A new error-reporting program in the USA air-traffic system is revealing thousands of previously unknown hazards such as dangerous runway crossings and unreported midair problems.

In the year and a half since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) kicked off the program - which guarantees employees immunity in exchange for honest accounts of all but the most serious lapses - the agency has been deluged by more than 14,000 reports, according to agency records reviewed by USA TODAY.
The reports, which had not been widely released until now, have allowed the FAA to make numerous fixes to festering problems, such as improving signage at critical runway intersections, the agency says. It has also opened a window into what was widely suspected but could never be documented: that far more planes are sent on errant and potentially dangerous tracks than were ever officially reported.

"This is a way for us to get new sets of eyes and ears in a lot of places," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said of the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP). "I think everybody agrees there will be a safer system in the long run."
According to ATSAP reports and interviews with FAA officials, the program has revealed:

·About 45% of reports, or more than 6,000 since June 2008, are cases in which aircraft flew unapproved routes or came too close to another plane, and the lapse had not been reported through official channels. The cases are overwhelmingly minor, but they will allow the agency to target procedures to minimize risks.

·In late 2008, controllers began reporting numerous potentially dangerous cases of jets flying too fast as they departed to the south from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. "I have had six airplanes violate this speed all in the same day," reported one controller. "Saw major overtake luckily in time to maintain separation." A simple change to aviation charts fixed the problem.

·Bugs in sophisticated computerized autopilots are causing some jets departing from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to turn too close to other aircraft. Controller reports have helped lead to software changes.

"To be honest, I am very surprised by the detail and passion of these reports," said Joseph Teixeira, the FAA safety official who oversees the ATSAP program.

Many members of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association were suspicious of the program initially, but have rapidly embraced it, said the union's safety chairman, Steven Hansen.
Programs that encourage employees to openly discuss problems are seen as a key way to improve safety in an era when airline accidents are so rare. All major airlines have such programs, but contentious relations with controllers had prevented the FAA from adopting it for its own employees.

ATSAP has not been without controversy and problems, Teixeira and Hansen said. There has been occasional disagreement over whether controllers who committed serious errors should be granted immunity, they said.
However, many safety experts say the payoff of greater knowledge about risks is worth it.

"It's a systematic attack on the human errors that are inevitable in a system, but were always shrugged off," said Bill Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, and a former controller.

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

Suggestions include Changes In Airman Testing On EFD's

The NTSB Monday released a recommendation to the FAA that it revise airman knowledge tests to include questions regarding electronic flight and navigation displays, including normal operations, limitations, and the interpretation of malfunctions and aircraft attitudes.

The board said the FAA should require all manufacturers of certified electronic primary flight displays to include information in their approved aircraft flight manual and pilot's operating handbook supplements regarding abnormal equipment operation or malfunction due to subsystem and input malfunctions, including but not limited to pitot and/or static system blockages, magnetic sensor malfunctions, and attitude-heading reference system alignment failures, and incorporate training elements regarding electronic primary flight displays into your training materials and aeronautical knowledge requirements for all pilots.

The board further recommended that training elements regarding electronic primary flight displays be incorporated into initial and recurrent flight proficiency requirements for pilots of 14 Code of Regulations Part 23 certified aircraft equipped with those systems that address variations in equipment design and operations of such displays, and that guidance should be developed and published for the use of equipment-specific electronic avionics display simulators and procedural trainers that do not meet the definition of flight simulation training devices prescribed in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 to support equipment-specific pilot training requirements.

Finally, the board said the FAA should inform aircraft and avionics maintenance technicians about the critical role of voluntary service difficulty reporting system reports involving malfunctions or defects associated with electronic primary flight, navigation, and control systems in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 certified aircraft used in general aviation operations.

www.ntsb.gov