Last I heard there was around five FAA employees for every plane in the US. Maybe I could just get one of the ten for the two planes I own to get stuff done for me…
FAA: Did you enjoy instructing your grandson?
Me: no, he tried to kill me, he’s younger than me, he has many years ahead of him, and he’ll be flying for a long time. No, it isn’t fun and I don’t enjoy it.
FAA: We’ll, we’re not happy till you aren’t happy so our work here is done. Have a nice day.
You might want to delete that comment. You’re giving them ideas.
You’re headed in the right direction here, Billy Bob. Unfortunately, most people/pilots are splitting hairs over the minutiae.
Government is great!!!
Are you trying to make my head explode, Bob? You’re driving me closer to it. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think big government is just fine. Or even good. Even pilots. We’ve become quite comfortable with our low standard of liberty.
Get stuff done for you? Better answer: get rid of them, then you won’t need “to get stuff done.” You can just go fly.
“Big government” is just a catch phrase used to get people riled up over generalizations. “Small government” doesn’t automatically imply that the remaining regulations are actually good or useful. The true problem is poorly-designed regulations that purport to protect someone but actually end up harming them instead.
The whole idea of having rules around “compensation” in aviation is to protect the general public (who don’t have the proper knowledge to make an educated analysis of the risk they are undertaking) from under-qualified pilots or under-maintained aircraft (among other things). But when it goes so far as to classify properly-qualified flight instructors providing training to owners of experimental aircraft as illegal compensation, said regulation is now harming those aircraft owners rather than protecting them.
I don’t think any of us would argue that there shouldn’t be any regulations around unqualified compensated (in the traditionally-understood definition meaning “paid”) flights. We just don’t want governmental overreach (which, again, is something that can happen in “big government” or “small/limited government”).
Hmm, surprisingly high number considering the number of very small airplanes that do not require much effort.
Writing FAA Advisory Circulars does help the small airplane owner.
Oh, you are probably including ATC, which is a fundamentally different context than airworthiness and piloting competence.
But a large number people expect micro-management in their naiive enthusiasm for collectivism.
And people over-estimate the benefit of regulation. From my long experience including having delegated authority I say it props up the incompetent, who would go broke without a regulator. (Their service would be unreliable, and yes they might crash which would tell others they should not be hired.) And gives the public false confidence, most no longer think about who they are hiring (whether airline or pilot or technician).
And somewhere in gummints there is still an ‘economic fitness’ requirement to be allowed to operate an airline.
Another example of gumming spending is cross-border. Very early in this century I attended a seminar, which covered both authority to operate and security. I was appalled that that US security bureaucracy had sent an inexperienced individual to cover that - with September 11, 2001 in everyone’s mind, whereas the authority to operate bureaucracy had sent an individual who really knew that unproductive subject.
(For example, while it had been thrashed out that a Canadian sports team could fly its players to a game in the US using its Canadian-registered 727, it could not legally pick up a prospect in the US and take him to the game practice. In between was the case of picking up someone already on the team who was in the US participating in a family matter.)
Wow. The absurdity of both the FAA and the court is mind boggling. Goodwill and possibility of future benefits are considered compensation. Just when you think the government just can’t possibly do anything dumber than they already have, they do.
I appreciate your thought process, but keep in mind that FAA has one purpose…control, they have zero intention of promoting safety…
So, I am having this odd thought…our new White House Administration seems to be obsessed with giving out “free” stuff. It would seem to me that if Joe can do it, my Flight Instructor can do the same…
The article didn’t mention the best part: FAA employees don’t want to do rides in military and old amphibs for personal safety reasons, so they rely on DEs and CFIs.
Whatever minor “loopholes” that existed benefited FAA staff.
And just in case ya’ll don’t realize it, the FAA pavillion at Airventure will be … UNMANNED! They’re not coming! Only the controllers will be working. What BS. How do I get an FAA job ?
I have a DOT employee living right next door to me (not FAA). He has a Government car. That car just moves around in the driveway (because it’s in his way) instead of being out on the road inspecting big rigs and other commercial vehicles. I see the guy strolling around the yard all day long. In another case, I know an FAA guy who is actually laughing about how much time he has on his hands. Meanwhile, the rank and file non governbment employee taxpayer in this Nation has to work or else.
MY head is exploding, too !!
Thinking about it some more … I guess there won’t be any “Meet the Boss” dog and pony show this year either. He might get Covid from all the pilot peons.
I’ve been following this story as it has developed, but I still can’t wrap my brain around one thing: A CFI is a commercial pilot, and so is allowed to fly ‘for compensation or hire,’ right?
So why is the FAA now saying that’s not allowed?
- You’re right, but it’s the CFI rating that’s more important in this case. Commercial operations with passengers is highly regulated compared to instruction. The FAA lawyers are focusing on limited, experimental and primary, but all of those require instruction of some kind in practical terms for safety reasons and possibly endorsements.
Do you really want low-time pilots flying P-40s, etc. around with no instruction in peace time? The US lost as many planes and pilots due to training accidents as the enemy in WW2.
- FAA lawyers are quoting the AC 61-142 on ride sharing expenses, but instruction is not ride sharing.
The recent history is that the FAA has clamped down on “air taxi app ride sharing” (correctly) and Youtube payments by one FSDO (incorrectly.)
In the Youtube case, a famous Youtube Part 91 single turboprop pilot called his viewers “passengers” or said “fly with me”, and was monetized on Youtube, and I think it was the Miami FSDO that basically lost their minds and started enforcement actions over not being an air carrier (for Internet viewers!) and collecting payments (for incidental Youtube views!) It was truly kafkaesque.
Welcome to the “administrative state”. That’s where politicians set up agencies to regulate. They are given sweeping powers and have near 0 accountability. It becomes tyrannical as we see here. The FAA needs to be re-constituted so that stake-holders have seats at the table with actual voting power in the rule making process. Who would be stakeholders? GA, Airlines, Manufacturers, and the FAA itself. Stakeholders having input and voting power would help common sense enter into an otherwise out of touch bureaucracy. Some would claim this arrangement would be effectively the “fox guarding the hen house”. That is a risk, but the present concentration of power is unacceptable. Surely some balance of power is possible.