- Joined
- Jul 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Initial Fix
Nobody asked him how a wing produces lift. That makes me sad
I would agree with you, but I don't know Brad, and AFAIK, he doesn't meet any of the REAL criteria.Oh, there's no debate. That would be @Brad Z . He's a pilot, he's already an FAA insider, he's experienced in aviation safety, and he knows where all the bodies are buried.
And AFAIK he doesn't have any laptop PC hooker & blow issues, but the senate fact-finding will make sure....
I think the main qualifying criteria should be their response to the 'plane on a treadmill' question.Nobody asked him how a wing produces lift. That makes me sad
meh, leading an organization of that size is more about leadership than technical knowledge. If the guy asking the questions isn't qualified to run the FAA, then how is he qualified to vote on who should run the FAA? I'm not saying this guy is qualified or unqualified, no way to tell from that video. maybe both of these guys are clowns and should be shown the door.
One thing for sure, the guy asking questions proved the saying "how do you know someone is a pilot? they will tell you" is true.
Eh - if I was going for a job interview, I'd at least show some interest in the company and its industry that was going to hire me and do some research. Maybe google a few things. He doesn't need to be a test pilot, but should have some clue as to the industry he'll be working in.
Eh - if I was going for a job interview, I'd at least show some interest in the company and its industry that was going to hire me and do some research. Maybe google a few things. He doesn't need to be a test pilot, but should have some clue as to the industry he'll be working in.
I agree, if the questions are appropriate for the level. For instance, as a facilities director i wasn't asked how to balance airflow in a clean room in an interview. I didn't hear a single leadership or organizational direction question. If he would have answered the questions asked correctly, we still wouldn't know if he is competent to lead the FAA. We would only know that he might be able to pass the private pilot written exam. The more I think about, he should have started mocking the guy asking questions. I've decided, they should both be dismissed.
Out of the last five confirmed FAA administrators in the past 20 years, only two have been pilots.
Somehow we survived.
This was grandstanding.
At time stamp 07:32 he says "Bonanza". I think that alone qualifies him.
Different situation with different rules and objectives.
Whenever I interviewed someone at Lockheed for a chief engineer job, I didn't spend time digging into the person's technical qualifications. By the time we were in an interview, I already knew they were a competent engineer from reading personnel records, from speaking with colleagues, and from the applicant's resume (and often first-hand knowledge). If they weren't technically qualified they wouldn't have been in the interview in the first place. Furthermore, I would be the one making the final decision. We spent the entire time discussing leadership qualifications and objectives.
Here it's different. The nominee has been put forward by someone else (POTUS); there was no pre-screening by the Senate. Furthermore, the approval will be made, not by one individual or even a committee, but by a vote of the entire Senate. It's therefore necessary in this hearing to drag out the first-rung qualifications so that it can be demonstrated to the entire Senate that this nominee doesn't even make it to first base. There's no point in discussing the finer points of leadership when the nominee doesn't know the first thing about the job at hand, and this has to be shown to everyone who gets to cast a vote.
Senate nomination hearings for the head administrator of the FAA
I do have to agree that he doesn't seem to have any aviation experience. Administering an airport for a year or two doesn't cover it. Surely there are better people to serve as Adminstrator.
Why'd they change the name of NOTAMs?
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know enough to know that I'm perfectly happy letting someone else have that job.Oh, there's no debate. That would be @Brad Z . He's a pilot, he's already an FAA insider, he's experienced in aviation safety, and he knows where all the bodies are buried.
And AFAIK he doesn't have any laptop PC hooker & blow issues, but the senate fact-finding will make sure....
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know enough to know that I'm perfectly happy letting someone else have that job.
You betcha! Take Gen. Elwood Quesada for example. He grounded airline captains at age 60 (and tried to ban civilian pilots from flying jets). Pilots needlessly suffered for nearly 50 years under that restriction. He was an Air Force officer before the FAA Administrator, and a military pilot. I don't want non-pilots in that job nor military pilots, but I do want a pilot in there — one who's felt the boot of unrestrained raw power on their neck and isn't likely to wield that power flagrantly.MI'm concerned that he will just start pulling the trigger knee jerk choices that wind up massively impacting us. For example, on his first day, he could outlaw the use of 100LL, disregarding that there is no replacement and not caring that he would be grounding most of the GA fleet. Someone might come back to him with user fees and and he won't know why it's a bad idea.
We could lose 20 years of progress and have to refight every battle again. Serious threat.
Where do you see post number? Do you need Tapatalk or something?refer to post #12....
Post number is down on the lower right, just to the left of the "like" icon.Where do you see post number? Do you need Tapatalk or something?
To be fair, this was performative inquiry-- he knew the nominee wouldn't know the answer to technically detailed questions such as these. Even the most qualified applicants would stumble over these questions. Quizzing on the operational limitations of BasicMed? Runway distance separation? Part 107? Aircraft certification?
Senate nomination hearings for the head administrator of the FAA
I only get it when I turn the phone sideways.Not on all platforms it seems View attachment 115424
Weird sorcery. Thanks.I only get it when I turn the phone sideways.
That all has the ring of truth!To be fair, this was performative inquiry-- he knew the nominee wouldn't know the answer to technically detailed questions such as these. Even the most qualified applicants would stumble over these questions. Quizzing on the operational limitations of BasicMed? Runway distance separation? Part 107? Aircraft certification?
I'd rather him ask what the nominee believed the FAA's safety priorities should be, or how will he address industry oversight in an agency that is chronically understaffed due to the ability to hire and retain inspectors? Or perhaps how airport improvement funding could be distributed in a wait that maximizes safety benefit rather than rewarding politically compliant congressional districts? Perhaps other senators did, but unfortunately senate confirmations seem to be either Spanish Inquisitions or softball questioned congratulatory MM sessions. Not very useful.
I know hostile cross examinations for nominees is all the rage these days in the social media driven soundbite world. Heck, I love me some Josh Hawley nomination testimony YouTube clips as much as the next guy, but this was a bit over the top.
As others mentioned, the FAA administrator is an administrator, the CEO of the agency. Understanding the industry is important, but letting the non-political experts effectively lead is more important than having a know it all show up and claim to have all the answers.
Some of our best best administrators were flight-less lawyers, and some of our worse administrators were former airline pilots.
Ultimately though, the FAA administrator is the middle man (or woman) between between the White House, Secretary of Transportation and the FAA executive leadership who ultimately make the hard decisions. My observation is that the administrator has less influence than you might think they have. Especially when they continue on beyond their nominating administration.
I would hope we aim higher than just surviving and being happy with the medical process, the no lead gas project management, the delays in processing, the rule making on LSAs, etc.Out of the last five confirmed FAA administrators in the past 20 years, only two have been pilots.
Somehow we survived.
This was grandstanding.
One vote for Martha King.or Martha King....
I vote Martha Lunken.One vote for Martha King.
Where do I cast my ballot?
Michael Huerta wasn’t a pilot and Basic Med happened while he was Administrator. I think that was pretty good.I would hope we aim higher than just surviving and being happy with the medical process, the no lead gas project management, the delays in processing, the rule making on LSAs, etc.
The FAA has a proposal ready to go, but DOT blocked it.Basic med was not an FAA achievement. It was a congressional act, taken because the FAA wasn’t getting things done.