Failure of FAA Regulation

This month was a five check month for me at work, so with the money from the extra check I decided to splurge and I ran over to Books-A-Million to find some kind of new reading material. While I was there I picked up a copy of the summer edition of The Independent Review mainly because it had an article on the failure of airline regulation.

Now I agree with the premise that airline regulation was a failure. I believe that we're still paying for the effects of the time from the Spoils Conference until the demise of the CAB. The airline industry forgot how to compete. The industry became dependent on governmental guidance. Even today, as soon as something happens, the airline chieftains are looking the Federal government for some kind of handout or guidance on where to go next. The airline CEOs almost seem to be scared to run their companies.

So I'm opening up to this article already sympathetic to the author's position.

The author does an excellent job of pointing out the failures of the FAA and is also very perceptive in identifying the causes of many of the failures. The FAA does have a dual and contradictory mission. They are to both enforce safety and security while simultaneously promoting the good of the industry. There are many times those two come into conflict.

He also points out that centrally planned organizations are usually ignorant of their own ignorance and therefore can't comprehend how or why their actions affect the marketplace. Excellent point. So far so good, right?

From there, the author tries to get into the technical details of why FAA regulation is a failure. And in the process he proves his own ignorance of the actual mechanics of running an airport or airline.

As just one example, he proposes the use of GPS as a means of increasing the throughput of the runways at the nation's airports. He believes that by using GPS the capacity could be increased to the theoretical maximum of 60 flights per hour instead of the current 40. He believes that by using GPS, flights can avoid using long, straight final approaches by turning onto the runway at the last possible minute, therefore avoiding the need for airspace separation. Great theory, but it fails in two important regards.

First, runways are still long and straight and no airplane lands right at the threshold. Most flights land 1000-2000 feet beyond the threshold. The wake turbulence from a flight doesn't dissipate immediately. It can take a couple of minutes for it to become a non-factor. The ground disrupts the turbulence somewhat, but it is still an issue for at least two minutes after an arrival. So if there are two flights landing one minute apart, even if they use different approach patterns, the following flight will still encounter some kind of wake turbulence. Depending on the two aircraft involved, this could still be a deadly situation.

It also fails to recognize that a large amount of traffic in a confined area is going to require some sort of structure. Out over the plains at 30,000 to 40,000 feet, GPS guided free flight with collision avoidance systems are a workable idea. But in a confined terminal area like the greater New York area, you don't want pilots deciding where they're going to fly. Security dictates that the aircraft are going to stay within certain corridors, which recreates the current traffic structure, so that despite the GPS, nothing will really change.

The GPS theory is just one of the topics on which the author squanders his credibility. There are other instances where he displays an ignorance of aircraft navigation or airline operation. I found that, despite being sympathetic to his position, I found myself wondering just how reasonable the position could be, given the superficial research done in regards to the effects of FAA ineffectiveness in the realm Air Traffic Control.

I still agree with the statement that the FAA's dual role has been a very dangerous risk for the airlines. Using the insurance companies as private safety regulators would probably be more effective than the FAA. The FAA really hasn't done anything to greatly benefit the airline industry. They have in fact hurt it by making it less efficient, less safe, and more dependent on governmental guidance.

I really wish that the author of the article had concentrated on the economic aspects of FAA regulation in the airline industry. He did an excellent job of picking them apart in the economic realm. But all that credibility was almost wasted by his "expert" discussion of topics he didn't really know a whole lot about. For someone who understands how the air transport system works, I was very disappointed when he got into the in depth discussions of GPS and the like.

The FAA is probably one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the entire government. The aviation industry made great strides after the sunsetting of the CAB, but unfortunately they were stymied by the FAA and its inability to upgrade the ATC system in the US. The industry has gotten stuck in a rut. The abolition or privatization of the FAA is going to be the first major step that needs to be taken if the US airline industry is to move forward again.