Federal Aviation Administration

===Conflicting roles===
The FAA has been cited as an example of [[regulatory capture]], "in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators."<ref name="davidoff-regcap">{{cite news |last=Solomon |first=Steven Davidoff |title=The Government's Elite and Regulatory Capture |work=DealBook |publisher=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 11, 2010 |url=https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/the-governments-elite-and-regulatory-capture/ |access-date=July 28, 2019 |archive-date=January 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200120214649/https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/the-governments-elite-and-regulatory-capture |url-status=live}}</ref> Retired NASA Office of Inspector General Senior Special Agent [[Joseph Gutheinz]], who used to be a Special Agent with the [[Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation]] and with FAA Security, is one of the most outspoken critics of FAA. Rather than commend the agency for proposing a $10.2 million fine against Southwest Airlines for its failure to conduct mandatory inspections in 2008, he was quoted as saying the following in an [[Associated Press]] story: "Penalties against airlines that violate FAA directives should be stiffer. At $25,000 per violation, Gutheinz said, airlines can justify rolling the dice and taking the chance on getting caught. He also said the FAA is often too quick to bend to pressure from airlines and pilots."<ref name="ap-mailtrib/msnbc" /> Other experts have been critical of the constraints and expectations under which the FAA is expected to operate. The dual role of encouraging aerospace travel and regulating aerospace travel are contradictory. For example, to levy a heavy penalty upon an airline for violating an FAA regulation which would impact their ability to continue operating would not be considered encouraging aerospace travel.

On July 22, 2008, in the aftermath of the Southwest Airlines inspection scandal, a bill was unanimously approved in the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] to tighten regulations concerning airplane maintenance procedures, including the establishment of a whistleblower office and a two-year "cooling off" period that FAA inspectors or supervisors of inspectors must wait before they can work for those they regulated.<ref name="ainonline" /><ref>Congress.gov, "[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr6493 H.R.6493 - Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008]". {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211001040721/https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6493 |date=October 1, 2021 }}.</ref> The bill also required rotation of principal maintenance inspectors and stipulated that the word "customer" properly applies to the flying public, not those entities regulated by the FAA.<ref name="ainonline" /> The bill died in a Senate committee that year.<ref>Congress.gov, "[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110s3440 S.3440 - Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008]". {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211001040738/https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/3440 |date=October 1, 2021 }}.</ref>

In September 2009, the FAA administrator issued a directive mandating that the agency use the term "customers" to refer to only the flying public.<ref>{{cite news |title=FAA will stop calling airlines 'customers' |work=[[USA Today]] |date=September 18, 2009 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-17-faa-airline-customers_N.htm |access-date=October 17, 2009 |agency=[[Reuters]] |archive-date=December 24, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101224184815/http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-17-faa-airline-customers_N.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>