|
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.
|
|
Recent testimony in Washington by several FAA inspectors revealed how “cozy” the FAA is with the airlines, and how many problems brought to the attention of senior FAA officials were ignored (see Aviation Safety & Security Digest, ‘Committee Vows To Legislate Changes To Strengthen Oversight of Airlines,’ and ‘The FAA’s Failure To Protect the Skies,’ homepage). This latest sham cost the airlines millions of dollars in fines, flight cancellations and lost revenue. And who ends up suffering the most? That’s right, the flying public.
Some congressional leaders called for the FAA to be dissolved, as the FAA leadership tried to explain (more like “spin”) that this was a minor problem, and that everything is just fine. As a U.S. taxpayer and frequent flyer, I beg to differ.
Not surprisingly, this same mismanagement is manifest when it comes to the FAA distribution of taxpayer dollars designated for ARFF (Airport Rescue & Fire Fighting). For example, the funding of a new airport fire station and provision of three new ARFF vehicles on the Island of Palau in Micronesia. First, I have nothing against Palau. I’m sure it is a wonderful; however, Palau is its own country (Republic) whose citizens don’t pay U.S. taxes or vote in our elections. So why is the FAA subsidizing it? If ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) or FAA ARFF regulations must be met, then let Palau pay with their own funds or, better yet, let ICAO (a.k.a. the United Nations) pay for it. |
|
William Mulcahey |
Over the last several years the FAA has provided Palau with more than $24 million in airport improvements that, in my opinion, may have been better spent upgrading U.S. ARFF, or maybe hiring enough inspectors to properly oversee the airlines’ maintenance programs.
Another thing about the FAA that grinds my gears is their ARFF research and development program. Why is it that the FAA Fire Safety Research Center uses only one particular manufacturers’ ARFF vehicle, and only one type of high reach elevating turret (HRET) when performing its ARFF research?
If taxpayer money is used to provide government grants to airports for ARFF vehicles by a competitive bid process, wouldn’t it behoove them to do extensive testing of all of the bid-eligible ARFF vehicles? Why don’t they, you ask? Could it be that the FAA is just as “cozy” with some ARFF truck manufacturers and equipment suppliers? Objective research and development should require performance and durability testing of all the manufacturer vehicles and HRET devices out there in side-by-side performance comparison testing, to see which one is the most reliable, sturdy and cost effective. In a previous editorial, I have discussed an FAA funded ARFF vehicle that was found to be out-of-service more so than it was in-service.
Moving on up the ladder of international ARFF bureaucracy, ICAO has just announced that they’re seeking a new Level “C” foam that would be 20% more effective. Hold on a second, I’ve just discovered a better firefighting improvement! It’s called a mandatory international regulatory standard increasing the minimum required airport fire personnel and firefighting vehicles relative to the new generation of ultra-large passenger aircraft, cargo freighter aircraft, and the ever increasing international passenger air traffic. No thank you, ICAO, we already have quite effective foams and really don’t need a new one.
Could “20% more effective” possibly be part of some grand plan to justify a reduction of minimum ARFF personnel required by 20%? If you don’t understand it by now, please wake up and smell the jet fuel. Foam doesn’t put out aircraft fires – firefighters do.
Byline: Capt. Mulcahey is the editor of Aviation Fire Journal (www.aviationfirejournal.com). This editorial is reprinted with his permission from the May/June issue. Mulcahey has extensive experience in firefighting and his biography may be viewed at www.aviationfirejournal.com/team.htm. |
Aviation Safety &
