The New York Times reported that outside the United States the Federal Aviation Administration is considered a "role model" and "first-rate regulator," because it has the lowest accident rate in the world. The Times' viewed regulation rather than market based innovation as the solution to accident rates in foreign countries.
In Latin America, "accidents number one for every 600,000 flights" and "Africa is the least safe region in the world for air travel, with one accident for every 244,000 flights," said the Times.
One source, Giovanni Bisignani, secretary general of the International Air Transport Association, lamented the "the lack of a common regulatory framework" and failure to live up to standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations specialized agency.
But the success of accident records in the United States doesn't lie solely in regulation. Safety looks good to consumers too.
"You shouldn't need to have a regulator looking at every aircraft as it takes off or checking every turn of a screw by a maintenance person," Mr. Nicholson of the Civil Aviation Authority in Britain told the Times. "The regulator is the fallback. Ultimately, it is the airline's job to do what it has to do. When there are lapses, responsibility can only ever come back to the airline."
Despite the safety record in the United States, the FAA has plenty of problems. In recent years, the agency failed to carry out more than 100 recommended safety reviews at major airlines, according to The Wall Street Journal May 6.
Wired magazine acknowledged serious flaws with the outdated Air Traffic Control in October 2007 saying, "Built on World War II technology, the system is showing its age. Planes move quickly, and radar takes anywhere from three to 12 seconds to accurately read a position."
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), the system supposed to take over for ATC isn't projected to be fully operational with the airlines until 2025 and there is still a question of funding.
—Paul Detrick is a Research Analyst at the Business and Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
UN
May 8, 2008 - 15:44 ET by iveseenitallI just can't imagine anyone not living up to United Nations "standards". I mean---a successful, powerful, effective, honest, hard-working organization like that. There must be some mistake.
NEVER,NEVER trust a"liberal"
yesterday's people managing tomorrow's issues
May 8, 2008 - 16:13 ET by wizardjrI retired from the FAA in 2000 rather than watch the train wreck. The Clinton administration replaced the entire top four levels of government with their cronies. We had all sorts of senior managers whose claim to fame was that they once rode in an airplane. What a disaster.
The training budget in the FAA is around $26 million a year. The training is very nearly unique. Only other civil aviation departments and military know any of this stuff. So who do they put in charge? A woman from Agriculture. By the time we got her up to speed - zip! she's gone on to another triumphal moment in her career as a dead weight. It's a damn good thing the troops in the trenches know their stuff and take seriously the lives of the flying public. Otherwise, there'd be a whole lot of crispy critters smoldering in craters on the runways.
Speaking of the FAA and near crashes..
May 8, 2008 - 16:30 ET by Gary HallThis is very interesting, folks.
I ran across this, quite by accident one day - on Google Earth. I assume that we all see the same picture??
If you have it, plug in these coordinates 40°46'15.33"N, 73°51'21.58"W - or simply find the East end of the E-W Runway at La Guardia. There's a Jet sitting on the E. End of the runway (appears waiting for takeoff) and just to the East (1/8 of a mile?? or so) is an east bound Jet, on approach to land - it certainly appears. Defiantly a no-no.Now to top that off -- also on approach from the north on the N-S runway, and very low (the shadows on the water, are much the same on both) is another jet. It's only a couple of seconds further out. And the two runways do cross each other. I see two potential near collisions here. One with the waiting jet and then the two landing aircraft where the two runways cross. Yikes>This near miss should have been on the news, I bet. Perhaps it was. (;~> gary
Speaking of the FAA, Al Gore, lobbyists & 9/11
May 8, 2008 - 16:46 ET by Gary HallSpeaking of the FAA, Al Gore, lobbyists & 9/11.
Start with the Commission Report (Al's report to Bill Clinton): White House Commission on Aviation Safety and SecurityFINAL REPORT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON
Typical Clintonian/Gorian/Democratic effort - got bought off. Didn't happen.
The Gore Commission Report recommended:
The report also recommended, "automated passenger profiling," but I regress. As we skipped that conversation during the 9/11 debate - I'll let it be one more time. During the autumn of the 1996 election campaign, while the Gore Commission Report was in final review, the airline industry put it's money into the hands of those most able to protect their interests.
The Boston Globe reported it this way:
It has also been reported that as the Report was in response to fears of the Airline Industry, that V.P. "Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett, president of the industry's trade group, the Air Transport Association, promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue." The letter reportedly promised, ''I want to make it very clear that it is not the intent of this administration or of the commission to create a hardship for the air transportation industry or to cause inconvenience to the traveling public.''
That inconvenience in 2007 might be loosing one's life on the runway.
According to Public Citizen, "The top nine airlines and their trade association, the Air Transport Association (ATA), spent $62.9 million lobbying the FAA, the executive branch and Congress from 1997-2000."
And they want change?