Flying Blind, Flying Safe
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | 4.27 (954 Votes) |
| Asin | : | B004ECGPNG |
| Format Type | : | paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 373 Pages |
| Publish Date | : | 0000-00-00 |
| Language | : | English |
DESCRIPTION:
This is an essential work by the ultimate insider: a book that must be read by anyone who flies.. Department of Transportation, has written a scathing expose of the fraud, corruption, waste, mismanagement, and dangerous negligence that runs rampant throughout the aviation industry and its ineffectual "policing" organization, the FAA. At the same time, she offers sane and valuable information and advice that will enable travelers to increase their safety in the air. Featuring new, updated information in this edition, the courageous and controversial New York Times bestseller is by the outspoken former "Top Cop" of the U.S. Department of Transportation.Mary Schiavo, the former Inspector General of the U.S
A Must-Read for aviation professionals and airline travelers As a military aviator and private pilot, I was drawn-in by Mary Schiavo's story. What I learned was appalling. She has exposed the FAA for what it is, a sneaky, lying, secretive bureaucratic nightmare. Big kudos to Ms. Schiavo for being a staunch advocate of aviation professionals and the flying public who must trust the FAA with their lives daily. This book shows us that safety is NOT the highest priority for the FAA. I think for my next vacation, I'll just tune-up the truck and drive.. Schiavo's book is fraught with many factual errors. A Customer Schiavo's book, although meant to be a blockbuster, was obviously completed in a rush after she resigned her position as Inspector General in charge of overseeing the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). It could have been a much better book if the timing wasn't so critical. Numerous factual errors and some amatuerish prose (even with a second author) make the book quite a bit less than it could have been. Although the book contains references, there is no index (a large omission in a. "We should be lobbying for LESS airline safety!" according to A Customer. As Burt Rutan has said: "We should be arguing for less airline safety in this country." IF you understand that commercial flying in general is roughly We should be lobbying for LESS airline safety! As Burt Rutan has said: "We should be arguing for less airline safety in this country." IF you understand that commercial flying in general is roughly 30 times safer than say driving, and you agree that there is a limited supply of taxpayer dollars to spend on so called "public safety" expendatures, then you should also conclude that those dollars can be more wisely elsewhere. For example: A great bi-partisan commission on airline safety had come to the conclusion that we allshould have. 0 times safer than say driving, and you agree that there is a limited supply of taxpayer dollars to spend on so called "public safety" expendatures, then you should also conclude that those dollars can be more wisely elsewhere. For example: A great bi-partisan commission on airline safety had come to the conclusion that we allshould have