
With lax oversight, the FAA has enabled secrecy in the skies - duck
https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secrets-in-the-sky/series/part-one/
======
jpatokal
The FAA does, however, exercise very strict oversight in other areas...

 _The FAA inspector looked at my random drug testing program to make sure that
everything was in place. I [a one-man helicopter charter company] am subject
to the same drug testing requirements as United Airlines. I am the drug
testing coordinator for our company, so I am responsible for scheduling drug
tests and surprising employees when it is their turn to be tested. As it
happens, I’m also the only “safety-sensitive employee” subject to drug
testing, so basically I’m responsible for periodically surprising myself with
a random drug test. As a supervisor, I need to take training so that I can
recognize when an employee is on drugs. But I’m also the only employee, so
really this is training so that I can figure out if I myself am on drugs. As
an employee, I need to take a second training course so that I learn about all
of the ways that my employer might surprise me with a random drug test and
find out about drug use. But I’m also the employer so really I’m learning
about how I might trap myself._

 _Five minutes after the FAA inspector left, I received a phone call. “I’m
from the FAA and we’d like to schedule an audit of your drug testing program.”
I remarked that a fully qualified FAA inspector was barely out of the driveway
and had just gone through every document that I had on the subject. “He was
from the FSDO (Flight Standards District Office)? That’s a completely
different department. We’re going to send two inspectors up from Atlanta next
month.” Why two? “We always send them in pairs.” What did they want? “We’re
going to fax you a detailed list of all of the information that we need and
you should immediately contact your drug testing provider (Lexis /Nexis) to
tell them that you’re being audited. There is a bunch of information that you
can get only from them. As soon as you get the fax, you should re-fax it to
Lexis/Nexis.” I said that I didn’t have a fax machine, so he promised to send
the information via U.S. mail. It could not be emailed._

[https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2011/06/16/revitalizing-
the-...](https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2011/06/16/revitalizing-the-u-s-
economy-through-government-spending/)

~~~
rsync
Lexis/Nexis does drug testing ?

~~~
ryanlol
It's a part of their employee screening solutions.

What does lexis/nexis not do?

~~~
sitepodmatt
are they as grossly incompetent, infuriating and without a grain of common
sense as much as First Advantage?

~~~
ryanlol
I'm fairly certain that 'gross incompetence' is a core value in this sector.

------
FabHK
> But it’s enough to give clients both anonymity and coveted US registration
> for their planes

Well, a US registration is "coveted" because of fairly reasonable and light
regulation for GA (general aviation) aircraft (and the pilots who fly them
[1]). Other jurisdictions (EU) are cracking down on N-registered planes based
in their territory, though. It's not like the US registration is prestigious
or hard to get or anything.

However, as it happens, only US persons may register a plane in the US (don't
quote me on the exact terms, IANAL). That means that if you want to operate an
N-registered airplane as a foreigner, you have to go through a trust (or some
other legal construction, IANAL). That's why there's a cottage industry for
those, and I suppose criminals tag along happily.

[1]: The Chicago convention established (a long time ago, after WW II) that
every country ("contracting party") would have a register of aircraft, and a
register of pilots ("airmen"), and that a pilot of one country with an
aircraft registered in the same country could fly in that country, of course,
and also _all other contracting parties_. So, if there's an N-registered plane
(i.e., an aircraft registered in the US) based in Europe or Asia, a pilot with
an FAA license (i.e., an airman registered in the US) can fly it.

A pilot from country A can fly a plane from country A in country A (of course)
and B and C and all other countries (by Chicago convention), but can't fly a
plane from country B in country A or B necessarily (there are exceptions) or
country C or any other country.

As FAA rules for pilots are fairly reasonable and benign, a good number of
(non-commercial) pilots internationally likes to fly on a FAA license in
N-registered planes.

~~~
sokoloff
My understanding was that 2 out of 3 of the pilot certificate, the airplane
registration, and the country had to match.

Mine are N-registered and based in the US, but if I ever took one to Europe,
you can be damn sure I'd keep it on a N-reg. Europe's regulations are
positively insane where ours are just slightly daft.

~~~
FabHK
Not generally, it depends on the country, from what I gather. Can’t fly with
an FAA license in a German plane in Germany.

It’s funny, you can fly a German plane with a German license in Germany (safe,
apparently), and an American plane with an American license (safe), but not a
German plane with an American license or vice versa, AFAIK.

Some countries make exceptions - I believe it was ok to fly a UK plane in the
UK with a FAA license (but then you couldn’t fly it to Germany, while with a
US plane or UK license you could).

~~~
phillc73
> Can’t fly with an FAA license in a German plane in Germany.

I used to fly a British registered aeroplane (G-reg) in Britain, with an
Australian licence. However, I couldn't fly that same aeroplane over the
channel to France. For that, I'd need a British licence.

This was mid-2000s. Don't know if regulations have changed since.

------
IncRnd
There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not willing to
turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the
story.

~~~
colonelxc
You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading certain content,
or running certain scripts (in this case ads).

The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing their content without
compensation (in this case, through ads).

Of course it is probably not intentional on their part, they probably have
never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were aware of the issue, I can't
imagine it being very high priority.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
You're assuming that the problem is caused by ad blockers, not by over-
reliance on JavaScript, insufficient testing, or other poor web design. Anti-
adblocker software usually announces itself, in my experience; the goal is to
get people to turn off their ad blockers, not leave entirely.

~~~
cm2187
I have seen many websites which core functionality is broken by adblockers.
The Vodafone website in the U.K. is a good example, you can't login to the
client area with an ad blocker on. Just plain bad design, not necessarily
malice.

------
CryptoPunk
While many social evils, like the ones mentioned in the article, can be
stopped when we end privacy, profound harm can be caused by doing so as well.

In a democratic society, the end of privacy means we are all fully at the
mercy of the majority. When the majority errs, our freedom and even our lives
can be lost. Privacy is the check against that unimaginably large systemic
risk.

The piece doesn't even look at the other side of the privacy argument. That
highly placed opinion makers like the authors of this article can write such a
one sided article about privacy just goes to show that we could very well end
up in a situation where the majority is steered in a terribly destructive
direction.

~~~
IncRnd
1) Plurality not majority.

2) The end of privacy means you are at the mercy of a minority not a majority,
possibly a minority of one.

~~~
CryptoPunk
I'm giving the anti-privacy camp the benefit of doubt and assuming we can
create a democratic system in which the will of the majority is reflected.
Even then, giving up almost all forms of meaningful privacy could end up being
terribly dangerous.

------
godzillabrennus
Visit it from an archive: [http://archive.is/uTdNq](http://archive.is/uTdNq)

~~~
khedoros1
Thank you! That makes it much more legible!

------
FabHK
> The FAA has a reputation for making change at a snail’s pace even when
> problems are clearly identified: The agency, for example, still doesn’t put
> a photo of the pilot on airman’s licenses 13 years after Congress called for
> it.

Yeah, well, but you have to carry a valid photo ID with your pilot's license
when you fly, so what's the big deal? (somebody with the same name and birth
date and size could fly with your license?)

~~~
bsder
I don't know, they seem to have moved relatively fast about drones.

Perhaps the FAA moves slowly because A) they don't want to break things that
people's lives depend upon and B) they react to actual problems rather than
breathless prose.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
> they seem to have moved relatively fast about drones

So much so that they introduced the flagrantly illegal drone registration
program.

~~~
bsder
First, the FAA weren't really moving that fast about drones until idiots
started flying drones in active fire control areas. Once planes and
helicopters started needing to be grounded in active fire control areas
because of morons with drones, regulation was inevitable.

Second, airspace is controlled. If you want to put something in it, you need
permission. I wish you luck with your quest to deregulate airspace.

Third, drones were effectively unregulated for quite a while. And the drone
users somehow couldn't police themselves--sorry that your libertarian utopia
ran aground on the shoals of human stupidity.

Fourth, yeah, I'm sorry if your libertarian sensibilities get offended, but
when, not if, your drone comes crashing into something I own, I want to know
to whom I need to send the bill. Your right to operate a drone impinges on my
right to know who is damaging my property. No regulation implies that I
surrender my right over my property and you have given me very little
justification why your flying lawnmower should receive such treatment.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
I'm not advocating anarcho-capitalism, I'm just saying the drone registration
program is illegal. And that's not a dig on the FAA. They felt that drones
were a real problem so I think they did it even though they knew would get
struck down, because they didn't have the time to get something through
congress.

I would like more legal clarity in flying drones, and I personally take safety
seriously. In fact, my drone still has my F number label attached :-)

I think they need something more robust, because as it stands now, anyone with
a couple hundred dollars can walk out of a best buy with something that can do
real harm. And for people like me who take safety seriously, it's hard to find
places to fly because of the jumbled patchwork of rules in different states,
cities and parks.

------
rbcgerard
how is this different from a the privacy afforded by a US license plate on a
car?

~~~
tim333
It's pretty similar to that really.

------
kevingadd
This article is interesting but it's also completely unreadable in Firefox and
Edge because they inexplicably decided to render black text on top of
relatively dark photos.

??? What is with modern newspaper site design these days? Every time they
update their designs it gets harder to read them, even though they're trying
to convince me to pay for it.

~~~
bogomipz
It was also unreadable for me because before I was able to read a single word
I was presented with a pop up to connect with them on Facebook. Thats my queue
to hit the back button.

~~~
a3n
Cue.

