| | Date | Title | News | Link |
|
| 6/24/2007 | Crew Resource Management (CRM) : Saving lives | Crew Resource Management (CRM) : Saving lives
Crew (or Cockpit) Resource Management (CRM) training originated from a NASA workshop in 1979 that focused on improving air safety. Express AviationWorld finds out that CRM is probably one of the most vital and unaviodable modules for crew training. You cannot afford to give it a miss.
The NASA research presented at a meeting found that the primary cause of majority of aviation accidents was human error, and that the main problems were failures of interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit. A textbook example of such an event was the catastrophic accident the infamous Tenerife disaster. (Los Rodeos, Tenerife's North airport is, unfortunately, famous for the fateful accident which occurred on March 27, 1977, in which 583 people died when KLM and Pan Am 747s collided on a crowded, foggy runway in Tenerife, Canary Islands. The incident remains the world's worst aviation accident in history. Many contributing factors, lead up to the crash, but the probable cause, cited by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA, 1978), was the KLM pilot taking off without takeoff clearance.
According to sources, aviation industry psychologists John K Lauber and Robert Helmreich were approached by the aviation fraternity to develop new kinds of psychological training for flight crews. The training focuses on group dynamics, leadership, interpersonal communications, and decision-making. The training is now known as Crew Resource Management (CRM). Dr Lauber, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, defined CRM as "using all available sources - information, equipment, and people - to achieve safe and efficient flight operations." More specifically, it is the active process employed by crew members to identify existing and potential threats and to develop, communicate, and implement plans and actions to avoid or mitigate perceived threats. CRM supports the avoidance, management, and mitigating of human errors. The secondary benefits of effective CRM programs are improved morale and enhanced efficiency of operations.
CRM training has since been introduced and developed by aviation organisations including major airlines and military aviation worldwide. CRM training is now a mandated requirement for commercial pilots working under most regulatory bodies worldwide, including the FAA (US) and JAA (Europe).
CRM training encompasses a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitudes including communications, situational awareness, problem solving, decision making, and teamwork; together with all the attendant sub-disciplines which each of these areas entails. CRM can be defined as a management system which makes optimum use of all available resources - equipment, procedures and people - to promote safety and enhance the efficiency of flight operations.
CRM is concerned not so much with the technical knowledge and skills required to fly and operate an aircraft but rather with the cognitive and interpersonal skills needed to manage the flight within an organised aviation system. In this context, cognitive skills are defined as the mental processes used for gaining and maintaining situational awareness, solving problems and taking decisions. Interpersonal skills are regarded as communications and a range of behavioural activities associated with teamwork. In aviation, as in other walks of life, these skill areas often overlap with each other, and they also overlap with the required technical skills. Furthermore, they are not confined to multi-crew aircraft, but also relate to single pilot operations, which invariably need to interface with other aircraft and with various ground support agencies in order to complete their missions successfully.
CRM has prevented accidents and saved lives in the aviation industry. CRM alerted the aviation industry to the human-to-human interactions that are an integral part of any team performance. This training has the potential to save lives and money, and prevent accidents and lawsuits as well. Crew Resource Management training is now required for airlines in 185 countries by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the regulatory component of the United Nations. | |
|
| 6/13/2007 | Pilot and controller anti-collision tools can clash | Pilot and controller anti-collision tools can clash By David Learmount
Pilot and air traffic controller anti-collision warning systems, in the event of a conflict, can produce a reaction that degrades the effectiveness of both, according to the European air traffic management community.
Eurocontrol's air traffic control domain manager Martin Griffin says: "Many of the identified key issues relate to the fact that short-term conflict alert [STCA - the controller's system] and the airborne collision avoidance system [ACAS - the pilot's system] have been developed independently as separate technological answers to safety concerns."
The issue has emerged from studies carried out by Swiss air navigation service provider Skyguide following publication of the official report on the 1 July 2002 fatal collision between a Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev Tu-154 and a DHL Boeing 757 freighter over Uberlingen, southern Germany.
In that accident there was no clash between the operation of ACAS and STCA because the latter was deactivated for routine maintenance, but the collision happened when the Bashkirian pilot followed a controller instruction to descend just as his ACAS told him to climb.
Independent Swiss studies since then have determined that near-simultaneous operation of STCA and ACAS could result in a similar conflict of instructions causing confusion in the cockpit and the control centre precisely when clarity and quick, accurate action is vital.
In late March, Eurocontrol and Skyguide convened an industry workshop on STCA and ACAS interaction and interoperability in Dubendorf, Switzerland.
The conclusions reached there have been summarised. Griffin says that there is no short-term technological fix available because the two systems are totally independent of each other, and although there is a world standard for ACAS, technical standards for STCA and training for its use vary between users.
He says: "Nobody really understands all the issues because they have not been studied before. We need to gather data to be able to identify the issues."
When they have been identified, he adds, the first action will be to make pilots and controllers aware of the potential pitfalls and how to overcome them.
Since the Uberlingen accident there has been much discussion of the potential for advising controllers - via datalink in real time - of ACAS alerts but it has been accepted that the extra information also has the potential to overload a controller at a critical time.
In the long term, says Griffin, the ideal fix would seem to be a system in which the airborne and ground-based safety net systems were totally co-ordinated - effectively operating as one system.
But any decisions should await the results of a study that will provide hard data on the nature of the existing problem, he says. | |
|
| 6/7/2007 | FAA Responds To NTSB Concerns About 'Most Wanted' Safety Recommendations | Says Agency Must Be Realistic In Applying Board's "Ideal" Guidelines In testimony Wednesday before Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, FAA Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Peggy Gilligan responded to concerns voiced the day before by Mark Rosenker, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, about the FAA's response to the Board's urgent safety recommendations.
Specific concerns cited by Rosenker included recommendations preventing runway incursions, preventing aircraft flying in icing conditions, improving audio and data recorders and requiring video recorders on aircraft, reducing accidents caused by human fatigue, and improving crew resource management for Part 135 (air taxi) operations.
"The relationship and interaction between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the NTSB is an important component in aviation safety," Gilligan told the Subcommittee. "Our roles are different, but complimentary. Through accident investigation, the NTSB makes findings of probable cause that lead to the issuance of safety recommendations. The FAA receives the vast majority of the NTSB���s safety recommendations. In turn, the FAA takes action on the vast majority of the NTSB���s recommendations, even when the recommendation asks that we develop new technology to address the recommendations."
"We always value the intent of the recommendations, even if we are unable to do exactly what the Board recommends," Gilligan continued. "Their recommendations represent the ideal, our consideration of those recommendations must, by law, factor in certain realities."
Below are Gilligan's unedited statements regarding the areas of concern cited by the NTSB.
Runway Incursions
Reducing the risk of runway incursions is one of the FAA's top priorities. The agency has been aggressively addressing the issue and has made progress reducing the most serious incidents, particularly those involving commercial aircraft. The number of serious runway incursions -- called Category A and B -- has dropped by more than 40 percent since fiscal year 2001. In 2006 there was only one serious incursion for every 2 million take-offs and landings.
The FAA has implemented important new technologies to allow tower controllers to see everything that takes place around them. One of these is the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS). AMASS tracks ground movements and provides an alert so controllers can notify the crew if evasive action is required. The FAA has installed AMASS at the nation's top 34 airports. ASDE-X, or Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X, is an even more sophisticated surface detection technology. While AMASS is radar-based, meaning signals might bounce off rain and fog, ASDE-X integrates data from a variety of sources, including surface movement radars located on air traffic control towers or remote towers, multi-lateration sensors, and aircraft transponders, to give controllers a more reliable view of airport operations, especially during bad weather.
By fusing the data from these sources, ASDE-X is able to determine the position and identification of aircraft and transponder-equipped vehicles on the airport movement area, as well as aircraft flying within five miles of the airport. Controllers in the tower see this information presented as a color display of aircraft and vehicle positions overlaid on a map of the airport's runways, taxiways and approach corridors. The FAA is in the process of enhancing ASDE-X with visual and audio alarms that will alert controllers to potential collisions.
The first ASDE-X was activated for operational use and testing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in June 2003. In addition to Milwaukee, ASDE-X is now operational at T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI; Orlando International Airport in Orlando, FL; Hobby Airport in Houston, TX; Lambert-St. Louis International in St. Louis, MO; Seattle-Tacoma International in Seattle, WA; Bradley International in Hartford, CT; and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, GA. ASDE-X is scheduled to be deployed at all 35 OEP airports.
The FAA is also testing new technologies that will alert pilots to potential runway incursions. One of these, called Runway Status Lights, is just what is sounds like -- an advanced series of runway lights, not unlike traffic lights, that tell pilots whether or not runways are clear. The operational evaluation of the runway entrance lights using ASDE-X surface surveillance was completed in June 2005 at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, and the system showed promising initial results. An enhanced lighting configuration is being installed on a second runway at DFW this year. The evaluation of Runway Status Lights with AMASS began last year at San Diego's Lindbergh Field. Other new technologies include an experimental system called the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which is being tested at the Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport in California. FAROS is designed to prevent accidents on airport runways by activating a flashing light visible to landing pilots to warn them that the runway is occupied and hazardous.
Icing
This is another area where the Board has recommended that the FAA design the solution, test the effectiveness of the solution, and then mandate the solution. As meteorologists will attest, simply understanding some of these icing phenomena is difficult and complex. And then determining how to address these phenomena to assure safe aircraft operations takes time. That's why we have taken a multi-pronged approach to the icing issue by taking immediate safety actions, as well as performing longer-term research to improve our understanding of icing phenomena.
One of our most effective tools to address safety issues is the airworthiness directive (AD). We have issued over 100 ADs to address multiple threats from icing on over 50 different aircraft models. These ADs cover safety issues ranging from crew operating procedures in the icing environment to direct design changes. These ADs have had the effect of significantly reducing the icing risk to the overall fleet.
Following the issuance of ADs, the FAA conducts general rulemaking intended to institutionally prevent the same icing risk for future airplane designs that were averted by implementing ADs on specific models. FAA is presently in the process of two rulemaking efforts on icing. The first, which we anticipate publishing as a final rule, requires designers to demonstrate specific airplane performance handling qualities for flights in icing conditions. The second rulemaking is an NPRM, published on April 26, 2007, entitled Activation of Ice Protection, which would introduce requirements to ensure timely activation of ice protection systems (IPS). The proposed rule would require installation of an ice detector or activation of the IPS based on visible moisture and temperature..
The recommendation that we have not yet been able to address in rulemaking is related to a phenomenon known as supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing conditions. This phenomenon has been a challenge because conditions that result in SLD are difficult to forecast and detect. It is also not easy to reproduce in a test environment. So, to first forecast and characterize SLD, then reproduce it, and finally evaluate its affect on aircraft operations has required extensive research. Our research has engaged leading experts from academia, industry, and the government. Due to the technical complexity, our activities continue today. We are committed to identifying the right solution for long term design and operational requirements for the SLD threat. In addition, we have issued numerous ADs that direct the crews of certain airplane designs to monitor and detect early signs of the onset of SLD conditions and to exit the area immediately. These ADs serve as an effective interim measure until such time we complete our research on SLD and complete the necessary rulemaking.
Voice and Flight Data Recorders The FAA views data recorders as important tools for the accident investigation, consequently, we are extremely sensitive to NTSB requests for improvements in this area. The information provided by Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) is often the cornerstone in determining the probable cause of an accident or incident. Therefore, the FAA has had a generally positive reaction to NTSB recommendations for improvements to data recorders, including those for additional parameters to collect more information. We are in the process of three rulemaking projects that will address a number of the NTSB recommendations on data recorders. However, as much as FAA understands the priority NTSB places on data recorder recommendations, the fact is that there are no major accidents for which a probable cause determination has not been concluded. The value of data recorders is realized only after an accident when the information has been collected and analyzed; they do not prevent accidents in and of themselves. As accident rate attests, we must be extremely prudent with regard to how we proceed to improve aviation safety.
The first of these rulemaking projects is an NPRM that proposed a series of improvements to Cockpit Voice Recorders and Flight Data Recorders. Some of the proposed improvements are longer recording times, independent power sources for each box, and emergency power sources to keep the boxes running when the aircraft's main power source is disrupted.
The second rulemaking activity is an NPRM, published in November 2006, to specifically address flight data recorder (FDR) data filtering issues. This proposed rule clarifies the FAA's intent to ensure the accurate recording of flight data under all operating conditions. This clarification will ensure that the NTSB has the most accurate data readily available to conduct investigations in a timely manner.
The third rulemaking project began in November 1999 when the FAA proposed the addition of flight recorder equipment to monitor the Boeing 737 rudder system after several rudder system anomalies had been identified. The FAA made several safety improvements to the B737 rudder system, and subsequently mandated a redesign of the rudders system. In September 2006, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the need for recording additional B737 rudder parameters.
The improvements required by these three rulemaking efforts will achieve the right balance between enhancing accident investigation and wisely investing our safety resources.
Crew Fatigue/CRM
Flight and Duty time rules have been in existence since the 1950s, and the 121 domestic and 135 scheduled rules were updated in 1985. The rules on pilot flight time and rest have evolved along with advances in commercial air travel. The FAA is confident that, overall, the airline industry complies with the FAA's current rules. In the intervening time, much research has been done on fatigue, which has resulted in a better understanding of complex fatigue-related issues. The research tells us that this issue does not easily lend itself to a set of prescriptive rules. While the existing prescriptive rules have served us well, they do not allow for the flexibility needed to address the various flight regimes that exist.
Understanding the limits of a strictly prescriptive regulatory regime, we worked to alleviate fatigue through other means. Fatigue countermeasures were first developed by NASA, and include providing in-flight rest, as well as training crew members on the use of proper diet, exercising, and even caffeine to manage fatigue. Fatigue countermeasures are covered during Crew Resource Management (CRM) initial training and during CRM recurrent training.
It is also critical to understand the role that personal responsibility plays in fatigue and why prescriptive rules can only provide a framework for safety. Crew members, mechanics, air traffic controllers, everyone involved in the safety of flight must make a personal commitment to report for work well rested and ready to perform their duties. No regulatory scheme can instill that sense of personal commitment and professionalism.
One thing we know, aviation operations will always challenge us in the area of flight time and rest. Aircraft design allows for longer and longer flight times. Recently, FAA issued approval to Delta Airlines for flights in excess of 16 hours from New York JFK to Mumbai, India. This approval was our first implementation of a fatigue risk management approach. Delta proposed ��� and we analyzed and approved ��� a detailed plan to assure the crew is rested before the flight begins, is provided appropriate rest throughout the flight, and have sufficient rest before conducting the return flight.
The procedure specifically addresses the impact to circadian rhythm, including the recognized affect of circadian law which occurs at specific times in the daily cycle. This is an example of where we need to move in the future -- away from prescriptive rules and into fatigue risk management.
Gilligan also noted the FAA's successes on such issues as reducing the risk of fuel tank explosions, reduction in CFIT accidents and midair collisions involving airliners, and implementation of windshear warning systems. (More detailed comments on these issues are in Gilligan's full testimony, available here.)
"... [T]he FAA's first priority has always been, and will always be, safety," Gilligan concluded. As I said at the outset, we very much appreciate the unique relationship FAA has with the NTSB and we consider them a vital partner in advancing the safety of our Nation's skies. The interaction between the FAA and the NTSB is certainly a factor in the unparalleled safety record we have achieved in recent years.
"NTSB has the responsibility to push us and the industry by identifying everything that could be done. The FAA has the responsibility to determine the actions that will provide the greatest safety benefit. We believe we have achieved the proper balance and are, understandably, proud of the safety record we are currently enjoying. We will continue to strive to implement NTSB's recommendations as quickly as prudence, technology and science will allow." | |
|
| 6/3/2007 | NATA, Industry Create Charter Safety Foundation | Top executives in the air charter community and the aviation safety field are working with the National Air Transportation Association to develop a new, independent foundation focused solely on improving air charter safety.
NATA President James Coyne announced the initiative at a briefing last week that also included Flight Safety Foundation President Bill Voss and Priester Aviation Chairman Charlie Priester, who will be the first chairman of the Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF).
"Just as the airlines demonstrated over 50 years ago when they created the Flight Safety Foundation, the most effective way to raise the safety bar across an entire industry is through the efforts of an independent and dedicated nonprofit foundation," Coyne said. He added the charter industry is "now at the stage in its development that we would like to follow some of the footsteps of other segments of the industry."
Charter operators have been involved in some "tragic, tragic" accidents, he said, adding that the same thing was true in the early days of scheduled airline travel. "We've achieved wonderful progress in the airline industry," he said, crediting safety efforts by organizations such as the FSF. Coyne said he envisions the new ACSF will be modeled after many of the FSF programs and initiatives. FSF in turn will work in partnership with the ACSF, Voss said.
Organizers have developed a lengthy list of goals for ACSF, but Coyne pointed to three primary objectives of the new foundation: to develop data about the industry, promote the concept of safety management systems and create an audit standard. Organizers are negotiating with potential vendors to create a "state of the art" database that will track key industry metrics that can be used to measure charter activity and set tangible goals for improvement.
Organizers also are working with key industry auditors and charter executives to lay the groundwork for an industry-wide audit standard. While a number of charter operators undergo audits, Priester noted, the different providers may vary in their approaches to audits and what they believe are important safety factors. The standard would be based on industry best practices, he added. The ACSF would train auditors to a single standard and develop a registry of air charters that have met that standard. The registry, which would be made publicly available, would include information such as fleet type, safety details and contact information for individual operators.
The ACSF would continue to develop and implement the NATA-established Safety 1st Management System for Air Operators, which provides a systematic program for individual companies to manage safety risks. The SMS is designed to change the mindset toward safety throughout an organization, beginning with senior management. The program includes training, manuals and other assistance. Coyne said he hopes that SMS will be uniform in a few years and "perhaps even a requirement."
Other objectives will include serving as an industry liaison to the National Transportation Safety Board, developing a resource center, providing safety and security updates and improving the public perception of air charter safety and security.
"What we are doing here is difficult," Coyne said. "Some other segments have an easier job of improving safety." Scheduled airlines use about 500 airports that have air traffic control services, extensive lighting and guidance systems and other important equipment. "Charters have a very, very different economic and physical reality," he said.
Charter operators provide flights into some 5,000 airports, many of which are small and not equipped with towers. They also operate numerous types and models of aircraft. And some charters, such as air medical operators, frequently must fly in extremely challenging weather conditions to complete critical care missions.
Priester added that while the processes are different between the airlines and charter companies, the human factors are the same. "Safety is a matter of attitude," he said. "You can regulate, regulate and regulate and you would never get the job done. The attitude must start at the top," he said. Priester also emphasized the importance of public perception, adding, "We certainly wouldn't want to leave the impression that we're not safe because that's not true."
Along with Priester as chairman, NetJets President Jim Christiansen has agreed to serve as vice chairman. Other members of the initial executive committee are: Coyne; Voss; Jeff Baum, president of Wisconsin Aviation; Bill Haberstock, president and chief executive of Million Air-SLC; Bill Koch, president of SevenBar Enterprises; Mike Sweeney, chairman and chief executive of USAU; Dick Van Gemert with Jet Aviation; Jim Waugh, executive vice president of FlightSafety International; and Roger Whyte, senior vice president, marketing and sales for Cessna. Two dozen other senior industry leaders have joined the foundation's Board of Governors.
The association will have regular members that include aircraft operators, management companies and brokers; associate members that include suppliers, vendors and consultants to aircraft operators; and affiliate members that include nonprofit institutions and government organizations. While initially sponsored by NATA, the ACSF will become stand-alone with its own staff and will be funded from annual membership dues. Those dues are expected to range from approximately $1,000 up to $25,000, depending on the size of the company. But officials emphasized that the dues structure must still be formally adopted.
The foundation will hold its first meeting on June 29 and has a fairly ambitious schedule for accomplishing some of its goals, including having an audit standard and the beginnings of the registry within five to six months. | |
|
| 5/24/2007 | New agency to boost air safety in Africa | On June 28 African governments will inaugurate a continent-wide air safety agency that is modeled on the EU`s Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). It is the mission of the African Civil Aviation Authority (AFRO-CAA) to provide integrated leadership to develop and focus implementation of a unified strategy to improve African commercial aviation safety and security. It's goal is to reduce the African civil aviation accident and security breach rates significantly (by about 60%) by 2008. | |
|