Looking for Results at the FAA

In 2002 the FAA launched a program named "Results" intended to revamp the process used to procure support services with contractors. The goal? Save money and improve efficiency, simple right? Not so much. The FAA shut down the program early in January 2006 even before the Inspector General's office had completed its audit of "Results". You might think that having the Inspector General's office involved is a bad thing and you'd be right. Reuters reports today that the Inspector General's audit has found that the program was largely ineffective. You might ask, "Hey, what caught the eye of the Inspector General anyway?" Fair question. While the article isn't specific it sounds like it involved whistle-blower accusations that caused some Congressman to request the audit. If I were a betting man I would say that a couple of contractors got locked out of the preferred vendor bid process and raised a stink with their Congressman. Again, just speculation on my part. But the results of the audit do indicate "only 24 percent of the contracts were competitively bid. The review also faulted price analysis on nine of 11 contracts studied" Hmmmm.

What does all of this mean? In my opinion it means that this government agency, like many others, is not good at being a business. All of the layers, forms, cross-checks etc slow things down and sooner or later people are just going to find a way to work the system to get something, anything, accomplished. Business as usual.

Its too bad that the FAA continues to get a fresh black eye every time it turns around. In my experience the FAA is home to a lot of good people who do good work. I can personally attest to the fact that their system for auditing airlines is vastly improved over years past. This proves that at least some of their divisions are capable of change.

Airlines and the Aging Aircraft

Reuters posted an article today regarding growing resistance to the FAA's efforts to impose new inspections on aging aircraft. That the FAA would be working on an expanded aging aircraft program should not be a surprise. After all, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and the FAA were taught a brutal lesson on the effects of structural aging and corrosion when an Aloha 737 lost a chunk skin while airborne back in 1988. So the idea of trying to head off future issues related to aging aircraft would certainly be prudent. Why would the airlines fight it?

It's not just an argument about cost which, as usual, the FAA is under-estimating. However well-intended their efforts are the FAA needs to step back and review how these good intentions turn into needlessly complicated nightmares. The airlines don't want to avoid the issue. In fact, addressing the issues head on normally results in more reliable aircraft. Airlines simply need programs that can implemented and managed efficiently.

Reuters is also missing a couple pieces of the aging aircraft puzzle. It's not just about aging structural elements. They should be talking about aging wiring and aging systems as well. These will become increasingly important as well.