Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And she would once again be guided by her husband Mitch McConnell on who to give those contracts to....

What in tarnation does this have to do with potential nominees to run FAA?

Chao was the head of Transportation so she obviously knows every minute detail about FAA, right? Also, she is Republican and no Republican would dare vote against their own.

IPFreely wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Anyone Biden nominates will be opposed by Republicans. Republicans only seem to favor those who will dismantle as much of government as possible.

Washington did NOT fail because of Republican opposition. Democrats control a majority in the Senate and can confirm anyone they want with no Republican support. He failed because he was so unqualified that he had bipartisan opposition to his nomination.

Well, not quite. Democrats hold 51 seats. A majority but is it a majority to confirm a nominee? Worst case scenario with legislation, there is a 50-50 tie and VP Kamala Harris has to cast the deciding vote. But for heads of departments? Judges?

IPFreely wrote:

Is handing out no-bid contracts to buddies enough to disqualify a candidate for this post?

Apparently not. Not one Republican cared when Chao was head of Transportation with an obvious conflict of interest. Not one Republican cared that Justice Thomas has a clear conflict of interest or Justice Kavanaugh has a clear conflict of interest or any of the hundreds of Republicans seated in positions of power of conflicts of interest. Even those who have zero background in their appointed chairs. It didn't matter then, why does it matter now?

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And she would once again be guided by her husband Mitch McConnell on who to give those contracts to....

What in tarnation does this have to do with potential nominees to run FAA?

Chao was the head of Transportation so she obviously knows every minute detail about FAA, right? Also, she is Republican and no Republican would dare vote against their own.

My question was in regard to McConnell/contracts having zero connection to FAA.

And it’s highly unlikely DoT sec is intimately familiar with FAA.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What in tarnation does this have to do with potential nominees to run FAA?

Chao was the head of Transportation so she obviously knows every minute detail about FAA, right? Also, she is Republican and no Republican would dare vote against their own.

My question was in regard to McConnell/contracts having zero connection to FAA.

And it’s highly unlikely DoT sec is intimately familiar with FAA.

They better be! Transportation and aviation?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/1 ... cky-086343
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... vers-major
https://www.businessinsider.com/elaine- ... ort-2019-6

seb146 wrote:

Well, not quite. Democrats hold 51 seats. A majority but is it a majority to confirm a nominee? Worst case scenario with legislation, there is a 50-50 tie and VP Kamala Harris has to cast the deciding vote. But for heads of departments? Judges?

Yes. quite -- 51 votes is a majority. And a simple majority is all that is required for department head nominees.

You're entitled to make up your own opinion but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.
Fact #1: Democrats have enough votes to confirm any nominee they want.
Fact #2: It was opposition from two (or more) Democrats who stopped Phil Washington from being confirmed.

I guess this needs to be asked again:

How does a person who ran a successful international airport not qualify for the head of FAA but a banker and person on the board of a non-profit qualify to be head of transportation in America?

seb146 wrote:

I guess this needs to be asked again:

How does a person who ran a successful international airport not qualify for the head of FAA but a banker and person on the board of a non-profit qualify to be head of transportation in America?

Airport CEOs are primarily concerned with marketing and revenue management. Quite different focus from operations and policy at FAA.

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I guess this needs to be asked again:

How does a person who ran a successful international airport not qualify for the head of FAA but a banker and person on the board of a non-profit qualify to be head of transportation in America?

Airport CEOs are primarily concerned with marketing and revenue management. Quite different focus from operations and policy at FAA.

Right. If he needs someone who knows something he does not (noise abatement, environmental concerns, concrete strength for a fully loaded 747, etc.) he can hire those people.

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I guess this needs to be asked again:

How does a person who ran a successful international airport not qualify for the head of FAA but a banker and person on the board of a non-profit qualify to be head of transportation in America?

Airport CEOs are primarily concerned with marketing and revenue management. Quite different focus from operations and policy at FAA.

Right. If he needs someone who knows something he does not (noise abatement, environmental concerns, concrete strength for a fully loaded 747, etc.) he can hire those people.

Wrong again, all that knowledge is already walking around in the halls of FAA.

Mr. Washington assumed the role of the CEO of DIA on July 19, 2021. He was nominated by President Biden on July 6, 2022. This equates to formidable 352 days of aviation experience at the time of nomination.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

I wouldn't take Buttigieg's opinion seriously. He was the mayor of South Bend, a city in Indiana that has about one road in the middle of nothing. The current Secretary of Transportation has zero experience but opines on matters he knows nothing about. Sound modern and very familiar.

Kinda inaccurate description. A couple seconds on Google Maps taught me South Bend has US-31, I-90/80, and KSBN, which is actually home to a TRACON facility.

The roads are Federal facilities which he was not in charge as Mayor, but is now. KSBN is a county airport, not city of South Bend.

Are you suggesting city mayors never liaise with federal and county authorities?

seb146 wrote:

I guess this needs to be asked again:

How does a person who ran a successful international airport not qualify for the head of FAA but a banker and person on the board of a non-profit qualify to be head of transportation in America?

It's not an either/or thing. It's just a question of where they fall on the scale between unqualified and laughably unqualified.

Aaron747 wrote:

Kinda inaccurate description. A couple seconds on Google Maps taught me South Bend has US-31, I-90/80, and KSBN, which is actually home to a TRACON facility.

Seeing it in person gives you a much better idea. And I agree with Bricktop.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kinda inaccurate description. A couple seconds on Google Maps taught me South Bend has US-31, I-90/80, and KSBN, which is actually home to a TRACON facility.

The roads are Federal facilities which he was not in charge as Mayor, but is now. KSBN is a county airport, not city of South Bend.

Are you suggesting city mayors never liaise with federal and county authorities?

You are kidding right? Obviously they liaise, but don't pretend that they have any responsibility for decisions. Unless it's the mayor of a real city, they get a pat on the head and a participation trophy.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

The roads are Federal facilities which he was not in charge as Mayor, but is now. KSBN is a county airport, not city of South Bend.

Are you suggesting city mayors never liaise with federal and county authorities?

You are kidding right? Obviously they liaise, but don't pretend that they have any responsibility for decisions. Unless it's the mayor of a real city, they get a pat on the head and a participation trophy.

Just going for accuracy. You insinuated he had zero knowledge by virtue of 'not being in charge'. He would obviously know how the decisionmaking matrix works and what is involved with coordinated responses and planning.

As of now Phil Washington has been CEO of DIA for 21 months.
So he has and continues to get more and more experience in managing Aviation, Federal, and state interactions, and a fat paycheck.

casinterest wrote:

As of now Phil Washington has been CEO of DIA for 21 months.

Nice try. At the time he was nominated he had less than one year of experience. Laughable.

BEG2IAH wrote:

casinterest wrote:

As of now Phil Washington has been CEO of DIA for 21 months.

Nice try. At the time he was nominated he had less than one year of experience. Laughable.

I see you still don't look at all of his other credentials in the industry and other events. Just trying to bully up a guys record to cover for the politcal play by Ted Cruz and his unamerican cohorts.

BEG2IAH wrote:

casinterest wrote:

As of now Phil Washington has been CEO of DIA for 21 months.

Nice try. At the time he was nominated he had less than one year of experience. Laughable.

Worked as the head of an airport for almost 2 years is less than 1 year experience? Don't even consider the time he helped with Denver and Los Angeles transit? And military service? So, in total, 20 years is less than one year?

I think instead of arguing over Washington's credentials, it might be more productive to debate whether the Biden administration was justified in bringing in an "outsider". Who would objectively address the issues faced by the FAA, as a professional administrator, without established allegiances.

I believe that was their intent. There were groups, including the MAX accident families, who thought this was needed, and that the FAA had not been objective about either it's own role, or that of Boeing.

Obviously that strategy has strengths and weaknesses, which are open to debate. Trying to trash the guy for lack of ties to the industry, is kind of pointless if his objectivity was the goal.

Especially since the Biden administration must now make another nomination. Should they continue to follow the outsider strategy, or should they look for more of an industry insider now? That is the real issue at hand.

I think it is not assured that an insider would excel, nor is it assured that an outsider would fail. The issue is more complex than that. But it is a valid topic of debate.

Avatar2go wrote:

Obviously that strategy has strengths and weaknesses, which are open to debate. Trying to trash the guy for lack of ties to the industry, is kind of pointless if his objectivity was the goal.

Well its politics, so it has to be about the messenger not the message (Biden) for the democrats and for the republicans it about the message (Biden) and not the messenger (Washington).
The democrats cannot or will not criticize the administration for reacting perhaps emotionally especially when within the USA the resources are slim, if they were plentiful the FAA would not have easily accepted or went along with the outsourcing of FAA responsibilities as that came with additional funding for new toys.
The republicans on the other hand are just as obstinate in their push back against all things democrat and big government, so since neither is going to throw blows at their leaders, the folks who offer up themselves for public service are cannon fodder. Funny thing, decades ago folks offered themselves because of belief's, now that the public sector pays as well as or more than private......

Avatar2go wrote:

I think instead of arguing over Washington's credentials, it might be more productive to debate whether the Biden administration was justified in bringing in an "outsider". Who would objectively address the issues faced by the FAA, as a professional administrator, without established allegiances.

I believe that was their intent. There were groups, including the MAX accident families, who thought this was needed, and that the FAA had not been objective about either it's own role, or that of Boeing.

Obviously that strategy has strengths and weaknesses, which are open to debate. Trying to trash the guy for lack of ties to the industry, is kind of pointless if his objectivity was the goal.

Especially since the Biden administration must now make another nomination. Should they continue to follow the outsider strategy, or should they look for more of an industry insider now? That is the real issue at hand.

I think it is not assured that an insider would excel, nor is it assured that an outsider would fail. The issue is more complex than that. But it is a valid topic of debate.

It's as valid a topic as to whether there is too much authority within the FAA for all issues associated and taked there. However now Ted Cruz wants to push the defacto head of the FAA as a leader.
However this is a person that comes from within the airline industry. One of the strongest criticisms coming out of the 737 debacle is that the FAA is far too Cozy with the whole Aviation portion of the industry. The 737 Max and the recent near collisions indicate that perhaps some outside objectivity and leadership is warranted.

Billy Nolen may be just as good a leader, or even better than Phil Washington when it comes to Aviation related items, but in terms of organizational efficiency and working with Federal,. State, and Local officials as well as with the private industries, will he have that record?

I think Ted Cruz though has tainted the process, and rather set up the Government for failure, as he is pushing for the private industry to self regulate itself, which is never a good thing.

Billy Nolen seems to have continued the safety culture path set by Steve Dickson, in terms of strengthening the power of regulatory review at the FAA. To the point where it's now taking a long time for certification approvals.

I don't think Nolen would reverse that because of Ted Cruz. Nor do I think Congress is going to tolerate resumption of a push against aviation regulation, at least for awhile.

Rather I suspect Cruz held up Nolen as a foil to Washington, as they are both persons of color, who would bring equal diversity.

I think Nolen would be a valid candidate and would do a good job. Like I said, performance is not solely an issue of insider/outsider. But that doesn't mean an outsider couldn't do equally as well. We'll have to see who gets nominated.

Avatar2go wrote:

Billy Nolen seems to have continued the safety culture path set by Steve Dickson, in terms of strengthening the power of regulatory review at the FAA. To the point where it's now taking a long time for certification approvals.

I don't think Nolen would reverse that because of Ted Cruz. Nor do I think Congress is going to tolerate resumption of a push against aviation regulation, at least for awhile.

Rather I suspect Cruz held up Nolen as a foil to Washington, as they are both persons of color, who would bring equal diversity.

I think Nolen would be a valid candidate and would do a good job. Like I said, performance is not solely an issue of insider/outsider. But that doesn't mean an outsider couldn't do equally as well. We'll have to see who gets nominated.

But we can see now that Cruz is trying to tank Nolen's aspirations as he just wants to score political points rather than properly vet anyone. The Biden administration will probably not nominate Nolen.

casinterest wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Billy Nolen seems to have continued the safety culture path set by Steve Dickson, in terms of strengthening the power of regulatory review at the FAA. To the point where it's now taking a long time for certification approvals.

I don't think Nolen would reverse that because of Ted Cruz. Nor do I think Congress is going to tolerate resumption of a push against aviation regulation, at least for awhile.

Rather I suspect Cruz held up Nolen as a foil to Washington, as they are both persons of color, who would bring equal diversity.

I think Nolen would be a valid candidate and would do a good job. Like I said, performance is not solely an issue of insider/outsider. But that doesn't mean an outsider couldn't do equally as well. We'll have to see who gets nominated.

But we can see now that Cruz is trying to tank Nolen's aspirations as he just wants to score political points rather than properly vet anyone. The Biden administration will probably not nominate Nolen.

I think Biden should nominate Nolen.

After what Cruz has said it is hard to see how Nolen would not be approves.

If Cruz blocks him then the Democrats really need to push on that.

bennett123 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Billy Nolen seems to have continued the safety culture path set by Steve Dickson, in terms of strengthening the power of regulatory review at the FAA. To the point where it's now taking a long time for certification approvals.

I don't think Nolen would reverse that because of Ted Cruz. Nor do I think Congress is going to tolerate resumption of a push against aviation regulation, at least for awhile.

Rather I suspect Cruz held up Nolen as a foil to Washington, as they are both persons of color, who would bring equal diversity.

I think Nolen would be a valid candidate and would do a good job. Like I said, performance is not solely an issue of insider/outsider. But that doesn't mean an outsider couldn't do equally as well. We'll have to see who gets nominated.

But we can see now that Cruz is trying to tank Nolen's aspirations as he just wants to score political points rather than properly vet anyone. The Biden administration will probably not nominate Nolen.

I think Biden should nominate Nolen.

After what Cruz has said it is hard to see how Nolen would not be approves.

If Cruz blocks him then the Democrats really need to push on that.

We will see, but Nolen was no nominated for some reason to start with even though Buttigeg had no issues appointing him as interm director. Wonder if there is something they are worried about in vetting.

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But we can see now that Cruz is trying to tank Nolen's aspirations as he just wants to score political points rather than properly vet anyone. The Biden administration will probably not nominate Nolen.

I think Biden should nominate Nolen.

After what Cruz has said it is hard to see how Nolen would not be approves.

If Cruz blocks him then the Democrats really need to push on that.

We will see, but Nolen was no nominated for some reason to start with even though Buttigeg had no issues appointing him as interm director. Wonder if there is something they are worried about in vetting.

Vetting? Why worry about vetting? Republicans don't care, obviously, so why even bring it up?

seb146 wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

casinterest wrote:

As of now Phil Washington has been CEO of DIA for 21 months.

Nice try. At the time he was nominated he had less than one year of experience. Laughable.

Worked as the head of an airport for almost 2 years is less than 1 year experience?

Did you notice the part where I wrote "At the time he was nominated"? Why are you trolling?

seb146 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

I think Biden should nominate Nolen.

After what Cruz has said it is hard to see how Nolen would not be approves.

If Cruz blocks him then the Democrats really need to push on that.

We will see, but Nolen was no nominated for some reason to start with even though Buttigeg had no issues appointing him as interm director. Wonder if there is something they are worried about in vetting.

Vetting? Why worry about vetting? Republicans don't care, obviously, so why even bring it up?

If there was, would he be interim director?.

MaverickM11 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Yonderlust wrote:

Biden announced this week that equity (parity of outcome instead of equality, parity of access) was the primary goal of all the agencies this year, so it's a fair question given that the literal President said it is now a top priority of his admin.

The agenda of the opposing party is always on display by both parties, so what? It's to oppose & push back. That is the American system. A contentious, do-nothing federal government is the ideal. Consensus would get us more bloat & unelected bureaucratic control.

The dude seemed totally out of sorts & not very astute, bright or knowledgeable. Constantly saying "thank you for the question" is pathetic. Just answer the damn question or simply say "I don't know" instead of being an adult kiss ass with every response. Jesus Christ, this guy acted like he was at country club interview.

All the nasty name calling seems to come from one side, though. Yes, each side shows their agenda. That will always happen. But, it is the way each side's agenda is presented.

If you watch any hearings at all, the subject will always say "thank you for the question" or something similar. I suspect it is a show of respect of being called to testify before committee. Acknowledging the importance of the moment. There are a number of things like this that happen both on the floor of the House, Senate, and in committee hearings. The subject can not simply go on pointless tangents, ranting and raving about nothing in particular. This is a job interview. He is showing who he is to, not only the Senate committee tasked with hiring, but the American people.

The GOP is pathologically opposed to civil rights and that informs everything they do. Not that it matters to them, but there were a heck of a lot more crashes when the cockpit was almost exclusively white and male. Improvements in safety and increased diversity in the industry have moved in lock step. Makes you think.

Cockpit is still predominantly Caucasian and male, technological advances have made air travel safer, not diversity hiring. However getting a qualified diverse pool of pilots is never a bad thing.

Now to get away from the race bating.


I can’t comprehend how someone that is to run the FAA would not know a basic question such as the one about airspace and ADS-B. That is not a challenging question nor getting into minute details like Alaska Airspace rules and regs.

I don’t think the AOA sensor question is necessarily a bad one either, however I don’t think Ted Cruz would know the answer to the second half of the question especially since it has changed from when the Max came out vs the Max today.

bourbon wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

All the nasty name calling seems to come from one side, though. Yes, each side shows their agenda. That will always happen. But, it is the way each side's agenda is presented.

If you watch any hearings at all, the subject will always say "thank you for the question" or something similar. I suspect it is a show of respect of being called to testify before committee. Acknowledging the importance of the moment. There are a number of things like this that happen both on the floor of the House, Senate, and in committee hearings. The subject can not simply go on pointless tangents, ranting and raving about nothing in particular. This is a job interview. He is showing who he is to, not only the Senate committee tasked with hiring, but the American people.

The GOP is pathologically opposed to civil rights and that informs everything they do. Not that it matters to them, but there were a heck of a lot more crashes when the cockpit was almost exclusively white and male. Improvements in safety and increased diversity in the industry have moved in lock step. Makes you think.

Cockpit is still predominantly Caucasian and male, technological advances have made air travel safer, not diversity hiring. However getting a qualified diverse pool of pilots is never a bad thing.

Now to get away from the race bating.


I can’t comprehend how someone that is to run the FAA would not know a basic question such as the one about airspace and ADS-B. That is not a challenging question nor getting into minute details like Alaska Airspace rules and regs.

I don’t think the AOA sensor question is necessarily a bad one either, however I don’t think Ted Cruz would know the answer to the second half of the question especially since it has changed from when the Max came out vs the Max today.

Didn't Republicans want government run more like business? This man, as CEO, would be doing that. Why, then, did Republicans object?

bourbon wrote:

.
I can’t comprehend how someone that is to run the FAA would not know a basic question such as the one about airspace and ADS-B. That is not a challenging question nor getting into minute details like Alaska Airspace rules and regs.

I don’t think the AOA sensor question is necessarily a bad one either, however I don’t think Ted Cruz would know the answer to the second half of the question especially since it has changed from when the Max came out vs the Max today.

I think what a good hiring manager would understand, is that although most people could not answer those questions off the top of their head, they could answer them accurately with 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Thus it was more of a recall test, than a test of understanding of the management needs of the agency.

Conversely, being able to answer those questions, tells you nothing about their understanding of the agency, or the ability to manage it. It's like giving students multiple choice tests instead of essay. One tests memory, the other tests understanding.

This is why I said in an earlier post, that the confirmation hearings did not inform me whether Washington was or wasn't a good candidate. It was essentially a bad interview.

In another forum, I had a great conversation with a UK military flight instructor. He said he has too many bright students who can answer all the questions, but are quickly overwhelmed in the cockpit when he introduces problems. The issue is not intelligence or knowledge, but rather building a mental model of what the aircraft is doing. That requires a different skill set than memorization.

So he said he now exclusively gives essay or oral exams where he presents problems that require understanding of aircraft systems integration. The students consider him exceedingly tough, compared to the others to whom they are accustomed. But he is helping them far more.

It would have been great for the Senate to ask Washington those types of questions. He might fail them as well, but then at least we would have a valid basis to decide.

seb146 wrote:

bourbon wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

The GOP is pathologically opposed to civil rights and that informs everything they do. Not that it matters to them, but there were a heck of a lot more crashes when the cockpit was almost exclusively white and male. Improvements in safety and increased diversity in the industry have moved in lock step. Makes you think.

Cockpit is still predominantly Caucasian and male, technological advances have made air travel safer, not diversity hiring. However getting a qualified diverse pool of pilots is never a bad thing.

Now to get away from the race bating.


I can’t comprehend how someone that is to run the FAA would not know a basic question such as the one about airspace and ADS-B. That is not a challenging question nor getting into minute details like Alaska Airspace rules and regs.

I don’t think the AOA sensor question is necessarily a bad one either, however I don’t think Ted Cruz would know the answer to the second half of the question especially since it has changed from when the Max came out vs the Max today.

Didn't Republicans want government run more like business? This man, as CEO, would be doing that. Why, then, did Republicans object?

Normally you’d want a CEO with at least some basic knowledge of the industry they are coming in to. ADSB and Airspace Classes is amongst the most basic things to aviation. Would I have expected him to know the RVR MINS for a Cat 3 approach, a CPAP due to sleep apnea causing a Class 1 medical issue, or Boeing Grey paint being called 707 Grey? Absolutely not. I would expect them to have knowledge of NG ATC and what the ADIZ is as well as a MOA though. Same with what are TFR’s crew rest legality times.

bourbon wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bourbon wrote:

Cockpit is still predominantly Caucasian and male, technological advances have made air travel safer, not diversity hiring. However getting a qualified diverse pool of pilots is never a bad thing.

Now to get away from the race bating.


I can’t comprehend how someone that is to run the FAA would not know a basic question such as the one about airspace and ADS-B. That is not a challenging question nor getting into minute details like Alaska Airspace rules and regs.

I don’t think the AOA sensor question is necessarily a bad one either, however I don’t think Ted Cruz would know the answer to the second half of the question especially since it has changed from when the Max came out vs the Max today.

Didn't Republicans want government run more like business? This man, as CEO, would be doing that. Why, then, did Republicans object?

Normally you’d want a CEO with at least some basic knowledge of the industry they are coming in to. ADSB and Airspace Classes is amongst the most basic things to aviation. Would I have expected him to know the RVR MINS for a Cat 3 approach, a CPAP due to sleep apnea causing a Class 1 medical issue, or Boeing Grey paint being called 707 Grey? Absolutely not. I would expect them to have knowledge of NG ATC and what the ADIZ is as well as a MOA though. Same with what are TFR’s crew rest legality times.

Airspace classes and ADSB aren't important to the people that you want to do the Appointed Directorships. At some level they can be trained. Direct managers of those divisions and to some part their superiors will be versed in that knowledge ,but that isn't what is critical to the FAA director. The Director is there to step in at the high level to do the negotation between teams of in hose, and external partners and manage those relations ships . If they were only careing about airline space navigation, then they would be at some point a great mid level manager for those teams .

Much of what happens functionally and tecnincally within companies happens at the engineering and technical support levels. Most managers don't do that. They are there for the people skills of allocating resources, planning projects, and mitigating difficult issues, while placating hot heads.

In my line of business. We usually have two lines of communications for major issues. Management/Sales level, and the technical level. More gets done on the technical level, while the managers deal with hot heads and know it all, but know nothing sales folks or high level managers that just want results. My manager will care that we explain what is going on and how it affects the situation, but they aren't there doing my work. They are doing theirs and trusting that I know how to do mine.

ADSB and Airspace classes is about a 5 minute discussion for a technical manager to have with a high level boss to pass it. "The Planes send a signal, and we can track where they are, and they can see where they are ". Airpsace classes go from :"Have fun" to "Thou shalt not" but those again are more aimed at lower level handling of situations.

For a director, you want a gripper and grinner, and someone that could take lolipops from a baby and make them happy about it, yet also understand when not to proceeed, in order to get things done effeciently and effectively for the FAA and all the businesses they have to work in and around,


I feel the targeted technical questions can be far too broad Does it matter for the FAA that the director know more about tech a,b, or c, or does it matter that they can work hard and effectively to communicate the various departments concerns to the public at large and to partner industry members?

How do you communicate things to the public at large if you don't understand it yourself?.

bennett123 wrote:

How do you communicate things to the public at large if you don't understand it yourself?.

You have press conferences, And prior to that you have meetings/calls with those that know what needs to be conveyed and then you convey it.

What kills me the most is that Mr. Washington didn't bother to spend 9-10 months since he was nominated to learn a thing or two. He probably thought it was a done deal that he will be appointed so why bother. The questions he was asked were not very technical.

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

How do you communicate things to the public at large if you don't understand it yourself?.

You have press conferences, And prior to that you have meetings/calls with those that know what needs to be conveyed and then you convey it.

Surely the Administrator needs to have some understanding of the issues involved.

If not, they are just a mouthpiece.

bennett123 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

How do you communicate things to the public at large if you don't understand it yourself?.

You have press conferences, And prior to that you have meetings/calls with those that know what needs to be conveyed and then you convey it.

Surely the Administrator needs to have some understanding of the issues involved.

If not, they are just a mouthpiece.

The FAA is about infrastucture and safery of all Aviation. Not just about Senator Cruz's Cancun questions. There are Safety documents, Organizational procurements aned management settings that apply more at upper management than whether widget A or B does it.

Do you want the person that has a plan to get the right answer in a reasonable amount of time , or the person that knows everything about ADSB, and plans to learn nothing about whether it is the right solution for the future needs?

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You have press conferences, And prior to that you have meetings/calls with those that know what needs to be conveyed and then you convey it.

Surely the Administrator needs to have some understanding of the issues involved.

If not, they are just a mouthpiece.

The FAA is about infrastucture and safery of all Aviation. Not just about Senator Cruz's Cancun questions. There are Safety documents, Organizational procurements aned management settings that apply more at upper management than whether widget A or B does it.

Do you want the person that has a plan to get the right answer in a reasonable amount of time , or the person that knows everything about ADSB, and plans to learn nothing about whether it is the right solution for the future needs?

If they don’t know a basic thing such as Airspace and ADSB how the hell are they supposed to be able to lead an organization trying to get Nex Gen ATC and increase safety.

If one knows nothing about ADSB, that leads me to believe they know nothing about FAR117 for crew rest, probably has zero inclination as to what a FAR/AIM is nor what “A&P” stands for. These are absolute basics that should be known. This is high level basic knowledge , by no means is it a deep dive into specifics such as RVR mins or what does it mean by class of aircraft on an IFR approach chart. I’m not expecting the administrator to know who all the suppliers are for the ATC facility equipment spare parts when a major facility component fails, I want them to know basic aviation stuff.

bourbon wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Surely the Administrator needs to have some understanding of the issues involved.

If not, they are just a mouthpiece.

The FAA is about infrastucture and safery of all Aviation. Not just about Senator Cruz's Cancun questions. There are Safety documents, Organizational procurements aned management settings that apply more at upper management than whether widget A or B does it.

Do you want the person that has a plan to get the right answer in a reasonable amount of time , or the person that knows everything about ADSB, and plans to learn nothing about whether it is the right solution for the future needs?

If they don’t know a basic thing such as Airspace and ADSB how the hell are they supposed to be able to lead an organization trying to get Nex Gen ATC and increase safety.

If one knows nothing about ADSB, that leads me to believe they know nothing about FAR117 for crew rest, probably has zero inclination as to what a FAR/AIM is nor what “A&P” stands for. These are absolute basics that should be known. This is high level basic knowledge , by no means is it a deep dive into specifics such as RVR mins or what does it mean by class of aircraft on an IFR approach chart. I’m not expecting the administrator to know who all the suppliers are for the ATC facility equipment spare parts when a major facility component fails, I want them to know basic aviation stuff.

Those are questions for the technical folks. If the techical folks can't quicly educate the CEO, then you have issues. Basic Aviation stuff is not the main mission of the director. His is in working with management.

casinterest wrote:

bourbon wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The FAA is about infrastucture and safery of all Aviation. Not just about Senator Cruz's Cancun questions. There are Safety documents, Organizational procurements aned management settings that apply more at upper management than whether widget A or B does it.

Do you want the person that has a plan to get the right answer in a reasonable amount of time , or the person that knows everything about ADSB, and plans to learn nothing about whether it is the right solution for the future needs?

If they don’t know a basic thing such as Airspace and ADSB how the hell are they supposed to be able to lead an organization trying to get Nex Gen ATC and increase safety.

If one knows nothing about ADSB, that leads me to believe they know nothing about FAR117 for crew rest, probably has zero inclination as to what a FAR/AIM is nor what “A&P” stands for. These are absolute basics that should be known. This is high level basic knowledge , by no means is it a deep dive into specifics such as RVR mins or what does it mean by class of aircraft on an IFR approach chart. I’m not expecting the administrator to know who all the suppliers are for the ATC facility equipment spare parts when a major facility component fails, I want them to know basic aviation stuff.

Those are questions for the technical folks. If the techical folks can't quicly educate the CEO, then you have issues. Basic Aviation stuff is not the main mission of the director. His is in working with management.

ADS-B implementation was one of the biggest things the FAA has rolled out in decades. I’m sorry, not even knowing basic airspace requirements is a disqualifier. It is the most simple basic knowledge, how can you get respect from management if you know absolutely nothing?

bourbon wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bourbon wrote:

If they don’t know a basic thing such as Airspace and ADSB how the hell are they supposed to be able to lead an organization trying to get Nex Gen ATC and increase safety.

If one knows nothing about ADSB, that leads me to believe they know nothing about FAR117 for crew rest, probably has zero inclination as to what a FAR/AIM is nor what “A&P” stands for. These are absolute basics that should be known. This is high level basic knowledge , by no means is it a deep dive into specifics such as RVR mins or what does it mean by class of aircraft on an IFR approach chart. I’m not expecting the administrator to know who all the suppliers are for the ATC facility equipment spare parts when a major facility component fails, I want them to know basic aviation stuff.

Those are questions for the technical folks. If the techical folks can't quicly educate the CEO, then you have issues. Basic Aviation stuff is not the main mission of the director. His is in working with management.

ADS-B implementation was one of the biggest things the FAA has rolled out in decades. I’m sorry, not even knowing basic airspace requirements is a disqualifier. It is the most simple basic knowledge, how can you get respect from management if you know absolutely nothing?

He is an outsider, not an insider. And he is management. ADS-B is about 2 minutes of power slides for the technical side.