Kudos to the FAA

X3 Skier

X3 Skier

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
4,784
Location
GDK & SBS
Display Name
Display name:
Geezer
Since the FAA is the subject of lots of whining and gnashing of teeth in this space, I am glad to report a great success story.

Somehow I had missed the reregistration deadline after paying the fee. The FAA sent me a letter effectively grounding the airplane but told me how the get it ungrounded by a simple phone call and a letter to Oke City.

Basically they gave me a number to call AND TO DO IT WHEN THEY FIRST OPEN. I did and got simple instructions how to get an expedited temporary certificate within a max of two weeks. After mailing the request, an emailed temporary certificate arrived four days later and the plane was good to go. And a week later, the actual permanent certificate arrived via USPS.

So except for four days, the alleged months and months to get reregistered completely vanished.

Thank you FAA!
 
At least it wasn't too painful. The FAA will try better to inconvenience you next time.

778f50c4728cb77273350eddf926d894.jpg
 
Last edited:
If anyone whines about the FAA, move to Canada and deal with Transport Canada for a little while. You'll be so happy to go back to the FAA again. I have a Canadian and FAA license. I recently changed my citizenship so both licenses still display my previous citizenship. I emailed both the FAA and Transport Canada on the same day, with the exact same question. Within 24 hours, I received a response from the FAA with instructions on how to change my citizenship on file. Now 7 weeks later, I still haven't heard anything from Transport Canada. Why are we paying taxes up here again, it's not like the government is working anyways?
 
The other quick one is pilots who never upgraded their paper pilot certificates to plastic. I was surprised to see two of those this past year*. Temporaries right away. Permanents faster that I've seen with my CFI renewal.

(* in both cases, the bigger surprise was that pilot had been with another instructor who either didn't notice or wasn't aware there was anything wrong.)
 
IMHO the FAA gets a solid "C" or even "C+" on most administrative stuff; maybe a "C-" in some areas. Better than the VA, not nearly as good as SSA. That the FAA isn't as bad as their Canadian or European counterparts isn't a ringing endorsement. Like saying root canal isn't nearly as bad as a torn tendon. . .
 
Bell206 said:
And if you think the TCCA is bad, try dealing with the EASA. Theres a reason people use an N-reg in Europe when they can.
Click to expand...

Never dealt with them but grew up on the other side of the pond and I totally believe that they suck even more. Part of the reason why I shipped myself over to the correct side of the ocean as soon as I was able to.
 
Sundancer said:
IMHO the FAA gets a solid "C" or even "C+" on most administrative stuff; maybe a "C-" in some areas. Better than the VA, not nearly as good as SSA. That the FAA isn't as bad as their Canadian or European counterparts isn't a ringing endorsement. Like saying root canal isn't nearly as bad as a torn tendon. . .
Click to expand...

You've obviously have never dealt with aviation agencies of other countries. :rolleyes:
 
Sundancer said:
IMHO the FAA gets a solid "C" or even "C+" on most administrative stuff; maybe a "C-" in some areas. Better than the VA, not nearly as good as SSA. That the FAA isn't as bad as their Canadian or European counterparts isn't a ringing endorsement.
Click to expand...
Except when you compare apples to apples and the FAA is given a solid A+ by its users on an international scale with no close 2nd. Even the EASA is starting to see the light as they try ways to ban N-reg aircraft ownership in the EU. For example, several years ago they finally allowed EU owners of light aircraft to be more responsible for their aircraft's airworthiness which is something US owners have had 100% control of since basically day one.

So it really depends on your point of view for a useable comparison. However, I wouldn’t want to get into a comparison with EU social programs to those of the US, as that discussion would definitely swap sides rather quickly.
 
Based on personal experience, it's not reasonable to make a blanket statement about the entire FAA. Some parts work well while others do not.

The folks on the registration side seem to do a good job and the OP's experience confirms my own. When I first registered my plane, they made a simple error on my address (IIRC, they misread 5 as S) and I saw it online before the paper copy arrived in the mail. As soon as I saw it, I made a call and got a very nice and helpful FAA lady. I explained the error and told her I hoped I was alerting them soon enough to catch it before it went into the mail. She told me it had already gone out, but she saw the error, fixed it, said I'd get a corrected copy within two weeks, then emailed me a temporary extension. The new hard copy arrived a week later. No hassle, the phone call took less than 10 minutes, problem solved.

Very helpful, responsive, pleasant, and reasonably quick.

The FAA medical folks, OTOH,.....
 
Sad that doing their job becomes something that “goes above and beyond” because the expectation is so low…
 
No one my interpretation of the original post…my opinion only…
 
Sounds like a good scam for the Nigerian scammers. Send a letter to call and pay a fee otherwise you are grounded.
 
Bell206 said:
Except when you compare apples to apples and the FAA is given a solid A+ by its users on an international scale with no close 2nd. Even the EASA is starting to see the light as they try ways to ban N-reg aircraft ownership in the EU. For example, several years ago they finally allowed EU owners of light aircraft to be more responsible for their aircraft's airworthiness which is something US owners have had 100% control of since basically day one.

So it really depends on your point of view for a useable comparison. However, I wouldn’t want to get into a comparison with EU social programs to those of the US, as that discussion would definitely swap sides rather quickly.
Click to expand...
OTOH, the Light Sport Aircraft approved in Europe are light years ahead of those in the USA as the FAA MOSAIC fiasco keeps plodding along in the wilderness. (I assume your talking about EAB re maintenance)
 
X3 Skier said:
OTOH, the Light Sport Aircraft approved in Europe are light years ahead of those in the USA as the FAA MOSAIC fiasco keeps plodding along in the wilderness. (I assume your talking about EAB re maintenance)
Click to expand...


I also like how Europe has an enroute instrument rating in addition to the full rating. Much simpler to get than the full instrument rating, and I believe it would solve some problems here. Wish we'd adopt something similar.
 
X3 Skier said:
the Light Sport Aircraft approved in Europe are light years ahead of those in the USA
Click to expand...
Thats simply because Light Sport is the only thing most people can afford to do.
X3 Skier said:
I assume your talking about EAB re maintenance
Click to expand...
Nope. Talking about what would be considered private Part 91 here. Before the change you as a private aircraft owner required the services of a certified "repair station" (CAMO) to handle the airworthiness requirements on your aircraft. The addition of Part ML under EASA now allows you as owner to handle that through an independent aircraft engineer. The cost difference between here and there is quite steep with us on the cheap side.
Half Fast said:
I also like how Europe has an enroute instrument rating in addition to the full rating.
Click to expand...
FYI: one of the primary reasons people use an N-reg aircraft in the EU is to fly IFR. As I understand it the reason they have an enroute rating is a good number can't pass the full IFR requirements and medical. It was often explained that an EU citizen could convert his aircraft to N-reg, travel to the US and obtain is IFR ticket, and return to the EU before if EASA IFR application made it to the first desk. Seeing how other departments in the EASA work I never doubted them.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: one of the primary reasons people use an N-reg aircraft in the EU is to fly IFR. As I understand it the reason they have an enroute rating is a good number can't pass the full IFR requirements and medical. It was often explained that an EU citizen could convert his aircraft to N-reg, travel to the US and obtain is IFR ticket, and return to the EU before if EASA IFR application made it to the first desk. Seeing how other departments in the EASA work I never doubted them.
Click to expand...


Not surprising.

But I think that if the US had enroute IFR, which only requires 15 hours and does not involve IFR departures or approaches, more US pilots would get the rating and it would reduce VFR into IMC crashes. Just an opinion, but I'd like to see it happen here.
 
Honestly I’ve not thought much about it, but my initial thought is that such a rating might result in more people getting into situations in which they need to fly an approach in order to get out of.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
Thats simply because Light Sport is the only thing most people can afford to do.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change the fact the some Euro LSA are far more capable than US LSA because the FAA is still fiddle farting around with MOSAIC.

Cheers
 
Bureaucratic sloth is inevitable, and the FAA isn't exempt. It's a natural state in gov't entities - the agency's and their people are buffered/insulated from accountability to a large degree. Especially at the "micro" level. The older organizations are saddled with 60's era hierarchies and clumsy processes; there is a mindset that every combination of events and factors can be anticipated and codified - which leads to contradictory policy and/or interpretations.

Sometimes, even often, you can encounter a FAA employee who has a "service provider" ethos, and a work ethic. I think most controllers are in that group. Then there are the medical folks - a stop, stumble, and fall clown college - remember sleep apnea? FSDO folks somewhere in between. . .

I think we, and plenty of FAA folks who want to do good, get exhausted by the strangling policies and red tape - we accept the delays, occasional nonsense, and illogic as "just the way it is." As I'm older, I do see some small blooms of flexibility, even agility, creeping in to gov't. I do think it's important to keep bitching and pushing back for change. I couldn't care less how the Canadian or European aviation governance performs - it isn't relevant for most of us in the US.
 
X3 Skier said:
That doesn’t change the fact the some Euro LSA are far more capable than US LSA because the FAA is still fiddle farting around with MOSAIC.
Click to expand...
True, but the EU sport market is much different than the US market and follows a different drum beat. Regardless, its my understanding that the main reason behind the MOSAIC issues is the FAA's move to performance based rules like they did with the Part 23 rewrite. Same issues are affecting the eVTOL rule making and for about the same length of time. Unfortunately, there usually are not a set of consensus standards laying around that cover what one needs and need to be written before the rule is made.
Sundancer said:
I couldn't care less how the Canadian or European aviation governance performs - it isn't relevant for most of us in the US.
Click to expand...
FYI: Actually it is relevant but in an indirect way since 85% of the FARs are the result of international standards and agreements. So in general those same "strangling policies" are dealt with by every aviation authority who is a signatory to those international standards. The funny thing is the Canadian and EU authorities follow those same standards and agreements yet don't offer the same level of service and ... speed as the FAA. Sure government bureaucracy rears its head but its not because of the rules.
 
Salty said:
Honestly I’ve not thought much about it, but my initial thought is that such a rating might result in more people getting into situations in which they need to fly an approach in order to get out of.
Click to expand...
There are also significant airspace differences. If I recall correctly, the UK limited rating does not include flight in controlled airspace. They have that. We don't.
 
Salty said:
Honestly I’ve not thought much about it, but my initial thought is that such a rating might result in more people getting into situations in which they need to fly an approach in order to get out of.
Click to expand...


Maybe. But maybe not.


An analogy:

Back in the late '60s and early '70s there was a rash of open water scuba diver drownings in caves. The fledgling cave diving community had a policy of warning OW divers to stay out of overhead environments without full cave diving training, and the OW training agencies took the same line. Still, untrained people kept entering caves and drowning.

Full cave training was and is onerous, requiring a bunch of specialized gear and an extensive course. Once trained, the cave diver is qualified to do long cave penetrations, traverses, staged decompression, etc. The difficulty and expense discouraged OW divers from seeking training.

Eventually, when the "don't do it" mantra proved ineffective, the cave training groups created a much simpler course for "cavern" diving. In scuba diving, the "cavern" is the first room of a more extensive cave, and the definition includes limits on depth, distance, and bottom time to restrict the dive to no-decompression limits. Cavern training requires very little additional equipment and can be completed in a single weekend. A cavern diver is not trained to make traverses, do staged deco, etc., but he does learn the fundamental techniques to avoid silting out a cavern, and he learns proper guideline procedures, and he learns air management.

Cavern training proved effective and cave drownings decreased. More importantly, there have been very very few instances of a cavern-trained diver drowning in a cave. The cavern training not only teaches them how to safely enter the cave opening, it drives home an understanding of the difficulty and risk of deeper cave penetrations without further training.​


I think an enroute IFR option could do much the same for flying. VFR pilots could take the training and give themselves another tool in the toolkit without the huge time and financial commitments needed for a full IFR rating. Also, I think that, much like cavern training, they would have a better understanding of the IFR environment and the need for additional training before putting themselves into a riskier situation.

In any case, if we want to reduce the number of VFR into IMC accidents we need to do something different. Continuing the path we're on isn't going to take us to a better destination.
 
So, I think your theory is that if it were legal to climb through a layer with this rating, but easy to get the rating, more people would get training, making people safer. I dunno. I think I would advocate for more simulated instrument time for the private rather than this. I think if you're going to fly in clouds, you should know how to shoot an approach. But maybe that's a case of "elitism" because I've got the rating and didn't think it was that hard, everybody should do it.
 
I would suggest that most VFR into IMC occurs outside of the approach area and more in the enroute section. Therefore, that should be where the limited training is focused. Also, enroute is the easiest part to train as it really is simpler and has simpler rules. Approach can get quite involved.

If you had enroute training (anything after departure and before approach), there would still be a lot of material left to cover.

On the other hand, if you had approach training, what would there be to cover in enroute training? Not really all that much, plus, since you've mastered the 3d navigation for approach, the 2d enroute portion would be a piece of cake, but not vice-versa. (yes, there is a skill to maintain level flight, and yes there may be some altitude change, but not at a precise rate)
 
guest user said:
I would suggest that most VFR into IMC occurs outside of the approach area and more in the enroute section. Therefore, that should be where the limited training is focused. Also, enroute is the easiest part to train as it really is simpler and has simpler rules. Approach can get quite involved.

If you had enroute training (anything after departure and before approach), there would still be a lot of material left to cover.

On the other hand, if you had approach training, what would there be to cover in enroute training? Not really all that much, plus, since you've mastered the 3d navigation for approach, the 2d enroute portion would be a piece of cake, but not vice-versa. (yes, there is a skill to maintain level flight, and yes there may be some altitude change, but not at a precise rate)
Click to expand...


Agreed! So following that reasoning, an enroute IFR rating would be simpler to get and should reduce VFR into IMC accidents.
 
Half Fast said:
Agreed! So following that reasoning, an enroute IFR rating would be simpler to get and should reduce VFR into IMC accidents.
Click to expand...

Curious, do you (a) Have an instrument rating? and if so, (b) How much actual instrument time do you have?
 
Bell206 said:
True, but the EU sport market is much different than the US market and follows a different drum beat. Regardless, its my understanding that the main reason behind the MOSAIC issues is the FAA's move to performance based rules like they did with the Part 23 rewrite. Same issues are affecting the eVTOL rule making and for about the same length of time. Unfortunately, there usually are not a set of consensus standards laying around that cover what one needs and need to be written before the rule is made.

FYI: Actually it is relevant but in an indirect way since 85% of the FARs are the result of international standards and agreements. So in general those same "strangling policies" are dealt with by every aviation authority who is a signatory to those international standards. The funny thing is the Canadian and EU authorities follow those same standards and agreements yet don't offer the same level of service and ... speed as the FAA. Sure government bureaucracy rears its head but its not because of the rules.
Click to expand...
It's the comparison of service level I find irrelevant: I'm not giving kudos to my local pizza parlor for cold greasy pizza just because the one down the street has rat droppings as a topping.
 
Sundancer said:
It's the comparison of service level I find irrelevant: I'm not giving kudos to my local pizza parlor for cold greasy pizza just because the one down the street has rat droppings as a topping.
Click to expand...

In your time as a pilot, how many interactions have you had directly with the FAA?
 
guest user said:
I would suggest that most VFR into IMC occurs outside of the approach area and more in the enroute section. Therefore, that should be where the limited training is focused.
Click to expand...
Of those that happen in the enroute section of the flight, how many have much better weather at departure and destination?
 
Doc Holliday said:
In your time as a pilot, how many interactions have you had directly with the FAA?
Click to expand...
Your question wasn’t to me, but I will say that I have had direct contact with FAA employees through being on the air ops team at an airshow, through setting up a CFI checkride outside the FSDO boundary, and with a delay that I caused on aircraft registration. In all instances, the FAA guys were courteous, effective and efficient, and didn’t play any games or go out of bounds. Never had a problem with the ATC side, either.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Of those that happen in the enroute section of the flight, how many have much better weather at departure and destination?
Click to expand...

i think the idea would be to be vectored out of the IMC to a suitable VFR alternate, rather than continue to an IMC destination.
 
guest user said:
i think the idea would be to be vectored out of the IMC to a suitable VFR alternate, rather than continue to an IMC destination.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Enroute IFR requires VMC at transition points when the plan is filed, with alternates also in VMC.

Takeoffs and landings must be VFR. Enroute IFR would allow you, for example, to take off in VMC beneath a broken layer, fly to a navigation point in VMC, transition to IFR and climb through the layer for the enroute portion, then reverse the process at a navigation point near the destination, descending into VMC and continuing VFR to the destination.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And what percentage of CFIT accidents would be prevented if departure and destination weather weren’t a factor?
Click to expand...


>0%, therefore it's an improvement.

And what percentage of those accidents have VMC at the destination, but a low ceiling with a pilot that needs to descend through it? Again, >0%.

I'd be interested in hard numbers, but I don't know them. Nevertheless, reducing the number of VFR into IMC accidents requires that we do something different than we're doing today and have been doing for a long time. Is enroute IFR the answer? Maybe. I suspect it could at least be a part of an answer. One more tool in the box.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why would a pilot go IFR simply so he could end up somewhere he doesn’t want to go?
Click to expand...


He wouldn't. When planning the flight, the expectation would be that he could return to VMC at a navigation point near the destination and complete the trip under VFR. Going elsewhere is a contingency, just like we all have alternates on any flight in case a weather forecast is bogus or we're otherwise unable to reach the intended destination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top