by
Darryl Phillips
As Congress debates that question, the bureaucrats who actually run agencies such as the FAA already have their answer. They need programs such as Microwave Landing System, Mode S, new Long Range Radar, and all the rest. They can't expand their empires by cutting programs. Their answer is to spend more, which means tax more. New annual aircraft registration fees of hundreds of dollars per plane, higher fuel taxes, and whatever else they can dream up. And if they can't tax enough, then they charge the rest to our grandkids.
When you try to pin these Civil Servants down on why they cannot cut spending, there are several stock answers. Let's look into each, and see what the implications are for general aviation.
First, the FAA tells us that many of the programs are required by international treaty. OK, but what does that mean? When ICAO and other international organizations make an agreement, every member gets a vote. Afganistan, Albania, right on down the alphabet to Zaire and Zimbabwe and whatever comes after that. Everyone gets a vote. That sounds fair. Even the USA gets a vote. Problem is, most of those countries have no general aviation. Many are dictatorships where freedom is curtailed. Flying is one of the purest freedoms, so it is not allowed.
The net effect is this: Dictators and despots on the other side of the earth are able to set policies and equipment requirements which limit the freedom you and I enjoy in the United States of America.
And we put up with it, that's the sad part. MLS isn't wanted by the airlines, or General Aviation, or the FAA. It isn't even wanted by the military. But MLS is required by international treaty.
Currently there is a move afoot to require replacement of our present ELTs. Rather than the present cost of about $250, the new 406 MHZ emergency locators will cost over $2000. International treaty again. There is some technical merit to the new frequency, but the operational problems with the old ELTs are mostly hardware problems, little will be improved by changing the frequency. False alarms will still be false alarms, which represent some 98% of all ELT signals. And we lose the ability to listen for downed aircraft on 121.5, so the net result is lower safety. But we got one vote, right along with Uganda and Uruguay.
So the FAA argument that this money must be spent to satisfy international agreement is phoney. It can be overcome if we simply withdraw from compliance with the ICAO.
What is the AOPA and EAA position on this? Darned if I know, both are strangely silent on international interference into our domestic freedoms. This is a matter for the Congress, and AOPA should be leading the fight to keep America number one in aviation, not reduced to one lone vote.
The second reason FAA gives for all this spending and bureau-building is the growth in air traffic. Imagine that! The number of active aircraft in the United States declines year after year. We are slowly cannibalizing old and damaged planes to keep the others alive, we are building almost nothing, we are exporting more good birds than we are bringing in, and the skies are getting crowded? Tell that to Braniff, Eastern, PanAm, or the many other carriers no longer with us. Explain to me again, FAA, how those endless rows of airliners parked in the sand at Mojave are contributing to the growing air traffic. There are even brand new 747s sitting in that desert with only ferry time in their logs. No, the growth at FAA isn't needed because of traffic.
The third reason FAA gives for the tremendous expenditures is that it would cost as much to terminate a contract as it would to complete the program. Perhaps this is true. But when a contract is ended the cost overruns stop, which can be a 90% saving right there. The reason these programs keep stretching and growing has to do with the difference between technology and bureaucracy.
Technology is moving fast, and getting faster. Computer speed doubles every three years! As technology moves faster, bureaucracy moves slower. No examples need be cited, every reader understands that the "system" is becoming less able to act. Response time is increasing, common sense is less common, things seem to be grinding ever more slowly.
Once upon a time, the FAA could design a system, order the hardware, take delivery and install it within a three year timespan. It all made sense, the equipment was still close to state of the art. But now it takes a quarter century between inception and installation. If you doubt that statement, consider the case of Mode S. It was dreamed up in the late 1960s, and designed in the 1970s. Final specifications were signed in 1983. It's now 1993 and counting, fully a quarter century. And they can't turn Mode S on when it's installed either, it may take another decade of software debugging. Even if it worked the first time the switch was flipped, the technology is laughingly out of date. Suppose the Hi-Fi Stereo you ordered in 1968 was just now being delivered to your home. Where would you purchase those 33 RPM records anymore?
It's not just Mode S. How many years have we been hearing about MLS? Have you seen one yet? The people who design and administer these systems just don't understand that technology doesn't stand still. Like quail hunting, you have to move quick or forget it.
Any agency that manages thousands of millions of dollars must either find a way to speed things up, or admit they can't and quit spending the money.
Since they show no ability to do either, it's up to us. Each person who owns or flies an aircraft has better knowledge than those FAA bureaucrats. We must keep after our lawmakers, keep contacting them, keep writing and calling and faxing and visiting their local offices. Visit them in Washington when you can, too. Keep it up.
Right now, the budget battle is underway. Tax more versus spend less. This is the moment we must make our views known.
Here are some tips for effective lobbying. First, keep it short. Don't try to put your position on medical care and farm subsidies and gun control into the same letter. Write a few short paragraphs on ONE TOPIC. Limit it to one side of one page.
Second, don't use form letters, write your own. Be sure your name, address, and phone number are plainly seen. If you need the proper address of your representatives, call your library.
Third, if your handwriting is legible at all, write it by hand. Or even print it. It shows that you care. Otherwise, use your typewriter or word processor, but don't impress them with your latest laser printer. Use something that doesn't look so slick. Remember that you want to appear to be a constituent, not a lobbyist.
Don't threaten. Don't waste space on who you voted for last time or why you won't vote for him next time. That doesn't matter, the specialized knowledge you possess matters a lot. Your years or decades as a pilot and aircraft owner give you special status. Use that strength.
The opposite side of that coin is just as important, never beg. Here are the facts, here is the only (or best) solution, and here is why. On one side of one page. You say it won't fit? Great, write again tomorrow. Cover the next point then. Keep it up.
Be sure to ask for his vote! Don't be a salesman forgetting to ask for the sale. It is critical that you ask him to vote in favor of your position.
If possible, include a local angle. Perhaps a dollar angle that relates to local people, or local jobs, or the local airport.
For example, the 3.9 Billion dollars AOPA wants to cut from FAA programs is one of those Washington Madness numbers. Nobody understands what 3.9 Billion is. But divided by the 180,000 active general aviation aircraft in this country, each one has a share of $21,667. That isn't the cost of the FAA, that's only the tiny part of FAA spending that AOPA is trying to cut. I cannot afford an extra $21,667, can you? Numbers like that are understandable, even to a Congressman.
Personally, I make it a point to never mention taxes. Everyone complains about taxes, so I try to make my letters different. In some cases, increased spending results in lower safety. Or loss of jobs. Or some other negative result. I make those connections, in the hope that lower spending may save tax money.
Friends, this is not a mission impossible. We have credibility. We have status. We can impress Congress with our position. But we don't have so many pilots that you can let the others carry your share. And we don't have much time. Each and every pilot must get busy. Now.
If you feel that more spending is the answer, say so. If you have particular programs that you'd like to see eliminated, name them. If you need facts or figures to bolster your arguments, call AOPA or EAA, that is the support you've been paying for.
We don't lose our freedoms in some foreign land, we lose them in our Capitol. If you believe in fighting for freedom, Washington is where it's happening.