FAA regulates competition

[Robert M. Gary]

A Dr friend of mine mentioned that he tried to apply as an AME with the
local FSDO and was told "we already have enough AME's go away". As a
capitalist, that really bothered me. Under what authority does the FAA
regulate the supply of AMEs? Certainly we can all understand that the
FAA must put requirements of AMEs (probably be licensed to practice
medicine, maybe take an FAA test or attend a seminar etc) but why do
they regulate the number? This may contribute to some areas having more
expensive medicals than other areas.
I've wondered the same question about DEs. Why doesn't the FAA allow
anyone who meets a very, very strict set of standards be a DE? Why do
you have to wait for a DE to die before the FAA will give you
authority? I just have visions of the Central Communist Committee
trying to figure out how much bread and milk to produce and what price
to sell it at. Regulating supply of resources doesn't seem to be in the
interest of pilots, safety, or anything else other than giving some
people pricing advantage.

-Robert

[Jim Burns]

> A Dr friend of mine mentioned that he tried to apply as an AME with the
> local FSDO and was told "we already have enough AME's go away".

Same thing recently happened here, AFTER we lost two local AME's to
retirement. It made us question whether or not the retiring AME's notified
the FSDO that they were no longer active. Does anybody in the group know
how the FSDO or FAA keeps track of active/non-active AME's?

Jim

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> A Dr friend of mine mentioned that he tried to apply as an AME with the
> local FSDO and was told "we already have enough AME's go away". As a
> capitalist, that really bothered me. Under what authority does the FAA
> regulate the supply of AMEs? Certainly we can all understand that the
> FAA must put requirements of AMEs (probably be licensed to practice
> medicine, maybe take an FAA test or attend a seminar etc) but why do
> they regulate the number? This may contribute to some areas having more
> expensive medicals than other areas.
> I've wondered the same question about DEs. Why doesn't the FAA allow
> anyone who meets a very, very strict set of standards be a DE? Why do
> you have to wait for a DE to die before the FAA will give you
> authority? I just have visions of the Central Communist Committee
> trying to figure out how much bread and milk to produce and what price
> to sell it at. Regulating supply of resources doesn't seem to be in the
> interest of pilots, safety, or anything else other than giving some
> people pricing advantage.
>
> -Robert

It's the FAA, nuff said.

[Bret Ludwig]

They do the same thing with DMEs. My neighbor was ****ed he had to go
to Texas or Colorado to take his O&P test. The bottom line is Congress
delegates excessive authority to unelected bureaucracies and refuses to
clean up their messes using the typical excuse it would be
"micromanaging".

[Matt Barrow]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> They do the same thing with DMEs. My neighbor was ****ed he had to go
> to Texas or Colorado to take his O&P test. The bottom line is Congress
> delegates excessive authority to unelected bureaucracies and refuses to
> clean up their messes using the typical excuse it would be
> "micromanaging".

Like a bureaucracy itself isn't micromanaging?

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Nov 2005 12:24:34 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote in
. com>::

>Just accept that the FAA is your enemy, and will do
>whatever it can to make flying more expensive and less fun.

What experiences have you had that caused you to form such a cynical
opinion of the FAA?

[NW_PILOT]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Under what authority does the FAA regulate the supply of AMEs?
>
> Because they can.
>
> Look, the sooner you realize the FAA is evil incarnate, the easier it
> will be for you. Just accept that the FAA is your enemy, and will do
> whatever it can to make flying more expensive and less fun. Once you
> accept that, everything gets easier. You stop worrying about what is
> legal, and focus on the only important question - what can you get away
> with.
>
> Michael
>


FAA is not that bad! I have never had a problem with them & they can be very
helpful when you have questions.

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

I too, have found the Nashville FSDO to be helpful, resourceful and eager to
provide & promote safety and education.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message >
>
> FAA is not that bad! I have never had a problem with them & they can be
> very
> helpful when you have questions.
>
>

[.Blueskies.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
>A Dr friend of mine mentioned that he tried to apply as an AME with the
> local FSDO and was told "we already have enough AME's go away". As a
> capitalist, that really bothered me. Under what authority does the FAA
> regulate the supply of AMEs? Certainly we can all understand that the
> FAA must put requirements of AMEs (probably be licensed to practice
> medicine, maybe take an FAA test or attend a seminar etc) but why do
> they regulate the number? This may contribute to some areas having more
> expensive medicals than other areas.
> I've wondered the same question about DEs. Why doesn't the FAA allow
> anyone who meets a very, very strict set of standards be a DE? Why do
> you have to wait for a DE to die before the FAA will give you
> authority? I just have visions of the Central Communist Committee
> trying to figure out how much bread and milk to produce and what price
> to sell it at. Regulating supply of resources doesn't seem to be in the
> interest of pilots, safety, or anything else other than giving some
> people pricing advantage.
>
> -Robert
>

The FAA is required by law to ensure that the pilots are medically fit to fly. There are not enough FAA employees who
are qualified to do these medical checks, so they delegate that function to qualified private individuals.The FAA then
has to oversee these AMEs. There are only so many 'slots' that can be watched within budget constraints, etc.

[Dan Luke]

"NW_PILOT" wrote:

> FAA is not that bad! I have never had a problem with them & they can
> be very
> helpful when you have questions.

No doubt. But the fact is that the FAA has virtually unchecked power
over your aviation activities and enforcess arcane, often nonsensical
regulatons according to the whims of non-accountable bureaucrats. If
you do not treat such an organization as a danger to be avoided, you are
simply asking for trouble.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:41:10 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

> But the fact is that the FAA has virtually unchecked power
>over your aviation activities and enforcess arcane, often nonsensical
>regulatons according to the whims of non-accountable bureaucrats.

Actually, FAA bureaucrats must abide by the same regulations and
orders that govern airman activities. Additionally, their actions are
transparent through the use of Freedom Of Information Act requests,
and district personnel are accountable to regional personnel.

Justice under FAA rule is all a matter of understanding the FAA
organizational structure, regulations, orders, Advisory Circulars, and
politics involved. And keep in mind at all times, that no bureaucrat
wants to have to do more (paper) work than necessary.

>If you do not treat such an organization as a danger to be avoided,
>you are simply asking for trouble.

What experiences have you had that caused you to form such a cynical
opinion of the FAA?

[sfb]

All Federal agencies reflect a society and the Congress that is no
longer willing to accept any risks no matter how improbable.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" wrote:
>
>> FAA is not that bad! I have never had a problem with them & they can
>> be very
>> helpful when you have questions.
>
> No doubt. But the fact is that the FAA has virtually unchecked power
> over your aviation activities and enforcess arcane, often nonsensical
> regulatons according to the whims of non-accountable bureaucrats. If
> you do not treat such an organization as a danger to be avoided, you
> are simply asking for trouble.
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>

[Denny]

Well, as a practicing physician and pilot, local pilots kept asking if
I could do their flight physical as they couldn't get a doctor in the
area... So I applied...
Don't need any right now was the answer, check back in a year or two...
This went on for awhile... Knowing the local AME's and knowing that
only one was actively doing physicals at that time, and only on a part
time basis, I again charged the bureaucracy walls pointing out that out
of 4 AME's in the area one AME was in his 90's, another was retired,
and the third was deployed in the military...
"Oh, have you applied to us?"
"Yes, several times.."
"When?"
"Well, the last time was about three or four years ago."
"Oh, we moved our office two years ago and there is no record of your
application."
"I see. I will submit another application."

I did and after some months I got a letter that stated that they had no
openings... Three months later they appointed a new AME, not me... I
got the message and quit applying...

denny

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Nov 2005 09:30:40 -0800, "Denny" > wrote in
. com>::
>
>Well, as a practicing physician and pilot, local pilots kept asking if
>I could do their flight physical as they couldn't get a doctor in the
>area... So I applied...
>Don't need any right now was the answer, check back in a year or two...
>This went on for awhile... Knowing the local AME's and knowing that
>only one was actively doing physicals at that time, and only on a part
>time basis, I again charged the bureaucracy walls pointing out that out
>of 4 AME's in the area one AME was in his 90's, another was retired,
>and the third was deployed in the military...
>"Oh, have you applied to us?"
>"Yes, several times.."
>"When?"
>"Well, the last time was about three or four years ago."
>"Oh, we moved our office two years ago and there is no record of your
>application."
>"I see. I will submit another application."

>Three months later they appointed a new AME, not me... I
>got the message and quit applying...

Are you aware of the criteria the FAA are required to meet in
selecting AMEs? Surely there must be a written document governing the
practice. Perhaps that would be something AOPA could put their hands
on.

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
>> But the fact is that the FAA has virtually unchecked power
>>over your aviation activities and enforcess arcane, often nonsensical
>>regulatons according to the whims of non-accountable bureaucrats.
>
> Actually, FAA bureaucrats must abide by the same regulations and
> orders that govern airman activities.

But who has the enforcment power and what are the limits of the airman's
rights to appeal?

> Additionally, their actions are
> transparent through the use of Freedom Of Information Act requests,
> and district personnel are accountable to regional personnel.
>
> Justice under FAA rule is all a matter of understanding the FAA
> organizational structure, regulations, orders, Advisory Circulars, and
> politics involved.

Yes, in some cases a very persistent victim may expose FAA persecution
and malfeasance; it's been done. But it's still a case of "you might
beat the rap but you won't beat the ride." If an inspector decides to
get you, he can choose from the entire FAR's to make your life
miserable--or put you out of business.

> And keep in mind at all times, that no bureaucrat
> wants to have to do more (paper) work than necessary.

Bureacrats have to justify their existence.

>>If you do not treat such an organization as a danger to be avoided,
>>you are simply asking for trouble.
>
> What experiences have you had that caused you to form such a cynical
> opinion of the FAA?

I have had none, directly, as I avoid the FAA as I would the plague.
One of my friends has had a bad experience, though: he was grounded at
an airport away from home because an inspector said his airplane's tail
number was painted in an "insufficiently contrasting color." It was a
factory paint job. My stories of other FAA misbehaviors are third hand,
so I will not repeat them, although I trust the proximate sources. I'm
sure you are aware of some of the more notorious ones, yourself.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Morgans]

"Dan Luke" > wrote

> One of my friends has had a bad experience, though: he was grounded at
> an airport away from home because an inspector said his airplane's tail
> number was painted in an "insufficiently contrasting color."

A roll of black duct tape, and a knife would have fixed that problem.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:02:42 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>>
>>> But the fact is that the FAA has virtually unchecked power
>>>over your aviation activities and enforcess arcane, often nonsensical
>>>regulatons according to the whims of non-accountable bureaucrats.
>>
>> Actually, FAA bureaucrats must abide by the same regulations and
>> orders that govern airman activities.
>
>But who has the enforcment power and what are the limits of the airman's
>rights to appeal?

If an airman is in violation of regulations, the FAA must initiate
enforcement action. If not, the FAA has no enforcement power.

>> Additionally, their actions are
>> transparent through the use of Freedom Of Information Act requests,
>> and district personnel are accountable to regional personnel.
>>
>> Justice under FAA rule is all a matter of understanding the FAA
>> organizational structure, regulations, orders, Advisory Circulars, and
>> politics involved.
>
>Yes, in some cases a very persistent victim may expose FAA persecution
>and malfeasance; it's been done.

I have no knowledge of FAA persecution nor malfeasance. Are you
referring to Hoovergate?

>But it's still a case of "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride."

Such is the nature of "justice" in the US.

>If an inspector decides to get you, he can choose from the entire
>FAR's to make your life miserable--or put you out of business.

If you are able to prove your innocence, the FAA is powerless. If you
can show groundless persecution by an FAA inspector, you can start
your own enforcement action. I see no inequity there.

>> And keep in mind at all times, that no bureaucrat
>> wants to have to do more (paper) work than necessary.
>
>Bureacrats have to justify their existence.

Do they? Can you provide evidence of an FAA quota system?

>>>If you do not treat such an organization as a danger to be avoided,
>>>you are simply asking for trouble.
>>
>> What experiences have you had that caused you to form such a cynical
>> opinion of the FAA?
>
>I have had none, directly, as I avoid the FAA as I would the plague.
>One of my friends has had a bad experience, though: he was grounded at
>an airport away from home because an inspector said his airplane's tail
>number was painted in an "insufficiently contrasting color."

How did the FAA "ground" your friend? What provoked the FAA action?
Was it the result of a normal ramp check?

>It was a factory paint job.

What prevented your friend from using a roll of duct tape (as another
poster suggested) to satisfy the lack of sufficient contrast? Did the
inspector cite an FAR or AC that detailed the required contrast?

>My stories of other FAA misbehaviors are third hand,
>so I will not repeat them, although I trust the proximate sources. I'm
>sure you are aware of some of the more notorious ones, yourself.

I guess I haven't had enough experience with FAA inspectors to form an
opinion, but the dealings with FAA staff that I have experienced
seemed very professional, far more so than the municipal LEOs I've
encountered.

[Jose]

> If you are able to prove your innocence, the FAA is powerless.

The concept in the United States is that =they= are supposed to prove
your =guilt=. You are not supposed to have to prove your innocence.

Granted that applies only in criminal trials, but the idea should apply
to all of government.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 03:50:08 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>The concept in the United States is that =they= are supposed to prove
>your =guilt=. You are not supposed to have to prove your innocence.
>
>Granted that applies only in criminal trials, but the idea should apply
>to all of government.

I agree, but without specific examples of alleged FAA inspector abuse
of power to discuss, it's difficult to argue the point.

[Jose]

> I agree, but without specific examples of alleged FAA inspector abuse
> of power to discuss, it's difficult to argue the point.

I agree, but you were the one that brought up the idea of having to
prove one's innocence. One should never have to prove one's innocence
to the FAA, or to any government agency. Just the =idea= that that
might be necessary gives them unwarranted power.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 05:33:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> I agree, but without specific examples of alleged FAA inspector abuse
>> of power to discuss, it's difficult to argue the point.
>
>I agree, but you were the one that brought up the idea of having to
>prove one's innocence. One should never have to prove one's innocence
>to the FAA, or to any government agency. Just the =idea= that that
>might be necessary gives them unwarranted power.
>

It's not merely an =idea=; it's a fact. :-(

[Jose]

> It's not merely an =idea=; it's a fact. :-(

Then that supplies your specific example of alleged FAA inspector abuse
of power. Nothing need happen for the power to be abused.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> Then that supplies your specific example of alleged FAA inspector abuse
> of power. Nothing need happen for the power to be abused.

And, as Wally once asked in the Dilbert strip, "What would be the other uses of
power?"

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:16:55 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Then that supplies your specific example of alleged FAA inspector abuse
>of power. Nothing need happen for the power to be abused.

So now it is you who is finding FAA inspectors guilty before they have
committed any acts?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:22:01 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <Jjwhf.25257$%%5.20829@trndny06>::

>"What would be the other uses of power?"

Legitimate enforcement of FARs comes to mind.

[Jose]

> So now it is you who is finding FAA inspectors guilty before they have
> committed any acts?

I'm entitled. It is the government that must prove itself innocent, and
must prove us guilty. If the FAA has a history of actions and decisions
that are overbearing (something I do not know firsthand) then we should
all be suspicious and cautious when dealing with them. If the FAA has a
history of decisions and actions that are fair, balanced, not abusive,
and with full concern for the rights of the accused, then they have
earned our respect and tentative trust.

Trust in government should always be tentative.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

> If the FAA has a
> history of decisions and actions that are fair, balanced, not abusive,
> and with full concern for the rights of the accused, then they have
> earned our respect and tentative trust.

The reality is a bit different. We all have anecdotal stories of the
FAA being abusive.

A friend of mine was cited for flying an unairworthy airplane when he
showed up for a CFI initial checkride. The airworthiness items were a
placard that was curled up in one corner and a TSO tag on the seatbelt
that was supposedly illegible (I could read it fine). The plane had
been gone over with a fine tooth comb in preparation for the checkride,
but when a fed wants to get you, he will get you.

However, why mess with anecdotes when we have official findings from
the DOT inspector general? Check it out for yourself.

http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf

Michael

[Jack]

Larry Dighera wrote:


> If you are able to prove your innocence, the FAA is powerless.

Wonderful. All you have to do is prove your innocence.

Why do we give bureaucracy more leeway than the courts to prosecute, and
persecute?


Jack

-- Vote Libertarian --

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:01:54 GMT, Jack > wrote in
>::

>Why do we give bureaucracy more leeway than the courts to prosecute, and
>persecute?

That's a good question. That is the way the system was when I became
involved in aviation in 1970 (35 years ago). Perhaps someone knows
the answer can provide some insight.

[Terry]

Could it be that because FAA actions are civil, that there is no
presumption of innocence? That being the case, the burden of proof of
compliance rests on the individual committing the violation of the
rule/administrative rule.

If the offense becomes criminal, and is heard by an administrative law
judge, then the burden of proof lies with the FAA.

My 2 cents worth.



On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:01:54 GMT, Jack > wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>> If you are able to prove your innocence, the FAA is powerless.
>
>Wonderful. All you have to do is prove your innocence.
>
>Why do we give bureaucracy more leeway than the courts to prosecute, and
>persecute?
>
>
>Jack
>
> -- Vote Libertarian --

[Jack]

Terry wrote:

> If the offense becomes criminal, and is heard by an administrative law
> judge, then the burden of proof lies with the FAA.

There's a disconnect there, Terry. "Administrative" and "criminal" don't
match up.

The third and final stage of defending against an FAA action would be to
appeal the matter to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, after an
unsuccessful Administrative Law Judge Hearing and a subsequent appeal to
the NTSB or DOT.

http://www.wca-intl.org/articles/FAA_Enforcement_Actions.cfm


Criminal actions in the Federal system would be heard initially by a
Federal District Court.

http://www.uscourts.gov/districtcourts.html

"The United States district courts are the trial courts of the
federal court system. Within limits set by Congress and the
Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear
nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil
and criminal matters."


I'm sure there is even more to the matter than the above. AOPA and
Google are your friends.

Join AOPA, use Google, and fly safe.


Jack

[George Patterson]

Jack wrote:

> The third and final stage of defending against an FAA action would be to
> appeal the matter to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, after an
> unsuccessful Administrative Law Judge Hearing and a subsequent appeal to
> the NTSB or DOT.

And that court will simply state that the FAA is the sole interpreter of its
rules and rule against you. Unless, of course, you can provide an example of a
case in which the FAA or NTSB ruled the other way.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.