WHO is playing the race card here? The closest I can find is the very first response:
“Question: in this “mad tear for diversity hires”, will members of the Native American (i.e., Cherokee, Iroquois, Sioux, etc.) community ever be included in these picks?” AND EVEN THEN, THE QUESTIONER ASKS WHY NOT Native American?"
Yes–government has gone far overboard to select nominees to fulfill their self-described “quotas” on race, religion, sexual orientation–and that has created pushback–even for those individuals otherwise well-qualified. NOMINATING someone based on the felt need to “check the box” is just as racist or discriminatory as denying a person because of the same criteria. Based on Mr. Niles description of Washington, any criticism is due to lack of experience in the vast government agency, rather than racism. The original article (see link in Mr. Niles account) from Seattle has the same concern–lack of experience in managing a VERY LARGE segment of the Federal Government–which in turn affects the fortunes of those investing in, working in, or regulated by that body. This is nothing to take lightly.
Does ANYONE really believe that of all of the candidates out there, that Washington is the very best? Unlikely. One must ask the OBVIOUS QUESTION: WHY NOT THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR THAT HAS BEEN RUNNING FAA FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS? Is Washington a better FAA head than the Deputy Administrator that has been running the FAA for the last 6 months?
Perhaps so–the FAA has been criticized more and more lately for inefficiency and poor management–including criticism from these pages. Is it any wonder that most pilots don’t respect the FAA leadership?
There are many positions where the individual should have some knowledge of the industry they are overseeing. This gentleman has worked with the president on his campaign and is being rewarded for that work. He is said to be an able administrator so we will see but his knowledge is limited. You cannot deny this administration has gone out of it’s way to check many progressive boxes as to who it hires to the point they are ignoring their backgrounds and capabilities. All administrations do this but the current one in in hyperdrive. It is just a fact of our system.
Do not forget he is a Biden insider and buddy, this is just another political plum appointment based upon politics not competence, but being right race was no doubt an additional factor, that will guarantee a fat retirement stipend which has become a big draw in all things government and public employment.
As a diversity hire, I expect he will be emboldened to enact all manner of recently proposed changes. Starting with fuel efficiency and CO2 requirements for newly certified designs, then add in a significant reduction of the “practical test standards” for airmen, er, ah, air-persons, ah, them/they/ze. Also expect preferred personal pronouns to be required… Think I’m off base here, just watch…
PORTFOLIO !!! “His only aviation job was as the current CEO of Denver International Airport, where he seems to have earned a positive reputation,” Swell … another non-pilot Administrator.
I’m surprised no one has brought up the ill qualified but highly educated bossman of the FAA, the Sec of Transporation. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.
Unfortunately this administration is not really any different than prior Presidents with regard to selecting qualified individuals to run key departments. How many of the past four or five FAA Administrators have we all been happy with, or felt that they did a good job? Yes, it does seem to be getting worse, but that may be more a function of the structure and size of the agency rather than its leadership. When filling out their cabinet posts, new Presidents often choose from among their larger campaign contributors or their old cronies regardless of background or experience. We all rail against the logjam at the FAA, but I can tell you from experience that dealing with the EPA and OSHA is just as frustrating for the same reasons.
The problem is that administrators come and go every few years, but the “inmates” are there for the long haul. They know that if the new boss comes up with some idea they don’t like, or may force them to make changes, all they have to do is play along for a year or two until some other new guy comes in and things will head off in another direction. Bureaucracy 101: Just do the minimum to stay employed and never make any decisions or actions that might be taking a risk.
Looking at the comments here–a SUGGESTION–"Why not take this opportunity for another AvWeb poll? Some suggestions:
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE FAA AND ITS ABILITY TO PROMOTE AVIATION SAFETY?
. Top rate–the FAA is doing a good job of promoting aviation safety.
. Second rate–the FAA is no better or worse than any other government agency or regulator.
. Third rate–it makes no difference who is in charge of the FAA–for all of the regulation, their actions make little practical difference to aviation safety (and can even be negative at times).
. Fourth rate–Government at its worst–vast over-regulation–no understanding of the industry it is tasked to regulate–actually holds back progress–a waste of billions of dollars.
. Fifth rate–“The government that governs BEST governs LEAST!”
. Sixth rate–Time for a second version of the “Boston Tea Party!”
“Don’t ask–don’t tell”–How many people that you know simply keep a low profile and continue to fly–doing their own maintenance–perhaps no medical–perhaps without even a license? (“After all, it worked with ultralights!”)
Not advocating any one of these positions–but pilots tend to be pretty anti-authoritarian and anti-big government. I can think of very few that think that the FAA is doing a GOOD job.
I have an over 60 year collection of aviation magazines. It’s enlightening to go through them, and look back to the creation of the FAA (from the CAA) and the dissatisfaction with government control over that time period. One finds VERY LITTLE mention of GOOD THINGS to say about the FAA over that time period–so FAA dissatisfaction is not a NEW THING.
C’MON, AvWeb–this is an excellent time to POLL YOUR READERS.
Well, he was a CSM in the Army. This is a good thing, except if he was what he now appears to be which was a political animal. The US Army is a huge bureaucracy which makes it susceptible to all the same problems of any big bureaucracy. (The failings of which are now costing the tax payers HUGE enlistment bonuses because too many careerists won’t call BS on social engineering programs that go too far).
I’m afraid he will not be someone who goes in there and gets them back on mission, but rather one who keeps things quiet and kicks the can down the road for the next poor sucker. A great strategy unless you get “unlucky” and your lack of mission focus blows up on you (which in the FAA likely means fatalities and/or large economic consequences).
Since 1958, there have been 18 FAA Administrators, 10 appointed by Republicans and 8 by Democrats. 16 were white men, including 2 Latinos and 2 were white women. 5 were picks out of the military. No blacks in the count.
Additionally, 19 have been acting administrators, 16 white men, 3 white women. Currently, ATP Billy Nolen is the first black acting administrator-BTW: my first pick for Administrator. Assuming no skeletons, Phillip (Phil) A. Washington will be the nineteenth FAA Administrator.
That’s an average of 2 1/3 years per Administrator–but THE AVERAGE IS EVEN LESS THAN THAT, since the position has usually been left unfilled for months or years until a new Administrator has been appointed and confirmed–then a new administration appoints their own. Is it any WONDER that so little gets done (especially by someone without a strong aviation background?)
FAA has always been “top heavy” with “administrative staff”. Here’s my test–ask anyone in the aviation business–“If YOU had a decision that involved the future of your business, would YOU ask the FAA?” I have yet to see a business owner say yes.
Yet government appoints political hacks, rather than top-rated technical specialists or administrators. Take a look yourself–go through almost any aviation magazine, and see how many times the FAA is mentioned favorably and unfavorably. Is it any wonder that the FAA is held in such low regard?
U.S.C. § 106 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 49. Transportation § 106. Federal Aviation Administration
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration is an administration in the Department of Transportation.
(b) The head of the Administration is the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. When making an appointment, the President shall consider the fitness of the individual to carry out efficiently the duties and powers of the office. Except as provided in subsection (f) or in other provisions of law, the Administrator reports directly to the Secretary of Transportation. The term of office for any individual appointed as Administrator after August 23, 1994, shall be 5 years.
(c) The Administrator must–
(1) be a citizen of the United States;
(2) be a civilian; and
(3) have experience in a field directly related to aviation.
(d)(1) The Administration has a Deputy Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President. In making an appointment, the President shall consider the fitness of the appointee to efficiently carry out the duties and powers of the office. The Deputy Administrator shall be a citizen of the United States and have experience in a field directly related to aviation. An officer on active duty in an armed force may be appointed as Deputy Administrator. However, if the Administrator is a former regular officer of an armed force, the Deputy Administrator may not be an officer on active duty in an armed force, a retired regular officer of an armed force, or a former regular officer of an armed force.
Only aviation background was as another political appointee as an Airport Director–that is–another administrative job. No aviation background.
Is it any wonder that the article describes support from aviation groups (the VERY PEOPLE the appointee would “regulate”) as “TEPID”? (defined as “showing little enthusiasm” or “lukewarm”)?
And FAA (and government in general) wonders why they are the butt of so many jokes (“I’m from the FAA, and here to help you”)
