More productive FAA

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Tom-D
what would you suggest the FAA do to make it more productive on less money.
I'll start with this.

allow the A&P-IA to submit 337's directly to the FAA's history data base. WE are allowed to return to service on our signature why not allow us to submit on line?

or

allow the A&P-IAs to renew there certificate on line?
we are allow to do that with our medicals why not the IA certificates?
 
Shut down and be replaced by a much smaller, less monarchal agency with brand new staff and no holdovers to avoid the monarchal idiots in place.
 
Eliminate the 3rd class medical for non-commercial ops with 6 seats or less, using self-certification like Sport Pilot.

Replace Part 23 with ASTM standards for non-commercial aircraft with 4 seats or less, use the same process as LSA, so the FAA can focus on commercial operations (where there is a contract for carriage and a reasonable expectation of inspection/regulation).

Create an "Owner Maintained" category for CAR3/Part 23 aircraft more than 10 years old. So the FAA doesn't spend three years certifying a landing light, or STCing a machined aluminum replacement for 1966 Ford door handle in a Piper Cherokee, or STCing a LED replacement for the 1966 Ford Falcon brake light bulb in the nav light of a Piper Cherokee.

Kill Next Gen.
 
PilotAlan said:
Eliminate the 3rd class medical for non-commercial ops with 6 seats or less, using self-certification like Sport Pilot.
Click to expand...

This may actually be on the table according to a good friend of mine, long time FAA guy (one of the good ones that cares deeply about GA and pilots), chairman of the C175 Owners Group, and local EAA chapter president . A valid drivers license would replace the 3rd class medical cert., and without the sport pilot restrictions. i'll believe it when I see it, and I think it might happen when pigs fly, but apparently it has been talked about. Take it for what it's worth.
 
OkieFlyer said:
This may actually be on the table according to a good friend of mine, long time FAA guy (one of the good ones that cares deeply about GA and pilots), chairman of the C175 Owners Group, and local EAA chapter president . A valid drivers license would replace the 3rd class medical cert., and without the sport pilot restrictions. i'll believe it when I see it, and I think it might happen when pigs fly, but apparently it has been talked about. Take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Call me when a government agency cedes power back to the people.
 
For the medical replace "have you ever" with "do you currently"

Or go the LS Pilot route.
 
Give them 20% of all the seizure money related to events coming through airports, actually, better yet, give them all seized airplanes to auction off. Give them a cut of that side of the 'War on Drugs' booty train.
 
The third class medical would end up being replaced by drivers licenses at the same time ticket revenuing would put everyones dl in constant jeopardy and we will be wishing for the third class medical...
 
You know, I never did understand why the FSDO offices closed their doors after 9/11. Walk-in service can't be a big % of their time spent, given the amount of paperwork they must juggle.

I don't have an answer for cuts, because I have no clue what goes on in those offices. So just start with a 10% salary and benefits haircut for everyone, top to bottom, and let's see if anyone notices.

For the parts I do interact with, I think the idea of charging for expedited service on things is worth considering. I'd have paid low 5 figures to get our 141 cert done in under the 4 years it took. I expect some 135 operators could find 6 figures possible. I imagine PMA and STC people would be happy to chip in to get a fed off of his ass.

I think items which have proven time in service on experimentals get a fastpass to certification. Why is the trutrak and dynon stuff not available for certifieds? How many hours of airtime have those accumulated? What use is experimental if not to try out these new ideas and see what sticks? Some of this stuff has "stuck" and is awesome -- time to reap the harvest for the people who risked bringing it to market in the first place. I should be able to buy an assembled RV6 now from Vans for 200k, with a standard airworthiness cert.

Charging $5 for a rego is stupid. Either charge nothing or charge $100. I'm more annoyed at the hunt for my checkbook when I buy a plane, because the amount is so trivial.

I say stop with the casual enforcement efforts, but put some bite into the fines. Don't wanna get that medical or annual inspection? fine, whatever. Crash or incident as a result? $10k please. Due immediately. Payable to FAA General Fund. Appeal it if you think you have a good excuse.

I have no problem dropping the 3rd class medical for the age <60 set. I don't think that's who is kvetching about the current medicals though. Maybe mandatory BRSs for >60 pilots. Yes, rah rah, some of these 100-year olds at my airport cafe' are in tremendous shape. Good on em. For every one of those, I can produce 10 who are a menace to society, life, and limb before they even get to the run-up area.

I think that's all I have. It's late. :)
 
I'm sure FAA can save plenty of money by laying off all their inspectors that do ramp checks. :D
 
Tom-D said:
allow the A&P-IA to submit 337's directly to the FAA's history data base. WE are allowed to return to service on our signature why not allow us to submit on line?
Click to expand...

Actually, you can submit them online, spoke to our PMI yesterday and he said its a $45 registration fee, and $5 per 337 you submit, and it take about 3 months to get in the system and to not bother.


http://eformservice.faa.gov/eForm337.aspx
eForm Service
The Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) provides an electronic Form Service in support of the Government PaperWork Elimination Act (GPEA) and eGOV initiatives. Creating and submitting forms electronically greatly speeds up form processing as opposed to manual paper processing methods. The electronic FAA Form 337, which is available from this site, provides for the creation, submission and approval of the FAA Major Repair and Alteration in an effort to save time and effort in service to Industry customers and to promote Aviation Safety. less...
Click to expand...
 
The FAA has a lot of smart people working there. The problem is, they are not at the top of the Agency. We (taxpayers) are definitely not getting what we are paying for. My suggestion is to cut the budget, get rid of the patronage jobs and make the Agency go on a diet (never happen :). One thing I have figured out is you can never give the government enough money!
 
#1 Charge a fee to review field approvals

#2 Airspace user fees

#3 Application fee for ANY application, Airmen, PMA's, STC's, TC's, TSO's etc

#4 Go to the European model that the rest of the federal level wishes it could be.

#5 Carbon emissions tracking and fees

#6 Limit aircraft mechanics to an ops spec model meaning they must be approved by the agency for each make and model they wish to work on.

#7 All aircraft parts must be repaired by an approved repair station which must be approved by the agency to service those parts.

I can't predict the future but this is happening many places outside the US. You want change? How often are the changes that come are the changes you wanted?
 
Last edited:
Sounds good to me. I've gone legally rogue. As long as they leave part 103 alone I'm cool with more draconian, more expensive flying. The great GA experiment is done. Not enough new aircraft to replace the crashed/$ worn out fleet. And not enough new pilots. Was a sweet ride for a bit.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Sounds good to me. I've gone legally rogue. As long as they leave part 103 alone I'm cool with more draconian, more expensive flying. The great GA experiment is done. Not enough new aircraft to replace the crashed/$ worn out fleet. And not enough new pilots. Was a sweet ride for a bit.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to feel the same way. I like being able to buy parts from Tractor Supply or Auto Zone. There's also something about the kookiness of the 103 community that kind of grows on you.

-Rich
 
bnt83 said:
#6 Limit aircraft mechanics to an ops spec model meaning they must be approved by the agency for each make and model they wish to work on.
Click to expand...

are you an aircraft owner? I believe this will make your maintenance cost rise exponentially. MAYBE I could ALMOST agree if it was by weight, but more regulation is seldom the answer.
 
bnt83 said:
#1 Charge a fee to review field approvals

#2 Airspace user fees

#3 Application fee for ANY application, Airmen, PMA's, STC's, TC's, TSO's etc

#4 Go to the European model that the rest of the federal level wishes it could be.

#5 Carbon emissions tracking and fees

#6 Limit aircraft mechanics to an ops spec model meaning they must be approved by the agency for each make and model they wish to work on.

#7 All aircraft parts must be repaired by an approved repair station which must be approved by the agency to service those parts.

I can't predict the future but this is happening many places outside the US. You want change? How often are the changes that come are the changes you wanted?
Click to expand...
I assume you are not serious!
 
VanDy said:
are you an aircraft owner? I believe this will make your maintenance cost rise exponentially. MAYBE I could ALMOST agree if it was by weight, but more regulation is seldom the answer.
Click to expand...

I believe I miss read you BNT, I realize now you werent suggesting that, but saying you think we may be headed that direction. Apologies.
 
Stop spending astronomical sums of money on airport improvement when they are not needed, or when the fix is greater than the benefit.
They are going to concrete some more of the areas around our hangars. Because federal money is involved they must have an engineering study done that costs $50,000. :eek: The cost of the concrete is $200,000. :yikes: I could do the whole project to local building codes for $75k. :dunno:

Runway lights cost $650,000. :yikes: That is an incredible sum of money for lights. :yes:

Parallel taxi way cost $5million for an airport with minimal traffic? Why? Back taxi worked fine for 30 years with zero accidents. :dunno:

Seems they just throw money around like there is no tomorrow! GA is slowing down yet they are building an infrastructure for huge growth. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Stop spending astronomical sums of money on airport improvement when they are not needed, or when the fix is greater than the benefit. They are going to concrete some more of the areas around our hangars. Because federal money is involved they must have an engineering study done that costs $50,000. :eek:

The cost of the concrete is $200,000. :yikes:

I could do the whole project to local building codes for $75k. :dunno:

Runway lights cost $650,000. :yikes: That is an incredible sum of money for lights. :yes:
Click to expand...
Not to argue that they need to stop spending money like a government agency, but how does that make them more productive per the OP? Transfering that money to productivity meetings?
 
flyingmoose said:
Not to argue that they need to stop spending money like a government agency, but how does that make them more productive per the OP? Transfering that money to productivity meetings?
Click to expand...

You could transfer the money into the pocket of the productive employees.

Problem is getting the FAA to view "most violations issued" as not being the only criteria for productivity!
 
Skylane81E said:
You could transfer the money into the pocket of the productive employees.

Problem is getting the FAA to view "most violations issued" as not being the only criteria for productivity!
Click to expand...

The money that did the project was federal gas tax money, do you really want that spent on employees?

We finished a 15 million buck project here at BVS to widen, level and crown the runway and modify the taxiways to connect the terminal ramp. now we can support heavy jet traffic. and the soon to be UPS and FEDEX sort facilities.

Jobs for the county.

I don't believe I want that money spent on any office worker, no matter how good they are.
 
Here's a hint: You've got to fix Congress before you can fix the FAA (or any agency for that matter)

Much of the stupidness of the agency can be traced back to some legislation passed by Congress. On the rare occasion that someone tries to do the right thing, they get slapped by the DOT-OIG or GAO, resulting in a decision makers who are extremely risk adverse. No top level official wants to go before Congress to testify why they did something that was for the purposes of just saving money, or allow more people to fly.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of folks in the FAA that are just like many of you, shaking their head at the silliness of things.

Some of the even crazier folks in the FAA are folks just like you who worked in private industry, decided to stop b!tching about whats wrong with the way things are, and went to work for the Agency to do something about it. Change, when done appropriately, is a slow process sometimes. Every once in a while, common sense prevails.
 
Stimulus money.
Geico266 said:
Stop spending astronomical sums of money on airport improvement when they are not needed, or when the fix is greater than the benefit.
They are going to concrete some more of the areas around our hangars. Because federal money is involved they must have an engineering study done that costs $50,000. :eek: The cost of the concrete is $200,000. :yikes: I could do the whole project to local building codes for $75k. :dunno:

Runway lights cost $650,000. :yikes: That is an incredible sum of money for lights. :yes:

Parallel taxi way cost $5million for an airport with minimal traffic? Why? Back taxi worked fine for 30 years with zero accidents. :dunno:

Seems they just throw money around like there is no tomorrow! GA is slowing down yet they are building an infrastructure for huge growth. :mad2:
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
They are going to concrete some more of the areas around our hangars. Because federal money is involved they must have an engineering study done that costs $50,000. :eek: The cost of the concrete is $200,000. :yikes: I could do the whole project to local building codes for $75k. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Why didn't you bid on the job?
 
Doing construction work for the Government is not for the faint of heart. It can be the best or worst thing to happen to you.
 
Tom-D said:
what would you suggest the FAA do to make it more productive on less money.
I'll start with this.

allow the A&P-IA to submit 337's directly to the FAA's history data base. WE are allowed to return to service on our signature why not allow us to submit on line?

or

allow the A&P-IAs to renew there certificate on line?
we are allow to do that with our medicals why not the IA certificates?
Click to expand...

flyingmoose said:
Not to argue that they need to stop spending money like a government agency, but how does that make them more productive per the OP? Transfering that money to productivity meetings?
Click to expand...


Read the OP's mission statement. Seems to me is you cut their budget and stop wasting money on airport improvements when the same airport has declining use and need. :dunno:

Why is it no one understands budgets, accounting, and wasting money? :mad2:
 
tmyers said:
Doing construction work for the Government is not for the faint of heart. It can be the best or worst thing to happen to you.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Can anyone explain why they need to have the concrete tested for x PSI rating when the concrete company certifies it already, and the concrete is just for cosmetic purposes between the alleys and the "T" hangar approaches. These are for GA small planes not 747s. :mad2:

It's called wasteful overkill.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
Here's a hint: You've got to fix Congress before you can fix the FAA (or any agency for that matter)
Click to expand...

And when you place the worst liberal in congress as head of the DOT you will get total control and over spending every time.

Grandma tennis shoe.
 
Some of the answers here amaze me, but I'm not surprised. It is a generational thing now.

Old people look at things to figure out how to do it for the least amount of money.

Young people look at it and don't care what it costs because it's government money. :mad2:

Old people look at waste and cringe and try to economize and change things. Tom starting this thread for example.

Young people send a tweet about Justin B. or go on Facebook and can care less. :mad2:

Young people say "This is the way it has always been so who cares? Old people suck." :mad2:

Old people say; "Get off my lawn." :mad2:

And nothing changes except continued growing inefficiencies and wasteful spending. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
Not quite. Old people are the champions of gov't spending. It is old people that spend and consume gov't money. Young people are to a large extent fiscal conservatives, wait until they have the reins. We'll be making dog food out of old people.
Geico266 said:
Some of the answers here amaze me, but I'm not surprised. It is a generational thing now.

Old people look at things to figure out how to do it for the least amount of money.

Young people look at it and don't care what it costs because it's government money. :mad2:

Old people look at waste and cringe and try to economize and change things. Tom starting this thread for example.

Young people send a tweet about Justin B. or go on Facebook and can care less. :mad2:

Young people say "This is the way it has always been so who cares? Old people suck." :mad2:

Old people say; "Get off my lawn." :mad2:

And nothing changes except continued growing inefficiencies and wasteful spending. :mad2:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top