4 ms·
Technocracy + bureaucracy = sloth. There's no incentive to risk anything. You aren't directly answerable to the people whom you consider beneath you anyway. Not
by nimish 4y ago
Technocracy + bureaucracy = sloth. There's no incentive to risk anything. You aren't directly answerable to the people whom you consider beneath you anyway. Nothing improves.
If FAA won't do their job, then that power (such as it is) needs to be stripped from them and invested back in Congress.
- KennyBlanken 4y agoThe FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. Congress has pretty significant supervision legislatively and budgeting-wise. Presumably GABI has talked to some congressional reps. So the question is: why aren't they lighting a fire under the FAA's ass to at least follow their own regulations? This seems more than worthy of a congressional hearing. Frankly, AOPA should have demanded as much, but they're probably too worried about pissing off Lycoming and Continental. GABI also has the option to pursue redress via the courts. I don't know whether they've attempted to do so or not.
- wolverine876 4y ago> The FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. Also answerable to the elected leader of the executive branch!
- _moof 4y agoThe delegation of authority from Congress to the FAA doesn't stop Congress from telling the FAA what to do. Congress can still pass, and has passed, legislation directing the FAA to take specific action on specific matters, and there's absolutely nothing the FAA can do about it other than comply. Congress can absolutely step in here if it wants to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bruce511 4y agoCongress can, but won't. Congress delegated the authority to the FAA because (in concept) the agency is staffed by people who are knowledgeable about aviation, and are better equipped to make smarter aviation related decisions. For Congress to override the FAA you'd need some majority, in both houses, willing to make a technical decision which is directly related to airplane safety. That would require enormous amounts of time to educate Congress people, time which Congress has no interest in providing. They created the FAA specifically to remove all aviation issues from their docket. They are not now going to medle with this one issue - that's not how the system works. Obviously, like all good govt beaurocracies the FAA has grown big and slow and cautious and so everything takes forever. They are pretty much incentivized to keep kicking the can down the road, it is quite literally their business model.
- _moof 4y agoOk, but, they have actually gotten directly involved in aviation matters in very specific terms, and they do so regularly. This isn't theoretical and I'm not hypothesizing; they've actually done it, a lot. Usually it's to tell Aeromedical to knock it off (a famously dysfunctional division), and a few years ago Congress ordered the FAA to make a whole separate medical track that routes around the FAA almost completely. So it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them step in here. You'd be surprised how many people in Congress are pilots and are quite happy to tell the FAA where to stick it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]