I guess the fundamental question in the discussion over Republic Airways CEO Bryan Bedford’s nomination as FAA Administrator is when a mistake (if, indeed it was a mistake) becomes a lie when left uncorrected. Unfortunately, it would seem like Bedford isn’t very interested in peeling apart those layers and will instead follow a political playbook that, at best, counsels its adherents to ignore the uncomfortable questions from a minority because the majority doesn’t really care. And, for the sake of political expedience, that minority is being challenged to look the other way, which may become Bedford’s biggest challenge.
When news of Bedford’s nomination began circulating a few months ago, he seemed like a pick that could at least speak to the myriad challenges facing aviation. Running a regional airline over the past 20 years actually sounds like a special kind of hell to me and I would assume his days were packed with the kinds of existential crises that would be a good primer for the top job at the FAA, which sounds like an extra special kind of hell.
High profile nominees like this have, in past at least, gone through the kind of rigorous background checks that are designed to uncover even the slightest miscue on matters of character, policy direction and general behavior that might give opponents to his nomination potentially embarrassing fodder during the Senate nomination process. Bedford lit up the board with lights, sirens and air horns. Republic’s formal request, while Bedford was CEO, to the FAA a few years ago to cut in half the 1500-hour rule for graduates of the purpose-built regional airline training academy at Republic seemed like a reasonable idea to me. It did not, however, sit well with the bipartisan collection of Congress people representing Buffalo, New York where a Colgan Airlines Dash-8 stalled and spun into a suburban house in 2009.
Many of those government representatives were behind the Congressional order to require anyone applying for an ATP to have a minimum of 1500 hours although it didn’t specify the kind of flying experience. With 15 years of data to mine, it might be time to see if the controversial measure had any impact on flight safety and I suspect we will get that chance with Bedford in charge. But that’s not what this nomination process will be about, at least in my mind.
It seems inconceivable to me that the administration’s vetting process did not pick up the false assertion in his company bio that he had a commercial pilot certificate. It’s also inconceivable that Bedford wasn’t entirely responsible for that false assertion. Hands up anyone who has had to submit a bio for work or any other endeavor that you haven’t either written yourself or approved before it was published. Let’s also see a show of hands for those who believe Bedford doesn’t know the difference between having a commercial ticket and not having one.
In normal times, the due diligence discovery by Politico would have prompted an immediate response, a formal correction and heartfelt apology and that would have been it. But instead of admitting to what could have been characterized as an error at the time, Bedford and the administration dug in. Legitimate requests for clarification were stonewalled and the administration, via the Department of Transportation, instead spun it up into full-scale battle with the fake news who inevitably earn that status when they publish truthful information that causes it embarrassment.
The irony here is that the FAA demands nothing but absolute truth from those whose privileges and livelihoods depend on faultless adherence to its regulations and policies. Never, ever lying about anything is the bedrock of their interaction with the agency. One uncorrected error, misrepresentation or outright lie can utterly destroy the career of any of the hundreds of thousands who hold FAA certificates and the agency is ruthless in its pursuit and prosecution of those who commit that highest of crimes. Anyone who claimed to be a commercial pilot without actually being one could rightfully expect the full wrath.
But it looks like the guy who will set the standard for all of those who fly, fix, design and build airplanes will skate on this transgression at a time when the FAA can least afford that kind of sloppiness. As we reported last week, Bedford has, in written comments to the Senate Commerce Committee, confirmed that he is not a commercial pilot, something anyone could have found out for themselves with a few mouse clicks. He did not, however, take any responsibility for it and seemed to dismiss it as a minor faux pas that could have happened to anyone. Here’s the exchange. Read it yourself and tell me I’m wrong.
“Mr. Bedford, you said “transparency” is one of the top challenges facing the FAA. We absolutely need a leader at the agency who is transparent and does not misrepresent the facts. I am concerned, however, that you have not always been fully candid about your background. For years, the biography on your company’s website represented that you hold “commercial” pilot ratings. It said this as recently as December 2024. But now that you have been nominated to lead FAA, this credential has been scrubbed from your online biography.
Question 1: Mr. Bedford, you do not currently hold commercial pilot ratings, correct?
Response: It is true I fully completed all my commercial flight training, including the FAA written exam and FAA oral exam. However, due to weather, I was unable to complete my FAA check ride before switching jobs, and therefore did not formally obtain my commercial flight license.
Question 2: You never held commercial pilot ratings, correct?
Response: Correct.
Question 3: But as recently as October 2019, you indicated during remarks at Liberty University that you had commercial pilot ratings, stating: “Between like, 1994-1997, I went through private, instrument, multi-engine, commercial, and by the time we got to our next labor negotiation three years later, I had all my ratings.” Why did you claim to have commercial pilot ratings at this time?
Response: Context is important in this setting. I was simply trying to relate to these students’ my appreciation for their achievements based on my own extensive flight training experience. I still fly, as a pilot, on a regular basis.“
The very least I would have expected in this almost-cordial exchange would be some kind of acceptance of responsibility for the lengthy delusion of his flight credentials. We all know how big a difference there is between a private and a commercial certificate and the fact that he did part of the work toward getting the higher classification is of little comfort. Instead, he seemed to be trying to see what he could get away with.
The tragedy is that the nomination of this fundamentally flawed candidate comes as the FAA is fighting (or should be fighting) to reclaim its position as the authority of record on all things aviation. Regulatory agencies around the world have traditionally adopted FAA standards as their own in the belief that those standards represent the best that any could conceive and achieve. Experience with the MAX, the deterioration of ATC and a few nasty incidents in the past couple of years have tarnished that reputation and a spectacle like this does not inspire confidence that improvement is on the way.
Bedford, and Bedford alone can at least partially fix this. The credentials issue will come up again in the hearings before the full Senate. A full acceptance of responsibility, a promise to never let it happen again and an abject apology would go some way toward repairing the reputational insults he has self-inflicted.
Source link
[aviation news]
Share this content:
