Why Doesn’t the FAA Have a Law Enforcement Arm—And Is It Making Aviation Less Safe?
In the complex and heavily regulated world of American transportation, one fact stands out as not just odd, but dangerous: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—the agency responsible for overseeing one of the most safety-critical sectors in the nation—does not have its own law enforcement arm. Meanwhile, other transportation agencies, such as the Federal Railroad Administration and even the Department of Agriculture, maintain inspector generals and dedicated enforcement divisions with badges and arrest powers.
Why is aviation, of all sectors, an exception?
The Current Model: Dependence on the FBI
When criminal activity related to aviation occurs—fraud, sabotage, illegal charters, laser strikes, trafficking, and even violations of federal aviation statutes—the FAA refers the matter to the FBI. While the Bureau is a premier law enforcement agency, it’s also overstretched, dealing with terrorism, espionage, cybercrime, organized crime, and countless other national security issues. In that vast sea of priority cases, aviation-related incidents often sink to the bottom of the stack.
Ask any seasoned pilot or operator, and they’ll tell you: most cases never see prosecution. Whether it’s pilots falsifying logbooks, rogue charter operations, mechanics cutting corners, or blatant fraud in maintenance facilities, the response from law enforcement is typically the same: “We don’t have the resources to pursue this.”
That’s a dangerous failure in a system built on compliance and trust.
The First Line of Defense: Overworked and Underequipped ASIs
What most people don’t realize is that the FAA’s initial investigations are typically handled by Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs). These men and women are the same individuals responsible for overseeing everything from flight schools to charter operators, maintenance shops, and even airmen certification.
When a potential crime is reported—whether it’s an unlicensed charter operation, forged documents, or unsafe maintenance—an ASI is often the one who must investigate. But that same ASI may already be juggling dozens of active oversight duties: pilot checkrides, maintenance surveillance, compliance audits, certifications, and day-to-day administrative tasks.
ASIs are not criminal investigators. They have no law enforcement authority. Yet they are expected to triage the situation, collect evidence, conduct interviews, and then refer the matter to an outside agency—usually the FBI or DOT Office of Inspector General.
Too often, that’s where things die.
These referrals, coming from an already overworked civil inspector, rarely lead to criminal follow-up. Not because the cases aren’t serious, but because there is no agency within the FAA whose sole job is to pursue them. No one owns the case. No one has the tools—or the mandate—to prosecute.
We’ve created a system where the people responsible for identifying potential criminal violations are neither trained nor empowered to do anything meaningful about them. It’s the very definition of systemic failure.
A Dangerous Gap in Accountability
This lack of prosecutorial follow-through breeds a culture where bad actors thrive. Operators know that unless their actions result in death or catastrophic loss, chances are slim they’ll ever face criminal consequences. That means more people willing to cut corners, misrepresent qualifications, or ignore regulations entirely.
The FAA can levy civil penalties, but without the bite of criminal enforcement, many violations become just another cost of doing business. Meanwhile, ethical operators are left to compete against unscrupulous actors who operate with impunity—and the flying public is none the wiser.
Why Rail Has Cops and Air Doesn’t
Compare this to the railroad industry, which benefits from law enforcement officers who are both federally empowered and embedded within the system. They can detain, arrest, and investigate violations specific to their domain. Even Amtrak, a passenger rail service, has its own police department.
Aviation has no such internal protection. No federal air marshals for cargo. No FAA officers to investigate crimes at maintenance shops, unlicensed operations, or suspicious activity at rural airports. Just inspectors—many of whom lack law enforcement training—writing reports and hoping the FBI calls back.
It’s not just inefficient. It’s unsafe.
The Case for an FAA Enforcement Division
If the FAA is truly tasked with ensuring the safety and security of the national airspace, it’s time to consider establishing a dedicated law enforcement division within the agency. Not to replace the FBI, but to fill the gap between administrative enforcement and criminal prosecution.
Imagine a division of aviation-specialized federal agents who understand the regulations, know the industry, and can work cases from start to finish—from unmasking illegal charters to investigating falsified airworthiness documents or rooting out fraud in aircraft sales.
They wouldn’t be bogged down by unrelated investigations or distracted by political pressures. Their mission would be singular: protect the integrity of America’s skies.
The Cost of Inaction
Every year, illegal charters operate unchecked. Counterfeit aircraft parts make it onto planes. Maintenance fraud goes unpunished. And each one of these failures increases risk—not just for pilots, but for passengers, law enforcement, and military personnel sharing the same skies.
We have the TSA to screen grandma’s toothpaste. We have air marshals in first class. But we don’t have agents who can enforce the very regulations meant to keep aircraft from falling out of the sky.
That’s a glaring oversight.
Conclusion: A Call for Reform
If we’re serious about aviation safety, it’s time to ask the hard questions. Why doesn’t the FAA have the power to enforce its own rules in a meaningful way? And how many more close calls—or worse—will it take before we fix this structural deficiency?
Aviation isn’t safer because of bureaucracy. It’s safer because of accountability.
And right now, accountability is in short supply.