Any Dot or FAA at Airventure?

[TedK]

I understand that DOT has recently interviewed some folks for the Secretary's Senior Assistant on Aviation (or similar title). I think they are going to name the replacement in August. I don't know if the position is currently gapped, but this could be part of the slow down.

I do know one of the Interviewees is GA friendly.

[Bill Greenwood]

Tedk, a skeptic might think they are taking time to weed out any aviation friendly candidates.

[tech10002]

I wouldn't be so quick to give Huerta a pass. This is just my opinion, and you know what opinions are like..., but I think it might have gone something like this: (Administrator Huerta to Sec Foxx) "Hey Foxxy we have these irritating people over at the alphabet groups and this pushy senator trying to pass this legislation for 3rd class medical reform. We just can't have a bunch of pilots flying around without their CPAP machines and permanent CAMI rectal probe, so let's throw them a bone and draft a secret rule to make em think we're doin something. Just let it languish in review for the next decade. That'll take the air out of that pesky PBOR2."

Seriously, though, is a collusion between FAA and DOT really that far of a stretch? Furthermore, if the FAA really wanted reform, why not just grant the exemption we asked for years ago to give us some relief NOW. Huerta could do that with the stroke of a pen, no NPRM or DOT review required. Then just remove the exemption once the final rule was in effect.

Don't put away the tar and pitchforks just yet.

[rwanttaja]

Seriously, though, is a collusion between FAA and DOT really that far of a stretch?

It's certainly a possibility. But then you have to consider, "Why"? If Huerta didn't want the reform, why couldn't the FAA just say "no"? His isn't an elected position; he doesn't have to fool the voters. Why collaborate with the DOT to secretly quash the reform efforts, when there's no downside to him doing it himself?

For that matter, what's in it for the DOT head to make it look like his fault instead of Huerta's? That's why you have underlings, to TAKE the fall.

Having been once sued for conspiracy (falsely), I have kind of a high bar for attributing actions to collusion like this. Besides, *&^%$ flows downhill, not uphill. The DOT boss asking an underling (Huerta) to take the heat for an unpopular action would be logical. The DOT boss willing to take the heat so an underling doesn't look bad, doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, if the FAA really wanted reform, why not just grant the exemption we asked for years ago to give us some relief NOW. Huerta could do that with the stroke of a pen, no NPRM or DOT review required. Then just remove the exemption once the final rule was in effect.

Remember, the reform push is coming from Congress... the FAA never would have instituted it without legislative direction. They have a choice of defying Congress (and potentially getting cited for contempt) or nodding, agreeing it's a GREAT idea, and signing off on it. Even so, Huerta doesn't have direct control over the rules; he has to follow the federal process, which includes NPRMs and approval by his boss (DOT head).

The head of the DOT is a Cabinet Secretary...for a President who's quite unpopular with the folks on the other side of the aisle who helped push THROUGH the acts requiring reform. Sure seems to me, if he wanted to block the will of Congress, that the DOT Secretary would try to deflect criticism by putting the blame on the lower-level agency (FAA)...rather than the other way around.

So when the word is that the DOT is holding up the reform, my interpretation is that the DOT folks have their own agenda they're working (one serious enough to risk a tussle with Congress), not trying somehow to cover for the FAA.

Ron Wanttaja