Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdponx | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that airline industry people are actually also the most qualified (on paper) to run the FAA.

Are they? Wouldn't a career FAA employee be a better choice?

No, the heads of federal agencies are usually external so they can be held accountable for fuckups independently of the agencies’ cultures.

No, the heads of federal agencies are external because they're political appointees. High profile jobs go to donors and those who have supported the politician in charge of the appointment.

*Some federal appointees. The head of FAA under Trump was Stephen Dickson, who was an F-15 fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, then a pilot for 27 years at Delta Airlines before becoming Vice President of flight operations [1].

The current head under Biden is Billy Nolen, a former pilot who flew the Boeing 757 and 767 and worked as an airline executive for years before joining the FAA [2].

By credentials, these two are definitely qualified.

1- https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/pr...

2- https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30600-safety-professional...

I think the original point being made was that having such extensive airline industry experience actually makes you unqualified to lead the FAA. For instance, Dickson, through his position at Delta, has likely developed strong ties to counterparts at Boeing. This made him unable to adequately address the safety issues of the 737 MAX.

My follow-up point was that experience in regulating airlines is more important than experience running an airline when it comes to leading the FAA. However, those who regulate airlines as a career are unlikely to be big political donors, so they're unlikely to be chosen to lead the FAA.

dickson also oversaw the illegal grounding of a pilot who was reporting safety issues at delta. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/delta...

A career FAA employee would be like having an astronomer dictate how to land a shuttle on a moon.

Career fed employees are always, lacking the real world knowledge to make sound decisions.

What's real world knowledge?

Part of said "real world knowledge" is regulatory capture in this case, which a well compensated career civil servant wouldn't be so beholden to.

It's knowledge you get by actually working in the field rather than reading about it in reports and white papers. It has value, it's not everything, but it is important. What actually needs to be in place are independent auditors who aren't linked to the industry and can't profit from it to review the decisions of these agencies and have full access to all data, including engineers who say "yo this is a bad idea". I have been that engineer a few times with mixed results, sometimes people listen, sometimes they don't. Never on the level of the FAA/Boeing fiasco but still it does happen all the time, everyday. That's why rules to prevent fraternizing between agencies like the FAA and Boeing are important. It's a lot harder to be tough on friend/colleague than it is someone who you don't know and are auditing.

The FAA works in the field.

The FAA makes planes?

The _entire issue_ is capture of those who regulate making planes by those making planes. Disallowing transition from one to the other seems like a good idea.

Delta makes planes?

So experience? Why call it real world knowledge instead of that?

It implies that education isn't real and therefore of no value

They have a conflict of interest, which makes them unqualified for public service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com