Editing Federal Aviation Administration (section)

==Criticism==
===Conflicting roles===
The FAA has been cited as an example of [[regulatory capture]], "in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators."<ref name="davidoff-regcap">{{cite news |last=Solomon |first=Steven Davidoff |title=The Government's Elite and Regulatory Capture |work=DealBook |publisher=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 11, 2010 |url=https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/the-governments-elite-and-regulatory-capture/ |access-date=July 28, 2019 |archive-date=January 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200120214649/https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/the-governments-elite-and-regulatory-capture |url-status=live}}</ref> Retired NASA Office of Inspector General Senior Special Agent [[Joseph Gutheinz]], who used to be a Special Agent with the [[Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation]] and with FAA Security, is one of the most outspoken critics of FAA. Rather than commend the agency for proposing a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines for its failure to conduct mandatory inspections in 2008, he was quoted as saying the following in an [[Associated Press]] story: "Penalties against airlines that violate FAA directives should be stiffer. At $25,000 per violation, Gutheinz said, airlines can justify rolling the dice and taking the chance on getting caught. He also said the FAA is often too quick to bend to pressure from airlines and pilots."<ref name="ap-mailtrib/msnbc" /> Other experts have been critical of the constraints and expectations under which the FAA is expected to operate. The dual role of encouraging aerospace travel and regulating aerospace travel are contradictory. For example, to levy a heavy penalty upon an airline for violating an FAA regulation which would impact their ability to continue operating would not be considered encouraging aerospace travel.

On July 22, 2008, in the aftermath of the Southwest Airlines inspection scandal, a bill was unanimously approved in the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] to tighten regulations concerning airplane maintenance procedures, including the establishment of a whistleblower office and a two-year "cooling off" period that FAA inspectors or supervisors of inspectors must wait before they can work for those they regulated.<ref name="ainonline" /><ref>Congress.gov, "[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr6493 H.R.6493 - Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008]". {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211001040721/https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6493 |date=October 1, 2021 }}.</ref> The bill also required rotation of principal maintenance inspectors and stipulated that the word "customer" properly applies to the flying public, not those entities regulated by the FAA.<ref name="ainonline" /> The bill died in a Senate committee that year.<ref>Congress.gov, "[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110s3440 S.3440 - Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008]". {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211001040738/https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/3440 |date=October 1, 2021 }}.</ref>

In September 2009, the FAA administrator issued a directive mandating that the agency use the term "customers" to refer to only the flying public.<ref>{{cite news |title=FAA will stop calling airlines 'customers' |work=[[USA Today]] |date=September 18, 2009 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-17-faa-airline-customers_N.htm |access-date=October 17, 2009 |agency=[[Reuters]] |archive-date=December 24, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101224184815/http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-17-faa-airline-customers_N.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Lax regulatory oversight===
In 2007, two FAA [[whistleblower]]s, inspectors Charalambe "Bobby" Boutris and Douglas E. Peters, alleged that Boutris said he attempted to ground Southwest after finding cracks in the [[fuselage]] of an [[aircraft]], but was prevented by supervisors he said were friendly with the airline.<ref name="latimes-faa">Johanna Neuman, [http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-airlines4apr04,0,4935961.story "FAA's 'culture of coziness' targeted in airline safety hearing"], ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' (April 3, 2008). {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130123163445/http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-airlines4apr04,0,4935961.story |date=January 23, 2013 }}. Retrieved April 11, 2011.</ref> This was validated by a report by the [[United States Department of Transportation|Department of Transportation]] which found FAA managers had allowed [[Southwest Airlines]] to fly 46 airplanes in 2006 and 2007 that were overdue for safety inspections, ignoring concerns raised by inspectors. Audits of other airlines resulted in two airlines grounding hundreds of planes, causing thousands of flight cancellations.<ref name="ainonline">{{cite web |url-status=dead |first1=Paul |last1=Lowe |url=http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-08-31/bill-proposes-distance-between-airlines-and-faa-regulators |title=Bill proposes distance between airlines and FAA regulators |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115173911/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-08-31/bill-proposes-distance-between-airlines-and-faa-regulators |archive-date=January 15, 2013 |website=AINonline |date=September 1, 2008 |access-date=April 11, 2011}}</ref> The [[United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure|House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee]] held hearings in April 2008. [[Jim Oberstar]], former chairman of the committee, said its investigation uncovered a pattern of regulatory abuse and widespread regulatory lapses, allowing 117 aircraft to be operated commercially although not in compliance with [https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ FAA safety rules].<ref name="latimes-faa" /> [[Jim Oberstar|Oberstar]] said there was a "culture of coziness" between senior FAA officials and the airlines and "a systematic breakdown" in the FAA's culture that resulted in "malfeasance, bordering on corruption".<ref name="latimes-faa" /> In 2008 the FAA proposed to fine Southwest $10.2 million for failing to inspect older planes for cracks,<ref name="ap-mailtrib/msnbc">{{cite web |first1=David |last1=Koenig |url=http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/BIZ/803070316/-1/rss05 |title=Southwest Airlines faces $10.2 million fine |website=[[Mail Tribune]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=March 6, 2008 |access-date=April 11, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120925031746/http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/BIZ/803070316/-1/rss05 |archive-date= Sep 25, 2012 }}</ref> and in 2009 [[Southwest Airlines|Southwest]] and the FAA agreed that [[Southwest Airlines|Southwest]] would pay a $7.5 million penalty and would adopt new safety procedures, with the fine doubling if Southwest failed to follow through.<ref>John Hughes for Bloomberg News. March 2, 2009. [https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avFzkpTRRnHc&refer=us Southwest Air Agrees to $7.5 Million Fine, FAA Says (Update2)] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924190006/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avFzkpTRRnHc&refer=us |date=September 24, 2015 }}</ref>

===Changes to air traffic controller application process===
{{More citations needed section|date=February 2025}}
In 2014, the FAA modified its approach to air traffic control hiring. It launched more "off the street bids", allowing anyone with either a four-year degree or five years of full-time work experience to apply, rather than the closed college program or Veterans Recruitment Appointment bids, something that had last been done in 2008. Thousands were hired, including veterans, Collegiate Training Initiative graduates, and people who are true "off the street" hires. The move was made to open the job up to more people who might make good controllers but did not go to a college that offered a CTI program. Before the change, candidates who had completed coursework at participating colleges and universities could be "fast-tracked" for consideration. However, the CTI program had no guarantee of a job offer, nor was the goal of the program to teach people to work actual traffic. The goal of the program was to prepare people for the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, OK. Having a CTI certificate allowed a prospective controller to skip the Air Traffic Basics part of the academy, about a 30- to 45-day course, and go right into Initial Qualification Training (IQT). All prospective controllers, CTI or not, have had to pass the FAA Academy in order to be hired as a controller. Failure at the academy means FAA employment is terminated. In January 2015 they launched another pipeline, a "prior experience" bid, where anyone with an FAA Control Tower Operator certificate (CTO) and 52 weeks of experience could apply. This was a revolving bid, every month the applicants on this bid were sorted out, and eligible applicants were hired and sent directly to facilities, bypassing the FAA academy entirely.

In the process of promoting diversity, the FAA revised its hiring process.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Adam |last2=Browne |first2=Pamela |title=Trouble in the Skies |url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/05/20/trouble-in-skies/ |access-date=January 3, 2016 |publisher=Fox Business |date=May 20, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222092710/http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/05/20/trouble-in-skies/ |archive-date=December 22, 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Reily |first1=Jason L. |title=Affirmative Action Lands in the Air Traffic Control Tower |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in-the-air-traffic-control-tower-1433283292 |access-date=January 3, 2016 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=June 2, 2015 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=January 2, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102035652/http://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in-the-air-traffic-control-tower-1433283292 |url-status=live}}</ref> The FAA later issued a report that the "bio-data" was not a reliable test for future performance. However, the "Bio-Q" was not the determining factor for hiring, it was merely a screening tool to determine who would take a revised Air Traffic Standardized Aptitude Test (ATSAT). Due to cost and time, it was not practical to give all 30,000 some applicants the revised ATSAT, which has since been validated. In 2015 Fox News levied criticism that the FAA discriminated against qualified candidates.<ref>{{cite news |title=Unqualified air traffic control candidates cheating to pass FAA exams? |url=http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4247596762001/unqualified-air-traffic-control-candidates-cheating-to-pass-faa-exams/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips |access-date=January 3, 2016 |publisher=Fox Business |date=May 20, 2015 |archive-date=January 23, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123021144/http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4247596762001/unqualified-air-traffic-control-candidates-cheating-to-pass-faa-exams/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips |url-status=live}}</ref>

In December 2015, a reverse discrimination lawsuit was filed against the FAA seeking class-action status for the thousands of men and women who spent up to $40,000 getting trained under FAA rules before they were abruptly changed. The prospects of the lawsuit are unknown, as the FAA is a self-governing entity and therefore can alter and experiment with its hiring practices, and there was never any guarantee of a job in the CTI program.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shapiro |first1=Adam |title=Reverse Discrimination Suit Filed Against FAA, Hiring Fallout Continues |url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/12/30/reverse-discrimination-suit-filed-against-faa-hiring-fallout-continues/ |access-date=January 3, 2016 |publisher=Fox Business |date=December 30, 2015 |archive-date=January 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101160030/http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/12/30/reverse-discrimination-suit-filed-against-faa-hiring-fallout-continues/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Close Calls ===

In August 2023 ''The New York Times'' published an investigative report that showed overworked air traffic controllers at understaffed facilities making errors that resulted in 46 near collisions in the air and on the ground in the month of July alone.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ember |first1=Sydney |last2=Steel |first2=Emily |last3=Abraham |first3=Leanne |last4=Lutz |first4=Eleanor |last5=Koeze |first5=Ella |date=2023-08-21 |title=Airline Close Calls Happen Far More Often Than Previously Known |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/21/business/airline-safety-close-calls.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=2023-08-22 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

===Next Generation Air Transportation System===
{{Main|Next Generation Air Transportation System#Criticism}}

A May 2017 letter from staff of the [[U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure|U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure]] to members of the same committee sent before a meeting to discuss air traffic control privatization noted a 35-year legacy of failed air traffic control modernization management, including NextGen. The letter said the FAA initially described NextGen as fundamentally transforming how air traffic would be managed. In 2015, however, the [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine|National Research Council]] noted that NextGen, as currently executed, was not broadly transformational and that it is a set of programs to implement a suite of incremental changes to the National Airspace System (NAS).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2017-05-17_-_full_committee_ssm.pdf |date=May 12, 2017 |publisher=Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure |title=Committee Hearing on "The Need to Reform FAA and Air Traffic Control to Build a 21st Century Aviation System for America" |access-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-date=January 20, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180120124201/https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2017-05-17_-_full_committee_ssm.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400893 |title=Latest Inspector General Report Underscores Need for Air Traffic Control Reform |access-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-date=December 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181223140555/https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400893 |url-status=live}}</ref>

More precise Performance Based Navigation can reduce fuel burn, emissions, and noise exposure for a majority of communities, but the concentration of flight tracks also can increase noise exposure for people who live directly under those flight paths.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-management/faa-facing-backlash-over-noise-issues-created-pbn-flight-paths |title=FAA facing backlash over noise issues created by PBN flight paths |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161021124915/http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-management/faa-facing-backlash-over-noise-issues-created-pbn-flight-paths |archive-date=October 21, 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://aireform.com/a-closer-look-at-how-faa-is-tone-deaf-on-nextgen-noise-impacts/ |title=A Closer Look at How FAA is 'Tone-Deaf' on NextGen Noise Impacts |work=Aviation Impact Reform |date=April 19, 2015 |access-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191218185346/http://aireform.com/a-closer-look-at-how-faa-is-tone-deaf-on-nextgen-noise-impacts/ |url-status=live}}</ref> A feature of the NextGen program is GPS-based waypoints, which result in consolidated flight paths for planes. The result of this change is that many localities experience huge increases in air traffic over previously quiet areas. Complaints have risen with the added traffic and multiple municipalities have filed suit.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/affluentand-angryhomeowners-raise-ruckus-over-roar-of-overhead-planes-1530806379 |last=McLaughlin |first=Katy |date=July 6, 2018 |title=Affluent—and Angry—Homeowners Raise Ruckus Over Roar of Overhead Planes |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |access-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-date=December 18, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191218185347/https://www.wsj.com/articles/affluentand-angryhomeowners-raise-ruckus-over-roar-of-overhead-planes-1530806379 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Staffing cuts ===
In 2025, despite the ongoing overhaul of the U.S. ATC system—spanning past administrations and on into the Trump presidency—[[Department of Government Efficiency|DOGE]] elimination of numerous FAA management positions has not only demoralized staff, but by eliminating deep expertise at a very critical juncture also threatens to degrade the ability of the agency to expedite modernization efforts.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Duncan |first=Ian |last2=Aratani |first2=Lori |last3=Natanson |first3=Hannah |last4=Gilbert |first4=Daniel |date=2025-05-08 |title=Trump accelerates upgrades of air traffic control systems amid FAA departures |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/08/air-traffic-modernization-trump-cuts/ |access-date=2025-05-15 |work=The Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> In the resulting leadership vacuum, “ …the FAA is losing not only its chief air traffic official, Tim Arel, but also its associate administrator for commercial space, his deputy, the director of the audit and evaluation office, the assistant administrator for civil rights and the assistant administrator for finance and management …” in addition to: multiple leadership positions in programs within the [[Air Traffic Organization]], including mission support and safety, technical operations, and technical training.<ref name=":0" />

===Boeing 737 MAX controversy===
{{See also|Boeing 737 MAX groundings}}
As a result of the March 10, 2019 [[Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302]] crash and the [[Lion Air Flight 610]] crash five months earlier, most airlines and countries began grounding the [[Boeing 737 MAX 8]] (and in many cases all MAX variants) due to safety concerns, but the FAA declined to ground MAX 8 aircraft operating in the U.S.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/africa/airlines-suspend-boeing-flights-intl/index.html |title=US and Canada are the only two nations still flying many Boeing 737 MAX planes |agency=[[CNN]]|date=March 12, 2019 |access-date=March 13, 2019 |archive-date=April 12, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412025015/https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/africa/airlines-suspend-boeing-flights-intl/index.html |url-status=live}}</ref> On March 12, the FAA said that its ongoing review showed "no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft."<ref name="crash"/> Some U.S. Senators called for the FAA to ground the aircraft until an investigation into the cause of the Ethiopian Airlines crash was complete.<ref name="crash">{{cite news |title=U.S. Senate to hold crash hearing as lawmakers urge grounding Boeing 737 MAX 8 |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airline-usa/u-s-senate-to-hold-crash-hearing-as-lawmakers-urge-grounding-boeing-737-max-8-idUSKBN1QT1WR |work=[[Reuters]]|date=March 12, 2019 |access-date=March 13, 2019 |archive-date=July 10, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190710175443/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airline-usa/u-s-senate-to-hold-crash-hearing-as-lawmakers-urge-grounding-boeing-737-max-8-idUSKBN1QT1WR |url-status=live}}</ref> U.S. Transportation Secretary [[Elaine Chao]] said that "If the FAA identifies an issue that affects safety, the department will take immediate and appropriate action."<ref>{{cite news |title=U.S. to mandate design changes on Boeing 737 MAX 8 after crashes |url=https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/12/us-to-mandate-design-changes-on-boeing-737-max-8-after-crashes |publisher=Euronews |date=March 12, 2019 |access-date=March 13, 2019 |archive-date=May 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502052942/https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/12/us-to-mandate-design-changes-on-boeing-737-max-8-after-crashes |url-status=live}}</ref> The FAA resisted grounding the aircraft until March 13, 2019, when it received evidence of similarities in the two accidents. By then, 51 other regulators had already grounded the plane,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-03-14 |title=Editorial: Why was the FAA so late to deplane from Boeing's 737 Max? |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-faa-737-max-grounded-20190314-story.html |access-date=2021-07-20 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]] |language=en-US |archive-date=July 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210720135818/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-faa-737-max-grounded-20190314-story.html |url-status=live}}</ref> and by March 18, 2019, all 387 aircraft in service were grounded. Three major U.S. airlines--[[Southwest Airlines|Southwest]], [[United Airlines|United]], and [[American Airlines]]—were affected by this decision.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html |title=Trump Announces Ban of Boeing 737 Max Flights |last1=Austen |first1=Ian |date=March 13, 2019 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=March 13, 2019 |last2=Gebrekidan |first2=Selam |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=September 13, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190913163144/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

Further investigations also revealed that the FAA and Boeing had colluded on recertification test flights, attempted to cover up important information and that the FAA had retaliated against whistleblowers.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers |title=FAA and Boeing manipulated 737 Max tests during recertification |date=December 18, 2020 |access-date=August 25, 2022 |archive-date=July 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220710123547/https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/18/22189609/faa-boeing-737-max-senate-report-coverup-tests-whistleblowers |url-status=live }}</ref>