Says Agency Must Be Realistic In Applying Board's "Ideal" Guidelines

In testimony Wednesday before Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, FAA Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Peggy Gilligan responded to concerns voiced the day before by Mark Rosenker, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, about the FAA's response to the Board's urgent safety recommendations.

Specific concerns cited by Rosenker included recommendations preventing runway incursions, preventing aircraft flying in icing conditions, improving audio and data recorders and requiring video recorders on aircraft, reducing accidents caused by human fatigue, and improving crew resource management for Part 135 (air taxi) operations.

"The relationship and interaction between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the NTSB is an important component in aviation safety," Gilligan told the Subcommittee. "Our roles are different, but complimentary. Through accident investigation, the NTSB makes findings of probable cause that lead to the issuance of safety recommendations. The FAA receives the vast majority of the NTSB’s safety recommendations. In turn, the FAA takes action on the vast majority of the NTSB’s recommendations, even when the recommendation asks that we develop new technology to address the recommendations."

"We always value the intent of the recommendations, even if we are unable to do exactly what the Board recommends," Gilligan continued. "Their recommendations represent the ideal, our consideration of those recommendations must, by law, factor in certain realities."

Below are Gilligan's unedited statements regarding the areas of concern cited by the NTSB.

Runway Incursions

Reducing the risk of runway incursions is one of the FAA's top priorities. The agency has been aggressively addressing the issue and has made progress reducing the most serious incidents, particularly those involving commercial aircraft. The number of serious runway incursions -- called Category A and B -- has dropped by more than 40 percent since fiscal year 2001. In 2006 there was only one serious incursion for every 2 million take-offs and landings.

The FAA has implemented important new technologies to allow tower controllers to see everything that takes place around them. One of these is the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS). AMASS tracks ground movements and provides an alert so controllers can notify the crew if evasive action is required. The FAA has installed AMASS at the nation's top 34 airports. ASDE-X, or Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X, is an even more sophisticated surface detection technology. While AMASS is radar-based, meaning signals might bounce off rain and fog, ASDE-X integrates data from a variety of sources, including surface movement radars located on air traffic control towers or remote towers, multi-lateration sensors, and aircraft transponders, to give controllers a more reliable view of airport operations, especially during bad weather.

By fusing the data from these sources, ASDE-X is able to determine the position and identification of aircraft and transponder-equipped vehicles on the airport movement area, as well as aircraft flying within five miles of the airport. Controllers in the tower see this information presented as a color display of aircraft and vehicle positions overlaid on a map of the airport's runways, taxiways and approach corridors. The FAA is in the process of enhancing ASDE-X with visual and audio alarms that will alert controllers to potential collisions.

The first ASDE-X was activated for operational use and testing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in June 2003. In addition to Milwaukee, ASDE-X is now operational at T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI; Orlando International Airport in Orlando, FL; Hobby Airport in Houston, TX; Lambert-St. Louis International in St. Louis, MO; Seattle-Tacoma International in Seattle, WA; Bradley International in Hartford, CT; and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, GA. ASDE-X is scheduled to be deployed at all 35 OEP airports.

The FAA is also testing new technologies that will alert pilots to potential runway incursions. One of these, called Runway Status Lights, is just what is sounds like -- an advanced series of runway lights, not unlike traffic lights, that tell pilots whether or not runways are clear. The operational evaluation of the runway entrance lights using ASDE-X surface surveillance was completed in June 2005 at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, and the system showed promising initial results. An enhanced lighting configuration is being installed on a second runway at DFW this year. The evaluation of Runway Status Lights with AMASS began last year at San Diego's Lindbergh Field. Other new technologies include an experimental system called the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which is being tested at the Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport in California. FAROS is designed to prevent accidents on airport runways by activating a flashing light visible to landing pilots to warn them that the runway is occupied and hazardous.

Icing

This is another area where the Board has recommended that the FAA design the solution, test the effectiveness of the solution, and then mandate the solution. As meteorologists will attest, simply understanding some of these icing phenomena is difficult and complex. And then determining how to address these phenomena to assure safe aircraft operations takes time. That's why we have taken a multi-pronged approach to the icing issue by taking immediate safety actions, as well as performing longer-term research to improve our understanding of icing phenomena.

One of our most effective tools to address safety issues is the airworthiness directive (AD). We have issued over 100 ADs to address multiple threats from icing on over 50 different aircraft models. These ADs cover safety issues ranging from crew operating procedures in the icing environment to direct design changes. These ADs have had the effect of significantly reducing the icing risk to the overall fleet.

Following the issuance of ADs, the FAA conducts general rulemaking intended to institutionally prevent the same icing risk for future airplane designs that were averted by implementing ADs on specific models. FAA is presently in the process of two rulemaking efforts on icing. The first, which we anticipate publishing as a final rule, requires designers to demonstrate specific airplane performance handling qualities for flights in icing conditions. The second rulemaking is an NPRM, published on April 26, 2007, entitled Activation of Ice Protection, which would introduce requirements to ensure timely activation of ice protection systems (IPS). The proposed rule would require installation of an ice detector or activation of the IPS based on visible moisture and temperature..

The recommendation that we have not yet been able to address in rulemaking is related to a phenomenon known as supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing conditions. This phenomenon has been a challenge because conditions that result in SLD are difficult to forecast and detect. It is also not easy to reproduce in a test environment. So, to first forecast and characterize SLD, then reproduce it, and finally evaluate its affect on aircraft operations has required extensive research. Our research has engaged leading experts from academia, industry, and the government. Due to the technical complexity, our activities continue today. We are committed to identifying the right solution for long term design and operational requirements for the SLD threat. In addition, we have issued numerous ADs that direct the crews of certain airplane designs to monitor and detect early signs of the onset of SLD conditions and to exit the area immediately. These ADs serve as an effective interim measure until such time we complete our research on SLD and complete the necessary rulemaking.

Voice and Flight Data Recorders

The FAA views data recorders as important tools for the accident investigation, consequently, we are extremely sensitive to NTSB requests for improvements in this area. The information provided by Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) is often the cornerstone in determining the probable cause of an accident or incident. Therefore, the FAA has had a generally positive reaction to NTSB recommendations for improvements to data recorders, including those for additional parameters to collect more information. We are in the process of three rulemaking projects that will address a number of the NTSB recommendations on data recorders. However, as much as FAA understands the priority NTSB places on data recorder recommendations, the fact is that there are no major accidents for which a probable cause determination has not been concluded. The value of data recorders is realized only after an accident when the information has been collected and analyzed; they do not prevent accidents in and of themselves. As accident rate attests, we must be extremely prudent with regard to how we proceed to improve aviation safety.

The first of these rulemaking projects is an NPRM that proposed a series of improvements to Cockpit Voice Recorders and Flight Data Recorders. Some of the proposed improvements are longer recording times, independent power sources for each box, and emergency power sources to keep the boxes running when the aircraft's main power source is disrupted.

The second rulemaking activity is an NPRM, published in November 2006, to specifically address flight data recorder (FDR) data filtering issues. This proposed rule clarifies the FAA's intent to ensure the accurate recording of flight data under all operating conditions. This clarification will ensure that the NTSB has the most accurate data readily available to conduct investigations in a timely manner.

The third rulemaking project began in November 1999 when the FAA proposed the addition of flight recorder equipment to monitor the Boeing 737 rudder system after several rudder system anomalies had been identified. The FAA made several safety improvements to the B737 rudder system, and subsequently mandated a redesign of the rudders system. In September 2006, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the need for recording additional B737 rudder parameters.

The improvements required by these three rulemaking efforts will achieve the right balance between enhancing accident investigation and wisely investing our safety resources.

Crew Fatigue/CRM

Flight and Duty time rules have been in existence since the 1950s, and the 121 domestic and 135 scheduled rules were updated in 1985. The rules on pilot flight time and rest have evolved along with advances in commercial air travel. The FAA is confident that, overall, the airline industry complies with the FAA's current rules. In the intervening time, much research has been done on fatigue, which has resulted in a better understanding of complex fatigue-related issues. The research tells us that this issue does not easily lend itself to a set of prescriptive rules. While the existing prescriptive rules have served us well, they do not allow for the flexibility needed to address the various flight regimes that exist.

Understanding the limits of a strictly prescriptive regulatory regime, we worked to alleviate fatigue through other means. Fatigue countermeasures were first developed by NASA, and include providing in-flight rest, as well as training crew members on the use of proper diet, exercising, and even caffeine to manage fatigue. Fatigue countermeasures are covered during Crew Resource Management (CRM) initial training and during CRM recurrent training.

It is also critical to understand the role that personal responsibility plays in fatigue and why prescriptive rules can only provide a framework for safety. Crew members, mechanics, air traffic controllers, everyone involved in the safety of flight must make a personal commitment to report for work well rested and ready to perform their duties. No regulatory scheme can instill that sense of personal commitment and professionalism.

One thing we know, aviation operations will always challenge us in the area of flight time and rest. Aircraft design allows for longer and longer flight times. Recently, FAA issued approval to Delta Airlines for flights in excess of 16 hours from New York JFK to Mumbai, India. This approval was our first implementation of a fatigue risk management approach. Delta proposed – and we analyzed and approved – a detailed plan to assure the crew is rested before the flight begins, is provided appropriate rest throughout the flight, and have sufficient rest before conducting the return flight.

The procedure specifically addresses the impact to circadian rhythm, including the recognized affect of circadian law which occurs at specific times in the daily cycle. This is an example of where we need to move in the future -- away from prescriptive rules and into fatigue risk management.

Gilligan also noted the FAA's successes on such issues as reducing the risk of fuel tank explosions, reduction in CFIT accidents and midair collisions involving airliners, and implementation of windshear warning systems. (More detailed comments on these issues are in Gilligan's full testimony, available here.)

"... [T]he FAA's first priority has always been, and will always be, safety," Gilligan concluded. As I said at the outset, we very much appreciate the unique relationship FAA has with the NTSB and we consider them a vital partner in advancing the safety of our Nation's skies. The interaction between the FAA and the NTSB is certainly a factor in the unparalleled safety record we have achieved in recent years.

"NTSB has the responsibility to push us and the industry by identifying everything that could be done. The FAA has the responsibility to determine the actions that will provide the greatest safety benefit. We believe we have achieved the proper balance and are, understandably, proud of the safety record we are currently enjoying. We will continue to strive to implement NTSB's recommendations as quickly as prudence, technology and science will allow."

FMI: www.faa.gov, www.ntsb.gov