Congress: Indeed, time for you to act...

Over the weekend one of the lesser stars in the media firmament of our Nation's Capital, The Washington Examiner, took to task in an editorial what it views as "chronic problems" at our Federal Aviation Administration. Without remotely suggesting that there aren't issues worthy of the Examiner's suggestion -- that Congress dive seriously into its oversight role -- it's misplaced and, simply, dumb to suggest that one particular member of Congress "demand that (FAA Administrator Randy) Babbitt produce significant, measurable improvements in each of" six specific areas during the coming year -- "or resign and let somebody else take over the controls."

The Examiner's posing an interesting idea...if, that is, you consider it smart to have people who've failed to do their jobs for several years suddenly get over their neglect by demanding that the new guy, in under a year, "produce significant, measurable improvements" -- or quit.

While The Washington Examiner may believe in its idea, they clearly aimed it in the wrong direction.

From my perspective, Congress should first succeed at providing the budgets and the tools agencies like the FAA require to best serve the public -- or resign and go on to that K Street lobbying job they'll have waiting on them.

If, however, Congress indeed succeeds on doing its authorization job, then it can get heavy into oversight -- not before.

Congress needs to conduct oversight over federal agencies and this writer won't be one who suggests that the FAA couldn't benefit from something better than it gets from Congress today, which seems to veer between benign neglect and superfluous micromanagement.

Last time Congress did more than vote another extension of FAA funding was last summer and Congress used the opportunity of temporarily funding the agency to load it up beyond its existing overload; Congress added a number of mandates involving complex changes to the FARs, changes that, by an act of Congress, must be made through the lengthy and time-consuming Administrative Procedures Act, or face congressional ire of another sort.

Congress largely ignored all of the Examiner's bullet points going back years, when the GOP controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and both sides of the Capital and, as these things go, Congress hasn't shown itself to do much better with the Democrats in the same position -- references the new mandates from last summer.

So how about this Congress:

First, pass a five-year budget authorization for the FAA...you know, one that provides for the changes and evolution already ongoing. Do that now, please, and let the agency get on with attempting to make progress by at least knowing what its budgets will be.

Second, apply your oversight role; if some of that oversight picks up on some of the Examiner's somewhat lame claims, well, that's the price of democracy. Administrator Babbitt's a big boy -- he can handle himself, for example, on airline pilots training for collision avoidance as part of their recurrent, or the Examiner's hysteria over what it calls "lighter-than-air gliders," a mistake that calls into question the depth of knowledge by the paper's editorial writers; sounds, at points, like they actually know or understands less then they think about aviation, overall.

But Congress should resist applying its oversight authority as an exercise in applying even more conditions to allowing the FAA to have a five-year authorization and with it a semblance of funding predictability. Matter of fact, let's up the ante to you finishing your work for all agencies of the Executive Branch -- it is in your job description; getting re-elected isn't.

And if you can't do that by year's end, Congress, resign and make room for a lawmaker interested more in public service than in private campaign funds -- that thing you know you spend more time on than actual lawmaking.

'Nuff said.

-- Dave

Onward into the second decade of the 21st Century...

For 2011, here are a few pet wishes from the remarks section of life's log book:

...that we find a practical, affordable solution to the 100LL challenge...

...that electric power advances in airplanes to a level comparable to autos...

...for any and all TSA mandates to at last make sense and cents...

...for an all-around viable LSA that cost no more than the average Suburban Unnecessary Vehicle...

...for a last-and-final rebuke to the tiresome issue of user fees...

...to reach this point in 365 more days knowing that more people are flying and fewer are dying or dropping out...

...and finally, for the happiness, health and safety we all need and deserve.

Thanks for another year of UCAP madness, listeners...let's to it again next year.

-- Dave

FAA BS: TTFs DO NOT threaten airports expansion...

Well, one of my friendly aviation associates sent me links to testimony the FAA delivered today; the agency staffers testified before House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

First up for your consideration, Catherine Lang, the FAA's associate administrator for airports. She told the hearing, according to press accounts, "The fundamental distinctions between public use airports ... and private airports have begun to blur."

Our friends over at the National Air Transportation Association sent me a press release declaring their concurrence. NATA's president James Coyne, generally a sharp guy and an active GA pilot, told the members this: “NATA agrees with the FAA that the primary issue for not allowing new RTTF agreements is to ensure the future utility of federally funded airports. Investments in airports, made through the Airport Improvement Program or through federal surplus property grants, are intended to enhance the flexibility of airports to meet the future needs, in both capacity and type of operations, of the National Airspace System. Due to the intrinsic nature of residential properties, as compared to commercial properties, RTTF agreements limit the flexibility of airport sponsors to expand according to the needs of the community. NATA believes that the FAA has made an overwhelming case for prohibiting new RTTF agreements and supports its proposal.”

Well...is that it? This stuff isn't going to be the last word. While I haven't heard what EAA or AOPA testified, lacking their perspectives, let me share a bit of my own take: "Bunk!"

Sorry, Jim; Sorry Ms. Lang; your assertions are patently "Bunk!" -- which sounds so much more polite than my first instinct. Bovine effluent.

No one, not the FAA, not NATA, offers any compelling evidence to support the contention that "RTTF agreements limit the flexibility of airport sponsors to expand according to the needs of the community."

To ask politely, what are you people smoking? A residential neighborhood of aviation fans and airport supporters is "intrinsically"more difficult to dislodge than, say, a higher-density residential area with no fans of aviation. Or an industrial park? Or small shop with a deep-pocket owner?

Really...On what planet?

And just so Jim knows I'm not solely picking on his comments, Ms. Lang failed to explain in any meaningful way how well-reasoned, balanced residential TTF neighborhoods "blur the lines between public use...and private airports" more so or even differently than the thousands of TTF agreements publicly owner airports have with business neighbors?

Are you saying public-private lines aren't blurred when it's a business selling whatever -- but are when it's Joe Pilot coming home from the office? OK...How? Take your time -- we know how long it takes an agency to think up answers to fit the policy...

At the end of the day, a publicly owned airport faces the same obstacles and obstructions whether the neighbors are private businesses or private residences.

Let's go a little further here. How can airport with a RTTF and a vibrant residential neighbor and ally somehow going to find it more difficult to deal with the neighbors when discussing airport expansion than one filled with people -- many of whom believe their move into the area justifies asking the airport to shut down altogether?

Sorry, Ms. Lang, sorry Mr. Administrator Babbitt, sorry Mr. Coyne. Nothing heard in that hearing approaches justification for preventing case-by-case consideration of new RTTF agreements with public, federally funded airports.

You all know damned well that not every publicly owned airport is a candidate for the kind of growth you think an RTFF would handicap; the majority won't. You also well know -- or should -- how difficult survival is for even financially viable publicly owned airports, and how much closer pressures exist for many airports.

Yet somehow you think providing business with privileges you'd withhold from individual citizens is somehow a path to airport utopia?

On what planet?

And we're bound to hear back about the "national security" issue somewhere in this; yes, individuals at some airports have had some issues -- some of them at RTTF sites, some of them at BTTF locales (as in "Business Through The Fence"). So what? Either we have a public airports system or we don't.

Security issues should be resolved at the site of the offense; not by stopping through-the-fence.

So a couple of suggestions:

First, come up with at least a mythological scenario where all the power of imminent domain and taxing authority of a community would fail a RTFF airport should it want to expand -- and how that would have been different had it been businesses instead of residences. We no longer tolerate claims lacking any backing; this is one of those.

Second, explain to the rest of us how private business is inherently a more-desirable TTF neighbor than an individual with a home -- right now, you've got nothing on this front but a baseless contention; for instructions on resolving that problem, see the next paragraph up.

Third, if you actually can come up with some fiction to support that second point, bring along an explanation of why business warrants or deserves any preferential access over a private individual seeking access in any public-private encounter . And telling us "they create jobs" won't cut it; those home create jobs, too. They pay taxes -- they are the citizens the Founders had in mind when they drafted our Constitution; don't remember seeing anything mentioning corporations, businesses, etc.

Time to punt, folks.

The FAA's conclusion here is unfathomable, unjustifiable and unneeded. It's chasing a problem that exists only in their minds. And it's wholly incompatible with part of the agency's mission.

As my friend there put it, "So much for FAA promoting aviation...again."

Respectfully,

Dave

Beyond irresponsible...

Well, just heard the fourth trustworthy assessment of chances that Congress will finish work on the bill "reauthorizing" the Federal Aviation Administration. The assessments are in alignment: it ain't happening this year with this Congress -- specifically, with this Senate.

Congrats, lawmakers!! That's two straight Congresses that the FAA has gone without full reauthorization.

That failure means Congress essentially starts all over on the issue come January so a third Congress can get a crack at micromanaging, earmarking and otherwise abusing the process to gain an advantage on some well-funded constituents' wants.

Unconscionable; just unconscionable that a body required by the Constitution to be of adult age seems to lack a majority of adult personalities or adult responsibility. Members of both chambers on both sides of the aisle tried; between working to protect narrow business interests on both sides of the aisle and a general, brainlessly disciplined "Just Say No to Everything!" mentality among the minority party, it's probably a miracle that even the gazillion continuing resolutions got past with the stop-gap money that kept open the doors, towers and centers functioning, and rulemaking continuing at its typical plodding pace.

Guess this is as good an example there is of how "grown-up" doesn't always mean "adult" -- with particular credit to those good folks in the Senate working to protect their contributors' vested interests...gosh knows, they found a way to insinuate their own proclivities about safety and training into the FAA's rulemaking plans.

What a pity they couldn't accomplish as much to make the entire agency more functional and efficient.

But it's still unconscionable that the adults let the children drive the process off the runway end where, in the end, the agency's hopes of a workable, road-map-able authorization might come from two bodies with 535 grown-ups working -- particularly when it takes only one brat among the "upper" chamber known as the Senate to screw it up for the millions who fly or work in aviation.

-- Dave

Hello....DoT....anybody home...?...anyone...?

Dear Secretary LaHood...

Did General Aviation do something to tick off DoT? Did somebody stop up the lavs at the Southeast Federal Center? Did one of us buzz New Jersey Ave. SE?

The question arises because once again, Mr. Secretary, DoT is demonstrating a disturbing tendency to treat commercial aviation as the only aviation -- that exists, that plays a role in America's economy, its well being and the movement of people and goods. Does an airplane have to be on a FAR 121 or 135 certificate to matter to DoT? Or is it that DoT staff can't read numbers below 100 -- as in FAR 91?

Sure looks like this is true. You've given us cause to carp before.

The last time you heard from me my complaint -- validated by the response of others -- came in mid-May in the form of a post to this blog observing how General Aviation was shortchanged (again) in representation on your Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Knowing how much dumb stuff you have to read, you can refresh your memory about my comments here: http://ucap-podcast.blogspot.com/2010/05/shortchanged-again.html...we'll wait...OK...

Got it, Mr. Secretary? DoT short-sheeted GA in representation on this committee -- whose efforts we're just sure will be profound and far reaching, resulting in a new stack of paper to dust after shelving -- by appointing the head of a General Aviation manufacturer as the sole GA body, after naming multiple members from the airlines, airline unions, airline consulting and academia. No pilot group representation, no aircraft-owner or private-operator -- just one guy from a planemaker who just automatically will think in the same terms the rest of us support...right....

But, this is a new day and a new post about an old problem: Today, it's your department's five-year plan draft and DoT's seemingly willful refusal to acknowledge General Aviation as a transportation power and economic influence worthy of policy planning. Sucks, Mr. Secretary, just sucks how DoT again and again seems to act to ignore General Aviation...if you're getting any points, it should be only for consistency.

Now AOPA isn't exactly at the top of my fav's list these days, but in reviewing the salient materials the association's observation rings honest and accurate: "In its current form the (DoT) plan places more emphasis on travel by bicycle than on general aviation," AOPA President Craig Fuller wrote of the draft in a communication to you. You can catch up on this here:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100701dot.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief

Five-thousand airports and not even 10 percent of them get airline service; half of those get Spartan, minimal, barely subsistence-level commercial service. Does anyone in your agency know or understand how the other 4,500-plus airports and their communities connect to the aviating outside world?

General Aviation, pure and simple.

General Aviation pilots flying General Aviation aircraft in and out of General Aviation airports...and connecting those communities to the rest of the world directly, hub-free and TSA compliant. Or is this the problem? The airlines haven't yet succeeded in suppressing General Aviation out of existence -- and out of competition -- so the DoT is helping my willfully ignoring it?

Without belaboring the nitty gritty details of how General Aviation would have to be invented -- if it hadn't come first, that is -- let me close with two questions:

First, regarding the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, will DoT ever step up and correct the short-changed representations to something proportional to General Aviation's impact and influence? 'Cause right now, sir, it looks like you decided to just ignore the shortcoming and plow forward as if it will be meaningful anyway. Prove me wrong.

Second, will DoT similarly update this inadequate blueprint to something that recognizes a uniquely American institution, American General Aviation? Or will DoT continue to have eyes only for the Common Carriers?

Happy Independence Day Weekend, Mr. Secretary. Now, how about showing some independence and doing the right things for General Aviation?

Sorry -- guess that was three questions. You got the big office and the big title; prove me wrong -- please.

Respectfully,

Dave

I don't care...

Here's a conversations which could have actually taken place between Jack and Jeb. (Warning: contains language that you'd never hear on our podcast.)

Anybody else notice...

...how much more expensive AOPA "benefits" have become since Phil Boyer left? Well, after today it struck me that it's getting expensive to maintain both a basic membership and to sustain the previously-much-vaulted "Member Benefits" -- bennies for decades included in that $39.95/year membership.

The first change to catch my attention came in the form of the AOPA Medical Services Desk; for years, the advice and assistance of that desk's staff was a member benefit, all inclusive...now what's free is a basic Q&A service, mostly Web based, it seems, with links that still help people find an AME, check drug eligibility and such; but the complex stuff for which we generally need expert help to retain or restore medical certificates is only available through one of two levels of fee-for-service programs. Humm....OK...

What irked me first was the announcement making it sound like AOPA was creating this bold new effort on behalf of members...YEAH! Maybe they're making it better...

Knowing full well that such a benefit had long existed, it floored me, upon reading further, that this wonderful "new" program required more money: either "just $37 a year" for the base Essential Medical Services Program or, if I wanted the full-up Comprehensive Program it "is offered for $99."

OK...free before, a hundred bucks now...

Today it happened again. It came in my e-mail box, an AOPA invitation to reserve my print copy of "AOPA Airports." That thick, phone-book like document has had a place in flight bags for decades -- courtesy of AOPA's Member Benefits program that boasted how much more value existed in those benefits than the cost of membership. Ordering before a certain date assures me of "free shipping" -- but requires a member to also pony up $19.95 -- $39.95 for non-members...

OK, I understand that printing is expensive -- even on cheap phone-book-like paper; I understand that the product is now available in electronic form...that form will be cold comfort sitting somewhere with no electricity, no internet and no hard copy to leaf through looking for a better airport...and must admit, I'm not really a devotee of activating an electronic device for every question or need -- particularly when I'm traveling...I liked having a choice of how to receive my "Member Benefit"...now I have a choice between what's cheapest for the association and what's preferable to me -- for $19.95, shipping free if...yaddayaddayadda...

This trend is distressing.

Sorry, old AOPA Friends, but the appeal of belonging to this admirable association is shrinking; it remains justifiable for supporting AOPA advocacy; but embracing "member benefits" is getting too expensive to justify and another association is looking like a better place for my bucks.

What do you all think? Is "Pilot" magazine juicy enough for you to pony up the money for it alone (presuming print copies remain a "Member Benefit")? Do you maintain membership out of a sense of allegiance to the General Aviation Cause -- even if you seldom crack the magazine?

Is the luster of AOPA membership tarnishing under the seemingly increasing need for green? Let me know...makes me sort of curious about whether it's just the curmudgeon in me...

But right now, a line the actor John Vernon uttered in the movie "The Outlaw Jody Wales" is playing in my head -- a line about, well, legs and rain...and right now here in The Air Capital, the sky is clear...

-- Dave

Number One!

Do a Google search for "General Aviation Podcast" and what's the first result on the list?

Check it out!