Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Airlines Can't Hire Ex-FAA Inspectors for 2 Years
WASHINGTON (AP) — Safety inspectors will be barred for two years after leaving the Federal Aviation Administration from going to work for an airline they oversaw under a new rule intended to prevent ethics abuses. The FAA said Friday the rule responds to concerns raised in 2008 by Congress and the Transportation Department's inspector general that managers in the safety office that oversees Southwest Airlines allowed planes to make nearly 60,000 flights without required safety inspections.… (www.nytimes.com) Altro...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I personally think it ought to apply to ALL federal employess having oversight or relationships. What about all the TAX remediation companies advertising about former IRS agents and how many thousands of dollars they can save some tax cheat. How about the people they are trying to sell their services to. Why hasn't the IRS got to them long before and done something if they are that far behind.Just sayin'
This will not stand or a way around it will be found particularly for those that are retiring after a relatively long service.
The problem is less likely to be cronyism but corporate culture. If the FAA designs certain regulations or directives that must be audited with a time line, it will prevent most of the critical abuses but there is no reason to restrict individuals with exceptional experience and long service from remaining in the industry, particularly when those were not terms of service when they signed on.
The problem is less likely to be cronyism but corporate culture. If the FAA designs certain regulations or directives that must be audited with a time line, it will prevent most of the critical abuses but there is no reason to restrict individuals with exceptional experience and long service from remaining in the industry, particularly when those were not terms of service when they signed on.
The courts have ruled time and time again that you can not prevent someone from making a living. Just like a "Can Not Compete" contract many businesses used to try to use. I don't see this rule lasting for long.
Two years is nothing...it should be permanently. Look at your supplemental carriers. There are blatent violations that are overlooked on a regular basis AND these aircraft are allowed to fly in the same airspace that legitimate carriers fly in. Perfect example: Look at the "carriers" based at KYIP in Detroit. A recent finding found so much corrosion during the inspection of a DC-9 owned by one of these KYIP carriers that a Boeing rep told the FAA that the tail should have fallen off and told the Fed that the corrosion found had definitely been overlooked during previous inspections. This type of thing couldn't have happened without bold confidence by the carrier that the overseeing FAA Office was onboard in looking the other way. Much more vigilence must be carried out to make sure that a "special" relationship does not develop between carriers and their POIs and PMIs. There are MANY things going on...investigations that are started by the DOT never are completed because "evidence" disappears or witnesses are afraid for their jobs. These planes fly over populated areas all over the U.S. and, not to mention, our precious airspace. I guess the only time someone will really look into these things is after a tragic incident or accident occurs; then CNN will be there asking questions that should have been asked years ago. Very sad.
FAA Bans ex-FAA Aircraft Safety Inspector Hires
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52231-52237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21315]
http://cryptome.org/0005/faa082211.htm
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52231-52237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21315]
http://cryptome.org/0005/faa082211.htm
I guess the obvious conflict of interest is not enough to write about.... over half the article focuses on icing requirements for regional carriers... NY Times at it's best.
