Michael, No argument. I was careful to stay in my lane, mostly type certification with a nod to production certification & a general statement that my relationship suggestions would work elsewhere. That sort of relationship management should work with mechanics & maintenance facilities as well. Operations, airways, airports, etc, not so much.
Here's what I believe. In broad terms, the FAA has 4 functions: 1. Compliance: make *findings *that an applicant has *shown *compliance with regulations, that processes & products comply. 2. Surveillance: Oversee approved processes, maintenance, actions, etc are conducted as approved 3. Enforcement: Take corrective actions when the certificate or license holder is shown to be noncompliant 4. Services: Air traffic, airway facilities, etc. Not inherently governmental - #1 making findings can be delegated and that is necessary, I hit that one pretty hard in the article because hard numbers mandate delegation. Ultimately the FAA is still accountable to manage the system, however. - #'s 2 & 3 are clearly inherently governmental. Not much anybody can do about that - #4 can be managed in a number of ways. Once upon a time I'd preach privatizing air traffic & all the related tools, processes, etc. I backed away after a while because I kept discovering I was out of my element. 1 through 3? Lemme at it. #4? I'm dog meat. That's a long way of saying you're making sense. Not long ago I was involved in an AIAA committee that was asked to recommend how eVTOL aircraft can fly safely in congested areas. We didn't ask the FAA to take it because the industry can do a better job. FAA was/is leaning in on requiring sense & avoid for each aircraft, but that would likely be expensive overkill. We wound up recommending a mainframe to manage the traffic - with appropriate safeguards like redundancy. A mental experiment was pretty effective: Imagine a circle with launch & retrieve capabilities, let's say at 9 locations. Launch eVTLOs at random and give them destinations, speeds, maneuverability, diversions, whatever. Experiment A will have sense & avoid, Experiment B will be run by a mainframe. Which one will be more efficient? It generally turns out sense & avoid will be pretty chaotic. We couldn't get anybody to actually run the comparison but intuitively it wasn't terribly difficult to make the argument. On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 1:05 PM ATHGroup--- via Mifnet < [email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > > > I believe that the types of power are also driven by the relationship > between the 2 parties. > > > > In aviation, although you wouldn’t know it, airlines and other airspace > users are the customers and FAA is the supplier of safety and separation > services. Unfortunately, this is not the dynamic that developed over the > last 70 years > > > > In 1958, when the FAA was formed and Positive Control airspace was > implemented, FAA was the only one with the data and tools to manage > aircraft separation, and, therefore, took “*control*” of the movement of > all IFR aircraft. There really was no other option back then. > > > > In fact, the work of Special Working Group 13 in designing the first > Positive Control Airspace was a cornerstone of modern aviation safety, > transitioning the US national airspace from a "see and avoid" system to a > controlled, radar-monitored system for high-speed traffic. > > > > This worked great for decades, and increased safety, but at the cost of > efficiency, since there is no way a government agency like FAA can > determine “*efficiency*” for their aviation customers. > > > > But in the mid-1990s airlines also had access to the same data that ATC > had (ASDI, now SWIM) so airlines knew where every aircraft was in the > airspace, including position, altitude, speed, etc. This allowed airlines > the ability to see and manage their aircraft in real time, especially now > with GPS and ADS-B/C. > > > > Yet even though airlines/users now have the ability to optimize and manage > the movement of their aircraft, they are not using this capability and > still unnecessarily abdicate to ATC for control over the movement of their > aircraft. > > > > Getting back to the beginning of my post, airlines/users need to realize > that they are the customers and should have a big say in the design of any > new airspace and separation process, but they don’t. Airlines/users > dutifully sign up for whatever FAA/ATC says is better as seen in FAA’s > Brand New ATC System (BNATCS) and FAA Administrator, Bryan Bedford’s > statement that “*We’ll tell you where we want you to be in three > dimensions…and we’ll tell you where we want you to be to hit that top of > descent mark to [meet] the constraints of the runway*”. (Washington Aero > Club, Jan 22, 2026 > <https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2026-01-22/faas-bedford-provides-view-future-atc> > ). > > > > Of course, separation/safety belongs to ATC, but, as I saw and utilized in > my over 40 years as a pilot (USAF, commercial and business jets) this > leaves lots of “*day of*” operational flexibility (gate departure time, > speed, altitude, flight path, etc.) for airlines to step in (and step up) > to manage the movement of their aircraft to meet their safety and “*day > of*” business goals (schedule, connections, gate availability, crew > legality, fuel, maintenance, galleys, lavs, etc.). > > > > Michael > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > R. Michael Baiada > > cell - (303) 521-6047 > > [email protected] > > > > *From:* Mike Borfitz via Mifnet <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2026 20:14 > *To:* Mike Borfitz <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Mike Borfitz <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Mifnet 🛰 75683] What Power Do We Have In Our FAA > Relationships? > > > > Hi all, > > Been a bit since my last posting, this one had to sorta write itself. I > started with one goal in mind but the article took me to a > slightly different finish and that's OK. I posted it on LinkedIn last > Friday but it needed more editing & a second version has now replaced it. > The result follows. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > *LinkedIn **Title**: **A Story About The FAA, Relationships And A Few > Hard Truths* > > > > *LinkedIn **Introduction*: > > Generally there are two “types” of power in our business, and they are > found at opposite ends of the relationship spectrum. They can often be in > conflict, but all relationships have a bit of both. To restate, these two > types of power are not simple black & white, binary A or B options because > elements of both are typically found in any FAA relationship. > > First is the lever of politics & money, which is held by mega-corporations > with beltway lobbyists & significant balance of trade muscle that can drive > changes in the national economy. > > The second type of power is found in the law: It’s in the regulatory > structure, including certification, licensing and delegation. Quite simply, > the FAA owns every bit of that power. But that’s not the true second type > of power. > > There's another, stealthy and high-leverage type of power; it's the power > of performance & integrity, driven by knowledge, openness and a full > recognition and fearless acceptance of that lawful FAA power. A smaller > design approval holder [This includes Parts Manufacturer Authorization > (PMA) and Technical Standard Orders (ODA) manufacturers] won’t have the > enormous political clout the giants enjoy, but honest disclosure, > competence and knowledge have great leverage to build and maintain a > trusting relationship, and there is nothing better than that in our world. > When your FAA relationship is strong and based on these principals you can > be on equal footing with your FAA oversight office. Never, ever argue AT > the FAA, but when the relationship is strong and you can understand and > accept their final decisions, you can argue WITH the FAA almost as a peer. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > As usual, please feel free to share, and your comments will be welcomed. > > > > Mike Borfitz, Chief Executive > > Kilroy Aviation > > [email protected] > > Mobile Call or Text: (206) 714-8797 > > www.FAAODA.com <http://www.faaoda.com/> > > > > > Kilroy Aviation <http://www.kilroy.faaoda.com> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Revised: 20250507 > > You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. > > The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't > exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the > effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: > https://wardell.us/url/mifbit > > All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: > > 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a > privilege--not a right. > 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the > author. > 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. > 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. > 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other > Mifnet members. > > * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: > https://www.mifnet.com/ > > * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: > [email protected]?subject=leave > > * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: > [email protected] > > * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: > [email protected] > > * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all > list traffic into 1-3 > messages daily. See instructions at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > > * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > > * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: > [email protected]?subject=help > > * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: > https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies > > * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: > https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems > > * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ > -- Mike Borfitz Cell 206-714-8797 Kilroy Aviation LLC WWW.FAAODA.COM <http://www.faaoda.com/> Kilroy is available for aviation regulatory and safety issues - Type & Production Certification, Continued Operational Safety - International validation & safety matters - Program & system management - FAA STC ODA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: 20250507 You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: https://wardell.us/url/mifbit All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a right. 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author. 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other Mifnet members. * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: https://www.mifnet.com/ * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: https://lists.mifnet.com/ OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=leave * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: [email protected] * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: [email protected] * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list traffic into 1-3 messages daily. See instructions at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=help * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/
