Uninformed simple minded journalist compares aircraft to elevators says they should be regulated the same. 

Today's Politics Daily includes an article by a writer named Adam Hanft in which he compares aircraft to elevators and argues that the "FAA bring a new level of transparency and openness to its regulatory apparatus." In light of recent FAA enforcement actions against carriers Mr. Hanft suggests that all air carrier  maintenance and pilot records, be published online by the FAA.  He goes on to reason that since "any elevator" he steps into has an inspection certificate in it, and that certificate is signed by the inspector, air carriers should post all records on line.  This is the kind of simple minded and illogical reasoning that uninformed and undereducated blogging heads make, but it is not a rational response to what may be a real issue. 

Is it the case that air carriers make mistakes and improperly maintain their aircraft?  Yes.  Is it the case that these mistakes have caused a rash of airline accidents killing thousands of people?  No.  In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any U.S. airline accident in at least a decade that was caused by faulty maintenance.  This does not mean we should drop all inspection and enforcement activity, it does however imply that the current regime is working fairly well. 

In Mr. Hanft's world the air carriers would be required to publish on a flight by flight basis the complete maintenance and pilot histories for the aircraft operations by flight number.  That way he could look on line and see if he wants to take the flight based on the data those postings would reveal.  He goes on to bemoan the fact that airlines and unions would object.  Well of course they would and well they should. 

If we accept the premise of Mr. Hanft's argument, that the operations are so complex that the FAA cannot possibly police them, then we must reject the solution.  If they are so complex then the average uneducated traveler will be even less likely to properly evaluate the data.  Mr. Hanft's idea would yield no tangible benefit at an extremely high personal and business cost. 

The average passenger has no frame of reference to refer to when evaluating aircraft maintenance records.  The details are so complex that even with the best available software systems, mechanic training and regulatory oversight, mistakes still occur. 

And let us not forget that the elevator certificate he points to is not required in every state as he suggests it is, and provides precious little information beyond the date of the inspection and the name of the inspector.  It tells us nothing about the maintenance history of the elevator and it tells us nothing about the training and experience of the inspector.  At the moment those same assurances are already posted in every aircraft.  The certificate of airworthiness is right next to the cockpit door and by regulation must be there so the public can see the aircraft's equivalent of the elevator inspection certificate. 

The problem with irrational responses is they trivialize the problems and their solutions.  Simple minded solutions to complex problems have the attraction of being easy to understand, but they lack the honesty needed to accomplish the goal.  Mr. Hanft may be qualified to comment on something (I have no idea what that something may be as his qualifications are not posted) but aviation is not one of those things.