A Brief Conversation With The FAA (A "Chat Rep")

While attending the EAA Copperstate Fly In at Casa Grande, AZ on Friday, I
had a nice chat with a gentleman from the FSDO Office at Scottsdale, AZ.

We touched on several topics related to my being a relatively new pilot
flying in Arizona in general and the Phoenix area in particular. I was
pleased to learn (in hindsight) that the FBO where I trained is well
regarded.

I then asked him what he thought of the spate of Cirrus accidents that have
been making the papers lately.

His take on it: Cirrus may indeed be headed for similar requirements as the
MU2 and the R22/R44s. I mentioned the NYC accident and he seemed pretty
confident that the chain of events leading up to that crash involved what
some here have said:
- Relatively low-time pilot
- Non local CFI unfamiliar with the area
- Tricky airspace (possibly made trickier by Wx)
- Given these three factors...a Cirrus was maybe not the best type of plane
to be in while just noodling around sight seeing.

He explained some interesting things that the FAA and the FAA Safety Team
(FAAST) are trying to accomplish:
- Get manufacturers to share information in order to quantify the types and
frequencies of common accidents/incidents.
- Get FBOs to do the same in an effort to indentify possible training gaps /
problems with rental fleets / issues pertaining to pilots who rent.
- Get more pilots actively involved with pre-emptive safety training related
to risk aversion*.
- Get the insurance industry into this mix so that they make their
premium-related decisions based on facts and not
generalizations/guesstimates. Also, the FAA would like to see insurers not
hammer specific makes or groups of pilots unless their is real proof that
higher rates are warranted and can be supported by hard numbers.

(*Apparently only about one percent of pilots regularly attend safety
seminars) I was suprised when he admitted that AOPA is "kicking our butts"
when it comes to pre-emptive safety initiatives but that "we're watching and
trying to learn and get better by observing what AOPA is doing."

I asked him if the above ideas related to data gathering would help to
quantify what pilot's are doing. His reply was yes, but while a lot of the
the data is out there and available, no one has really made a concerted
effort to collect it and break it down.

I half-jokingly said to him "You'll have to get past the prevalent pilot
mindset of: "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help..."" He immediately came
back with "Yeah, yeah, I know..."Blah, blah, blah...We're not happy until
you're not happy..." Big Laugh

He described the number of safety issues that actually get reported as being
similar to an iceberg and that what most people hear about is only the tip.
The FAA theorizes that for every *one* incident/accident that generates
enough buzz to really "ping" the FAAs safety radar...there are roughly
**600** that do not!

He went on to add that this covers the entire gammut of safety issues from
the really low-level things like landing with a slight tailwind (no big
thing but still potentially dangerous if there were enough other
circumstances...) to the extremes like VFR into IMC, flight into known
icing, etc.

It's nice to know that the FAA may actually be somewhat forward thinking in
some areas.

Humbly submitted:

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

PS...Pics from Copperstate to be posted shortly...link to follow.

Jay Beckman wrote:

- Get the insurance industry into this mix so that they make their
premium-related decisions based on facts and not
generalizations/guesstimates. Also, the FAA would like to see insurers not
hammer specific makes or groups of pilots unless their is real proof that
higher rates are warranted and can be supported by hard numbers.

Sounds like the kind of person we need more of in the FAA. However, I
had to laugh at the above statement. I'll bet that the insurance
companies are far more rigorous in their actuarial assessments than
almost anyone else in aviation. I'd like to see the FAA even half as
rigorous in making decisions based on data instead of emotion or politics.


Matt

Jay Beckman wrote:
While attending the EAA Copperstate Fly In at Casa Grande, AZ on Friday, I
had a nice chat with a gentleman from the FSDO Office at Scottsdale, AZ.

He explained some interesting things that the FAA and the FAA Safety Team
(FAAST) are trying to accomplish:

[snip for bandwidth]

- Get more pilots actively involved with pre-emptive safety training related
to risk aversion*.

One thing I've noticed the past 6 months in the Denver area is the
increasing number of safety/informative offerings by the FSDO.
Seems like there's one every other week. The one this weekend has
a speaker from the USAF Academy about mid-air collisions - mostly
explaining where the zoomies fly and that they aren't listening to
the same people we are! (Which annoys the **** out of me, as I'm
one of those who almost had metal-to-plastic instrusion. I'm talking
to Class C COS, as required, but the zoomies aint!)

He went on to add that this covers the entire gammut of safety issues from
the really low-level things like landing with a slight tailwind (no big
thing but still potentially dangerous if there were enough other
circumstances...) to the extremes like VFR into IMC, flight into known
icing, etc.

I don't understand why landing with a slight tailwind would be a problem.
I routinely practice tailwind takeoffs and landings, (no more than 8mph)
because I know (and have been in the situation) where it's going to happen.

It's nice to know that the FAA may actually be somewhat forward thinking in
some areas.

Thanks for the info, Jay. It's always nice when you meet one of the
"good guys".

In my experience, the FAA is a lot like Congress. Many people ridicule
Congress as a group, and most think they're not doing enough/doing too
much/doing the wrong things -- but, by golly, everyone thinks *their*
Congressman is great.

The FAA, like any organization run by committee, is full of
well-meaning people who get sucked into group-think, and what comes out
the other end can occasionally be gibberish.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Beckman wrote:
He explained some interesting things that the FAA and the FAA Safety
Team (FAAST) are trying to accomplish:
- Get manufacturers to share information in order to quantify the types
and frequencies of common accidents/incidents.

I think they will have more success if they can figure out a good way to
keep this data from turning into lawyer food, but I'm not sure of a good
way to do that. Trying to keep it totally secret mostly defeats the
purpose of collecting the information. Maybe it needs to go to some
third-party organization - not the manufacturers, not the government -
that has some structure in place such that they can issue reports and
recommendations, but can't be legally compelled to turn over all their
files. (Having NASA collect some of the reports is in this direction.)
Another way, done by one organization I know of, is to accept detailed
incident reports, disseminate a public report (with most of the serial
numbers filed off) with the facts and lessons learned, and retain the
detailed reports for about a year. At the end of the year, they look
for any trends and write a yearly report, then destroy the original,
detailed reports.

- Get more pilots actively involved with pre-emptive safety training
related to risk aversion*. [...] (*Apparently only about one percent
of pilots regularly attend safety seminars)

Are there any incentives for this kind of "continuing education"? I am
thinking of something like: attend a safety seminar, get your attendance
signed off by the presenter, send the sign-off to your insurance company,
get a few bucks off your insurance. Or maybe get a few bucks off your
next tank of fuel at the local FBO, or whatever. There would have to be
some minimum requirements for the seminar for this to work, but I don't
think it has to involve a formal "class" that lasts for multiple days/
weeks.

- Get the insurance industry into this mix so that they make their
premium-related decisions based on facts and not generalizations/
guesstimates.

This could go both ways. One way would tend to stop things like "OMG!
99% of the planes that crashed last year had AIR in their tires! Put
100% helium in your tires or eat a $1000 premium increase!!1!" The other
way is "Gee, I've had two close calls since I got this new Acme-123 this
summer because the other guy didn't know I was turning, and I found out
that when I thought I put on the turn signal, I really turned on the fog
lights. * I've talked to a couple of guys at the FBO with 123s that had
done the same thing. I'd report it to Acme so they could maybe change
the switch lever, but last year when those guys said the flap handle was
too close to the cup holder in the Acme-456, their premiums went up $500,
so I'm not turning in a report."

The FAA theorizes that for every *one* incident/accident that generates
enough buzz to really "ping" the FAAs safety radar...there are roughly
**600** that do not!

Part of this is human nature; it's not easy or fun to admit you were a
dumb-ass. But I think a lot of it is also an aversion to costing oneself
money - higher insurance premiums, extra lawyer food, whatever. I think
that if the FAA works on convincing pilots that their reports won't be
used against them, they'll get more and better reports.

* Yes, I know airplanes don't have turn signals or fog lights.

Matt Roberds

wrote ...
Are there any incentives for this kind of "continuing education"?
I am thinking of something like: attend a safety seminar, get your
attendance signed off by the presenter, send the sign-off to your
insurance company, get a few bucks off your insurance.

OK,... you just described the Avemco program for Rental Insurance (maybe for
owners as well?). Go to a safety seminar, pickup a signed blue "wings" card,
get together with a CFI for some mutually agreed airwork, and AVEMCO gives
you 5-10% off the annual bill. I think they have a deal with the John &
Martha King home study programs as well. Maybe the other insurance outfits
do something similar?!?

"Jay Beckman" wrote:

While attending the EAA Copperstate Fly In at Casa Grande, AZ on
Friday, I had a nice chat with a gentleman from the FSDO Office at
Scottsdale, AZ.

Good report, Jay. This FAA guy was probably Mike Halloran. He's the safety program manager at the
Scottsdale FSDO. I flew down to Copperstate yesterday and saw him there working the booth, but didn't
visit with him. I've heard him speak at other local meetings, and I agree - he's a good communicator and
honestly interested in aviation and aviation safety.

Mike

Mike Adams wrote:
"Jay Beckman" wrote:

While attending the EAA Copperstate Fly In at Casa Grande, AZ on
Friday, I had a nice chat with a gentleman from the FSDO Office at
Scottsdale, AZ.

Good report, Jay. This FAA guy was probably Mike Halloran. He's the safety program manager at the
Scottsdale FSDO. I flew down to Copperstate yesterday and saw him there working the booth, but didn't
visit with him. I've heard him speak at other local meetings, and I agree - he's a good communicator and
honestly interested in aviation and aviation safety.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Yes indeed it was Mr Halloran.

Jay B

Blanche wrote:

One thing I've noticed the past 6 months in the Denver area is the
increasing number of safety/informative offerings by the FSDO.
Seems like there's one every other week. The one this weekend has
a speaker from the USAF Academy about mid-air collisions - mostly
explaining where the zoomies fly and that they aren't listening to
the same people we are! (Which annoys the **** out of me, as I'm
one of those who almost had metal-to-plastic instrusion. I'm talking
to Class C COS, as required, but the zoomies aint!)

So what frequency are they on when they overfly Meadowlake airport
(00V)? When wil they hold such a forum at 00V where the USAFA Katanas
overfly nearly every day.

Ron Lee

In article m,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

In my experience, the FAA is a lot like Congress. Many people ridicule
Congress as a group, and most think they're not doing enough/doing too
much/doing the wrong things -- but, by golly, everyone thinks *their*
Congressman is great.

Not me. The congresscritters from Taxachusetts all ---- (expletive deleted).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate