Document drill

An FAA lawyer simply decided to change 60 years of regulatory interpretation and precedence (see “Baker Calls for Action,” p. 14). No process, no rule-change procedure. No discussions with industry. No analysis of potential safety impact. Just an overzealous civil servant, inventing new interpretations that will impact tens of thousands of pilots and set back general aviation safety. It’s a nightmare scenario, and unfortunately, it’s not a dream.

Ironically, the FAA—founded for the very purpose of advancing aviation safety—moved at lightning speed (by FAA standards) to put safety in peril. Meanwhile, important initiatives such as the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates (MOSAIC) plod along. MOSAIC is just one item grinding through the FAA for close to a decade that is unanimously agreed to have important safety implications.

The staff lawyer’s new interpretation will make flight training more difficult and expensive to acquire in the affected aircraft categories. Safety principles and common sense dictate that to improve safety, access to training and instruction should be broadened and made more affordable. One would expect FAA leaders to understand that, but according to their recent explanations, bureaucratic red tape takes precedence over safety.

In July, the FAA abruptly announced that flight instruction in primary, limited, and experimental aircraft is considered “compensation for hire,” even if the instruction is provided at no cost. The FAA now requires pilots who want training and instruction in these aircraft to apply for a letter of deviation authority or exemption. In the history of the regulations, flight instruction has never been interpreted that way. Some in the FAA attribute this to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit ruling that refused to stop an FAA cease and desist order against Warbird Adventures Inc. earlier this year. But, FAA insiders know better. The court’s ruling did not reach that broadly. Opportunists inside the FAA jumped on it and were allowed to romp unchecked on decades of generally agreed principles. Some mid-level to senior leaders in the FAA are privately perplexed, and rightfully concerned by the sudden sea change in interpretation, how it was implemented in a small vacuum within the FAA, what it portends for the FAA’s future posture, and especially how it may impact safety.

The FAA wants us to be sympathetic. In remarks at EAA AirVenture the FAA labeled it “just a document drill.” The brand-new interpretation may feel like a “document drill” to the bureaucrats who don’t participate in GA on a routine basis, but it is much more than paperwork to those of us who do.

For a “document drill,” it seems something of a complicated one, since the FAA estimates it will take the agency two to three years to fully correct it. This, officials explained with complete seriousness and no hint of embarrassment. Two to three years to correct a problem that didn’t exist until they created it. A discussion with industry could have alerted the FAA leadership to the potential impact of the issue, and perhaps saved the agency some embarrassment. A respect for 60 years of precedent could have helped the FAA address the issue more reasonably. Now the best recourse is legislation that forces the FAA into more prudent, reasonable, and safety-focused action.

Thankfully we have effective avenues in this country to override the whims of unelected civil servants. AOPA and the rest of the GA community are united in peeling back the FAA’s ill-advised and unnecessary “document drill.” We’re fortunate to have Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Sam Graves, both active GA pilots who work hard to protect our freedom to fly. They’re sponsoring a bill called the Certainty for General Aviation Pilots Act (S.2458 and H.R. 4645).

AOPA President Mark Baker issued a call to action for GA advocates to contact your senators and representatives in support of this legislation. We’re better and more powerful when we act together, and even if this issue doesn’t impact us personally, the context should scare us all. A staff lawyer wakes up one day and decides on a completely different interpretation of a decades-old precedent and shoves it by FAA leadership without resistance. Suddenly 40,000 GA pilots are at risk of noncompliance, pilots find it harder and more expensive to get needed training, and GA safety takes a back seat to a “document drill.” That should scare us all into action.

Go fly. But first, express your concern for GA safety. Contact Washington and demand support for the proposed Certainty for General Aviation Pilots Act.

[email protected]