With lax oversight, the FAA has enabled secrecy in the skies

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-...

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.

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.

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?)

??? 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.