Aviation Safety Questions - Case Study Example

Aviation safety questions Sabahat Zafar February 14, Air carriers safety responsibilities and FAA Rules can be made, directives can be promulgated, to satisfy ourselves we would probably be reiterated and reminded with the following clause of section 601(b) of the FA act, that the holders of air carrier certificates have a direct responsibility for providing air transportation with the highest possible degree of safety, but all to no avail if we turn a deaf ear. Most of the day to day inspections, reviews and sign offs are performed by the certificate holder, and this is only how the system depends on self inspections, otherwise the system cannot survive, and it is simply not possible for FAA to make every inspection on every airplane in every location around the world. Of course the responsibility lies with the air carrier to safeguard their customers, their employees and provide them proper working environment in every possible way, but it is in their best interest as well so to say, as regards to business point of view, because statistics have shown that an aircraft accidents’ true cost in claims, lost employee time or use, and lost customers is 4 times the actual cost of the accident. For example, US Air estimates that the Pittsburgh accident’s actual cost was 30 to 40 Million dollars. This means that the accidents true cost is somewhere around 140 Million dollars. The FA act charges the FAA with the responsibility for promulgating and enforcing adequate standards and regulations (Alexander & Clarence, 2004). The main focal point of any Air Carrier Safety Program is the Safety Officer. Sometimes those that see the best are those that are not as close to the situation. To ensure safety, an outsider like safety officer is a very practical solution. FSDOs nationwide handle the dual function of safety inspection and advice for airline. Local FSDOs conducts several types of inspections on each airline’s maintenance and operations functions. If a certificate holder fails to comply, section 609 of the FA act specifies that the FAA may reexamine any certificate holder or appliance. Inspectors periodically conduct maintenance base inspections which focus on the record kept by an airline like airworthiness directives compliance, and conduct shop inspections to observe maintenance procedures and carry out ramp inspections to observe the airworthiness of the aircraft. A similar operations base inspection focuses on records concerning the hours of training and check rides given pilots and the rest periods between duty shifts given crews as required by regulations. En route inspections involve inspections of actual flight operations, with the inspector riding in the jump seat in the cockpit. Inspectors at the local level try to work with the air carriers to achieve compliance when they find discrepancies. Violations and fines are viewed as a last resort. Commuter Safety Initiative of 1995 The main aim of Commuter Safety Initiative of 1995 was to increase the safety levels of commuter airlines. The revisions made in December 1978 to the rules governing air taxis and commuter airlines (Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 135), was to include mandates for better pilot qualifications and training, more stringent aircraft maintenance programs, and more sophisticated safety equipment. In 1980, the FAA added additional experience requirements for commuter airline crews. This all was done to bring the safety level of the commuter airlines closer to those of major airlines (The changing face of Transportation, n.d.). In December 1995, the Commuter Safety Initiative set a single level of safety for all travelers by applying the stricter standards of major airlines (Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 121) to commuter airlines. The rules contained provisions on standards for airplane performance and for flight crew training and qualifications. In addition, the regulations also extended to commuter airline pilots the retirement at age-60 rule where pilots now over age 60 have 4 years of continued eligibility before they must retire. Requirement of flight attendant for 20-30 seats airplanes (for 19 or fewer seats no flight attendant is required). New training rules which increased training requirements for all pilots in airplanes with 10 seats or more, where the new rule mandates crew resource management (CRM) training for both crew members and flight dispatchers (Alexander & Clarence, 2004). Compliance with equipment standards such as exterior emergency exit markings, first aid kits and emergency kits, weather radar, protective breathing equipment, locking cockpits doors, flight attendant portable and first aid oxygen, distance measuring equipment, lavatory fire protection, pilot heat indication system, landing gear oral warning system, additional life rafts and additional flashlights were also required to be implemented. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) ASRS was implemented in 1975 by the FAA to collect information on potentially unsafe conditions from airspace users. The basic premise was to encourage reporting of safety problems and for that the program generally granted immunity from disciplinary action to pilots, ground crew (maintenance and others) or controllers filing timely reports (The changing face of Transportation, n.d.). Although immunity programs had been instituted before, the reason why ASRS was most successful was that it did not limit immunity to reports of near midair collisions (The Case for Confidential Incident Reporting Systems, n.d.). The program was enhanced by an agreement between the FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under which NASA would operate a third-party reporting system, guaranteeing anonymity to individuals providing the data. The data is used to strengthen the foundation of aviation human factors safety research. This is particularly important since it is generally conceded that over two-thirds of all aviation accidents and incidents have their roots in human performance errors. In my view, although confidential incident reporting systems based on the ASRS model are not foolproof methods of data acquisition, because they are subject to the biases and fears of the humans who use them, but as the ASRS model has demonstrated for many years, if a system’s users are encouraged to report the safety problems they encounter to a program they can trust, safety goals will be reached much sooner than if we never hear the stories of those lessons learned. Aircraft Accident Investigation by NTSB A good preparation for any situation has to be pro-active, instead of reactive. In this regard, concept of a “Go Team” has been introduced by the NTSB. The Go Team is a group of investigators who are on-call for immediate assignment to major accident investigations. The Major Investigations Division (AS-10) provides the IIC for the Go Team. Divisions of the Office of Aviation Safety (OAS) and the Office of Research and Engineering (RE) provide specialists and laboratory support. A full Go Team may consist of the following specialists: air traffic control, operations, meteorology, human performance, structures, systems, power plants, maintenance records, survival factors, aircraft performance, cockpit voice recorder (CVR), flight data recorder (FDR) and metallurgy. Additional groups may be formed to interview witnesses, examine the response of aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) personnel, or other duties, as required, to support the investigation. Each of the NTSB specialists will be the chairman of an investigative group (Aviation investigation manual, 2002). The team arrives at the site, takes charge and begins the process of collecting data. Onsite work may last from a few days to several weeks. Once the onsite work is complete the groups consolidate their field notes and move onward in data collection by analyzing wreckage through various NDI methods. Upon completion of the data collection process each group Chair presents their information to the IIC in the form of a Factual Report (FTR). NTSB conducts public hearings in order to place the FTRs into the public domain, obtain additional testimony under oath and augment the FTRs with supplemental information obtained in the hearings (Airline Accident Investigation Procedures, 2010). The result is then put forward which is accomplished by integrating the FTRs into a final report known as Blue Cover Report (BCR) that includes a summary, a set of conclusions and a set of recommendations. Productive Life Limitations of a Damage-Tolerant-Designed Airplane, And Factors Involved in Structural Safety Process In aerospace engineering, There is no limit to the service life of damage-tolerant (fail-safe) airplane structures, provided a maintenance program has been implemented that will result in the detection and repair of accidental damage, corrosion and fatigue cracking before such damage degrades structural strength below an acceptable limit. Since operational efficiency is impacted by the cost and frequency of repair, durability may limit the productive life of a DTD airplane Handbook for Damage Tolerant Design (2009). The damage tolerance (fail safe) design philosophy requires that the structure is able to withstand designed modes of damage due to fatigue, corrosion and accidental damage at probable locations. Damage tolerance philosophy was formulated based on the demonstration of structural safety under the assumption that pre-existing damage would be present at critical locations of all structurally significant details. The intent was to ensure that the maximum possible initial damage would not grow to a size that would endanger flight safety during the service life of the aircraft. Damage tolerant methods of design assume that all materials possess discontinuities and heterogeneities, and therefore infinite life methods cannot be applicable in real life cases. To determine failure criteria for a given stress and crack length, fracture mechanics can be used, furthermore, material degradation and crack propagation can be affected by other factors such as thermal behavior, chemical behavior, and metallurgical changes. Appropriate inspection techniques contribute significantly in detecting cracks for further analysis as well as crack growth rates for components under fatigue and residual stresses. In this manner, failure in critical components can be identified before catastrophic failure occurs through repair or replacement of the damaged part. The application of damage tolerant techniques and design approaches contributes to the safe and reliable design of aircraft structural components both before and after they reach the field (Collins, 1993). Purpose of CVR and FDR Large commercial aircraft and some smaller commercial, corporate, and private aircraft are required by the FAA to be equipped with two "black boxes" that record information about a flight. Both recorders are installed to help reconstruct the events leading to an aircraft accident. One of these, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), and the other is the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Both recorders are installed usually in the tail section. Following an accident, both recorders are immediately removed from the accident site and transported to NTSB headquarters in Washington D.C. for processing. The information stored on the recorders is extracted and translated into an understandable format. The Investigator-in-Charge uses this information as one of many tools to help the Safety Board determine the Probable Cause of the accident (CVR & FDR, 2004).  From the sounds recorded by a CVR, parameters such as engine rpm, system failures, speed, and the time at which certain events occur can often be determined. Communications with Air Traffic Control, automated radio weather briefings, and conversation between the pilots and ground or cabin crew are also recorded. The FDR onboard the aircraft records many different operating conditions of the flight. With the data retrieved from the FDR, the Safety Board can generate a computer animated video reconstruction of the flight. The investigator can then visualize the airplanes attitude, instrument readings, power settings and other characteristics of the flight. This animation enables the investigating team to visualize the last moments of the flight before the accident. Improving Human Performance Today, human factor is the focal point for most of the safety research. Understanding this most complicated machine designed by God is not an easy task and requires dedicated endeavors in the realms of designing, operations, physiology and psychology. In my opinion both the management and the employee have to work together to improve human performance. Management’s main role is to define policies and create environment which is feasible and conducive for the employees to work in, cater for their problems and give incentives through fringe benefits. Employees should equally reciprocate by doing their best and instead of complacent and retaliatory attitude should give feedback through constructive forums (The changing face of Transportation, n.d.). In this regard communication is crucial. It is the foundation for nearly everything we do, not just on the job but also throughout our daily lives. Attitude as well is extremely important. An individual who comes to work with high self esteem is able to work well with others because of his self image. Regardless of what happens during the day, he knows that he has tried the best. he can to take decisions, look for the good in others’ actions, and takes criticism constructively. As professionals we are accountable to ourselves to stay knowledgeable in our fields. We should do a self audit to determine areas that we need to improve and study. Most important of all, both the houses should have high integrity to remain truthful to each other. FAA Responsibilities during an Aircraft Accident Investigation Accident investigation is largely the responsibility of each FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), which maintains a pre accident plan that is tailored to that office’s specific requirements e.g. (geographical location, climate, staffing and resources) and works very closely with the NTSB. FAA responsibilities include ensuring that all facts and circumstances leading to the accident are recorded and evaluated and adequate counterproductive measures are taken to prevent similar accidents in future. It determines if there was a violation of the federal aviation regulations and also that were the regulations adequate? It also tries to find out that weather the performance of FAA facilities and functions, airworthiness of US certificated aircraft or competency of US certificated aircrew, air agencies, commercial operators, air carriers or airport was a factor. It checks weather airport certification safety standards, air carrier/airport security standards, aircrew medical qualifications or operations were involved (Alexander & Clarence, 2004). The FAA conducts investigations and submits factual reports of the investigation to the NTSB on accidents delegated to the FAA by the NTSB. The FAA principle investigator at an accident is called the investigator in charge. The individual directs and controls all FAA participations in the accident until the investigation is complete. References Airline Accident Investigation Procedures (2010). Retrieved February 11, 2010, from http://air planes.suite101.com/article.cfm/airline-accident-investigation-procedures Alexander T. Wells & Clarence C. Rodriguez (2004). Commercial aviation safety (4th ed.). NY, USA: McGraw-Hill. Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR) (2004). Retrieved from http:// www.ntsb.gov/aviation/CVR_FDR.htm Collins, J. A. (1993). Failure of materials in mechanical design: analysis, prediction, prevention (2nd ed.). NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Handbook for Damage Tolerant Design (2009). Retrieved from http://www.afgrow.net/applicatio ns/DTDHandbook/sections/page1_0.aspx National transportation safety board aviation investigation manual major team investigations (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/MajorInvestigations Manual.pdf The Case for Confidential Incident Reporting Systems (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2010, from http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rs/60_Case_for_Confidential_Incident_Reporting.pdf The Changing face of Transportation (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2010 from http://www.bts. gov/publications/the_changing_face_of_transportation/chapter_03.html Read More