Skip to content

consequences of a “small-government” administration

The recent accident at Blue Grass Airport in Kentucky is yet another example of a Bush administration that sees no value in government. As a consequence, 49 out of 50 people died.

FAA: Tower staffing during plane crash violated rules:

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday acknowledged that only one controller was in the tower, in violation of FAA policy, when a Comair jet crashed Sunday while trying to take off from the wrong runway in Lexington, Kentucky.

The acknowledgment came after CNN obtained a November 2005 FAA memorandum spelling out staffing levels at the airport.

The agency implemented the policy last year after a near in-air collision at Raleigh/Durham International Airport. At the time, only one controller was staffing the tower.

It should also be pointed out for those fans of privitization that having only one controller on duty is also the cheapest way to run a tower. Unless you happen to be on one of those planes that happens to crash, but hey that’s what insurance is all about, right? Think of the payday for your loved ones. They will be thanking you for being on that plane!

Posted in political.

6 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. LyriCa1z says

    Blaming a plane crash on President bush? You, sir, are a moran.

  2. TC says

    this is a comedy piece, right? a satire piece? oh my aching, freaking god, are you actually serious? the ops center boss lets them work one man short, in violation of federal regulations/law, and it’s bush’s fault? what, did he call the ops manager and tell him to short-staff the tower? hmmm….the FAA started requiring 2 controllers in 2005, under bush’s watch, so that means bush actually SAVES lives, right?

  3. TC says

    this morning, my coffee was very hot, and i burned my tongue a little. i blame bush. also, it was horribly cold and foggy. damn bush and his weather machine!

  4. patrick says

    I find it interesting that the above 3 posts, ignored the main point I was making. I never blamed Bush for directly causing the plane crash. What I blame Bush for is the general attitude of an indifferent government caused by a complete lack of accountability that is the hallmark of his administration.

    If there is no reward for competence and no punishment for incompetence in any organization (government or otherwise), you will see acts of sloppy indifference — that in this case cost 49 people their lives.

    So I will continue to let people post comments like the above ones, as I am mildly amused by them. I find it interesting that the above posters think that Bush only bears responsibility for his direct actions.

    The President of the United States is responsible for everything that happens on his watch from the moment he is sworn in. He is responsible for setting the tone of the entire federal government.

    A comparable office is captain of a ship or pilot of a plane. If someone fucks up, the ship’s captain usually ends up facing disciplinary action that ends his career. He (or she) bears the responsibility of the failure of people under them.

    If the pilot of a plane, is involved in an accident usually the pilot is assigned fault. Under Visual Flight Rules(VFR), the pilot is expected to avoid accidents *no matter* what others are doing.

    Why should the president (“decider”), be held to a lesser standard?

  5. TC says

    i do however wish to compliment you on the reasoning behind your piece. i can now see you that you are a sincere individual wit heartfelt opinions etc. however, i would say that the ship captain/aircraft pilot analogy is not the most apt, most analogous job to that of commander-in-chief, for various and sundry reasons. at the same time, i see where you are coming from. the only thing i would try and impress upon the citizenry of the USA is that i was in the US military for years, and worked for the federal government for years also, and it is nothing like the movies. while there are great federal employees, the fed gov’t has an environment—-no, a culture of incompetence and indolence with thousands and thousands of people doing as little as possible as slowly as possible while they dream of their next (largely automatic) raise and their retirement plans as they loaf in their offices. why? because it is EXTREMELY difficult to fire anyone, for anything! it resembles the proverbail gravy train, in many ways. we the people tolerate it, and our leaders tolerate it, so why are we surprised when things go wrong? unless a president comes in and wholesale fires tens of thousands of men and women (a real PR nightmare) it will ALWAYS be this way. so i always expect incompetence from all civil servants, and i am pleasantly surprised when ever there is competence.

  6. patrick says

    TC: thanks for that comment, I too must revise my impression.

    Having dealt with many people in government, I know some what of what you talk about w.r.t. a culture that is more focused on following the dictated process rather than actually getting good results.

    Certainly being able to fire incompetents sounds good, that can have its own problems. The civil service rules came about in part because of the Garfield assassination and the arbitrary terminations that are experienced in the business world (been fired a few times myself!). So there needs to be a way of reworking the system.

    I personally think each department should have a set of goals that they are to acheive and the people in the department are judged against those goals. The goals should be like an uber-EIR/EIS (public comments). But then everything else the department judges should be judged against those goals.

    Example: “Increase bus use in the bay area by 10%/year”

    I am sure it would be a slow process but something has got to change.

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.