MARTHA, MARTHA, MARTHA, SAY I T AIN’T SO!

Flying - - INBOX - Bill Castlen Dothan, Alabama

I so en­joy Martha Lunken’s ir­rev­er­ent sto­ries of past fly­ing es­capades. I can re­late to many, and they con­sis­tently bring a smile to my face. But I was dis­ap­pointed in your cri­tique, Martha, of the FAASTeam [“Is the FAA Pulling a Fast One?” Oc­to­ber]. Not so much for what you said, but what you left out. You used about two-thirds of your ar­ti­cle to chas­tise the FAA bu­reau­crats and their cost. I am not com­pe­tent to com­ment on that, but I am sym­pa­thetic to the no­tion that we have a very ex­pen­sive gov­ern­ment. But I wish you had fo­cused on the zero-cost as­pect of the pro­gram. I am an un­paid vol­un­teer FAASTeam lead rep. I host a monthly Wings/IMC Club gatne•ing that is fairly well-at­tended by. as you would say, the "usual sus­pects.' I l ke tc con-pare us lit­tle" GA foks with "big' GA flight de­part­ments and the air­lines. They have manda­tory re­cur­rent train­ing, li­censed dis­patch­ers and sig­nif­i­cant re­dun-dancy and th s re­sults in a fa­tal-ac­ci­dent rate that is much, much bet­ter than It­tLe' GA. I like lc teach that in lieu of what they have, we have the Wings pro­gram for re­cur­rent train­ing, things like the PAVE check­list as our "dis­patcher' and the flex 13E4 of time rather than re­minded“lit­tle”there lot­sto GA, po­liceof of it re­dun­dancy.the­seis our all per­sonal vol­un­tary;things But fre­quently.ac­tions therewe need— is and Andno to that one­forbe is faasafety.gov­but a they good are thing.a web­site sig­nif­i­can­tThe Wingsare struc­tural­not pro­gramthe whole com­po­nen­tand story, the of the GA safety ef­fort.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.