My October column plays on a tale I've told here before:
Double Standards
The ugly truth is that the FAA does not hold itself to the standards we must meet
As pilots we hold ourselves to a certain standard of proficiency. The aircraft we fly are maintained above a threshold of repair. Everything aviation related is measured against a benchmark, and woe unto he who comes up short.
Cruising in the flight levels at more than 200 knots or shooting an approach in poor weather in the dead of night are hardly places anyone wants to be when their skill or equipment is found wanting. Just to make the stakes even more interesting, the FAA is always there, looking over your shoulder, holding the power to make your life miserable should any shortcomings appear.
Why, then, is the FAA itself not held to the same standards?
Case in point is the conversion from FAA-run Flight Service Stations to Lockheed-Martin’s contracted-out, uh, product. The stories are legion, and to that pile I add one of my own.
I was flying from Jacksonville to Fort Lauderdale one morning, and, like an idiot I had missed my routine of getting a briefing and filing my flight plan by DUAT the night before, which I would then update just before departure. I was under a little time pressure and so rather than boot the computer I decided to file from the car while driving to the airport.
Big mistake.
I got what is now the obligatory 20-minute hold, during which time I realized I had left my headset at home and so I returned to get it. Still on hold, I started back to the airport. Finally, a briefer came on the line.
He apologized and said he was “on a backup of a backup system” and he wasn’t sure what he could do for me, but he would try. OK. I gave him my route and asked for a standard briefing. I heard a few keystrokes and he said, “Now, the information I’m about to give you is not for navigation. It says that in big red letters here.”
As he switched from link to link on his computer, he told me stories about his life in the military living in Jacksonville, but that was a while ago and he’s heard it’s grown a lot singe then.
Can we get back to the briefing?
The weather was relatively benign, but my departure airport was IMC and scheduled to remain so for the next hour or two. There was no heavy fog, just low ceilings and low visibility. Once above the layer, it looked like smooth sailing, although he couldn’t give me winds aloft.
Then he gave me this gem: “Any Notams I could give you would be unreliable. I suggest you check them before you leave.” By now, of course, I was at the hangar waiting to get off the phone to open the door.
“I suppose you want to file a flight plan?” he asked.
“Yes I do.”
“Well, I’m not sure if it will take it. You’d probably be better off to air file.”
Did I mention the departure airport was IMC? The fog and ceilings weren’t horrible, but there was no way I was going to take off VFR.
As it turned out, the computer did accept my flight plan and I hung up and prepared to fly. Since I figured I’d have a few minutes before my clearance would make it into the system, I used the time to review the XM weather on my yoke-mounted Garmin 496, with which I gave myself a DUAT-style briefing to confirm what the FSS had given me.
Have we come that far – that a non-IFR-approved handheld GPS/weather receiver does a better job of supplying weather briefings than the official FAA-sanctioned preflight briefing source. Oops, make that the unofficial FAA-sanctioned preflight briefing source, I suppose.
The FAA, in response to Lockheed Martin’s startup issues, has denied certain performance bonuses, but otherwise has resisted any public action that’s in any way proportionate to the risk – both legally and safety-oriented – that pilots are subjected to when they use the FAA’s primary “legal” briefing system. Do you think the FAA would tolerate such a lack of diligence on the part of the pilot or aircraft owner?
As a postscript, at the end of the day I was checking my email and I got this from an AOPA email:
"Software Update Temporarily Takes Down Flight Service
"Pilots had a difficult time getting through to a briefer or filing a flight plan Thursday morning after Lockheed Martin updated software throughout the system. Lockheed officials told AOPA that the software had worked fine in tests but failed under the load of pilots calling for their morning briefings. By midday the system was mostly restored. If you encounter a problem with flight service, log your complaint on the flight service comment line 888/FLT-SRVC."
We pilots hold ourselves and our equipment above reproach, thanks in large part to the combination of the safety carrot and the FAA stick. Too bad the other guys don’t seem to share our conscientious attitude.
I like the jet, and its tail number too. (N4GA)
