We haven’t had a thread locked for a while, so

Half Fast said:
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....
Click to expand...
I would agree with you, but I don't know Brad, and AFAIK, he doesn't meet any of the REAL criteria.
 
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.
 
NoBShere said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WDD said:
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.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Every interview I ever had, I studied ahead of time. This guy didn’t know beans. I don’t expect him to know the details of Basic Med, but he should at least understand that it imposes some limitations on types of aircraft and operations. Instead he tries to bluff by talking about blood pressure.

If he didn’t care enough to prep for this, how much is he going to care about the job? How well informed will he be when the EPA tries to ban 100LL?
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NoBShere said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
donjohnston said:
Out of the last five confirmed FAA administrators in the past 20 years, only two have been pilots.

Somehow we survived.

This was grandstanding.
Click to expand...


So? There are other ways to gain aviation knowledge and experience than being a pilot. This nominee comes up short, regardless of whether or not he's a pilot.

Grandstanding? Perhaps. These things usually are. But it's necessary to call the attention of the Senate to the person's qualifications (or lack thereof). This is one method of doing that.
 
WDD said:
At time stamp 07:32 he says "Bonanza". I think that alone qualifies him.
Click to expand...

The video was only 7:07 long?

if the dude asking questions knew his "stuff" so well, why did he need to read his notes to get very basic questions out? Someone call the FSDO on that tool.
 
This dude was originally nominated last year. Then once again in January. Now, one can assume he knew hed probably be nominated again. Why not take a few months to prepare for these questions by going to to a flight school and taking a couple lessons. If for no other reason than to prepare for these questions
 
Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, i agree to a point but not completely. The interview would have been much more worthwhile had the interviewer probed the answer that included relying on career employees. That would have given insight into how he leads as well as does he know enough about aviation to surround himself with the proper experts. That interview wasn't about finding the right person for the job and we will never know if he is or isn't the right person.
 
This situation reminds me of the story of two guys watching the Vatican, waiting for the white smoke to come from the chimney. The first guy says, "Who do you think the new pope will be?" The second guys answers, "I don't know, but I hope they give it to a Presbyterian this time. The Catholics have had it for too long."

This is like seeing a Presbyterian get nominated for pope.
 
bflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Am guessing there's someone at transportation that could make a lateral move:confused::eek:

write-stuff said:
Why'd they change the name of NOTAMs?
Click to expand...

Cause to them it sounds cool like Mission Impossible ...
 
Half Fast said:
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....
Click to expand...
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know enough to know that I'm perfectly happy letting someone else have that job.
 
bflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Morgan3820 said:

Senate nomination hearings for the head administrator of the FAA
Click to expand...
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.
 
These weren't really hard questions

What airspace requires ADSB?
6 Types of airspace that appear on FAA charts
Operational limitations of BasicMed
What causes an aircraft to stall and spin
3 aircraft certifications required as part of the aircraft manufacturing
what is the minimum separation distances for airlines landing on runways
Difference between 44809 and part 107

I would hope any Administrator to have a clue about some of these. I'm not sure this guy even knew the difference between part 135 and 121. Maybe not what part 121 is.

Yeah, I was right. I'm more qualified than he is.
 
I would really really REALLY liked to have heard a question or two about EAGLE or Reid-Hillview.
 
Brad Z said:
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.
Click to expand...
That all has the ring of truth!
 
donjohnston said:
Out of the last five confirmed FAA administrators in the past 20 years, only two have been pilots.

Somehow we survived.

This was grandstanding.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Surprised someone hasn't written in Dan Gryder. He would have all the answers and not be embarrassed.
 
WDD said:
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.
Click to expand...
Michael Huerta wasn’t a pilot and Basic Med happened while he was Administrator. I think that was pretty good.
 
WDD said:
Basic med was not an FAA achievement. It was a congressional act, taken because the FAA wasn’t getting things done.
Click to expand...
The FAA has a proposal ready to go, but DOT blocked it.
 
Budd should have asked one question and only one question.

Low wing or high wing?

He still wouldn't have been able to answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top