Rough Week for the FAA

Everyone has bad weeks from time to time. Apparently it even happens to government agencies. This week, it's the FAA's turn to be on their heels.

Among other things, the FAA was ranked #214 out of 216 best federal agencies to work at. It keeps going from there...

This ranking was published as part of a report by the Government Accountability Office. The Washington Post explained how this report hit the FAA for bad overall morale and poor diversity management. It noted that 38% of the FAA's critical employees will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years and stated worry that they won't be able to recruit enough bright people to fill those vacancies if the FAA doesn't become a more attractive place to work.

The Post article mentioned one specific morale issue: money. Apparently the FAA has a complex and confusing set of criteria for raises and bonuses. Unfortunately, a lot of these potential pay increases are based on things their employees have no control over. This seems so ridiculous to me that I wonder if it's true. I can definitely see how it'd be frustrating to work in that environment.

Next, the AWT Daily News relates how NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman delivered some scathing remarks against the FAA at the FAA's own International Runway Safety Summit yesterday for moving too slowly to implement safety measures. Chairman Hersman specifically mentioned that it has taken the FAA nearly 10 years to react to some NTSB recommendations.

I don't think any of us are surprised to hear that the FAA isn't perfect. Luckily, they are doing some good things as well. The AOPA has recently started reporting on several changes that the FAA is considering making to Part 61 of the FARs. Check out AOPA's PDF for the full details on their opinion and reactions to these proposed changes. Overall, I think they are a big step in the right direction. Here are some of what I see as the best parts of the proposal:

• A new rule would add FADEC engines to the definition of complex aircraft
• A CFI endorsement would no longer be required to operate a complex aircraft (an industry standard "aircraft checkout" would be enough)
• The requirement for 10 hours of complex time and using a complex aircraft for a commercial pilot exam would be replaced by 10 hours of "advanced instrument training"
• Pilots could simultaneously apply for a Private pilot rating and an Instrument rating
• CFI certificates would never expire, an instructor would just have to complete a refresher course within the last two years (sound like the CFI equivalent of a BFR to me...)

Although these ideas need some work to be realistic, I think they are great overall. They'll end up making the requirements for ratings make more sense and will make our pilot ratings more useful with less hassle. I hope they can keep up the good energy in these proposals and avoid any more weeks like this last one.

Do we have anyone related to the FAA out there who can comment first hand on how things are going? Do they really deserve to be ranked #214? What do you think they can do to improve morale? Leave a comment and let us know!