ARTICLE: GE Boosts BizAv Engine Revenue Target
Forecasting of future sales is part art, part science, but when a major public corporation like GE makes such a definitive statement, it matters. The pronouncement of companies regulated by the SEC can impact the price of its shares; so, when it releases numbers which correlate with future GE earnings, that analysis has been carefully vetted. When GE issues a forecast that future engine sales will increase, that is a real number.
No segment of aviation has taken a bigger beating since 9/11 than the turbine powered, noncommercial aircraft. Increased fuel prices, efforts to impose a “user fee”, new security rules, Congressional criticism of the use of corporate aircraft and the economy’s problems have all negatively impacted this segment also known as business aviation.
Thus, the GE report that sales are on an incline is GREAT news. The substantial order books cited in their analysis is hard evidence of this trend. Equally important in the company’s statement (Passport turbofan, HF120 engine, and even H80 turboprop engine for crop dusting application) is the technological advances and research that support this increased demand.
Aviation is a maturing industry. The business is over 100 years old; so it is susceptible to stagnation.
The product development, that is part of the growth forecast by GE, is critical to aviation maintaining a positive climb attitude!
ARTICLE: FAA To Reopen Fatigue Rules For Cargo Pilots
In a US Court of Appeals case initiated by the UPS pilots union, a Department of Justice motion stated
“These errors are of sufficient amount that the FAA believes that it is prudent to review the portion of its cost-benefit analysis related to all-cargo operations and allow interested parties an opportunity to comment on that analysis.”
This was one of the most contested, closely scrutinized rulemaking in recent history. It had substantial pre NPRM input, an incredibly full docket replete with comments from unions, associations, scholars, experts, individual pilots, etc., a lengthy period for submission of those comments and intense Congressional interest (see Science Brings more Insights to the Debate on Flight & Duty Time Regulations; Is it time to rethink the start and stop of “flight and duty” time?). The FAA Administrator at the beginning of this period, who recused himself from the proceedings, was a past President of one of the unions. Once the record was closed, the FAA staff and lawyers carefully reviewed all of that information, revised the proposed rules and devoted substantial time and effort to preparing its rational.
One of the quintessential elements of any final rule is the agency’s Cost/Benefit analysis. The numbers found in this lengthy section of the pages of the Federal Register include the economic analyses prepared by the FAA resident policy group as modified by the NPRM comments submitted by all parties. A review of the comments demonstrates that all parties submitted their own C/B assessments, then commented on the numbers/analyses of the other submissions and probably replied to the criticisms of their objections. The issue was well joined in this process.
The FAA does not have the authority to write a final rule and publish it in the Federal Register; it is compelled to review its final draft first with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. That “parent” organization has its own lawyers, economists and policy experts. By definition, the DoT is a more politically sensitive organization; it is a part of the Executive Branch and its Secretary a full member of the Obama Administration. With that perspective, one may easily infer that a Democratic, pro labor perspective was part of the DoT assessment of the FAA’s final rule. Any B/C numbers that were suspect were subject to severe scrutiny and criticism. The notion that some incorrect number passed unnoticed through this process stretches the bounds of credulity.
But wait, there’s more. The Executive Orders that prescribe the issuance of Final Rules do not permit DoT and/or FAA to send their proposal to the Federal Register for publication. No, their work product is subject to further political scrubbing. The Chief Executive exercises his policy discretion through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This “sieve” is a surrogate of the President’s policies and political sensibilities—proof: it is technically part of the White House.
If the OST review uses a microscope in its assessment, OIRA employs an electron microscope to determine its acceptability. Their examination is figuratively and literally molecular in scope. One can be assured that these very able and powerful reviewers questioned every number of the B/C section, compelled detailed justification of every digit, deleted many of the econometric citations and refined all of the data that made the last testament of this NPRM.
Now the US Department of Justice tells a court that it is NOW “prudent” to review the B/C numbers of the final Flight and Duty Time rules; the only response to this statement is è REALLY?
ARTICLE: Bolen: EU-ETS ‘Wrong-headed’ Approach
Ed Bolen, CEO and President of the National Business Association, presented an excellent case as to why the EU’s Emissions Trading System is ill considered. His initial point is that aviation, particularly in comparison to other industries, has significantly improved its environmental footprint. Noting that most aircraft can and do move freely around the world, both because the equipment is designed to do so and because international agreements enable such flights, he urged that the EU move its parochial goals to the right forum. ICAO, created the Chicago Convention and to which all of the EU countries are members, is THE authority with legal and technical competence to design a global solution. The EU’s myopic approach really does not solve anything: pollution moves in the air and while emitted in Africa, for example, can move to Europe.
ARTICLE: NASA to Feed Jet Engine Crayons… For Science
Great credit to the NASA engineers, who have found that crayons make a very useful substance to be ingested in engines. They are being used to assess the impact of foreign objects on the turbines. One application is to determine strategies for dealing with future volcanic ash being spewed into the atmosphere. The crayons create data on sensors and the engineers will assess the “colorful” numbers to help with future engine designs and/or operational procedures.
ARTICLE: Pennsylvania Governor Corbett: State, Federal Investment to Enhance 27 Airports
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania invested $0.8 million in its states’ airports. When added to the federal AIP funds means that $12.6 million is available to improve the infrastructure of the state’s and the federal aviation system. In announcing the Commonwealth’s grants, Governor Tom Corbett noted that aviation there involves more than 290,000 direct jobs. That’s probably a conservative number and when secondary jobs are calculated, there’s an even bigger impact. That’s a good investment, particularly when employment is such a priority.
ARTICLE: This is your captain: Turn off that cell phone!
Daniel Marsula-Post Gazzette
As noted by the authors (2 Carnegie Mellon University professors and an expert on electromagnetic issues), a number of recent articles (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times) and a well publicized PED picture taken of bird ingestion while in flight have done a great disservice to aviation safety. These researchers have documented the deleterious effects of electromagnetic interference with the aircraft GPS systems through their own onboard measurements as well as analyzing the Aviation Safety Reporting Systems (ASRS) data maintained by NASA.
The authors list five important recommendations, all of which merit consideration for adoption by the FAA, NASA and the airlines. One of their suggestions is borrowed from the announcement of Turkish Airlines, to wit: “Mobile phones interfere with the flight instruments and have a negative effect on flight safety.”
One more idea—AIRLINES SHOULD INCLUDE THE POST-GAZETTE ARTICLE IN THEIR IN FLIGHT MAGAZINES and SEAT BACK SAFETY MATERIAL!
ARTICLE: FSF Challenges Business Aviation on Safety Issues
As the Chairman and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation, Bill Voss, has gained invaluable insights and articulated important ways to improve aviation safety. In a wide-ranging speech at EBACE, Captain Voss made several important comments.
Relevant to business aviation, the subject of this convention, he focused on business aviation runway excursions. His remarks seem to be based on the safety data rich environment of the air carrier community citing unstable approaches and the possible complications of airspace design and related ATC issues. That data, most likely, comes from ASAP, and the solutions were probably developed by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).
As noted before (New Approach for GA Safety Needs to be Taken), the next step up the safety ladder for the business aviation and general aviation community is to replicate and adopt the processes and framework of CAST, which we previously named the General Aviation Safety Team (GAST).
ARTICLE: Bill Shuster appears ready in possible chairman shuffle
John Mica (Chair of the HR Transportation & Infrastructure)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
To analogize with the corporate model, if the FAA is a business, the Chair of the HR Transportation & Infrastructure is Head of the agency’s Board. In explicit and subtle ways, the agenda of this House Committee is impacted by the style and substance of the person who leads this legislative organization. Cleary, the hearings and the resulting authorization bills set the strategy and powers of the FAA. Even calls from the Member or her/his staff can affect personnel decisions or the priorities of the Administrator. Parenthetically, the same observations are theoretically true as applied to the HR Appropriations, Senate Commerce and Senate Appropriations Chairs, but historically, there has been less visible “direction” from these potential powers.
Chairman Mica has exercised his chairmanship during a most partisan era; the Reauthorization Bills have been his annual challenge. Every year, Chairman Mica introduced this critical legislation and in the last few days of every session, a “band aid” extension was passed. What suffered in this stalemate is the long term strategic financing of NextGen. The initial debate was a “user fee”, which general and business aviation have opposed and successfully blocked. The White House has adopted this source of funding, but Mr. Mica has not. What we have not seen much during his leadership are hearings taking political pot-shots at the FAA Administrator over “safety” issues.
Politico, in the linked article, has suggested that the term limit rules may result in a transfer from the Florida Republican to the son of the former legendary Chair Bud Shuster, Rep. Bill Shuster. [The article notes that Mr. Mica may seek a waiver, but in spite of that possibility, the political journal devoted 3 pages of review of Mr. Shuster.] Research of the Pennsylvania Republican’s legislative record suggests that he may be a different leader.
In his 11 years in the Congress, he has attained the Chair of T&I’s Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. In that position, he set the agenda for the hearings and legislation for those three industries. Last year, the Chair introduced two major bills; one passed and the second is pending and both are instructive about his legislative substance and abilities.
H.R. 2845: Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 was introduced on September 11, 2011 and was signed by President Obama on January 3, 2012. In this era of legislative gridlock, this was quite an accomplishment. Adding to the accomplishment, the Bill was supported by the Chair of a committee with concurrent jurisdiction (HR Energy and Commerce), by Democrats and by industry. The WOW factor increases when it is noted that the Bill included limitations on liability, state/federal jurisdiction, Indian reservations, MBE/WBE/DBE preferences and very complex industry rules. This suggests that Mr. Shuster may be able to return the bipartisanship to the T&I committee, which had been a hallmark of this group for 30 years.
The second bit of legislation is titled H.R. 1390: Bus Uniform Standards and Enhanced Safety Act of 2011. It is a comprehensive effort to reform bus safety. It was originally introduced in 2009 and has bipartisan support. Relevant to aviation’s NextGen implementation issues, the Bus Bill includes tax credits and grants for bus companies’ expenditures for introducing safety equipment. Minimum training standards for drivers, testing of and a national registry for medical examiners, and increased monitoring of the bus safety records—all are themes familiar to aviation. What is evident in the Shuster Bill and a distinction from recent aviation legislation is the definition of broad standards, leaving the refining of the criteria to the Administrator. This is in stark contrast to the Aviation Subcommittee’s prescribing a minimum number of pilot hours.
It is too early to make definitive conclusions and maybe even premature to assume a new leader, but the prospect of another Shuster is positive. The FAA would do well to have a flow of well designed legislation, positive contributions to implementing NextGen and a Chairman of its Board who understands the complexity of its charter.
ARTICLE: FAA is to be commended to listening to real problems in implementing Fuel Tank Safety Upgrade?
When Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) are published, air carriers and manufacturers as well as other individuals or organizations have an opportunity to submit comments about the NPRM as it relates to cost, schedule, effectiveness and alternative means of compliance. Under the lead air line process established by ATA (now A4A), member carriers can collaborate and develop a consensus response to the NPRM. In many cases Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) such as Boeing and Airbus support A4A with related facts and information and also submit their own comments about the NPRM.
It would be safe to assume, that when the lead airline process was initiated for the above cited fuel tank safety upgrade, that kit components and delivery schedule were included in the comments to the FAA. Despite the best planning efforts, sometimes supply chain issues pop up and such developments can have a downstream impact on the operators that have to incorporate the upgrade.
The fuel tank upgrade is no simple task and it is good to read that the FAA is willing to work with the air carriers to ensure airplanes are not needlessly grounded. Since the TWA mishap in 1996, the FAA, airlines and manufacturers put an extensive amount of effort into researching the problem and developing operational procedures to prevent the mishap from reoccurring until the fuel system upgrade could be developed, tested and installed.
This case is a testament to both the FAA and the industry working together to address a very difficult problem.
ARTICLE: Recent bird strikes renew opposition to trash station
Flocks of birds do not coexist well with airplanes and unfortunately, trash stations attract major flocks of birds. Fortunately, there are zoning laws that are designed to assure that incompatible uses and good public policy would mandate that zoning boards NOT authorize the locating of dumps near an airport.
Recent bird strikes, Captain Sullenberger’s miraculous landing in the Hudson, an April 19 Delta, an April 24 Jet Blue flight from HPN, and the April 24 flight with Vice President Biden & Secretary Clinton, should make any responsible person in authority to find good cause not to authorize a trash station anywhere proximate to an airport.
NY please do not allow a trash station near LGA; your citizens and all passengers will appreciate your wisdom.
ARTICLE: Crash deals blow to Russian aerospace revival
The headline is premature.
Indeed, a new Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 airliner crashed and tragically all aboard died. The fact that this airplane was the first commercial offering of Sukhoi added to its visibility. Previously, Sukhoi Company was one of Russia’s military fighter manufacturers, and pre Perestroika, it was also a manufacturer of civil airliners operated primarily by Soviet bloc air carriers. The Superjet 100 was to be Russia’s competition for Brazil’s Embraer and Canada’s Bombardier mid range airliners.
The conclusion that the crash will harm the Superjet 100 assumes that the airplane’s design or airworthiness was the cause factor. At the time of the news article the wreckage and its black box had yet to be found, thus it is way too early to conclude that the design is at fault. Further, airplane buyers are sophisticated and experienced and can distinguish accident cause factors.
That is not to say that the existing reputation of Russian commercial aircraft design and production is exemplar. The US- Russia bilateral airworthiness agreement is an excellent surrogate for the recognition of the former Soviet Union’s aviation competence. Prior to Perestroika, the separation between the regulator and the manufacturer was ill defined and the likelihood that the government aviation authority would question the engineering of the government manufacturer was reduced—a distinction of merit among all civil aviation authorities.
Things may have improved, but the bilateral airworthiness agreement is relatively limited to allowing the export from Russia to the US of only metal aircraft of 9 passengers with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 lbs. equipped with US certificated engines (Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America for Promotion of Aviation Safety).
Until more is known about the “facts” of this accident “Buyer Beware”.
ARTICLE: SKYWAITRESSES –THE FORGOTTEN HEROES
- Source: NYC Aviation
The reporter in the linked article has captured the value of these safety professionals. In addition to providing certain in-flight services, these well trained (initial and recurrent) flight attendants’ primary mission and real value is passenger safety, which becomes evident on those rare occasions when the aircraft is placed in jeopardy. Then, their knowledge of the equipment, their expert execution of the emergency procedures and their equanimity in a crisis are obvious.
Too many air-travelers ignore the announcements that the flight attendants make prior to each flight. The location of the emergency exits and the associated evacuation procedures vary by aircraft. Pay attention – it may save your life one day!
Thank you flight attendants for your critical contributions to aviation safety!
ARTICLE: FAA To Change Enforcement Approach, Allen Says
Aviation is a complex business; regulating it is even more complicated. The basic rules, 14 CFR Parts 1-198, consume over 3,500 pages of single-spaced, two column, small font pages. Those books are not enough; the FAA relies on Handbooks, Orders, Advisory Circulars, Airworthiness Directives and a long list of other documents which “clarify” what is meant. Add to that these rules are applied to huge airline fleets which are supported by large organizations to ma and pa single one engine plane flying services, from arctic to tropical operations, from mountain terrains to dry, flat deserts and a myriad of other variables which impact how to apply the rules; there, almost by definition, must be flexibility in interpreting the rules. In fact, it is a classical situation in which it is likely that reasonable people may disagree.
Given this diversity of sources and drafting that was intended to be vague, strict enforcement is somewhat incongruous.
With that background, Director of Flight Standards John Allen’s announcement of a new approach to compliance is welcomed and appropriate. John told the Aircraft Charter Safety Foundation’s annual Air Charter Safety Symposium that he is “trying to change a culture within the Flight Standards Service.” Specifically, he intimated that the first tool of his 1,500 inspectors is not to open his ticket book and begin to violate a “problem”.
John succinctly summarized the difficult balancing position that he is advocating while “[w]e are not friends”, but there should be a more cooperative approach to resolving minor problems.
Great initiative, John and hopefully your field organization will adopt this new approach.
ARTICLE: Landmark Aviation Participates in FAA Safety Management System Pilot Program
Source: 
Safety Management System (SMS) has great potential to improve operational efficiency, safety performance and reduce hazards. The FAA and most Part 121 air carriers have been engaged in an SMS pilot program for several years. A similar FAA SMS pilot program was also conducted with about 20 Part 139 airports. The air carriers and airports, that participated in the SMS pilot program, gained tremendous benefit from working with the FAA .They will have the advantage of their SMS being fully or nearly implemented, when the final SMS rules are published requiring air carriers and airports to comply.
Landmark Aviation, which is both a Part 145 and Part 135 operator, recently joined the FAA SMS pilot program and should be commended for its participation especially, when there is no FAA SMS rule on the horizon for the 135 and 145 operators. There is no doubt that Landmark will gain tremendous value from their SMS program applied to the company’s business aviation, general aviation and airline aircraft repair services that they provide.
ARTICLE: Special counsel: FAA lags in handling safety claims
A recently issued report and letter from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) implies that there are serious safety deficiencies within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The “findings” of OSC sound suspect for the following reasons.
First, the eight issues specifically mentioned as OSC findings are complex technical and operational issues needing expert analysis to determine validity, level of risk and how best to resolve. What to a non technical person may seem to be unresponsiveness could well be just sound technical judgment.
In April, 2008, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee held hearings on several Whistleblower complaints about FAA-airline interactions. In response to the 2008 hearing, FAA set up a formal system, which was widely advertised throughout the workforce, to address whistleblower complaints. FAA then created an independent Audit & Evaluation Office, reporting directly to the FAA Administrator and hired, as Office Director, the Congressional staffer who organized the 2008 hearings.
The sole purpose of this office is to ensure that safety complaints from both inside and outside the agency are independently investigated in a fair and timely manner and that they receive proper consideration. The office coordinates with audits and investigations conducted by outside offices, including the Government Accountability Office, the Office of the Special Counsel, and the Transportation Department’s Inspector General.
Given the above, a letter from the OSC that that finds FAA to be non responsive to whistleblower safety issues does not calibrate considering the programs and processes the FAA put in place.
