave Higdon
Wichita
posted by Dave Higdon at
12:47 PM
4 Comments:
Dave for president. "you got my vote" When will they wake up to how all of those airline pilots got there to begin with, do they think they got there first flight in a "human mailing tube". If they want to idolise the airlines they need to remember without ga there is no airlines. Sombody need to remember that and eather help ga advance or just leave us the hell alone.
...now that is one scary thought...used to work in that neighborhood and not sure moving back is a great idea (;->)
So how did Lydon Johnson put it...? "I will not seek nor will I accept..." Thanks, though, Planeless...
-- Dave
Mr. Higdon,
I posted a link to this blog entry here:
http://www.facebook.com/sec.lahood
This is Secretary LaHood's Facebook page. Someone has been responding to other feedback posted on Secretary LaHood's Wall. I would hope that he would respond to this feedback.
IMHO, if nothing else there should be a FAAC subcommittee created for GA with better representation of the GA community. I can hear the counterpoint, but it is a start.
hsb/21D
Secretary LaHood's response...
Chris, Thanks for the link. I want you to know that we do have Cessna CEO Jack Pelton as our GA rep. As you may know, Jack is a GA manufacturer, sits on NBAA's board, is a GA pilot himself, and is--I think--well respected in the GA community. Also, I want to make sure everyone knows that all of our meetings are open to the public, and we encourage people to come speak, submit materials etc. Our first meeting was actually broadcast live on the web as well. In terms of GA, Jack is well aware that he is "carrying the flag" for GA and is working to do what he needs to represent your community faithfully.
hsb/21D (HolySmokeBatman in the Forums.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home