The Despicable FAA

Email Print

Much has been recently articulated regarding the incompetence
of the FAA, but not much regarding its nefariousness.

With regard to the level of abuse delivered by our
innumerable federal agencies, the FAA has no reason to feel inferior.

I believe a personal experience I had with the FAA
illustrates this well.

About ten years ago, I decided to combine two of my
favorite passions, aviation and photography, into a money-making
venture. I decided to take photos of homes, focussing on areas with
a high concentration of half-million-dollar-plus homes in order
to minimize flight time.

I chose a medium format camera to maximize clarity,
and deciding on the Pentax 6 x 7 over a Hasselblad or Mamiya was
easy — it was much easier to handle (its shape is similar to a typical
35 mm SLR), its 400 mm lens had the lowest f-stop (f4 vs. f5.6),
it had the fastest speed (1/1000 vs. 1/400 sec.), it produced the
largest image size (6 x 7 cm.), and it even costs less (far less
than the Hasselblad).

I flew a Cessna 172 because I wanted a high wing,
which would allow me to photograph ground-based objects without
wing obstruction. It took a little while to work through a procedure,
and get used to the ten-pound camera body and lens, but I soon found
a methodology that seemed to work well.

Once at the site, and at 1000 feet AGL (Above Ground
Level — this elevation is the minimum over a populous area), I would
trim the plane for level flight at a thirty degree banking right
turn. Once this was accomplished, my hands would be free to take

I was easily able to reach the passenger window to
open it, and the air stream was such that once opened, the window
would remain forced against the starboard wing.

I would make occasional adjustments in flight attitude
to get my subject lined up with the open window, or to avoid other
planes (of which there were usually none) — my circling pattern
was also perfect for minding other planes.

Since I was the pilot, the photographer, and the developer,
my first survey produced a profit.

One afternoon I decided to take a long lunch and get
some shots in at The Woodlands, a suburb north of Houston. I was
able to get to the airport, fly from Clear Lake to The Woodlands
(about fifty miles away), shoot four rolls of film, return, and
get back to my desk in two hours.

I was very pleased with myself.

But only minutes after returning to my desk, I received
a phone call. It was an FAA investigator.

The bemused voice said, "Hey, I heard you were
flying at two-hundred feet over The Woodlands!" I'm sure the
patent absurdity of the complaint was intended to put me at ease
— it did. I laughed, and said, "Yeah, I must have been clipping
the branches out there!" I told him what I was doing, and we
continued a friendly conversation. I assured him I was at least
1000 feet AGL, and then assumed the issue was over.

Well, a few weeks later I received another phone call
from the FAA — apparently, someone took a video of my plane as it
was circling. I could just imagine the suburbanite, who obviously
didn't have enough to do: "Martha, just what's that whippersnapper

I told the investigator that, of course, a home video
cannot prove anything because videocams zoom, that is, they have
variable magnification. With no knowledge, record, or proof of the
magnification, there's no way to ascertain elevation.

I also told him that since I was using a telephoto
lens with fixed magnification, the scores of photos I had taken,
in combination with a little high school trigonometry, would prove
that I was flying at no less than 1000 feet.

He informed me that he would arrange a meeting at
the Hobby Airport office — no big deal, just an informal get-together.
He asked if I had an attorney. I told him I didn't, but that I would
get one.

To my extreme good fortune, when I renewed my Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) dues only a few weeks before,
I decided, for the first time, to opt for the legal representation

I called AOPA, and they assigned a local attorney
that specializes in this type of representation. In addition to
being an attorney from a top law school, he was also an Airline
Transport Pilot (ATP — the highest commercial aviation rating).

What I didn't know at the time is that in addition
to being an attorney and an ATP, he was an ordained minister of
a church organization with which I had long been familiar. I didn't
discover his other vocation until I ran into him at a church function
months after the legal matter had been "resolved."

I had always admired this particular organization;
but what is interesting in this context is that this group is particularly
pacifist, passive, and respectful of Caesar's law.

In light of my attorney's unimpeachable integrity
and qualifications, I found what he told me particularly interesting.

He had always told his clients to be up-front and
fully cooperate with the FAA as an act of "good faith."
But, he told me, it had become quite obvious that the FAA now maintained
an adversarial relationship with general aviation.

He was still involved with a case which I believe
changed the way he thought of the FAA for good.

He was representing a man who was both a pilot and
flight mechanic. Initially, the FAA was cordial, and asked if they
could see his records. My attorney advised him that if he had nothing
to hide, to do so. His client complied. As time went on, the FAA
agents' attitudes became increasingly adversarial, the FBI was brought
in to question him, followed by threats to seize his property, after
which they shut down his shop.

I could see the sorrow and helplessness in his eyes
as he recounted the bizarre and nightmarish details.

And here's the corker: they never told the poor
gent why they were investigating him.

I think most folks never really believe that
a government agency would blatantly do illegal or tyrannical things
to ruin an innocent person's life — until it happens to them. The
vast balance of law-abiding citizens assume that where there's smoke,
there's fire.

Nevertheless, this story put the fear of God in me.

My attorney informed me that every pilot has a once-in-a-lifetime
"pass" for dealing with the FAA. Under certain circumstances,
if the FAA accuses a pilot of wrongdoing, he can take the pass —
a "Get out of Jail Free" card, if you will — and the FAA
will absolve the pilot of his sins. I thought this rather odd, but
I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

My attorney advised me not to go this route, since
I had done nothing wrong, but it was nice to know I had the option
as a last resort.

So, the time of the meeting came, and it was indeed
informal, and I presented my evidence.

They were not at all interested. It wasn't that they
were unimpressed with the evidence, they simply didn't examine it.

I was beginning to "get it" — no matter
what evidence I presented to them, they intended to press charges.

It didn't matter that I had done nothing wrong. It
didn't even matter that they knew I had done nothing wrong.

The message was loud and clear — if we get any
more calls we'll take away your license.

I had a certain amount of time to make a decision,
and claim the pass. My disappointed attorney advised me to take
it, and from what I witnessed at the meeting that was the smartest
thing to do. If I went to court, and lost, it could very likely
mean permanently losing my license. I wasn't willing to risk that
— especially since I didn't know to what kind of kangaroo court
I would be exposed.

So, that ended that little business venture.

Not long afterward I was able to witness the more
dim-witted aspects of the FAA and its parent organization, the Department
of Transportation (DOT). I don't remember the catalyst, but due
to "concerns" about airspace control, a "blue ribbon"
panel was authorized under then-DOT Secretary Liddy Dole.

One of the things that they "discovered"
was that over-worked flight controllers were a factor in flight

So what did these geniuses do? They dramatically increased
the volume of controlled airspace! What a perfect analogue to Imperial

Aside from the disreputable and daft aspects of the
FAA, they are like any other government agency — they have to bend
to inane political pressures that all but prohibit them from doing
what's in the best interest of those whom they ostensibly serve.

A competent private security agency hired to protect
its clients is a lot less likely to allow the multicultural zeitgeist
(re: profiling) or the anti-gun lobby (re: pilots carrying guns)
to cloud their judgment — they will simply do what it takes to get
the job done (or be fired), and of course, they'll do it far more

all airport security is not the solution, and I can't think of a
better candidate for privatization than the FAA.

18, 2001

Dunaway [send him
] is a chemical engineer and a native Texan.

Email Print