Why the FAA’s guidance for predictive risk assessments doesn’t bear any resemblance to reality

By Ira Rimson

Airline pilots are being pressured by their companies to minimize the amount of fuel reserves they pump aboard for a flight, resulting in more declarations of an emergency when the exigencies of weather, heavy traffic, and other factors produce approach and landing delays or even diversions.

By William Mulcahey

Once again, the Federal aviation Administration (FAA) has demonstrated its bureaucratic incompetence during the recent American Airline aircraft inspection debacle (see Aviation Safety & Security Digest, ‘Agency Accuses Airline of Sloppy Maintenance While Sidestepping Its Own Oversight Shortcomings,’ homepage). This is what happens when the FAA permits the airlines to monitor their self-inspection and compliance process, and then they get caught with their pants down when they find that they haven’t done so, or have incorrectly complied. It’s tantamount to letting the fox watch the hen house.

The recent groundings of hundreds of airliners for inspections raises serious questions about federal oversight (see Aviation Safety & Security Digest, ‘Committee Vows to Legislate Changes to Strengthen Oversight of Airlines’). The perception given by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is that the agency is on top of safety issues and has acted with alacrity when that safety appeared threatened. What is not addressed is why it took so long for the FAA to rectify numerous long-standing safety issues.