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 such as pilots, operators, and aviation organizations frequently encountered inconsistent application of FAA regulations, receiving different interpretations of the same regulation from various field offices. Beginning in 2004 as the “Customer Service Initiative” and subsequently renamed as the “Consistency & Standardization Initiative,” CSI provides a structured process for stakeholders to request reviews of FAA decisions they believe may be inconsistent or incorrect, with a goal that aviation safety regulations and policies are applied uniformly across FAA offices and personnel. The CSI process also attaches specific timelines to each level of review and response, establishing accountability on all parties so issues do not get lost in a morass of bureaucracy. More specifically, CSI seeks to:

• provide consistent interpretation and implementation of agency regulations and policies;
• create predictability in FAA oversight, ensuring operators receive consistent answers regardless of location; and
• improve internal FAA training and coordination while building trust with the aviation community through responsiveness and transparency.

CSI is a program within the FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety (AVS), the pivotal FAA division tasked with upholding the safety standards of civil aviation in the United States. Key AVS offices and services include: the Accident Investigation & Prevention Office; the Aerospace Medicine Office; the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service; the Aircraft Certification Service; the Flight Standards Service; the Office of Rulemaking, and the UAS Integration Office. Under CSI, when an AVS action is questioned or disputed, decision-makers at every level of the AVS management chain within the applicable office or service are expected to thoroughly review the matter and be accountable for the answers provided.

As a starting point, CSI is based on certain specific stakeholder expectations and responsibilities. Under FAA policy, stakeholders have the right to expect:

• service that promotes a safe, secure, and efficient aviation system;
• considerate, respectful, and professional service;
• a clear explanation of requirements, alternatives, and possible outcomes for the stakeholder’s inquiry or request;
• a timely and complete response;
• a clear explanation of FAA decisions;
• an environment without fear of retribution if a stakeholder challenges FAA decisions;
• fair and careful consideration of the issue; and
• clear guidance on how to elevate concerns to the next higher level of authority.

Key to meeting these expectations, the FAA in turn expects stakeholders to:

• understand that the FAA’s first priority is safety,
• grant employees the same level of professionalism with which the stakeholder wishes to be treated; and
• provide all pertinent information in a timely manner.

Finally, both the FAA and stakeholders share the same “responsibility to work together with mutual respect and integrity to continue to make the U.S. aviation system the safest in the world.”

The CSI Process: Pre-Considerations

First, it is important to note what CSI does not address: CSI was not designed to – and cannot be used to – change a regulatory requirement, address certification or letter of authorization processing time, resolve letters of investigation, or complain about the FAA in general. Rather, CSI can be a powerful tool to address disagreements concerning issues such as the interpretation of specific regulations or policies and or to address multiple issues related to regulatory or policy interpretation surrounding a specific topic.

Before initiating a formal CSI review, stakeholders should make every attempt to resolve the issue informally with the FAA office responsible for the decision that has created the conflict. This informal stage begins by working with an inspector or engineer at the field office level; if the decision is appealed, it may then be reviewed by their local manager. This stage often involves face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, and e-mail exchanges to attempt to resolve the issue. If the issue cannot resolved at this informal stage, the formal CSI process can begin.

Initiation of the Formal Process: The Field Office Level of Review

A stakeholder initiates CSI action by contacting the field office responsible for the disputed decision and requesting the process begin. The field office should provide links to a CSI Guide and the FAA’s Documentation Tool – important resources because positions must be supported by specific documentation. (Find resources here.) The stakeholder’s issue cannot be opinion, must be laid out in a logical manner, should cite applicable regulations, advisory circulars, and directives, and include pertinent documents such as emails, letters, or other correspondence. The stakeholder should provide thorough information, but ensure it is specific to the issue. The Documentation Tool is one method to provide information the FAA needs to assess the situation, but stakeholders can use traditional correspondence if they prefer. One way or another, stakeholders need to provide FAA enough information for thorough and proper considered.

Once submitted, the formal process has officially begun, and the field office assigns a tracking that will remain the same throughout all levels of the review.

The field office must provide a response within 30 business days of receiving the completed Documentation Tool or submission. Stakeholders may request a meeting and a written copy of the field offices’ response. The field office must provide references to the regulation or policy used to reach any decision; throughout this level of review, FAA guidance specifically directs the field office to work to gain stakeholder acceptance without pressuring the stakeholder. Stakeholders have 30 calendar days to study the FAA response before deciding whether to accept it or request a follow-up meeting. It is important to note that if a stakeholder chooses to accept a field office’s decision at any point in this level of review and the office closes the matter in its system, the stakeholder may not re-initiate the issue in that field office or a different field office.

The Division/Directorate Level of Review

If the stakeholder does not accept the field office decision, they may request review at the applicable division/directorate level (i.e., regional office). Staff will review both the stakeholder’s and the field office’s supporting documentation, confirm that appropriate references were used, and consult current policies, guidance, and regulations to arrive at a decision at the division/directorate level.

If the division/directorate determines that the field office was incorrect, it will develop an alternate resolution and notify the stakeholder in writing; it may also request a meeting or teleconference to discuss the decision. Conversely, if the division/directorate finds that the field office’s rationale was sound, the division/directorate will provide notice of that decision to the stakeholder in writing, at which point the stakeholder may request a meeting for further discussion.

If the stakeholder agrees with the decision, then the matter is closed. Once the matter is closed, the stakeholder cannot re-initiate the same matter with a different field office or division/directorate, nor may the stakeholder re-submit the issue as a new CSI matter.

The Service Level of Review

If the stakeholder disagrees with the division/directorate determination, they may request review at the service level (i.e., headquarters). Upon elevation, an assigned manager/specialist will review all prior documentation from both sides and look at whether any new or mitigating information can help identify alternate paths for resolution. During this process, the Service Director may ask another office (e.g., the FAA Chief Counsel) to recommend an action. Upon a determination that a previous decision was not valid, an alternate resolution and written response prepared for the service director’s signature and communication to the stakeholder and related offices.

Upon receipt of the director’s determination, the stakeholder has 30 calendar days to accept the decision or request a review from the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1). The stakeholder may indicate agreement with the decision, or that the stakeholder does not accept the decision, the stakeholder does not want an AVS-1 review. If the stakeholder either elects to accept the determination or does nothing during the 30-day response period, then the matter will be closed and, once again, at that point the stakeholder may not request an AVS-1 review or re-open the same matter with the original or another office.

Associate Administrator Review

If the stakeholder notifies the FAA within 30 calendar days of receipt of the service director’s determination that the stakeholder disagrees with that determination and wants an AVS-1 review, the FAA will prepare a review package for AVS-1 with all pertinent information. If AVS-1 does not concur with the director’s determination, AVS-1 may suggest the service consider some other form of compromise on the stakeholder’s issue that does not affect safety. But if AVS-1 does concur with the determination, then the CSI process for that specific matter ends.

If the stakeholder still does not agree with AVS-1’s decision, the stakeholder’s other option include:

• petition for exemption from the particular regulations;
• communicate with the FAA Administrator or the U.S. Secretary of Transportation;
• file a complaint to the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General;
• communicate with a U.S. Representative or Senator; or
• potentially file suit in federal court to address the matter.

With respect to the lawsuit option, it is important to note that before a court will step in to resolve a stakeholder dispute with the FAA, the court will often – if not always – require that the stakeholder first exhaust all potential administrative remedies. This effectively means pursuing the entire CSI process is required as a first step in any lawsuit.

Conclusion: CSI Challenges and Potential

While CSI promises to provide resolution of disagreements between the FAA and stakeholders without fear of retribution, survey results from the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation Advisory Rulemaking Committee – not to mention “conventional wisdom” within the aviation community – unfortunately indicates that “industry fear of retaliation” continues to hinder CSI’s stated purpose. In part because of this fear, the FAA established its Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB) in 2017 and included a process for anonymous submission. The FAA has further created a voluntary Stakeholder Satisfaction Feedback Tool, allowing stakeholders to rate their satisfaction of how AVS personnel handled the matter.

Despite persistent challenges, CSI arguably holds great potential as a critical tool for addressing inconstancies, eliminating discrepancies, and offering remedies – all of which is obtained through providing uniform interpretations and applications of regulations and policies across the aviation community – but only if it is actually used by stakeholders. CSI offers the FAA a structured pathway for dispute resolution, a commitment to consistency, and a more open communication pattern, all of which, if properly utilized, can further strengthen both the FAA’s and industry’s ability to maintain and improve aviation safety.

[1] This is a true story; however, identifying information has been removed to protect the anonymity of involved parties.