We will soon have a new Congress. I hope we ‘fire’ some of the saboteurs who side with the former guy. I hope, too, to see more electeds who listen and serve people, ahead of money.
A past Congress was misled by lobbyists to give us the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (also known as ‘ANCA’). Notice how the title mashes ‘Noise’ and ‘Capacity’. It takes no effort to guess which was important, and which was ignored. ANCA set us up for the disasters FAA has pursued in the last two decades, pushing scam Metroplex EA’s and NextGen implementations.
The goal of NextGen and Metroplex was NOT about improving safety; it was about safely increasing ‘efficiency’ by expanding automation inputs to flight and ATC (and thus reducing human inputs, by pilots and controllers). These changes were achieved by essentially a wholesale abandonment of previous local noise mitigation procedures. The intent was to increase capacity for the airlines; problematically, at airports where airlines expanded too much, capacity gains caused massive efficiency declines, such as takeoff delays, enroute delays (added turns, slower speeds), and longer waits before taxiing to occupied gates.
In another week or so, the 2022 election will close and this round of attack ads will end. The dust will settle and another iteration of Dems and Repubs will be seated, ready to hear concerns from citizens, and proposals (and deals) from lobbyists. It’ll be ‘rinse and repeat’ time for aviation legislation. Some of our electeds will be working to fix the flaws of ANCA, but they will also be subjected to a heavy barrage of articles, papers, speeches, and so forth, funded by the deep money interests of aviation. This will include new variations on articles like one titled, ‘30 Years After ANCA: Can Airports Live with New Community-Imposed Noise Restrictions?‘ In late April of 2020, at a time when refrigerator trucks were stacking up in New York City to store the overflow of COVID victims, when the pandemic was at its most terrifying point, this article was written, hoping to protect aviation interests. Lobbyists then felt a need to defend aviation from one simple and frankly innocuous proposal: that local airports should have the right to discuss and possibly implement local airport restrictions. The article is filled with garbage and disinformation, much like the assertions at that time that it might help to drink bleach. Here is a copy with aiREFORM analysis footnotes (4page PDF) at page 2, or click here to download the PDF.
An important hearing was held today at the Environment Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Representative Ro Khanna. Both FAA and EPA were asked to attend; they both refused to attend. No surprises there… failure hates to confront accountability.
The hearing is well worth a listen. It ran for 106-minutes, but your listening time is actually only 76-minutes, due to a full 30-minute recess (starts at minute-24, and you can skip ahead to minute-54) for a House Vote. A general timeline follows at the bottom of this post.
One interesting twist to ponder… so, as mentioned at the Hearing, FAA refused to show when invited. Where were they? Well, it so happens today is the middle of the week for the biggest General Aviation (GA) event of the year: AirVenture at Oshkosh, WI. Yes, FAA will have MANYofficials rubbing elbows with the mostly recreational-flying community, as they celebrate their rights and freedoms at Oshkosh, but our national regulator cannot find even one FAA official to appear at this hearing. And, the interesting twist… well, as testimony to how FAA is deploying its ‘delay-delay-delay’ tactic, check out FAA’s PDF of their PAFI presentation at Oshkosh this same week 6-years ago, on July 26, 2016. Back then, FAA sent a team to present to pilots, letting them know how hard FAA was working (budget ~$6M per year, thank you Congress!) to safely and quickly achieve the end of leaded fuels. Within the PDF it declares goal was implementation by 2018. Um, that was how many years before how many pandemics and how many insurrections?
And, wouldn’t it be interesting to know just one short set of figures:
how many gallons of leaded fuel were consumed for flying to and from (and at) this year’s AirVenture in Oshkosh?
how many aircraft flew to and departed from the AirVenture event this year, and what is their composition, in terms of how many must burn leaded fuel versus how many can burn unleaded fuel or leaded, versus how many can burn ONLY unleaded fuel?
can we have a short list of all aircraft types within each of the three categories listed above?
similarly, can we have a short list of all aircraft engine models that are lead-only, versus lead or no-lead, versus unleaded only?
and, lastly, can we include on the above two lists the year of introduction for each aircraft type and engine type?
The last item on this list would be fascinating to learn. Is it possible, in the roughly thirty years FAA has had to ‘fail’ to phase out lead, that nonetheless FAA has successfully certified numerous NEW aircraft types and NEW engine types that must burn leaded fuel, only perpetuating the problem … and just how messed up is that, from an environmental justice and health perspective?
What was my read?
As an ‘overall view’, I found it interesting AND VERY CLEAR that (R)’s tended to be on the side of aviation and commerce, while (D)’s were pushing to clean this up. No surprise there, given recent history. Just as interesting, clearly, D’Acosta was the mouthpiece (sort of the Giuliani?) for the (R)’s to bounce questions off, all aimed at legitimizing this ongoing failure… or, at least, aimed at suckering regular people into believing the lie that FAA and industry are actually making progress. It’s all smoke and mirrors and lots of delay.
Other Activist Views:
During the preparation of this Post, other activists shared a few good thoughts:
Cindy Chavez deserves a National award!
Does anyone know how to obtain a copy of the AOPA letter Herrell entered into the record? Her opening statements regarding GA had more to do with fire-fighting and life flight whereas the complaints filed by the public are much more focused on flight training and private pilots. As far as the economic benefits of GA, it’s a heavily subsidized industry. If it was a good business investment then why the chronic dependence on public handouts? I’d rather see my taxpayer dollars spent on jobs focused on environment safeguards, reducing global warming, education, health care, parks and the arts as well as high speed rail.
Democrats and Republicans have very different reasons for wanting to issue subpoenas. A lot of politics involved. That being said, both parties seem to be frustrated by the FAA and EPA foot-dragging. Flood’s comment on EPA top down decision-making regarding an endangerment finding or leaded fuel ban is preposterous. If any sector engages in a top down approach its the FAA and the aviation industry.
Both Khanna and Lofgren called the avgas issue a national health crisis. There was a declaration of this nature made during the Flint water crisis and a lot of bottled water was shipped in as a result, but how replace lead polluted air?
Dr. Lanphear referred to it as an urgent public health problem. Tlaib also emphasized the need for a greater sense of urgency as children are being poisoned now. Lofgren described the RHV lead study findings as “terrifying.” Both she and Khanna spoke of being outraged by the ongoing inaction. Like Lofgren, I’m appalled that the FAA would tell communities they have to continue poisoning children due to grant assurances.
1111: Rep. James Comer (R, KY Dist.1), brief statement handing off to Rep Herrell.
1113: Rep. Yvette Herrell (R, NM Dist.2) member. Opening statement; she read off the debatable pro-aviation points so often pushed by FAA and industry, while ignoring the impacts. But, on a positive note, she did say the committee needs to issue subpoenas for FAA and EPA.
1119: Cindy Chavez (Santa Clara County supervisor): discussed KRHV scope, lead history, efforts eliminate lead, role of industry lobbyists to block health initiatives, etc.
1124: Maricela Lechuga: lives 5-blocks from KRHV. Family history, historical context of Mexicans having East San Jose available for housing. Impacts of proximity to airport, to the point of not even being allowed to grow trees to offer shade for children.
1200: Bruce Lanphear presented short video about impacts of lead on growing children, loss of IQ score even for very lead pollution levels. Also, increased ADHD incidence, increased risk of heart disease. Airborne lead: aviation produces ~70% of total pollution; particles are much smaller than lead particles associated with old-paint lead.
1206: George Braly, chief engineer at GAMI. Link to an AOPA article dated 7/21/21. “It’s just amazing, the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that has gone on….” He believes FAA is in defiance of Congress, in its failure to act, failure to even communicate.
1212: Chris D’Acosta, CEO of swift Fuels. Link to an AOPA article dated 11/11/13 when FAA approved use of Swift’s unleaded fuel.
1218: Rep. Khanna recognized self for 5-minutes of questions:
Supervisor Chavez, would you say lead is an environmental justice issue?
Lechunga, Do you feel your comment has received the concern and action it deserves?
further questions to Mr. Braly, Supervisor Chavez,…
1224: Rep. Herrell recognized. Offered AOPA written statement into the record. Series of Q&A to Mr. D’Acosta. Herrell: “It’s obviously a very robust process.”
1229: Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D, MI Dist.13) member. Concerns about what she has learned about impacts in Detroit area airports. Question to Mr. Lanphear, about the ‘cost’ of lead on IQ and health. Question to Supervisor Chavez.
1235: Rep. Pat Fallon (R, TX Dist.4) recognized. Asked Mr. D’Acosta to detail history on PAFI and EAGLE fuel programs. Video cut out before end. Links to background info…
PAFI White Paper (FAA, no date, 4p) at link. (download saved)
FAA’s webpage about Eagle Initiative at link. (PDF printed)
1241: Re. Lofgren recognized. Thank you to Supervisor Chavez. One question to Professor Lanphear, regarding blood level study. Expressed outrage over DoT Secretary not replying to letter from Congressional reps; “Hopefully we will get some action from this administration that is sorely lacking.”
1246: Rep. Mike Flood (R, NE Dist.1) Concerns about impact on agriculture (spray planes) if leaded fuel was disallowed. Questions to D’Acosta. At 12:50, at end of Rep. Flood’s time, Mr. D’Acosta asked to clarify on aircraft types.
1251: Closing comments by Rep. Khanna, noting that House Reps have 5-days to submit written materials. Adjourned at 1252.
REFERENCE MATERIALS: (more to be added as found later)
These are some of the wealthiest people in the world. In 2022, wealth is power like never before; as such, these people have more power than the bottom 95% of the population, to change laws, to change social structures, to change everything. If only a few of these people – maybe even just one? – would accept the threat of climate change due to excessive fossil fuel consumption and work toward decisions that can protect future generations, we could make progress. They could, but instead they choose to add to the problem. They fly to Hailey, for a week of ‘summer camp for billionaires’. And, they fly in the most carbon-intensive mode: on private or charter jets.
Prior to our invention of the internal combustion engine,and long before humans rose to dominate the planet, CO2 concentrations went through a cyclical pattern always peaking at around 280 ppm (parts per million). We have been steadily climbing for over a century, and peaking this year at over 420 ppm. More heat is trapped, more moisture is circulated, and weather patterns intensify each year. Something has to give. We are killing the atmosphere we need to live here.
The three fastest ways for a human being to intensively add CO2 to the atmosphere are:
The last time the City of Santa Monica accepted FAA grant monies was in 1994. But, airport grants are not just for subsidizing the few who use the airport; they are also for imposing restrictions on the airport sponsor (in this case, the City of Santa Monica), so as to perpetuate the airport and also to compel airports to become dependent on more FAA grants. The list of restrictions, called ‘Grant Assurances’, is extensive. One of them, Grant Assurance 22, comes up time and again, used by FAA and aviation interests to confound airport sponsors and activists seeking balance or closure.
By definition, Grant Assurances remain valid for 20 years; thus, 20-years after a grant is accepted, if an airport sponsor accepts no grants for those twenty years, they have finally earned their freedom from grant-slavery, come clean, and can theoretically regain local control of their local airport. This is what the people of Santa Monica aspired to do eight years ago, in 2014.
The Santa Monica Airport is jammed up against houses and, in fact, the spacing is so deficient residents have had lawn furniture overturned by the blast behind taxiing jets. The lead from leaded aviation fuel continues to be deposited on area homes, because FAA and the aviation industry have stonewalled the replacement of leaded aviation fuel. Indeed, in the 25-years since lead was removed from all U.S. automotive gas stations, there have been thousands of new engines built, put into new small recreational airplane designs, all centered on the consumption of leaded aviation fuel.
Activists have been fighting for health and quality of life for many decades, so it is not surprising that, when the City of Santa Monica finished their last grant obligations in 2014, a ballot measure was added to the November election seeking local control and conversion of the property to a park. The aviation lobbyists spent lots (estimates were 8-times the spending by Local Control proponents,) but they lost. The majority spoke and voter empowerment made it look like residents were going to see a park soon. It was headed that way until late January 2017, when a few City officials, fearful of dragged out legal challenges and an ongoing lack of FAA cooperation, caved to FAA’s pressure and ‘settled’ with a Consent Decree that made airport closure arguably a lot less likely.
Grant Assurance 22 is ten pounds of ambiguity under the headline, ‘Economic Nondiscrimination’. It has nine listed elements. Three of them are:
Grant Assurance 22a states: “It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport.”
Grant Assurance 22h states: “The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport.”
Grant Assurance 22i states: “The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.”
So, while 22a seems to imply ANY aviation activity has to be allowed without discrimination and on reasonable terms, both 22h and 22i offer exceptions, allowing specific conditions and even outright prohibitions, as needed for safety and efficiency.
Would it be a ‘reasonable term’ to NOTallow lease of an underground tank past its designed age limit? Should FAA’s view of safety include protecting area residents from lead toxin exposures? Is FAA our friend or our enemy (with us or against us)? What kind of a regulatory agency is it that leans hard with its sole authority but lacks the heart to cooperate with communities impacted by its activities? Is this the same agency that handed off regulatory action to Boeing for the deadly 737MAX fiasco, and the same agency that grounds all tiny drones in yards to protect manned aircraft (yet is now slowly repealing rules so drones can fly low over crowds of people)? Yup, this is FAA: the U.S. aviation ‘faux-regulator’ captured to serve aviation, and working to protect industry from problematic people.
Oddly, the City Attorney is hung up on Grant Assurance 22, acting and speaking uncomfortably to question its applicability. And, unfortunately, the City Manager appears to be parroting the statements by the City Attorney. As a result, the City’s residents are being subjected to an unsafe, unhealthy perpetuation of aviation privilege that benefits a tiny elite. But these City officials are missing an important reality, so fearful they are of FAA. Both of them should ponder this: if they shut down all the tanks and an aviation lobbyist files a Part 16 complaint (against the City, claiming they are not compliant with grant assurances), their biggest penalty will be placement on the ‘Airport Noncompliance List’ and loss of grant eligibility… neither of which matter, for an airport set to close later this decade.
So, let’s close down the underground tanks. And, thank you, City of Santa Monica, for standing up to the FAA bully.
Congress has done it again, proving their bipartisan support for monied individuals and corporate wealth. Here we are, deep in a pandemic with millions facing an imminent eviction wave as well as growing food insecurity. So, why not add language to a temporary aid package, that allows 3-martini lunches (and other business meal expenses) to be paid fully (as in 100%!) by the taxpayers?! The outgoing President wants it (some of those meals will be procured at his businesses); so, WHY NOT? (see article at Boston Globe, or PDF copy here)
This has been a grueling year. It seems that not a minute passes without yet one more surreal news item or troubling tweet. Somehow, a more hopeful core within makes me ‘hope’ this is a fake news story. But, it likely is not. It is just like the pattern of corporate-welfare and capital-welfare we have so long seen within aviation. Two examples:
federal tax rules for accelerated depreciation and bonus depreciation coddle concentrated wealth, enticing those with larger income tax bills to instead spend those taxes buying jets and helicopters AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.
lobbyists have pushed legislation, passed in so many states, that waives sales taxes for aviation-related expenses such as maintenance, creating the absurd reality that a minimum-wage parent with a beater car pays sales tax for an oil change, but the owner of a small plane (mostly older, mostly white, mostly male, and flown mostly recreationally) pays ZERO sales tax as a privilege.
As Bob Dylan would sing, The Times They Are A-Changin’. Conditions are getting worse in the U.S., economically, for those who do not have money reserves. Yet, the same duopoly that panders to aviation and the White House holds the majority hostage while serving out more for the most elite wealth. Will our electeds at any level come around to taking care of people first, before money? Reforming aviation is a great place to start.
The end of 2019 is looking far better than the start of this very long year.
A few days before Christmas, eighteen elected representatives, from both the Senate and the House, sent the following letter to FAA Adminsitrator Stephen Dickson:
Click on the image below for a scrollable view of the international Press Release; the PDF file may be downloaded.
The letter makes reference to the 41-page Audit Report done by the DoT Inspector General and published last August (click here for a PDF copy, archived at page two of this Post).
An aiREFORM Analysis
Here are a few quick observations:
The Bicameral letter is excellent, but has one incorrect point in paragraph #2, where it repeats the oft-declared propaganda by FAA that Metroplex was introduced “…in order to make airspace more efficient.” FAA’s true reason for Metroplex was to achieve a giveaway for the airlines; they used Metroplex to do a wholesale removal of all previously existing noise mitigation procedures, so the airlines would no longer be encumbered with the ‘nuisance’ of having to reduce impacts below.
Again, Metroplex is NOT about efficiency. If Metroplex was about improving efficiency, would we not expect FAA to be deeply concerned about the gross inefficiencies of flying more and more passengers on longer overall trips, via major airline hubs? Would we not see FAA advocating for ticket prices (and fees) proportional to total direct-miles flown, and advocating for a steep aviation carbon tax?
True efficiency would be accomplished by ensuring the passengers are able to fly direct, one-hop flights from trip origin to trip destination. But, it behooves FAA and industry players to fly more passengers indirectly, via hub airports, as doing so artificially inflates enplanements, falsely suggesting a booming industry. And, more enplanements translates to more airport passenger fees, an attractive revenue generator for airport authorities like Port of Seattle and MassPort. This is a system rigged toward concentration, imposing a noise/health cost on local communities, and also undermining the viability of other airports within a few hundred miles of the emerging super-Hubs.
The Senators and Representatives are hopeful that FAA will start serving ‘We The People’, not just industry players. But FAA has a long history of arrogance, indifference, and aversion to accountability. This is the same ‘regulator’ that essentially let Boeing self-regulate the 737 MAX design that killed 346 in two horrific crashes, and was the last national regulator to ground this dangerous design.
So, what a year, right? So much has been revealed. So many individuals have persisted in their activism. Maybe, just maybe, in the coming New Year, we can see more growth in the support needed from those we elected to serve?
To serve ‘We the People’, not to serve the aviation corporatocracy.
Ecowatch published an informative article about a huge iceberg, roughly 115 square miles, that has calved off of the Pine Island Glacier. The article cites an interesting series of posts by Stef Lhermitte discussing a large new iceberg, designated B-46, which is rapidly disintegrating as it drifts toward the Pacific Ocean.
The series of posts includes a GIF slideshow showing annual sea-ice extent at the Pine Island Glacier. Here is a scrollable PDF showing a series of screencaps taken from the GIF slideshow, with images at roughly a 5-year interval from 1975 to 2018 (depending on what years had available images). The sea ice extent for each year is indicated by a color-coded thick line; over time, this line progresses upward, exposing more of the seawater below. In the background of all images, the satellite image appears to be current, as taken on 10/30/2018.
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
Overall, this series of images shows a pronounced decline in sea-ice coverage. Within the images, you will also notice that there were a few years, ending in 2013, where sea-ice cover was expanding. Since 2013, the melting/calving has been precipitous. Bear in mind, the polar regions are in total darkness for months each year, and it may take years for new meltwater to mix with the seawater below. Thus, massive ice melting may cause an easily frozen freshwater lens to sit atop the seawater. This will create an illusion of expanding sea-ice extent for a few winters. But, eventually, once the excessive freshwater becomes mixed, or as ambient air temperatures continue to increase, the expanded ice that peaked in 2013 will become just a distant memory.
Putting this in a Geographic Context
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, describing this specific glacier:
The area drained by Pine Island Glacier comprises about 10% of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Satellite measurements have shown that the Pine Island Glacier Basin has a greater net contribution of ice to the sea than any other ice drainage basin in the world and this has increased due to recent acceleration of the ice stream.
Here are a pair of images, showing Pine Island Glacier’s location on Antarctica, and showing the seas that surround Antarctica, connecting it to the extreme southern oceans.
What Does this Suggest for Our Global Future, and for Aviation?
The rate of calving in recent years is disturbing, and reflects a harsh reality: if our ever-expanding over-consumption of fossil fuels is not reined in, and we continue to see 2- or 3- ppm annual increases in average atmospheric CO2 concentrations (see Keeling Curve), we can expect collapse of these polar glaciers and large-scale sea-rise. Hundreds of the busiest airports across the globe will become underwater. Homes for more than a billion people will also become uninhabitable, under sea-rise. Displaced people will need to find new homes, and that situation will result in global conflict and likely massive human depopulation.
Would it not be a good idea to immediately impose policies that strongly disincentivize excessive and arbitrary use of aviation?
A Closing Image: Accelerated Melting is Likely
Below is a different perspective, rotated, but showing the recession of the glacier (roughly from left to right) and how it compares to actual shorelines beneath. The areas of ice over water are designated as the ‘northern ice shelf’ and ‘southern ice shelf’. Over land, colors appear to show ice flow rates using a spectrum, with red being fast, yellow being moderate, and blue being slow. A major concern among scientists who study polar ice loss and related sea-level rise is that loss of sea-ice eventually removes an important ‘plug’ that holds back glacial ice over land; kind of like eroding the footing out from under a bridge pier. In other words, in this example, the fear is that once the Pine Island Glacier recedes beyond the base of the SW tributary and the southern ice shelf is nearly gone, ice flow from the SW tributary will rapidly accelerate, which in turn will rapidly accelerate global sea-level rise.
It would seem to be very foolish, to continue to ignore this evidence.
Who’s idea was it, anyway, to use a helicopter to fly over tailgating crowds ‘to make crowd announcements’?
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
OK, let’s suppose a nearby nuclear reactor is melting down, say Three Mile Island (though I understand, yes, it is not actually near the stadium Lot 23 area for Penn State football games!). But, just to put this in perspective, would it be a good idea for a helicopter pilot with an announcement system to swoop down very low over a crowd to issue an urgent message aimed at triggering an immediate orderly evacuation? Well, yes and no. First, how likely is it the announcement will not be heard over the ‘whop whop’ roar of the helicopter? And, second, how smart is it to apply this level of intervention, this form of technology, to potentially trigger a stampede? If there is an urgent need for people to vacate an area, sending in a helicopter at tree-top level or even lower is like throwing gas onto a fire. Not a good idea.
Now, is it surprising that this pilot flew so low, endangering so many people? No, not at all. FAA’s regulations for Minimum Safe Altitude (officially known as FAR 91.119) are carefully worded so as to exempt helicopters from the ‘1,000-ft above’ requirement that all fixed wing aircraft have to comply with. Well, sort of. The ambiguity within FAR 91.119 creates a barn door wide enough to fly a helicopter through … or, at least, it creates opportunities for FAA to justify taking no enforcement actions. The key phrase within FAA 91.119 is this:
“(Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below) … an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.”
Check out the videos online, by tailgaters at this Penn State incident. How was this helicopter going to safely execute an emergency landing without actually crushing or chopping people and ‘property’ below in the congested, open air assembly of tailgaters? And, when the impact causes fuel to burst out and ignite, how does the PA State Police mitigate the ‘undue hazards’ of being burnt to death?
Let’s put this in FAA’s perspective: aviation is good, people are dumb, and we, as the federal ‘regulator’ with sovereign authority for all things U.S. aviation, do everything we can to grow aviation commerce and allow even stupid aviation activities.
From FAA’s perspective, why not allow the use of helicopters swooping low and back-and-forth to herd wild horses or cattle … or PEOPLE?
From FAA’s perspective, why not ignore the obvious hazard and imprudence of using helicopters for drying cherries, or suspending enormous brush-trimming devices? Why not also ignore the ‘candy drops’ and ‘turkey drops’? After all, candy drops help sell aviation to kids, the same way turkey drops and heli-hunting sell aviation to, well, redneck yahoos … so, both are best ignored, right? [Check out this Heli-hunting video. with two shooters on the left side of a low-flying Robinson R44. Try to estimate the altitude, but try not to ponder too hard the possibility that any human or animal (a dog or livestock?) might be within the aerial hunt zone.]
From FAA’s perspective, why not pretend to care about safety – better yet, make ‘safety’ our most over-used word – by creating rules such as FAR 91.119 but carefully including enough ambiguity to ensure every errant pilot can walk away from enforcement – that is, so long as they are not killed by their own stupidity? Did you know: the FAR 91.119 language protects persons and property ‘ON THE SURFACE’, but the pilot (a person) and aircraft (a form of property) are NOT‘on the surface’, and are therefore disposable?
From FAA’s perspective, why not perpetuate a convenient privilege for those people who choose aviation as their hobby or profession? Why not continue FAA’s ongoing failure to meaningfully investigate and enforce violations of FAR 91.119 and other FARs? After all, we wouldn’t want to dampen demand for flying, would we?
It amazes me that FAR 91.119 is so riddled with ambiguity, almost as much as it amazes me that FAA does not really give a damn about enforcing safe practices … at least not when they interfere with the expansion of air commerce. In this context, I suspect FAA will do nothing to correct the excesses that happened with the state police helicopter, at the Penn State tailgate last Saturday.
The two houses of our national Congress have reportedly hashed out some details that may enable them to quickly reauthorize FAA. Is this good, or is this not so good? Should we ‘Rush to Reauthorize’, or should we bear down and ‘Get it Right This Time’?
I am for the latter, for three reasons. First, we are stuck in a rut (aviation over-expansion at all costs, with no accountability) that will not change, so long as we apply bandaids onto dirty wounds. Second, when we rushed to reauthorize the last time, it gave us horrible new laws like expanded CatEx; simply, rushed reauthorizations NEVER turn out well. And, third, the key lobbyist for the airlines (A4A) announced today, they ‘applaud’ this Congressional progress … which, frankly, coming from A4A, is like the smell near a run-over skunk; i.e., if A4A is for it, then whatever ‘progress’ Congress has made is almost certainly filled with industry privileges and community damages.
Some activists will be excited to see a glimpse of ‘progress’, too. But, be careful to not feel so beaten down that ANYTHINGeven slightly positive becomes something to thrill over. It is much like how people dying of hypothermia feel oddly warm just before their end. Stay focused; stay strong; know what industry and FAA are aiming to pull off; and, demand real reforms.
Reclaiming FAA for ‘WE THE PEOPLE’
Here is a PDF with a short analysis of the current situation, by aiREFORM:
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
It is worth repeating…
…We can have a federal agency that serves WE THE PEOPLE, not just industry. We can benefit from aviation, while also ensuring aviation does not diminish our lives. And, this industry is strong enough to prosper without playing FAA and too many elected officials like puppets. But, nothing can happen, nothing will happen, until Congress steps up to the plate and reclaims FAA.
Demand real reforms at FAA. If this agency is too arrogant and too power-obsessed to heel, take away their power. Give that power back to the people, where it belongs.
Now is the time, Congress; you need to step up and serve the People, not the corporations.
There is a recent big push by industry players to get the U.S. Senate to hurriedly pass reauthorization legislation without needed environmental impact amendments. This push is reflected in two ‘coalition letters’, sent on July 26th and August 15th (click on the dates to view aiRchived copies).
Both letters are disingenuous and packed with disinformation. This is incredibly insulting to the thousands across this nation whose homes and health are being destroyed by NextGen, Wake Recat, OAPM, and other FAA programs. We are seeing our Democracy hijacked by slick collaborated propaganda. And, we are seeing our elected officials corrupted by their obsession with reelection funding; they express concerns to the little people, but their actions and their histories expose their true bipartisan loyalty is to corporate power. These elected officials are owned.
What if this ‘coalition’, these groups, dipped their cups in a koolaid bowl filled with temporary truth serum? Might their letter look like this?
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
Obviously, this is NOTthe letter sent by A4A, NBAA, and other groups. No, this letter is what these groups should be writing, what they would now send to Senators McConnell and Schumer, if they cared to clean up their mess. But they don’t care about anything beyond industry profits to fatten their own annual benefits and bonuses.
Some are suggesting that we activists need to work together, send OUR LETTER to these Senators, and get them to serve OUR INTERESTS. Time to get to work.