Few have ever heard of it, and if they did, they really did not understand that this process could be used to appeal any FAA departmental action that you disagree with or question its validity. It is called the Aviation Safety Consistency and Standardization Initiative.
When this process was created in 2009 it was designed to offer an opportunity for all affected airmen or other stakeholders to question any result of action by any aviation safety office operating within the FAA. The word stakeholder simply refers to one or all of the persons or other entities who wish to dispute or question the action of FAA or its representatives.
Regulatory appeals
There are of course formal regulatory appeals available that result from certificate actions that sanction airmen for conduct within the flight standards system. These appeals go to an Administrative Law Judge then to the NTSB and if necessary, further, to a U.S. District Court or District Court of Appeals. We all should be familiar with this type of appeal.
However, outside of this area there were many disputes or decisions and actions by FAA resulting in sanctions that did not provide for an “appeal” to a higher decision making authority. Therefore, in 2009 FAA created the Consistency and Standardization Initiative process to allow for a review of any action or decision that was not covered by a regulatory appeal procedure.
Nonregulatory appeals
This “review” (appeal) is a powerful tool to question FAA action simply because it provides for a direct review that can go all the way to the Administrators office. When you file a petition for a review of any decision it has to be reviewed by the complete chain of command, at every level of management in the FAA.
The description on the FAA web site describes the process as follows, “When an aviation safety action is questioned or disputed, decision-makers at every level of the AVS management chain are expected to thoroughly review the matter and be accountable for the answers provided. AVS is proud to work on behalf of the American public to continually improve safety in our skies.”
Some of the principles of the Consistency and Standardization process are published further as:
1. A timely and complete response to your inquiry or request.
2. A clear explanation of the requirements, alternatives, and possible outcomes associated with your inquiry or request.
3. A clear explanation of our decisions.
4. Clear guidance on how you can elevate your concerns to the next higher level of authority.
Note that item (4) is the statement that supports your assurance that your question or issue will go all the way to the top of the AVS management chain, the Administrator, if not resolved at a lower level.
In addition, the consistency and standardization review process must include a very detailed checklist that is also set out at the web site that includes but is not limited to the following check items that must be reviewed:
1. The relevant regulations
2. The relevant guidance
3. The legal precedents and interpretations
4. Prior history of the person or entity making the petition
5. The offices, regions, or directorates that have dealt with the petitioner
Examples
Recently, I have come across two cases where the process could be used and was successful in bringing about a desired result in one case.
Starting in 2012 there were many concerns surrounding a newly proposed Inspection Authorization policy that many felt was specifically designed to remove many senior mechanics' inspection authorization. Although this was not the stated intent, it appeared to many that it was to be the result. The first instance I heard of happened to a senior mechanic who was challenged and subjected to a re-test for his IA authority by a difficult inspector regarding a clerical error on a 337 form that came to the attention of the inspector The airman handed in his IA authority after being subjected to an unnecessary 709 exam … there is of course no formal appeal of a denial of IA authority. It is simply authority that can be denied and taken away for any reason. However, if he had waited until they had withdrawn his authority, in my opinion, the consistency and standardization process could have been used by the mechanic to question and challenge this action.
Another example provided the desired result. A mechanic who was on an overseas assignment at the time had sent his renewal papers to his stateside managing FSDO for renewal of his IA authority. The papers were sent back to him for correction of some typos which he then resent back to the FSDO. Due to the slow arrival and delivery of mail in the part of the world where this man was, the papers arrived at the FSDO after the date required to renew. The FSDO informed him that since the time had passed to renew they were sorry but could not accommodate him. He was very upset, he would lose his job and have to return to the United States since his IA was required for his employment. He tried pleading with the FSDO for some relief to no avail. He called me and asked what he could do. I suggested that he prepare a petition to the FSDO manager citing the Consistency process relating all the facts and again asking for some relief. Subsequently he was informed that his IA authority was on the way and the FSDO was sorry for the mixup. The mere mention of invoking the Consistency and Standardization Initiative and serving the relevant papers seemed to get the desired result. We will never know for sure of course.
When all else fails try the Consistency and Standardization process and see what happens. The process is described on the FAA web site.
Stephen P. Prentice is an attorney with an Airframe and Powerplant certificate, is an ATP rated pilot, and is a USAF veteran. E-mail: [email protected].
Consistency and Standardization Initiative, A Look at the Origins
The FAA's Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) - formerly the "Customer Service Initiative" - has given those affected by agency decisions a process they can use to ask for review at increasingly higher levels of the FAA with no fear of retribution.
CSI began life as the Customer Service Initiative in 2004. The name change to the Consistency and Standardization Initiative emphasizes the original intent to ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of agency regulation and policies. CSI defines what the aviation community can expect from the FAA when doing business with any Aviation Safety office, and what we expect from the community in return.
Nick Sabatini, a former Federal Aviation Administration associate administrator for aviation safety and currently an aviation consultant, appeared on a PBS Frontline episode conducted on Oct. 22, 2009, and spoke about CSI:
“It's interesting to note that in the statute that authorizes the FAA, the statute specifically singles out the air carriers. And it goes on to say that air carriers shall operate at the highest levels of safety, which means that you are constantly raising the safety bar. And that is what's important to understand. Everyone is meeting the regulatory standard, and no matter how high you make that standard, it is always the threshold for entry into that service.
“What we would do with air carriers - and again, working together - is encourage them to introduce programs that collect data: Flight Operations Quality Assurances [FOQA], the flight data recorder on an airplane. And it captures a tremendous amount of data, and you can look at how those airplanes are performing, how they're operating, etc.
“There's another program for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics to report what they see, and the FAA affords them protection against use of the information against them.
“It is that flow of data to us and, together, analysis of that data that provides us insight into what is going on in the system, so while they always meet the required regulatory standard, it's the learning of what's going on in the system that constantly raises that safety bar, learning about what's happening in the system and applying interventions to prevent a potential accident.
“So coming from the field, what we know is that there was a lack of consistency and standardization -- and how best to address that? A decision rendered by an FAA office on the East Coast or the West Coast should be the same. The application of the rule should be the same. The application of guidance and policy should be the same, and that was not how things were working. It was not as good as it ought to be, so you, a citizen of these United States interfacing with your government, should have the right to, when a decision has been rendered regarding an application you may have submitted and you read the regulation and you say, ‘Well, I should have been issued this,’ or ‘It should have gone this other way,’ you should have the right to appeal that to the supervisor.
“So we put in place what was at that time called a Customer Service Initiative. It was never intended in any way to diminish the importance [of] who the real customer is. The real customer is the public of these United States. We never lost sight of that regardless of what anybody says. It is the public who is the customer.
“But in a relationship where you're working to raise the safety bar, we wanted to establish consistency and standardization and put in place a mechanism that is still in place today, that allows standardization and consistency to continuously be achieved.
“Now, we should have called it the Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI). Why we ever called it Customer Service I have no idea. It just evolved that way, but its intent was about consistency and standardization. I wish we hadn't called it Customer Service. We should have just called it Consistency and Standardization Initiative.
“In fact, to further that, the AVS (Aviation Safety) organization, the safety organization, went about the business of achieving ISO (International Organization for Standardization) registration, which is not about regulations but it is a rigorous methodology on how the organization operates internally and how it interfaces in a consistent and standardized manner with the people it is serving in terms of applicants or pilots, mechanics, whatever the case may be.
“It was never intended to say that the customer's always right. It was a mechanism to say you need to listen to people who have reason to ask questions about a decision that was made. I'm a citizen of these United States; I want my government to be responsive to me. If I have a question about my government, I want to raise that question, and I want someone in authority to tell me why a decision was made that I disagreed with.
“And you know what? We require people in the FAA who then review these CSIs to put their decision in writing, and that decision needs to be based on regulation, policy and guidance so that everyone understands why that decision was made. Interestingly enough, most CSIs were not overturned.
"The fact is, we're operating the safest air transportation system in the world, bar none. And the best way to continue to deliver on the public's best interest is to work in a fashion that causes industry and government to share information, because when people work together, you can solve many, many problems."
About the Author
Stephen P. Prentice
Stephen P. Prentice is an attorney with an Airframe and Powerplant certificate, is an ATP rated pilot, and is a USAF veteran. E-mail: [email protected].