This article was submitted to an industry publication a couple of months ago and after some deliberation, they decided to pass. Rather than resubmit elsewhere, I’m posting it here for my subscribers.
Although I appreciate your skeptical view of the NTSB, there is no truth in what you said about, “… emblematic that the FAA and NTSB do not historically view Part 135 operations in a way that hampers comprehensive understanding of the industry.” I agree the NTSB’s aeronautical division couldn’t tell the difference between a Part 135 and an avocado, but to criticize the FAA’s understanding and responsibility of any operator - especially Part 135, 9 or less and 10 or more - is just untrue. When I worked for the FAA, I’d seen practically every FSDO, CMO, and an IFO or two, firsthand. If you want to lead an article at least speak from strength, not generalization. If you want to attack the integrity of the FAA, aim for the upper echelons. The ASIs in the field are doing the best they can with the manpower and monies provided.
Although I appreciate your skeptical view of the NTSB, there is no truth in what you said about, “… emblematic that the FAA and NTSB do not historically view Part 135 operations in a way that hampers comprehensive understanding of the industry.” I agree the NTSB’s aeronautical division couldn’t tell the difference between a Part 135 and an avocado, but to criticize the FAA’s understanding and responsibility of any operator - especially Part 135, 9 or less and 10 or more - is just untrue. When I worked for the FAA, I’d seen practically every FSDO, CMO, and an IFO or two, firsthand. If you want to lead an article at least speak from strength, not generalization. If you want to attack the integrity of the FAA, aim for the upper echelons. The ASIs in the field are doing the best they can with the manpower and monies provided.