The suggestion was aired that the larger interests were not at all happy with the FAA’s ARC membership picks. In a procedural gaffe, the FAA invited representatives in some cases personally thus bypassing official company or group channels. The snafu could help explain some of the late additions to the party.
They also opened up a few seats on the peanut gallery backbench for some tag team policy action. Lean and mean went by the wayside as the handpicked experts lamented that they just could not clear more important items off of their overstretched agendas. What was really going down was, a few of these companies and groups brought in ringers to do the talking, and when you find they are bringing in ringers to bolster the hired guns it suggests that some of the FAA invitees (the usual suspects) may be regarded as damaged goods.
By some accounts the heavy doses of self-delusion, greed and bravado have created a regulatory superfund site that could very well take a decade and piles of money to clean up. Maybe that is an overstatement, but there is no denying that we have suffered a comprehensive and humiliating Dien Bien Phu style defeat. Many are concerned that the task force “consensus” has set the tone and will adversely affect the negotiations moving forward. Will that be seen in the Micro ARC recommendations?
The common opinion is that not only is empirical experience is short supply, but also objectivity, and that leaves many airspace integration stakeholders wondering if the industry can survive another self-inflicted shot in the foot. If we don’t move quickly the aviation industry folks will move in and take over. This effort needs an immediate change of tactics. Science based integration bolstered by objective leadership and grassroots advocacy might be a start.