November 9, 1967 -- Memo from my Division chief, Jennings N. Roberts:

I have read with interest your analyses and comments of October 24, 1967 (just three days after I started work in the branch that had oversight over the entire enforcement system), on several Air Carrier and General Aviation Enforcement Cases. I found your views and comments refreshing and you pointed out some areas that I tend to overlook in my day-to-routine.

I noted that you were particularly concerned about inconsistencies in sanctions between regions, and even in the same regions, for similar violations; and also, the degree of sanction relative to the type of violation. This has long been a concern. It must be realized, however, that each case involves different personalities and different facts, which, of course, will influence the sanction decision.

It is settled policy and procedure that Counsels consult with and coordinate proposed sanctions with Flight Standards personnel and this coordination also affects the ultimate sanction imposed by the agency. . . . .

Comment -- This went over like a lead balloon with my branch chief, who was on vacation at the time. I learned that these lawyers were not used to being questioned about their program. And I use "their program" deliberately," since, as you will learn from Emperor, no one else but government lawyers are responsible for the creation, continuance and coverup of the lack of authority for any such program.

February 16, 1970 -- Letter from Charles Peters, Editor of The Washington Monthly:

After a good deal of reflection, I find myself convinced that you have the makings of a damn good book, but I don't see an article for us. The problem is that a convincing compilation of the cases from your manuscript would take more space that I can justify giving to this subject. . . .

December 3, 1970 -- Letter from James Boyd, Executive Director of the Fund for Investigative Journalism:

After reading the portions of your book, I am filled with both admiration and regret. Admiration, because of the absorbing manner in which you expose a federal bureaucracy trampling with incompetent feet upon the interests and rights of ordinary citizens; exposures of this kind seem the most important work of journalism in this era. Regret, because the groundrules under which we operate permit research grants only for magazine articles . . .

November 16, 1979 -- Clifton F. von Kann, Senior VP, Air Transport Association of America:

I am returning the book chapters which you left with me, having read them with great interest. . . .

As for my reaction, I liked what I read and my emotional reaction is that I'd like to see it published. On the more objective side, I'm not really sure that it would change things much since books about the FAA, no matter how shocking, almost never bring change. The surest road to reform is to hire an Administrator and General Counsel who want to change things.

As for the possibility of financial support from ATA . .

Comment -- Administrators cannot want to change things unless they know there is a serious problem and the root causes of it. As to the enforcement system, they are totally captive to the Office of Chief Counsel. Can you imagine any chief counsel going to the Administrator and admitting there is no statute, no rule, no legislative history that even hints the FAA may take your license as a penalty for the violation of a safety rule? The purpose of this website is to educate the Administrator, one million active pilots and mechanics, citizens in general, and the Congress.

July 2, 1980 -- Letter from Congressman Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. to Gene Snyder, Ranking Minority Member on the House Aviation Subcommittee, concerning a bill then pending in the House of Representatives; with copies to chairman and staff.

I received the enclosed draft position paper on H.R. 7488 from Lawrence Smith, a very competent lawyer who specializes in FAA enforcement.

The memo contains several good ideas which might be useful if the bill goes any further . . .

Comment -- I got to know Barry Jr. while I was in the Lear Jet business in Los Angeles. Got my only ride in a Beech Staggerwing with him to Phoenix one weekend. Previously, he'd let his Beech Bonanza run out of fuel, but fortunately survived the forced landing. The FAA suspended his license.

June 28, 1983 -- Letter to me from Frank Kingston Smith, one-time Philadelphia trial lawyer, head of NATA for ten years (then called National Aviation Trades Association), author of the acclaimed book,Weekend Pilot, and others, a general aviation icon to those of my generation, and sought-after speaker:

I have read the material you sent me from end to end . . . I have also run through my old "bible" (Aeronautical Statutes and Related Material) and the applicable regulations and am absolutely convince that you are eminently correct in your assertionsabout the state of the law and procedural regulations. I have also spoke to Mr. Moody who reiterated your remarks and feels that you have solid legal grounds. . . .

Hell of a note. I bleed for you.

Comment: I had never met Frank and read that he would be speaking at an FAA accident prevention clinic down at Manassas, Va. So drove down there from Maryland and introduced myself and asked him to read some of my material, including a draft of Emperor, which by this time had gone to the University of Denver College of Law for final editing.

June 15, 1989 -- Letter to me from Henry A. Duffy, President, Air Line Pilots Association, replying to the copy of the petition for a comprehensive rule explaining the enforcement program, which was filed with the FAA Office of Chief Counsel in January.

I have asked our Legal Department to review your petition and provide me with its recommendations. I find your proposal interesting and innovative. Certainly, if adopted, it would be beneficial to all pilots.

Comment: -- You will learn about this in more detail when the next major segment of this website is added to it. It will contain both a section on trade groups and copies of that petition for rulemaking and another. In my opinion, had I not sent this directly to Capt. Duffy at ALPA's Washington, D.C., office, rather than the main headquarters at Herndon, Va., it would likely have been sent first to the legal staff. Based on the further response I received from a staff lawyer. It's likely Duffy would then never have seen it, or given a recommendation that ALPA not support the petition, which asked FAA to publish an NPRM proposing a comprehensive rule explaining how FAA enforcement works. I suspect that the president of ALPA, like the FAA Administrator, is dominated by his legal department.

June 20, 1990 -- Letter from aviation attorney J. Scott Hamilton to Congressman Tim Valentine.

I have just received the bill drafting project of Lawrence B. Smith proposing a bill to create a comprehensive program of justice for the enforcement of Federal Aviation Administration Safety Regulations.

I wanted to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Smith's proposal for consideration as a nucleus for that bill.

I have represented thousands of aviation businesses and individual pilots and aircraft mechanics in air safety regulatory matters over the course of almost 20 years and am intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of that present system. From that perspective, I can tell you Mr. Smith knows what he is talking about and has obviously put profound thought and effort into his draft of a proposed bill to build on the strengths of the program and eliminate its weaknesses. His proposal strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of commercial aviation enterprises and individuals engaged in aviation pursuits to fair treatment while strengthening the public's assurance of continuous, timely and detailed FAA scrutiny of commercial air carrier compliance with rules governing their operations and maintenance. . . .

Comment: -- I got involved in Mr. Valentine's efforts after receiving a call one evening from Scott Crossfield. (For those who don't know, famous X-15 test pilot -- first to fly twice as fast as the speed of sound). He was working for Valentine's committee which controlled projects for NASA concerning general aviation, and had read of my work. I met with Scott, then Valentine. Unfortunately the congressman's concern never went anywhere. He was dis-elected that fall. Scott flies his own Cessna 210, and is a popular speaker much in demand.

August 6, 1990 -- Letter from Alaska Governor Steve Cowper to Alaska's 175 operators. He had earlier urged them to comment of the same petition for rulemaking that Capt. Duffy saw.

. . . As a result of a lawsuit, the FAA has now published the complete and much more informative summary originally supplied with that petition and extended time to comment another 180 days.

. . . I believe it's in the interests of all aviators to comment. The petition's goal is to force out in the open serious questions concerning the legitimacy of the FAA's enforcement program and to give the aviation industry a chance to shape policies that, as we've all seen recently, can actually put companies out of business.

Direct your comments (in triplicate) to FAA Docket No. 25784 at the address shown in the enclosed Federal Register notice.

For your information, I've also enclosed a press release by attorney Lawrence Smith of Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Smith has taken an active role in the debate over FAA law enforcement. Inclusion of his document with this letter does not necessarily imply my concurrence with his position, but his information is useful and could well lead you to additional avenues of investigation.

Comment: On a trip to Juneau I met with Governor Cowper's aide, Ron Clark. To understand how easy it is to explain what's wrong and one doesn't need to be a lawyer, Clark is a biologist! The lawsuit Cowper speaks of was mine. As mentioned above, a copy of the petition will be included in the next segment of this website, and a explanation of events surrounding it provided.

Jenkins picked up on some of my Alaska work through Nexis and called me. He viewed the same inch-thick maroon booklet containing some of my efforts and media references that Dr. Beckett-Hoffman of the GAO had in her possession, which she asked to keep for the GAO airsafety library (see below).

Jenkins' column, "Hell Hath No Fury Like the FAA Scorned," focused on former DOT-IG Mary Schiavo's criticism of the entire commuter airline industry as unsafe. He worked in mention of Alaska Island Air and Glacier Bay Airways, the operating certificates of both which I saved. He wrote:

Providing the legal advice was Lawrence Smith, an aviation attorney who has waged a decades-long campaign to bring due process to the FAA. He says the Hayes and Roundtree cases are typical: "This is how these people work. They think somebody lied to them on a piece of paper and they have the right to snuff them out."

Comment: In the Alaska Island Air case, after an intensive two-day trial, finishing at 10:00 P.M., it took the ALJ only about 15 minutes to come back and deny revocation. It was an utterly stupid case for FAA Alaska Regional counsel John Curry to bring, no doubt insisted upon by Alaska Region Flight Standards Chief Tom Westall, who was on a tear, causing the revocation of nine small airtaxis in about sixteen months. (See both these case in the section with summaries of emergency cases.) It's nice to have this kind of recognition of one's work in the Journal, but media criticism of the FAA just rolls its officials off like water from a duck's back.

We have communicated several times with Mr. Smith over the past few months. He has shared many experiences with us that helped us place our work in the broader context of the impact of FAA actions on businesses and individuals. He has also graciously provided us with a wide range of acticles and documentation concerning the legal basis of FAA enforcement actions--all of this at his own expense.

. . . . As we have discussed with Mr. Smith, we welcome his interest and insights, and hope to continue to draw upon them as our work progresses.

Comment: With all due respect to Dr. Dillingham, I don't think any of it had much influence on their final report. The fact is that emergency revocations were declared unconstitutional as far back as the early 1970s by a U.S. District Judge, and then again by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1980. To both of which FAA lawyers paid no attention. The problem is one that Senator Inhofe's bill was supposed to correct, but between its weaknesses and the NTSB, it was all a wasted effort. I'll have more to say on the emergency power in a later segment. Dr. Beckett-Hoffman's note, gives some indication of the importance of my work.

GAO

UNITED STATES

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

April 21, 1998

Dear Mr. Smith,

I've enclosed a copy of our enforcement report. While I understand that you would like your maroon-booklet on FAA policies back, I'm currently using it as background for our follow-up report on emergency orders. If possible, could we please retain it for our permanent file in our aviation safety library?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

s/ Bonnie Beckett-Hoffman

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G. St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Bonnie Beckett-Hoffman, Ph.D.

Senior Evaluator

[phone number and e-mail address withheld]

* * * * *

back to home page

back to top