Consider the following scenario recently recounted by a retired senior Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety inspector[1]: A 14 CFR Part 135 operator parked a midsize jet for seven months because two FAA Flight Standards District Offices could not agree on one minimum equipment list item. Inspectors in State X said: “Placard the standby altimeter as ‘INOP’ and go.” But Inspectors in State Y said: “No—swap the altimeter before you fly.” While they debated, the operator bled approximately $17,000 a day in lost revenue. Crews timed out, hangar rent piled up, and the insurer started asking if the air carrier certificate was at risk. Phone calls, e-mails, even an on-site visit – nothing broke the tie. Out of options, the chief pilot filed an FAA Consistency & Standardization Initiative (CSI) request. Thirty-four days later, FAA Headquarters issued one ruling both offices had to follow, and the jet flew the next morning. It was the same rule, but the operator received conflicting answers on how it applied. Before CSI, there was no reliable way to settle split interpretations. Cost is why CSI matters—the cost of lost effort, lost time, and lost money. The cost of delays, grounded airplanes, missed trips, and a basic erosion of trust. Beyond these costs, safety can also be on the line. So CSI was designed as a transparent and timed path to resolve such conflicts—to give inspectors and operators one published playbook with targeted deadlines. Although CSI has not been in the aviation press of late, it provides an avenue for potential resolution of issues occasionally experienced by the aviation community when interfacing with the FAA. To that end, a reminder is in order on what CSI is, what it is designed to accomplish, and how is it supposed to work. Definitions and Core Purpose: An Overview of CSI Goals Before CSI, stakeholders