ebook img

Wealth of Guidance and Experience Encourage Wider Adoption of PDF

116 Pages·2004·1.87 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Wealth of Guidance and Experience Encourage Wider Adoption of

Flight Safety D I G E S T JUNE–JULY 2004 Wealth of Guidance and Experience Encourage Wider Adoption of FOQA Flight Safety Digest Flight Safety Foundation Vol. 23 No. 6–7 June–July 2004 For Everyone Concerned With the Safety of Flight www.fl ightsafety.org OFFICERS AND STAFF In This Issue Chairman, Board of Governors Hon. Carl W. Vogt President and CEO Stuart Matthews Executive Vice President Robert H. Vandel Treasurer James S. Waugh Jr. Wealth of Guidance and Experience ADMINISTRATIVE Encourage Wider Adoption of FOQA Manager, Support Services Linda Crowley Horger On Jan. 1, 2005, nonpunitive fl ight-data monitoring will FINANCIAL become an international standard for operators of some commercial transport aircraft. Air carriers that already have Director of Finance established fl ight operational quality assurance programs have and Administration Crystal N. Phillips 1 turned them into indispensable risk-management tools. Accountant Millicent Wheeler MEMBERSHIP Director, Membership Radio Procedures Most Common Factor STATS and Development Ann Hill in Airspace-related Occurrences in Membership Services Australian MBZs Coordinator Ahlam Wahdan A study of reported airspace-related occurrences during the PUBLICATIONS 1994–2001 period, involving regular public transport aircraft 99 Director of Publications Roger Rozelle and charter aircraft within mandatory broadcast zones (MBZs), Senior Editor Mark Lacagnina found that the occurrence rate increased signifi cantly. The report said, however, that the increase probably was related to an Senior Editor Wayne Rosenkrans improved reporting climate. Senior Editor Linda Werfelman Associate Editor Rick Darby Web and Print Fatigue Management on Flight Deck Production Coordinator Karen K. Ehrlich Y R Said to Depend on ‘Scientifi cally Production Designer Ann L. Mullikin A R Validated’ Techniques Production Specialist Susan D. Reed B I Librarian, Jerry Lederer L Effective countermeasures exist for on-the-job fatigue, Aviation Safety Library Patricia Setze 103 but their full application requires a multidisciplinary and industrywide consensus on the nature of the problem and TECHNICAL its solutions. Such a consensus is emerging, but progress is Director of Technical Programs James M. Burin slow, says Fatigue in Aviation. Technical Programs Specialist Joanne Anderson Managing Director of Internal Evaluation Programs Louis A. Sorrentino III First Offi cer Retracts Flaps S Q-Star Program Administrator Robert Feeler Instead of Landing Gear After Takeoff F Manager, Data Systems E and Analysis Robert Dodd, Ph.D. The report on the incident said that the captain had called RI Manager of Aviation for retraction of the landing gear during the Boeing 717’s B Safety Audits Darol V. Holsman departure from an airport in Australia. Instead, the fi rst offi cer 108 moved the fl aps/slats lever. Founder Jerome Lederer 1902–2004 Flight Safety Foundation is an international membership organization dedicated to the continuous improvement of aviation safety. Nonprofi t and independent, the Foundation was launched offi cially in 1947 in response to the aviation industry’s need for a neutral clearinghouse to disseminate objective safety information, and for a credible and knowl- edgeable body that would identify threats to safety, analyze the problems and recommend practical solutions to them. Since its beginning, the Foundation has acted in the public interest to produce positive infl uence on aviation safety. Today, the Foundation provides leadership to more than 910 member organizations in more than 142 countries. Cover photo composite: Copyright © Photodisc Inc. WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA Wealth of Guidance and Experience Encourage Wider Adoption of FOQA On Jan. 1, 2005, nonpunitive flight-data monitoring will become an international standard for operators of some commercial transport aircraft. Air carriers that already have established flight operational quality assurance programs have turned them into indispensable risk-management tools. — FSF EDITORIAL STAFF ols ntr o C e n dy e Tel e: c ur o S A ir carriers have many incentives to that “data-protection issues are so critical to the ac- learn safety lessons from analyzing ceptance and success of FOQA that … such issues data recorded during routine fl ight must be resolved before FAA releases an advisory operations — not from accidents circular on FOQA.”1 Guidance documents from — international specialists said in the context other countries — such as the U.K. Civil Aviation of the April 2004 publication of a U.S. Federal Authority’s 2003 Civil Aviation Publication 739, Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular Flight Data Monitoring — also provide informa- (AC) about fl ight operational quality assurance tion for air carriers to consider. (FOQA, also called fl ight-data monitoring; see “Flight Operational Quality Assurance,” page 23). By the FSF defi nition, FOQA programs obtain Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) had said in a 1993 and analyze data recorded in fl ight operations to study that FOQA programs have provided one of improve fl ight crewmembers’ performance, air the most powerful safety tools available, but also carrier training programs, operating procedures, FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 1 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA air traffi c control (ATC) procedures, airport main- Standard,” page 3). “Nonpunitive” means that tenance and design, and aircraft operations and information obtained from FOQA would not be design. They typically use quick-access recorders used, for example, as the basis for an air carrier to (QARs) to obtain data for hundreds or thousands take disciplinary action against a pilot or for a civil of fl ight parameters, but also may use digital fl ight aviation authority to apply regulatory sanctions data recorders (DFDRs), wireless data-transmis- against an air carrier. “Protection of data sources” sion systems or other storage media and methods. means that data could not be disclosed publicly or When QARs are used, fl ight data are retrieved for purposes other than aviation safety. during routine station stops and processed by computer software to identify, at a minimum, The Global Aviation Information Network any deviations or exceedances from the expected (GAIN) Operator’s Flight Safety Handbook said fl ight parameters. More sophisticated types of data in 2002 that the main objective of a FOQA pro- analysis have evolved among the world’s most ex- gram is to improve safety by identifying trends, perienced air carriers. not individual acts.2 Although a few U.S. air carriers had established “The purpose of a FOQA program is to detect FOQA programs during the 1990s under an FAA latent patterns of behavior among fl ight crews, policy providing protection from enforcement weaknesses in the ATC system and anomalies actions based on FOQA data, the federal law on in aircraft performance which portend poten- protection of voluntarily submitted information tial aircraft accidents,” GAIN said. “A successful was enacted in 1996, and related U.S. Federal FOQA program encourages adherence to standard Aviation Regulations (FARs) became effective operating procedures (SOPs), deters nonstandard beginning in 2001. The FOQA AC provides the behavior and so enhances fl ight safety.” most complete guidance yet for U.S. air carriers on acceptable methods of establishing a FOQA Air carriers with FOQA programs have used fl ight program with all of the available regulatory pro- data to identify problems such as unstabilized ap- tections. Its publication means that they have an proaches and rushed approaches; exceedance of unprecedented opportunity to establish FOQA fl ap limit speeds; excessive bank angles after take- programs with less concern about issues that had off; engine over-temperature events; exceedance of been impediments to some air carriers. recommended speed thresholds; ground-proxim- ity warning system (GPWS)/terrain awareness and The Foundation expects that as early as 2006, warning system (TAWS) warnings; onset of stall FOQA might be proven to be a feasible tool conditions; excessive rates of rotation; glide path for operators of corporate tur- excursions; and vertical acceleration. bojet aircraft (see “Flight Plan for Corporate FOQA: Aircraft FOQA programs worldwide can be traced to Wanted,” page 4). pioneering work by British Airways and TAP Air Portugal in the early 1960s and to many non-U.S. In recent years, however, interna- airlines that shared their expertise during FSF tional opinion has shifted toward seminars and workshops in the 1980s and 1990s. viewing FOQA as a safety method Fully operational programs had been established that should be mandatory rather by about 70 air carriers worldwide as of September than voluntary. The 188 contract- 2002, and another 50 air carriers then were at vari- ing states of the International ous stages of establishing programs, a U.K. study Civil Aviation Organization said.3 By comparison, the 1993 FSF study had (ICAO) have agreed that “a found approximately 25 air carriers with FOQA- fl ight-data analysis program,” on like programs. a nonpunitive basis with protec- tion of data sources, will become Historically, some air carriers were deterred be- a standard for some commercial cause they perceived FOQA as relatively expensive transport aircraft beginning Jan. in initial capital costs of hardware and operational 1, 2005 (see “DFDR Specialists costs, to include computer software and special- Prompt ICAO Data-monitoring ized personnel. Others cited concerns about the 2 FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA potential for unintended uses of fl ight data. The Foundation’s position has been that what air car- riers without FOQA miss is detailed knowledge of how their aircraft are being operated — knowledge that can prevent an accident — and capability to compare a specifi c fl ight with a fl eet profi le to analyze systemic aspects of fl ight operations. DFDR Specialists Prompt ICAO Data-analysis Standard The idea for an ICAO standard and recom- mended practice (SARP) for flight-data monitoring was discussed at the ICAO Flight Data Recorder Panel divisional meeting in November 1998 and resulted in a working paper by the ICAO Secretariat, said Michel Béland, technical offi cer, ICAO Operations/Airworthiness Section. ICAO “This amendment also was a compromise so as Gabriel Gregio, safety then was asked to take steps to promote fl ight- not to impose an undue burden cost-wise on the analyst for TAM data monitoring as part of an operator’s accident operators of smaller aircraft. Nevertheless, the Brazilian Airlines, uses prevention and fl ight safety program.4 standard made the ‘fl ight-data analysis program’ computer software mandatory for contracting states as of the effective to quickly identify Proposed Amendment 26 to the SARPs in Annex date; if states do not comply, they are required to apparent exceedances 6, Part 1, was drafted during the ICAO Accident notify a difference to ICAO [i.e., to formally state Investigation and Prevention divisional meeting that they do not comply with the SARP].” The of predetermined in September 1999 and was circulated to ICAO SARP explicitly mandates that such programs be aircraft operating contracting states. Most states supported the nonpunitive and contain safeguards to protect the parameters. (FSF Photo) proposed amendment; the ICAO Air Navigation data sources. Commission then recommended adoption; and the ICAO Council adopted the amendment in Consistent with these ICAO SARPs, the European 2001, Béland said. The fi nal amendment recom- Joint Aviation Authorities in June 2004 adopted mended effective Jan. 1, 2002, fl ight-data moni- its notice of proposed amendment (NPA), NPA toring for aircraft with certifi cated takeoff weight OPS–35, Flight Data Monitoring, to Joint Aviation of more than 20,000 kilograms (44,000 pounds) Requirements–Operations (JAR–OPS) 1.037, and established a standard requiring fl ight-data Accident Prevention and Flight Safety Programme. monitoring effective Jan. 1, 2005, for aircraft with Effective Jan. 1, 2005, the amendment mandates certifi cated takeoff weight of more than 27,000 that fl ight-data-monitoring programs be estab- kilograms (60,000 pounds). lished and utilized on airplanes having a maximum certifi cated takeoff weight greater than 27,000 ki- “This standard has been under discussion by lograms. A new advisory circular joint (AJC), AJC the Flight Data Recorder Panel and circulating 1.037(b), Flight Data Monitoring Programme, will since the early 1990s,” Béland said. “Essentially, provide guidance information for European air the key driver was to have a proactive approach carriers. to safety where operators are in a position to identify undesirable trends and take corrective FSF President Sees Limits measures before an incident or accident occurs. Affecting Voluntary FOQA Quite a number of operators of large transport jets already have been doing this with some very positive results, including improved fuel For U.S. air carriers, the decision to establish effi ciency. Those with very long experience have a FOQA program is voluntary, although FAA said that this is the best safety program they ever approval of the FOQA program is required to have implemented. Continued on page 6 FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 3 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA Flight Plan for Corporate FOQA: Aircraft Wanted Flight Safety Foundation (FSF), investigations, which provide only partial mixed fleet comprising relatively few a leading advocate of flight answers to the question of what efforts aircraft. operational quality assurance should be initiated or supported to (FOQA) worldwide and a catalyst in the improve safety. “Unlike an airline that can set up a early 1990s for the establishment of air system and spread the cost over a carrier FOQA programs in the United “Without data, efforts to reduce the large number of airplanes, typical States,1 currently is seeking operators of accident rate represent only guesses as corporate operators with one airplane corporate aircraft with digital data buses to how best to allocate resources,” the or two airplanes might not be able to to participate in a one-year demonstration task force said. justify setting up a FOQA program on program to explore the adaptation of this their own,” said Vandel. proven safety tool for corporate aircraft Among specific recommendations was operators. the development of a process to bring To establish a FOQA program, an operator FOQA to corporate aviation. must develop a system that captures As of June 8, 2004, 15 operators had digital flight data, transforms the data expressed interest in participating in the Corporate aviation is similar to the air into an appropriate format for analysis corporate FOQA (C-FOQA) demonstration carrier industry in having an excellent and assists in analyzing the data and program, which will begin in January safety record. Data show, for example, generating reports. Commercial software 2005; five operators, including one in that the accident rate for U.S. corporate is available for data-processing and data- Europe, that operate nine airplanes had aircraft (business aircraft flown by analysis, but the cost of the software likely committed to participating. The goal is to professional pilots) in 2003 — 0.028 per would be prohibitive for many corporate have at least 25 airplanes involved in the 100,000 flight hours — was a record flight departments. Moreover, the amount demonstration program. low for this segment of the U.S. aviation of data and the varieties of data that would industry.4 The accident rate for scheduled be obtained from a mixed, small fleet of “The Foundation encourages any U.S. air carriers was 0.313 per 100,000 airplanes likely would not justify an in- operator that has an airplane equipped flight hours. house FOQA program. with a digital data bus and a digital flight data acquisition unit to participate in the CAC Chairman Edward R. Williams, vice “Few individual corporate operators demonstration program,” said Robert H. president of general aviation services and can afford to purchase the rather Vandel, FSF executive vice president.2 director of flight operations for Global expensive software and hardware Aerospace, said, “While air carriers required to implement a FOQA “Many air carriers have embraced FOQA are far ahead of our community in the program,” said CAC Vice Chairman as a means to further improve an already FOQA process, the corporate aviation Edward D. (Ted) Mendenhall, former excellent safety record,” Vandel said. “We community operates in a very similar director of operations and chief of are working to make this tool available to environment with equal, or in some safety at Gulfstream Aerospace.6 “One corporate aviation operators. We believe instances slightly higher, risks. To improve of the major challenges is that for any that there are many applications of FOQA our already enviable safety record, this individual corporate operator with a few for corporate aviation, with the only community cannot defer any longer the airplanes, trying to run a FOQA program limitation being our imagination.” development of this highly productive on its own just doesn’t make economic method of revealing our own types of sense because not enough data can be The C-FOQA program is being conducted risks in an effort to develop individual generated to provide the feedback that by the FSF Corporate Advisory Committee risk-avoidance strategies. the operator needs.” (CAC) with the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) Safety Committee. “We believe that further risk reduction for A C-FOQA operating model developed The genesis of the program was a 1999 corporate aviation will result from data by the CAC addresses both issues recommendation by the FSF Approach- recorded in flight, not from subjective by establishing a program that many and-landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) responses to accidents.”5 corporate operators, in effect, can share. Task Force for more widespread use of Basically, the operators would collect data flight-data-monitoring programs such as There are significant differences between recorded in their airplanes and transmit FOQA.3 corporate flight departments and air the data to a third party (i.e., a company carriers that must be addressed in that specializes in FOQA-data processing) The task force said that safety- adapting FOQA for corporate aviation. that would de-identify the data, aggregate improvement efforts largely have been One obvious difference is size. A corporate the data and generate reports for the based on the findings of accident flight department typically operates a operators. 4 FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA While an air carrier typically analyzes that FOQA data will not be used as the recorders (QARs), which collect FOQA FOQA data to identify safety-related basis of punitive action against pilots data. Several manufacturers have been trends that directly affect the carrier’s unless the data disclose willful misconduct installing DFDRs in corporate airplanes operations, third-party analysis of or a serious violation of standard operating since the late 1990s. Installation aggregate corporate-aviation data would procedure. of a QAR costs about US$20,000. identify trends affecting specific aircraft Participating operators will download types, specific phases of operation (e.g., “Since most business aviation operations FOQA data from the QARs into laptop approach and landing), specific events do not have organized labor unions, a LOA computers. (e.g., unstabilized approaches) and between flight department management operations at specific airports. and pilot groups is not a viable option “Virtually any laptop computer that you [because] human resources departments can purchase today would be adequate,” “By using de-identified aggregate data, [likely] would not approve of a formal Mendenhall said. “The operators will be the same value will come to a corporate agreement with an employee group where provided the software to enable them operator that comes to an airline,” Vandel no labor union currently exists,” the CAC to transmit the data via the Internet for said. “For example, if we get a significant committee report said. processing and analysis by the third-party number of a specific type of corporate provider. The data will be encrypted when airplane involved in a collective C-FOQA The C-FOQA operating model developed it is sent over the Internet.” program, we would be able to determine by the CAC addresses this issue how this fleet is operated for comparison by ensuring that flight department Mendenhall said that interest within the with how a specific operator’s airplane is management normally would have access corporate aviation community recently operated. The variance would provide only to de-identified aggregate data, which has grown. good management information. A flight would prevent the identification of individual department manager might say, ‘That pilots. “This is something new to us in corporate is how I want my aircraft to be operated aviation,” he said. “Air carriers have within our safety margins,’ or the manager The operating model is based on the conducted demonstration programs might want to make some changes. findings of CAC working groups that for themselves before launching FOQA C-FOQA would give the manager the explored regulatory issues and legal programs. The C-FOQA demonstration awareness and the ability to make that issues, equipment requirements and program will show us whether this determination.” costs, and procedures for data collection is indeed feasible and beneficial for and analysis, as well as a visit by CAC corporate aviation.” Vandel said that, as in air carrier operations, representatives to a major air carrier with corporate aircraft operating costs also a FOQA program. Operators interested in participating in could be reduced by timely identification the C-FOQA demonstration program of problems such as improper rigging of The demonstration program will help can contact James Burin, FSF director of flight-control surfaces, which leads to determine the feasibility of the operating technical programs, at +1 (703) 739-6700, increased fuel costs. model. extension 106. ■ Another major issue that is being “The Foundation will function as — FSF Editorial Staff addressed by the CAC is the protection administrator of the demonstration of C-FOQA data from use by companies program,” said Mendenhall, who is Notes to punish employees. coordinating the C-FOQA effort. “The Foundation will have a working agreement “For FOQA to gain the acceptance of with each operator as to what equipment 1. FSF Editorial Staff et al. “Aviation the business aviation community, it must and reports will be provided to them, as Safety: U.S. Efforts to Implement be perceived solely as a program to well as a working agreement with the Flight Operational Quality Assurance enhance the safety of flight operations,” third-party provider as to what data- Programs.” Flight Safety Digest a CAC committee report said.7 “Should processing and reporting services they Volume 17 (July–September 1998). data derived from a program be available will provide. for use to justify punitive actions against 2. Vandel, Robert. Interview by pilots, many of the potential benefits of “The operators also will be required to Rosenkrans, Wayne. Alexandria, FOQA will be unattainable.” agree that they will not use the data for Virginia, U.S. June 2, 2004. Flight punitive purposes.” Safety Foundation, Alexandria, An air carrier typically addresses this issue Virginia, U.S. by entering into a formal agreement with Corporate airplanes with digital data the union that represents its pilots. A letter buses that can accommodate digital 3. FSF Editorial Staff et al. “Killers in of agreement (LOA) signed by the air flight data recorders (DFDRs) are most Aviation: FSF Task Force Presents carrier and by the union typically specifies suitable for installation of quick-access Facts About Approach-and-landing FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 5 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA and Controlled-flight-into Terrain edition). Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.: Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. June 7, Accidents.” Flight Safety Digest Flight Safety Foundation, 2004. 2004. Flight Safety Foundation, Volume 17, Volume 18 (November– Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. December 1998, January–February 5. Williams, Edward R. E-mail 1999). communication with Lacagnina, 7. Boyle, Matt; Stein, Peter; Sands, Mark. Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. June Jeff. “Corporate FOQA — Legal 4. Garvey, William. “The Year in 14, 2004. Flight Safety Foundation, Considerations.” Flight Safety Review.” In Quality Safety: Oasis Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. Foundation FOQA for Business in the Desert: Proceedings of the Aviation Task Force Legal/ 49th Annual Corporate Aviation 6. Mendenhall, Edward D. Telephone Regulatory Issues Committee Safety Seminar (compact disc interview by Lacagnina, Mark. Report, Oct. 10, 2002. qualify for protections provided by the will not establish voluntarily FOQA pro- examples in which errors in the aviation FARs. Neither a regulatory framework grams,” he said. “As a result, we will not be system have been revealed as a result of to mandate U.S. FOQA programs — nor using one of the best tools we have to get FOQA-data analysis, leading to correc- any regulatory protections for pilots, air the best safety results. My other concern tive actions.” carriers or FOQA data under such a is that FAA is a role model for civil avia- framework — exist. tion authorities in many other countries, Understanding of FOQA so that if FAA does not mandate FOQA Varies Among Airlines “For air carriers worldwide, FOQA is programs, others will not mandate them. the right thing to do,” Stuart Matthews, For airlines lacking FOQA programs, FSF president and CEO, said in June nothing that could be improved with “We have tried over the years to 2004. “My personal viewpoint is that FOQA data would get any better, and talk with people at a number of FAA should mandate FOQA programs none of the benefi ts to aviation safety air carriers who still do not understand but, as the Foundation long has main- from FOQA could begin.” the benefi ts embedded within a FOQA tained, FOQA must be allied with the program,” said Robert H. Vandel, FSF protection of data. I do not advocate Clear guidelines also will be necessary to executive vice president. “I have not met any change that would leave pilots and enable future “apple-to-apples” analyses people from an air carrier with a FOQA airlines open to punitive actions as a re- of aggregate data from many air carriers program, however, who did not sing sult of the use of the confi dential data and many nations, he said. its praises. FOQA may not identify the that FOQA programs should provide. precursors to all types of accidents, but Mandating FOQA programs would Air carriers that have not established it allows air carriers to defi ne and look have to be done in such a way that U.S. FOQA programs because of liability for measurable precursors to many types laws or regulations are changed so that concerns should reconsider whether the of accidents. FOQA data will show the data still could not be used for punitive absence of a FOQA program could be trends — whether line operations are go- purposes. That is very, very diffi cult to construed by society as a failure to imple- ing the way they were designed and giving achieve in some cultures — including ment industry best practices, Matthews time to make changes that improve not the United States — but there are prec- said. only safety but the basic operation of an edents in countries such as Denmark. airline. This is a very powerful tool that FOQA is one of the best tools we’ve got “My current concern is that many smaller greatly assists the industry in preventing to improve safety.”5 air carriers still are not using FOQA— human error.”6 either in the United States or in other A disadvantage of the voluntary basis of countries,” Matthews said. “We know Vandel said that the historical variations FOQA in the United States has been that that all around the world, other airlines among nations in choosing to establish relatively few air carriers have established have been using fl ight-data monitoring FOQA programs involve a variety of FOQA programs at a time when univer- for years and have been proving its value. factors. sal participation would enhance aviation Data published in 1996 showed that air safety, he said. carriers that have used FOQA the longest “Air carriers have been demonstrating the also were the safest in terms of accident benefi ts of FOQA in the United States for “In the United States, it seems quite likely rates. FOQA programs have been prov- the better part of a decade, and it is time that a considerable number of air carriers en to prevent accidents — with many to move forward and ensure that all air 6 FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA carriers establish FOQA programs,” Vandel said. willing to go to senior management and explain “The deeper we drive this method down into the why FOQA has become so important, the benefi ts global aviation system, the safer the system will and limitations, the fi nancial package required to be. It’s not only the major air carriers that need implement a program and the return on invest- FOQA programs, but the regional air carriers as ment. The solution is education. If senior man- well. Smaller air carriers can fi nd ways around the agement understands the rationale but declines problem that one airline might not have a suf- to pursue FOQA, so be it. The problem lies with fi cient number of aircraft in its fl eet to identify those who decline while they only have a cursory statistically signifi cant operational trends. They understanding of FOQA.” should look further at how to pool their data.” Some Specialists Avoid Air carriers have implemented FOQA programs Reopening Old Issues during global economic downturns and when fuel prices were abnormally high, Vandel said, and sometimes have realized signifi cant cost savings Beliefs on whether FOQA should be made as a secondary benefi t. mandatory in the United States vary among safety specialists. “The leadership of every airline needs to take a fresh look at the cost of a FOQA program, which is “For most of us who have been involved in U.S. not insignifi cant, but also should be realistic about FOQA development, now is not the time for manda- what an accident would cost,” Vandel said. “While tory FOQA,” said Capt. Edmond L. Soliday, former turning their fl ight data into meaningful informa- vice president, corporate safety, quality assurance tion is when management begins to understand and security for United Airlines and member of the FOQA. In addition to identifying when an aircraft FSF Board of Governors. “A FOQA program reveals is being operated incorrectly, the FOQA program what happened, but only pilots can say what they also can tell the air carrier when aircraft are being were thinking when it happened. Without the pro- operated properly but under policies and proce- tections currently available, we would slow down dures that are not optimal. Our recommendation FOQA progress. Instead of a free fl ow of safety in- is that air carriers establish fi rst a FOQA program formation from pilots who have no threat of puni- that is fairly basic, such as by selecting one modern tive action, pilots would be thinking ‘everything I do fl eet of aircraft, analyze fl ight data from that fl eet is recorded’ and their cooperation would be affected and later expand the FOQA program.” by renewed concern that they might be punished unfairly by people who do not understand the data. Some FOQA opportunities — such as sharing de- Then a pilot begins to ‘manage the disc’ instead of identifi ed trend information and aggregate data managing the fl ight.”7 among air carriers — involve complex issues. Protection of FOQA data from “A compelling argument can be made for this uses other than aviation safety type of sharing among air carriers — but not for has been addressed by FARs sharing fl ight-specifi c data or airline-specifi c data,” applicable only to voluntary he said. “I doubt that any airline would have a programs, he said. Therefore, problem freely sharing, at a negotiable level, high- mandating FOQA programs in level information about its FOQA program — the the United States would involve operational benefi ts and lessons. reopening regulatory issues that already have been resolved. “Some industry specialists believe that FAA’s FOQA AC is right on target in telling air carriers “If FOQA programs were not to underestimate the level of detail involved mandated in the United States, in establishing a FOQA program. The biggest close behind would come FAA impediment to more U.S. air carriers establish- enforcement that would mean ing FOQA programs is failure of management to mandatory release of fl ight data truly understand what FOQA can do for them. by the airline to the govern- This may require a company champion who is ment,” Soliday said. “Without FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004 7 WI DE R AD OP T ION OF FOQA protections, the government then These documents include FARs Part 13, Flight has an obligation to use FOQA Operational Quality Assurance Program; Final Rule, data for enforcement, and the effective Nov. 30, 2001; FARs Part 193, Protection data also may be released for un- of Voluntarily Submitted Information; FAA Order intended uses. The only way to 8000.81, Flight Operational Quality Assurance protect FOQA data is to ensure Program (FOQA), designating FOQA informa- that the airline always ‘owns’ the tion as protected from public disclosure effective data.” April 14, 2003; and FAA orders that created and then extended until Oct. 29, 2005, the term of the Another concern is that without FOQA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), protections, attorneys for plain- which has assisted FAA in providing guidance tiffs in civil lawsuits may use material on acceptable methods of compliance the discovery process to obtain with the FARs. FOQA data from air carriers. In contrast, attorneys for air carri- Two of the FARs have been infl uential in the de- ers currently can infl uence court decisions about velopment of FOQA programs by U.S. air carriers, release of data owned by air carriers, he said. typically in a partnership with FAA. Part 13.401, “Flight Operational Quality Assurance Program: “If FAA were to obtain FOQA data in the future, Prohibition Against Use of Data for Enforcement however, there would be no airline control in nar- Purposes,” codifi ed the enforcement protection rowing the request for production of data in the available. discovery process,” Soliday said. The regulation, among other provisions, says, Some industry specialists want to preserve the “Except for criminal or deliberate acts, the [FAA] voluntary basis of U.S. FOQA programs for administrator will not use an operator’s FOQA pragmatic reasons — chiefl y because they are data or aggregate FOQA data in an enforcement concerned that the rule-making process might action against that operator or its employees when consume another fi ve years to 10 years to effect such FOQA data or aggregate FOQA data is ob- major changes, he said. tained from a FOQA program that is approved by the administrator.” FAA does not mandate ap- “Pragmatists worry that a major change would proval of an air carrier’s FOQA program, except bring to a halt current FOQA programs until air to be covered by this prohibition against use of carriers see what the new rule is going to say,” data for enforcement purposes. Soliday said. “Mandating FOQA is the last alter- native. It took me fi ve years to convince United Part 193 says that certain safety information and Airlines to establish its current FOQA program. security information submitted to FAA on a vol- Any mandated program might have to be based untary basis will not be disclosed under statutory only on exceedance data from individual fl ights, provisions intended to encourage aircraft opera- for example, although major air carriers now can tors to provide information that will assist FAA in look at trends from 40,000 fl ights at a time. At the conducting its safety duties and security duties. current state of technology, the price of establish- Part 13.401 says, “FOQA data and aggregate FOQA ing a FOQA program for an airline with 20 air- data, if submitted in accordance with an order planes is very steep, but we could create consortia designating the information as protected under to deal with the cost, for example.” [FARs Part 193], will be afforded the nondisclosure protections of [Part 193].” Laws, Regulations Provide Basis of Data Protection FOQA Advisory Circular Captures Latest Methods Since 2001, the U.S. government has addressed nonpunitive issues and data-protection issues The FOQA AC incorporates lessons from the with three regulations, guidance to FAA’s aviation FOQA Demonstration Project of the mid- safety inspectors and the FOQA AC. 1990s, knowledge gained by FAA since 1996 from 8 FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION (cid:127) FLIGHT SAFETY DIGEST (cid:127) JUNE–JULY 2004

Description:
for retraction of the landing gear during the Boeing 717's “Flight Operational Quality Assurance,” page 23). TD. Incorrect. Land. Flaps. CL. Spd low. 400-> 1500. Loc. Dev. Left.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.