|
Subject:
FAA (pig-in-a-poke OR piggy-in-the-middle?)
(http://members.aol.com/safeflt/faa.htm)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 18:17:26 -0400
From: "Lyn S. Romano" <rosebush@bestweb.net>
Following the ValuJet DC-9 crash in the Florida Everglades
that left 110 dead, the Inspector General of the DOT (Mary
Schiavo) created something of a media event when she referred
to the FAA as a Tombstone agency. Much of the public reacted
as if they had never before heard the term used in reference
to a government agency. Airline pilots, however, have closely
identified with that moniker since the federal government
first commenced overseeing air safety. Nonetheless, I was
elated that a person of such high office had the courage to
speak out, and to do so with such candor. Within the week,
however, Ms. Schiavo tendered her resignation. While I do
not know what transpired to bring about that resignation,
long years of close observation assures me that whistleblowers
are most unwelcomed and generally not tolerated inside the
Washington beltway.
But in fairness, we must ask if this tombstone moniker hung
around the neck of the FAA is fully deserved? From its genesis
in 1958, the agency has been marked by two gross flaws that
were not of its own making. First, as with most political
appointments, those selected to head up the agency were chosen
for reasons apart from their aviation expertise. The second
flaw lay in the Congress burdening the agency with a dual
mandate that was rife with conflicting interests. Even given
an administrator with enough courage to buck the political
system, linking air safety to the economic well-being of the
industry within a single agency was beyond the pale of common
sense. But, of course, the Congress of the United States has
never been known for its application of common sense in resolving
problems. Rather, the name of the game among the ruling oligarchy
is power, and the degree of that power is measured by the
number of bureaucratic fiefdoms under one's control and influence.
At the same time, we need to understand that viewed separately
these two conflicting mandates are not in and of themselves
wrong-headed. Not only is air safety of vital national interest
to us all, but so too is the economic viability of our airline
industry. Clearly, however, both interests are better served
when not supervised by a single administrator wearing two
hats. With one political appointee charged with guarding
air safety, while another looks after the financial interests
of airlines, the resulting inter-agency conflict would bring
the issues into full public view. But will Congress ever move
to change the status quo? It doesn't appear so, for if the
fatal airline accidents of the recent past and the resulting
media avalanche have failed to move the powers that be, then
what will it take? And herein lies the very essence of any
bureaucratic oligarchy: Make an unwary citizenry think that
something meaningful is being done, or about to be done, when
in fact that is not the case at all.
Caught in the political middle from its outset, the FAA's
shackles were drawn even tighter by two subsequent events.
First, the onset of hijackings to Cuba during the 1960s and
early '70s catapulted the agency into the airport security
business. Then, to satisfy Washington's insatiable appetite
for ever-bigger government, President Johnson saw to the creation
of a new and all encompassing Transportation Department. Now
subordinate to this new DOT and its political appointees,
the FAA faced even more
bureaucratic red tape in its efforts to claw its way out from
under the proverbial tombstone. Securing the funds necessary
to do its job properly had always been an uphill battle, and
would become even moreso under a another layer of stifling
bureaucracy. As the government slipped ever deeper into debt
and deficits, it was inevitable that the Aviation Trust Fund
would be raped for strange and exotic government programs
far removed from aviation.
 David
Hinson's appointment to head-up the FAA early in the Clinton
administration initially struck me as a good choice. In my
view, the President could not have found a better qualified
person to run the FAA. Both as a former airline pilot and
airline executive, Hinson understood the intricacies of the
industry as well as anyone. There remained, however, the inevitable
question of how he would fare in dealing with the politics
of his new job. Would he stand tall and firm and fight for
what he believed to be the right thing? Or, like so many others
before him, would he cave in to the political pressures surrounding
him on all sides? Most airline pilots thought he would handle
himself reasonably well, but the few who knew him personally
from earlier times described him to me as a "go along
to get along" type. One Northwest captain described him
as "a political beast." In retrospect it appears
that these "few" were right and the rest of us wrong
in our assessment of Hinson. In the latter stages of his tenure
at the FAA, Hinson told an aviation group: It's true there's
politics . . . there's always politics. Politics are a part
of life in Washington, D.C. That's the way the system works!
A short time later upon leaving the agency, when queried about
having to write his own future speeches, Hinson responded:
I have learned to speak for any period of time . . . 30 minutes
. . . 45 minutes . . . and not say anything. Clearly, Hinson
had fallen victim to Beltway politics wherein truth gives
way to telling people only what you want them to hear.
On the other hand, perhaps Hinson was trying to tell us something,
for such statements of quiet capitulation speak loudly as
to why the FAA is so often viewed as a Tombstone Agency. Like
Hinson, administrator after administrator has been far too
willing to accept that this is the way the "system works."
As they arrive in the steaming political jungles of Washington,
most political appointees quickly learn the art of "doublespeak"
when dispensing information for public consumption. Because
of this mentality, we are driven to conclude that almost the
entire federal establishment is afflicted with a Tombstone
mentality. Face it . . . even the most informed among us would
be hard put to remember the last time governments acted meaningfully
to address a serious problem before it reached crisis proportions.
So it is little wonder that most of us do not trust our government
to act in the public's best interest instead of their own,
or that we suffer the impression that inmates are indeed running
our bureaucratic asylums.
While most of the accusations and allegations leveled at the
FAA are well deserved and often understated, the root blame
lies with the two entities that control the appointments and
the purse strings. Though we may be hesitant to "give
the devil his due," it must be said in all fairness that
the FAA has played a vital role in creating the level of safety
enjoyed today. Without its presence over the past four decades,
our skies would be far less safe than they are. So henceforth
let the tirades following every major air disaster
be directed at the real culprits: those elected and appointed
politicians who hold in their hands the ultimate power to
bring about the necessary changes. Having said that, let's
hope that when and if change comes these same politicians
will eschew micromanaging air safety the way they have many
other aspects of our national life.
As we all know, it's always easy to delineate our problems,
but not so easy to arrive at solutions. But when it comes
to making our skies as safe as they can be, the best beginning
lies in an FAA charged with only one mandate . . . the safety
aspects of aviation. Achieving that, we should then appoint
the administrator to a specified term of office that will
span administrations, and ensure that that administrator is
chosen on the basis of aviation experience and not political
cronyism or gender and ethnic preferences.
Lastly, let the Congress fund the FAA budget so that it can
do its job properly. Vacuum tube computers guiding our airplanes
through the crowded skies of the 21st Century? Sheer stupidity!
After David Hinson's departure from the FAA, an inexperienced
wife of a U.S. Senator (Linda Daschle), temporarily succeeded
him. Finally, after months of prognostication, President Clinton
appointed a new administrator who assumed office on August
5, 1997. Jane Garvey's prior aviation expertise consist of
a stint as director of Boston's Logan Airport. While Ms. Garvey
fits the gender requirements of the Clinton administration,
like Ms. Daschle she is ill-qualified to run the agency irrespective
of her heralded managerial talents. But all is not gloom,
for if Ms. Garvey has the right stuff to rise above politics
and
permits her trained underlings within the agency to do their
jobs without interference, she now has a five-years certain
term to ensure her tenure. Like all her predecessors, Garvey
will not be serving at the whim of the president. In addition,
her now certain tenure gives us solid cause to hold her accountable
for her job performance. So, let your benefactor and politicians
be damned, Ms. Garvey. Just do your job!
And, it's nice that you're now taking some flying lessons,
for it will help to know the difference between an aileron
and a rudder.
|
