Aviation Safety

2010-06-05T13:48:00.000-07:00

Father's Day Aviation Gift Ideas

2010-05-27T19:11:00.000-07:00

Beach Landing in Tybee Island Georgia

2010-05-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

Savannah News: An Arkansas man landed his two-seat plane on a Georgia beach for a little fun and sun. Instead, the amateur pilot was arrested on charges of reckless conduct and operating a motorized craft on the beach on Tybee Island. Tybee Island police Lt. Jonathan Hagan told the Savannah Morning News that the plane's two occupants climbed out to take a stroll on the beach and there was nothing wrong with the single-engine aircraft. He says the pilot — 36-year-old Mark Jensen — was arrested. The passenger was Jensen's mother; she was not arrested. Hagan says the action was unacceptable and endangered other beachgoers.
_______________________________________________________________________________

What was the pilot thinking? My research thus far has not yielded any Federal Aviation Regulation violation (although I have only begun my search) Beside any state laws that may have been violated, I'm sure a case could be made against the pilot under FAR § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation in that "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another".
The questions are did the pilot operate the aircraft recklessly and who determines if the pilot operated the aircraft recklessly? I don't have the answers. But I'm sure the pilot will have the option to speek to a judge about the ordeal. And I'm sure the FAA will inquire about his actions as well.

I would question the pilot's decission making when he decided to land his airplane on the beach. I'm sure he made sure there were no obsticles, such as drift wood and people, that would be in the way. But we are not in the "back woods" or "bush flying". I believe the pilot's decision to land was not a wise decision. This is another example of bad press to general aviation that is not needed.

Flight Training Material

2010-05-18T16:21:00.001-07:00

Aviation Gifts

2010-05-17T17:14:00.001-07:00

Aviation Weather

2010-05-16T19:21:00.000-07:00

Aviation Books

2010-05-16T10:07:00.001-07:00

Aviation Safety Relate Books

2010-05-15T18:34:00.001-07:00

Safety Programs

2010-05-15T16:09:00.000-07:00

All aviation organizations shall develop and maintain an Aviation Safety Program. The safety program shall encompass all areas of safety as it is related to the organization. This program shall focus on all aspects of safety in respect to the staff members, maintenance personnel, pilots and aircrews, flight operation safety, passenger safety, and the policies and procedures within the organization. If there is not an affective safety program, the results will be divesting. In order for the organization to achieve a successful safety program, they must have a strong safety education and training program. This program will focus on education, training, and sustaining the education and training program.

Education is the grounding point in any safety program. In order to have an effective safety program, all employees of the company must know something about the program. Employees who require safety education include, but not limited to, maintenance personnel, pilots and aircrew, ground crew, security personnel, station managers, supervisors and executives. The importance with educating the staff members is to inform them of the benefits of a successful safety program, and to bring them on board with the program. The new supervisors, or line managers, will be directly responsible for the safety program when they assume their positions in the company. And the executives will have the authority to dictate the outcome of the safety program through financial control. Nevertheless, everybody in the company has an invested interest in the successfulness of the program. Additionally, other entities aboard the airfield require the same knowledge. For example, contractors shall undergo safety education to inform them of the dangers when working around the airfield.

The company shall require all employees, regardless of position, to attend the safety indoctrination brief. This brief should be during the welcome aboard brief the company officers. The indoctrination should cover company policies, reporting procedures, awards program, hazardous materials, personal protective equipment, airfield safety, airfield emergencies, and occupational health issues. This indoctrination can also be tied in with a tour of the airfield in order to point out areas of concern. If this is not possible, then provide video footage to point out those areas of concern.

In addition to educating employees about the safety program, many employees will require training. Pilots, aircrew, ground personnel, maintenance personnel are among a few that will need additional training.

New pilots and aircrew joining the organization will require training for the aircraft they will be flying. If they have not received a type rating for the aircraft in the company, then the pilots will require training in that aircraft. If the pilots are type rated in the aircraft, but lack the knowledge of the flight management systems aboard the aircraft, training will be required before the pilot becomes involved with flight operations. New pilots and aircrew, as well as senior pilots and aircrew, will need to undergo crew resource management training; pilots and aircrew will require continues training with emergency procedures as well.

Maintenance and ground personnel will require airfield indoctrination. This training will give them the rules and regulations pertaining to airfield operations and will permit them to operate support equipment on the airfield. Support equipment is another training evolution for the maintenance and ground personnel. They must learn how to operate this equipment safely. Maintenance personnel will require training on safe maintenance practices with the equipment in their work spaces. Further training will be required for maintenance personnel on upgrades to aircraft equipment. Addition train required by the maintenance and ground personnel are airfield emergency procedures, aircraft type knowledge, Foreign Object Debris (FOD) training, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training.

The Airport Crash Fire and Rescue squadron will require continues training in aircraft fire fighting techniques. Hazmat training will be another training requirement. Crash crews will need to training for many types of aircraft accidents, such as crash landing on and off the airfield, hard landings, tire blow outs, engine fires, and passenger debarking. Crash crews will also need to undergo first responder training as well.

The continued training in the safety program is paramount to the success of the overall program. The ability and flexibility of the safety program will be dependant on the budget set aside for the safety program. As an example, due to the increase of avionics in aircraft over the years, pilot training courses in new aircraft technology is a continues process. The Safety Director will need to find intuitive ways to keep cost of the program down while providing the required training. Many ways exist in accomplishing this task, such as sending pilots to a simulator for proficiency training, check rides, and ratings. Inviting manufacture teams to come in and conduct training instead of sending people out to the manufacture company is one way to save money. Another intuitive way is to train he trainer. Send a representative to the manufacture to receive the training, and then he/she can return to teach others.

Another area that requires sustained training is the airport emergency plan. The Federal Aviation Administration requires airports to conduct mock emergencies every three years. Another approach to conducting airport emergency planning is have a table top exercise. This type of training will bring all agencies together to go over the excise scenarios to determine if plans require updating.

Risk Management in Aviation

2010-05-15T15:50:00.000-07:00

Risk management is a human factors nightmare. Anything and everything we do, such as driving, has risk involved. We usually do not think about driving to the local corner store as having any risk associated with the short trip. However, believe it or not, it does. And believe it or not, we do perform a risk assessment and take action based of the risk assessment to accomplish this short trip.
For example, we know if we don't wear our seat belt, if we don't drive the vehicle within the posted speed limit and if we don't use our turn signals, then we increase our chances of serious injury in the event of an accident, thus increase our risk. The same holds true in aviation. If a pilot does not perform the checklist, or does not find out what the weather is doing, then the pilot has increase his risk for the flight. So how does a pilot reduce the risk of a flight? Simple, follow the preflight checklist and obtain weather information. But is this enough? It might be if the pilot is familiar with airplane and flying in the local area. But what about a pilot in an unfamiliar airplane or area?

To develop a risk assessment, I'm going to apply the SHELL module. To recap, SHELL represents the relationship of Software, Hardware, Environment, and Liveware (Human) to Liveware (Human).

SOFTWARE:

Aircraft Checklists - Are the proper checklists for the aircraft, (e.g. preflight, start up, before take off, after take off, cruise, emergencies, before landing, after landing) available?
Have you reviewed the maintenance records - if NO, the review the maintenance records to ensure the aircraft is airworthy.
Technologically Advance Aircraft - Do you have the proper training with advance avionics in this aircraft? If NO, then obtain the proper training before flying.

HARDWARE:

Have you flown this type of aircraft - if NO, then complete the required flights with an instructor before continuing with the flight.
Have you completed all required preflight checklist - if NO, the complete all checklist before continuing with the flight.
Are you familiar with all the instrumentation in the aircraft - if NO, consult with a flight instructor.

ENVIRONMENT

Have you flown this type of aircraft - if NO, then complete the required flights with an instructor before continuing with the flight.
Have you received a weather briefing - if NO, then get a weather briefing for you area of flight.
Is the reported and forested weather within your operating minimums - if NO, then the flight is a NO GO!
Are you familiar with the airport and surrounding area - if NO, fly with an instructor or another pilot to point out key areas. At a minimum, ask another pilot to go over the section with you to point out areas of concern.

LIVEWARE (HUMAN)

Are you taking any medication - if NO, then the flight is a NO GO!
Have you received adequate rest prior to the flight - if NO, then the flight is a NO GO!
Are you current - if NO, fly with an instructor before continuing with the flight.
Do you have the required training in the aircraft in which you are going to fly - if NO, receive the required flights with an instructor before continuing with the flight.
Are you comfortable with speaking to Air Traffice Control (ATC) or Flight Service Stations (FSS) - if NO, brush up your communications before you continue with the flight.

This simple steps, when added with checklist, weather briefings, personal minimums, etc. will ensure the pilot is ready to complete a successful flight.

OSHA and Aviation Safety

2010-05-15T13:25:00.000-07:00

OSHA and Aviation Safety! How can OSHA have an impact on aviation safety? Isn't the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) responsible for aviation safety? These questions may be running through your mind when you read the title. Let's discuss a few of these questions.

First, how does OSHA affect aviation safety? What is aviation safety? Short and to the point, aviation safety covers all aspects safety within the aviation, from airline industry personnel working ground operations to aircrew working flight operations, and everyone in between. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) established a comprehensive regulatory scheme covering safety and health conditions in workplaces throughout the United States and its territories. There are 23 states and jurisdictions that operate OSHA-approved state plans covering both the private and public sectors (state and local government employees). Like OSHA, these states currently enforce their occupational safety and health standards on the ground at airports, protecting primarily airport and airline maintenance and ground crews. However, OSHA is preempted from exercising its authority under the OSH Act if another federal agency has been granted statutory authority to regulate the relevant working conditions, and the other federal agency has exercised its authority in a manner such as to exempt the cited working conditions from OSHA’s jurisdiction.

On July 10, 1975, FAA published guidance information in the Federal Register that detailed FAA’s role with respect to occupational safety and health conditions affecting aircraft crewmembers on aircraft in operation (40 FR 29114). In the Federal Register statement, FAA determined that its authority to promote the safety of civil aircraft operations. As a result, FAA concluded that, with respect to civil aircraft in operation, the overall FAA regulatory program fully occupies and exhausts the field of aircraft crewmember occupational safety and health.

On August 7, 2000 the FAA and OSHA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU is to enhance safety and health in the aviation industry. In the MOU, FAA and OSHA agreed to establish a joint team (FAA/OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team) to identify the factors to be considered in determining whether OSHA requirements can be applied to the working conditions of employees on aircraft in operation (other than flight deck crew) without compromising aviation safety.

The following are several areas in which OSHA regulations can be utilized:

1. Recordkeeping: OSHA's existing regulations on recording and reporting occupational injuries and illness are applicable to all employees in the aviation industry. Compliance with these regulations does not implicate aviation safety concerns.

2. Bloodborne Pathogens: The requirements of OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard concerning hepatitis B vaccinations, personal protective equipment (PPE), and exposure training could be applied to employees on aircraft in operation (other than flight deck crew) without compromising aviation safety. However, OSHA requirements that necessitate engineering and administrative controls may implicate aviation safety and would need to be subject to FAA approval.

3. Noise: The training and testing requirements of OSHA's standard on occupational exposure to noise could be applied to employees on aircraft in operation (other than flight deck crew) without compromising aviation safety. However, requirements that necessitate the use of engineering and administrative controls and PPE would implicate aviation safety concerns. Any such controls should be subject to FAA’s approval.

4. Sanitation: Since OSHA’s sanitation standard is flexible and performance-oriented, it could be applied to aircraft in operation without compromising aviation safety. However, sanitary conditions on aircraft are regulated by several federal agencies in addition to FAA, and any consideration of applying OSHA requirements must be informed by a discussion of the effects of multi-agency regulation.

5. Hazard Communication: Compliance with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard would not compromise aviation safety. Under the various circumstances the team has considered, employers could comply with the standard’s requirements while remaining sensitive to flight safety concerns.

6. Anti-discrimination: OSHA's anti-discrimination provisions could be applied to employees on aircraft in operation (other than flight deck crew) without compromising aviation safety. Although the OSH Act has
been interpreted to provide employees with the right to refuse to perform work tasks in certain limited situations, the team can conceive of few scenarios in which a safety or health hazard associated with the standards considered in this report would present the immediacy and degree of danger required to justify a work refusal protected under the OSH Act.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ashp/media/faa-osha-report.pdf

Search for Aviation Related Topics

2010-05-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

Custom Search

Human Factors In Aviation

2010-05-09T17:48:00.000-07:00

The aviation industry has a long history of undergoing transformation with the invention of new technologies. Improvements in design and material usage are among the greatest notable advancements. Over the past few decades, the airline industry has seen improvement in the avionics systems and capabilities within the commercial fleet, replacing traditional round dial mechanical gauges with computerized advanced avionics. Starting around 2003, the general aviation community started to see the introduction of Technologically Advance Aircraft, or TAA. Technologically advanced aircraft are aircraft that are equipped with new-generation avionics that take full advantage of computing power and modern navigational aids to improve pilot situational awareness, system redundancy and dependence on equipment, and to improve in-cockpit information about traffic, weather, airspace and terrain. The introduction of the TAA’s new-generation avionics brings with it a new-generation of human factor concerns.

The SHELL module exposes the different challenges faced by the transitioning pilot. The transition from traditional round dial mechanical gauges to advanced computer avionics in Technologically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) can bring new challenges to the general aviation community.

The first module, livewire to software, focuses on the interaction of the pilot and the computer software and is one of the most challenging concepts for the pilot. The computer technology brings new symbology and new methods of delivery of vital information to the pilot’s ability to fly the aircraft. All the information from the traditional aircraft is available to the pilot in the TAA; however, the format of the information has changed. In addition, new information is available to the pilot. For example, up-to-date satellite weather information is now available in the TAA that was not available in the traditional aircraft. Additionally, the pilots will need to learn new procedures and checklists with the TAA. When conducting a preflight of a TAA compared to a traditional aircraft.

The next SHELL module concept is the livewire to hardware. The hardware is the most apparent change within the cockpit in TAA. One of the challenges for a pilot transitioning into TAA is the design and layout of the TAA cockpit. One of many new “glass cockpit” systems is Garmin’s G1000 avionics suite. The G1000 is a fully integrated flight management system (FMS) that integrates all communication, navigation, flight planning, engine, and systems monitoring into two seperate displays. With this new system comes the uniqueness of new input controls.

The next SHELL module is livewire to environment. This is the interaction of the pilot and the flying environment around the aircraft, as well as the environment in the aircraft. With the advanced avionics in the TAA brings abundance of new information that will give the pilot a greater situational awareness. Traffic Information System (TIS), Terrain Awareness (TA), and a weather avoidance system enhance situational awareness.

Another SHELL module component is livewire to livewire. This module focuses on the human interaction. In the case of TAA, the biggest interaction will be between the flight instructor and the student. The challenge will be finding instructors and flight schools that are knowledgeable and experienced on the new aircraft, although this will improve as more TAAs enter the fleet and more flight schools become equipped.

The final element within the SHELL module is the livewire; in this case, the pilot. Regardless of the changes with the introduction of TAA or the introduction of more advanced avionics, the pilot will be the center of all the integration. The key to the successful integration of TAA will be pilot training. The training method used for traditional aircraft will not be sufficient for TAA. A study by the FAA and members of aviation safety organizations concluded the traditional GA training system has inadequate methods, does not specifically include training to exploit the additional safety opportunities of new technologies or to operate within the limitations of these technologies, and does not include training on how to make accurate flight risk assessments and manage flight risk properly.

Aviation Safety Reporting System

2010-05-09T14:57:00.000-07:00

On April 30, 1975, the FAA launch the Aviation Safety Report Program (ASRP) which was designed to encourage the identification and reporting of deficiencies and discrepancies in the National Airspace System. On August 15, 1975, the FAA and NASA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), modified on September 20, 1983 and August 13, 1987, which transferred responsibility to NASA, as a third party, to receive, process, and analyze the raw data from the reporting system. The new Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) would ensure the anonymity of the reporter and of all parties involved in a reported occurrence or incident and increase the flow of information for the effective evaluation of the safety and efficiency of the system.
The purpose of the ASRS is to collect, analyze, and respond to voluntarily submitted aviation safety incident reports in order to lessen the likelihood of aviation accidents. ASRS data are used to identify deficiencies and discrepancies in the National Aviation System (NAS) so that these can be remedied by appropriate authorities; support policy formulation and planning for, and improvements to, the NAS; and strengthen the foundation of aviation human factors safety research. In addition, the ASRS uses several media to share information collected, such as its CALLBACK newsletter, its journal ASRS Direcline and through research studies. The information is also used by the FAA, NASA, and other organizations for research and promotion of aviation safety.

Although the ASRS is voluntary, the ASRS is not completely anonymous. Each report has a tear-off portion which contains the information that identifies the person submitting the report. This tear-off portion will be removed by NASA, timestamped, and returned to the reporter as a receipt. This will provide the reporter with proof that he/she filed a report on a specific incident or occurrence. Except in the case of reports describing accidents or criminal activities, no copy of an ASRS form's identification strip is created or retained for ASRS files. Section 91.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations prohibits the use of any reports submitted to NASA under the ASRS (or information derived therefrom) in any disciplinary action, except information concerning criminal offenses or accidents.

If a voluntary report is submitted, it does not preclude individuals or operators to notify the NTSB of accidents or specific incidents. Under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 830 outlines the requirements for reporting to the NTSB. Part 830.5 states the operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (Board) field office when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;
(2) Inability of any required flight crew member to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes;
(4) In-flight fire; or
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
(7) For large multi engine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):
(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;
(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;
(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and
(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/immunity.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/49cfr830_09.html

Federal Aviation Administration

2010-05-08T14:05:00.000-07:00

The history of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has it roots dating back to the mid 1920’s when the need for federal regulations were called for to help increase the potential of commercial aviation. The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926 was the start of governmental control over civil aviation. The Air Commerce Act “charged the Secretary of Commerce with fostering air commerce, issuing and enforcing air traffic rules, licensing pilots, certificating aircraft, establishing airways, and operating and maintaining aids to air navigation.” This new legislation brought forth the new Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce.
In 1934, the Aeronautics Branch was renamed the Bureau of Air Commerce and in 1938, the Civil Aeronautics Act named a new independent agency, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, which took over the responsibilities of civil aviation. The Civil Aeronautics Act "expanded the government’s role by giving the Authority the power to regulate airline fares and to determine the routes that air carriers would serve.” In 1940 the Authority was divided into two agencies, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The additional responsibility of safety enforcement was given to the CAA. The CAB was responsible for rule making, investigation and regulation of the airlines.

In the late 1950’s, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was passed by congress. The Federal Aviation Act "transferred CAA’s functions to a new independent body, the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) that had broader authority to combat aviation hazards.” Safety rule making was transferred back to the Federal Aviation Agency as well as the sole responsibility of developing and maintaining the civil-military airways, air traffic control and air-navigation. Then on April 1, 1967, after the new Department of Transportation started operations, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today still carries on with what the federal government has outlined in the passing of the Federal Aviation Act many years ago. As aviation grows, so does the administrative responsibilities. One of the daunting responsibilities is to improve upon the safety of air travel. One example of the safety issues facing the FAA is pilot proficiency. According to the NTSB's most wanted list, this area has not yet received sufficient attention. The NTSB has requested action from the FAA into resolving issues with using information regarding a pilot’s past performance to assess that pilot’s current and future performance and overall abilities. The NTSB has recommended to the FAA on several different occasions to make a ruling requiring air carriers to obtain notices of disapproval's for pilot applicants so that carriers could identify all pilots who have a history of unsatisfactory performance. The NTSB most recently issued four recommendations regarding the use and documentation of pilot records as a result of its investigation of the February 12, 2009, accident involving Colgan Air, Inc., flight 3407.

http://www.faa.gov/about/history/

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/oversight-pilot-proficiency.htm