Aerospace and Defense Learning Institute - ADLI

06/27/2019

As the investigation continues in the 737MAX MCAS issues, and the onion opens up, more technical and organizational problems are being discovered. The FAA remains stiff lipped on a return to flight date, as they should. Though the U.S. airline operators are targeting September 3rd for a return to flight, there is a ton of risk with that date.

From the perspective of professional cognition and work planning, many questions could be asked about compartmentalizing of knowledge and overall understanding of what processes were indeed being carried out during the product certification phases.

Test pilots discovered a computer issue that could slow down a pilot's ability to quickly respond to a scenario like the ones seen in two deadly crashes

05/04/2015

What’s the value of an FAA SAFO when known problems are not “required” to be fixed?

The FAA has just released SAFO (Safety Alert for Operators) number 15005, alerting operators of DHC-8-100 and several other airframes (see below listing) of “for un-commanded feathering events”. But does the FAA’s administrative action do much for aviation safety?

The SAFO provides, “Pacific Propeller International (PPI), LLC had performed maintenance on the PCU installed on the DeHavilland DHC-8-100 series aircraft that experienced an inadvertent feather event on takeoff. PPI subsequently identified an error in the assembly of the beta switch and the mounting spacers. It was determined that technicians assembled the switch with parts identified in Service Bulletin 14SF-61-148 while using the instructions that were in the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) instead of following maintenance instructions as defined in Service Bulletin 14SF-61-148.” (Emphasis added.)

In this example, there is a known problem, but is the FAA’s action appropriate to foster aviation safety? In the SAFO the FAA states, “Owners and operators of propellers and aircraft listed above should be familiar with the content of this SAFO and should ensure that any affected PCU’s are removed and replaced as soon as possible; beginning with those twin-engine aircraft where affected units are installed on both engines.” (Emphasis added.) There are a number of issues with this SAFO.

First, a SAFO does not provide authority for mandatory corrective action and the reality is that most maintenance personnel don’t pay a lot of attention to SAFO’s unless they are placed directly under their nose. If there is indeed a “safety” concern, the appropriate FAA vehicle for action is an Airworthiness Directive (AD).

Second, the SAFO is void of hard data to facilitate effective recall by industry. The SAFO provides, “PPI has notified the owner/operators of affected units overhauled/repaired between July 12, 2003 to September 26, 2013. PPI is unable to identify customers who may have had units repaired/overhauled between June 4, 2001 and July 11, 2003.” (Emphasis added.) There is a documented known unknown. Issuance of a SAFO is willfully inadequate to promote safety. Where the mechanics at PPI initially failed to review both maintenance manuals and service bulletins, the FAA is setting industry up for more of the same. Mixing a system of authoritative (ADs) and non-authoritative (SAFO) documents to obtain expected corrective actions is a recipe for error, and potentially disaster.

Thirdly, expecting mechanics that embedded in an operator’s maintenance system, to be keeping an eye open for service bulletins (SBs are not mandatory either) is not based on reality. In most operations in which these types of aircraft are operated, the mechanics conducting the work are doing so with the documents placed in front of them. They have little to no time to conduct independent research of requirements. Service Bulletins should not be used exclusively to change product configuration. If configurations change within an assembly (as in this case), the relevant maintenance manuals must be revised to reflect said changes. Otherwise, there is no authoritative command given to the system that requires compliance throughout the system.

When it comes to exercising a safety system, the FAA needs to be held to a higher standard than industry. The FAA should not be taking short cuts in defining requirements and they certainly should be following their own rules. As a consumer of the aviation safety system, I expect nothing less.

Note: A review of relevant airframe types did not show ADs were issued for this known problem.

List of potentially impacted airframe types: EMB-120 and EMB-120RT; SAAB-SCANIA SF340B; Aerospatiale ATR42-100, ATR42-300, ATR42-320, ATR72, ATR72-210; DeHavilland DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, and DHC-8-300 series; CASA CN-235 and CN-235-100; Canadair CL215T and CL415; and British Aerospace ATP airplanes.

Note: The non-authoritative basis of a SAFO is printed on top of each SAFO issued: “A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Besides the specific action recommended in a SAFO, an alternative action may be as effective in addressing the safety issue named in the SAFO.” (Emphasis added.) "Should be's" and "may be's" do little for aviation safety.

Link to SAFO 15005: http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USAFAA/2015/05/04/file_attachments/387296/SAFO15005.pdf

Link to FAA AC 20-37E – Aircraft Propeller Maintenance: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-37e.pdf

04/27/2015

For those engaged in the transparencies and optics industry…
Glass and other man-made materials that have evolved throughout the history of mankind still have a few shortcomings that need to be resolved by breakthrough innovation. One such innovation is nearing its industrial development phase (meaning, near ready for industry to figure out how to make the technology cost effective for applications). The material is called “Spinel”.

“The Naval Research Laboratory is developing a version of the gemstone spinel that, rather than being transparent aluminum, is a transparent ceramic that could produce armor-strength windows, as well as make camera lenses and smartphone screens that don’t scratch or break.”

“Spinel (pronounced spin-ELL) is magnesium aluminate, a mineral that is produced on a low-temperature hot press and an NRL-invented process called sintering that can shape it to fit the contours of an aircraft, dome or other design, and can be ground and polished in the same way as a gemstone. And because of its material, it also has "unique optical properties,” Sanghera said, “not only can you see through it, but it allows infrared light to go through it," unlike glass, which makes it ideal for military imaging systems.”

Let’s see which innovative organizations jump on this new material first. The applications can be huge.

http://defensesystems.com/articles/2015/04/23/nrl-spinel-transparent-armor.aspx?s=ds_270415

It's not precisely transparent aluminum, but NRL's ceramic spinel has the same properties and is a potential game-changer for military and commercial uses.

03/24/2015

FAA Streamlines UAS COAs for Section 333

If there was any doubt about 2015 being the year that commercial unmanned aircraft (UAS) became mainstream in the USA, let the FAA’s recent press release put those doubts to rest.

“The Federal Aviation Administration has established an interim policy to speed up airspace authorizations for certain commercial unmanned aircraft (UAS) operators who obtain Section 333 exemptions. The new policy helps bridge the gap between the past process, which evaluated every UAS operation individually, and future operations after we publish a final version of the proposed small UAS rule.

Under the new policy, the FAA will grant a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS operator with a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55 pounds, operate during daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, operate within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports:

• 5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or
• 3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an operational tower; or
• 2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower; or
• 2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure

The “blanket” 200-foot COA allows flights anywhere in the country except restricted airspace and other areas, such as major cities, where the FAA prohibits UAS operations. Previously, an operator had to apply for and receive a COA for a particular block of airspace, a process that can take 60 days. The agency expects the new policy will allow companies and individuals who want to use UAS within these limitations to start flying much more quickly than before.

Section 333 exemption holders will automatically receive a “blanket” 200 foot COA. For new exemption holders, the FAA will issue a COA at the time the exemption is approved. Anyone who wants to fly outside the blanket parameters must obtain a separate COA specific to the airspace required for that operation.”

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=82245

The Federal Aviation Administration has established an interim policy to speed up airspace authorizations for certain commercial unmanned aircraft (UAS) operators who obtain Section 333 exemptions. The new policy helps bridge the gap between the past process, which evaluated every UAS operation indi…

03/11/2015

UH-60 Black Hawk crash off Florida coast

Seven Marines and four soldiers were missing early Wednesday following an Army helicopter crash in Florida, officials said.

The servicemen were aboard one of two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters participating in a routine training mission which went down off the coast.

The downed helicopter departed from Destin, Florida, and crashed over the water. The missing Marines were from a special operations regiment out of Camp LeJeune in North Carolina.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the Marines, soldiers and family members of those involved in this mishap"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/11-military-missing-after-chopper-crash-florida-n321286

Seven Marines and four soldiers were missing early Wednesday following an Army helicopter crash in Florida, officials said.The servicemen were aboard one of ...

03/09/2015

The below link is if my interview with KNX CBS-Radio in Los Angeles on 3-6-2015, providing commentary to the Harrison Ford airplane accident.

http://youtu.be/NCa82EPDLFA

This video (audio clip) is of a brief interview on KNX 1070 - CBS Radio Los Angeles, on the Morning Drive Newscast, regarding the airplane crash of actor Har...

03/05/2015

FAA Administrator Proposes New Funding Mentality

Imagine, as a business leader, trying to efficiently lead a large, complex globally dispersed organization and not have the ability to make long-term capital investments. That’s the challenge that federal agencies face every year, including the FAA. In testimony (3/3/2015) before the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, FAA Administrator Huerta urged lawmakers to provide FAA with “stable long-term funding” and operational “flexibility” in reauthorization legislation set to be debated in Congress this year.

“We can’t afford a ‘business as usual’ approach, especially if we want to maintain US global influence,” Huerta said. “We need reauthorization to allow the FAA to better align our resources with the needs of the NAS [National Airspace System] by providing the FAA greater flexibility to modify our service levels to support changing industry demand, and by establishing a collaborative, transparent and binding process to modernize FAA’s facilities and equipment and match our footprint to the demand for air travel.”

From the perspective of the most basic principles of business management, it just makes sense to make a plan, appropriately fund and staff, and flawlessly execute. Doing so allows for the greatest opportunities for return on investment – in example, suppliers can manage materials and workforce more efficiently. The challenge will be the same as always – accountability.

http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-control/huerta-wants-stability-and-flexibility-faa-reauthorization

FAA administrator Michael Huerta told Congress “a lot is at stake” in crafting FAA reauthorization legislation, particularly regarding the implementation of the NextGen air traffic control (ATC) system.

03/05/2015

There is a direct relationship between relevancy and professional engagement. The greater a professional's engagement in industry, the greater their relevancy to the professional conversation. This year's HAI (Helicopter Association International) convention is wrapping up in Orlando and it had an excellent attendance. In addition to seeing the roll out of a few new airframes, the one clear message that was being sent is the end-item manufacturing base is becoming truly global. The certification basis of many new airframes are being determined by civil aviation authorities that have not had a a lot of experience doing so. All the more reason for aviation professionals to understand the bilateral safety agreements relevant to the products they are responsible for

02/15/2015

DOT Secretary Announces: Regulations will facilitate integration of small UAS into U.S. aviation system

The DOT’s FAA proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today’s aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations.

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 lbs) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.

The proposed rule also includes extensive discussion of the possibility of an additional, more flexible framework for “micro” UAS under 4.4 pounds. The FAA is asking the public to comment on this possible classification to determine whether it should include this option as part of a final rule. The FAA is also asking for comment about how the agency can further leverage the UAS test site program and an upcoming UAS Center of Excellence to further spur innovation at “innovation zones.”

The proposed rule would require an operator to maintain visual line of sight of a small UAS. The rule would allow, but not require, an operator to work with a visual observer who would maintain constant visual contact with the aircraft. The operator would still need to be able to see the UAS with unaided vision (except for glasses). The FAA is asking for comments on whether the rules should permit operations beyond line of sight, and if so, what the appropriate limits should be.

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating).

• A small UAS operator must always see and avoid manned aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, the UAS operator must be the first to maneuver away.
• The operator must discontinue the flight when continuing would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people or property.
• A small UAS operator must assess weather conditions, airspace restrictions and the location of people to lessen risks if he or she loses control of the UAS.
• A small UAS may not fly over people, except those directly involved with the flight.
• Flights should be limited to 500 feet altitude and no faster than 100 mph.
• Operators must stay out of airport flight paths and restricted airspace areas, and obey any FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs).

The proposed rule maintains the existing prohibition against operating in a careless or reckless manner. It also would bar an operator from allowing any object to be dropped from the UAS.

Operators would be responsible for ensuring an aircraft is safe before flying, but the FAA is not proposing that small UAS comply with current agency airworthiness standards or aircraft certification. For example, an operator would have to perform a preflight inspection that includes checking the communications link between the control station and the UAS. Small UAS with FAA-certificated components also could be subject to agency airworthiness directives.

The current unmanned aircraft rules remain in place until the FAA implements a final new rule.
The FAA encourages new operators to visit:
http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org

You can view the FAA’s Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later today at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/

An overview of the Small UAS rule can be viewed at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_sUAS_Summary.pdf

You can view the fact sheet at:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=18297

Know Before You Fly is an educational campaign that provides prospective users with the information and guidance they need to fly safely and responsibly.

02/10/2015

Florida Legislature Floats Anti-Drone Surveillance Bill

Florida State Representative, Larry Metz, has sponsored a bill (HB649) in the State Legislature to protect Floridians, and its visitors, from the unwanted view of drones. The proposed language in the bill does not prohibit the use of drones, it only prohibits the taking of images without permission, including by law enforcement. While the term used is “drone”, it could be assumed it would also include water based unmanned vehicles. But, it does not in the present language. Metz has limited the definition of drones to “uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift.” So, ground based drones are not included either.

As required in the Florida State Legislature for a bill to move forward, the Florida State Senate has filed a companion bill, their’ s being identical in this case (SB 766). With the exponential increase in drone usage and the growing potential for even more, there is a very strong likelihood of this bill becoming law in Florida.

Why are States getting involved in drones?

So why are States getting involved in the issues surrounding drones? Simple, the federal government is not visibly engaged in the privacy issues created by drones. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is chartered with the responsibility to foster safety in air commerce. Privacy issues and securing Fourth Amendment rights is not part of the FAA’s mission. Besides, drones are mostly (but not completely) a local issue when it comes to privacy concerns (once video is transmitted it could become an FCC issue). And, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, States have the powers not contemplated in the Constitution, and protecting the privacy rights of State citizens should clearly be at the top of the list.

What should we anticipate?

As the 2015 congressional mandate for full drone integration looms over the FAA, the FAA will continue to issue exemptions for use of drones. Though meeting the demands of Congress, the FAA exemptions will begin to place greater concerns over individual privacy. We should anticipate other States doing as Florida and establishing broad language in efforts to keep the unwanted image-capturing drone eyes off their citizens.

However, we all know that the larger the organization the harder it is to get something accomplished in a short amount of time. In the case of Florida, it has a part-time legislature and has less than 60-days a year to create new laws. If states are unable to meet the demands of local communities for securing their privacy, we will most likely see cities and counties establishing their own ordinances to do so. And, many already have.

Local level control

Several cities and counties have already enacted their own ordinances to secure the privacy rights of their citizens. However, as in any trailblazing effort, cutting the path can be difficult. In some cases, the resulting language might be a little rough and offer loopholes to be exploited. As a possible streamlined way forward for local authorities, a template could be developed that could be simply cut and pasted with minimal tailoring for local use. The secret to success in such a template is to keep it simple and focused. It should address two issues only: 1) Preserving our Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search; and 2) Protecting our personal privacy against unwanted image capturing. Maybe the proposed Florida HB 649/SB 766 could serve as a model for just that. However, I’d suggest the definition of drone to be expanded to include land and water-based as well.

Florida HB 649 General Summary

“Surveillance by a Drone: Prohibits person, state agency, or political subdivision from using drone to capture an image of privately owned or occupied real property or of owner, tenant, or occupant of such property with intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent if reasonable expectation of privacy exists; specifies when reasonable expectation of privacy may be presumed; for civil action for compensatory damages or seek injunctive relief against violator; specifies that remedies provided by act are cumulative to other existing remedies.”

Link to Florida SB 766: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0766__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0766&Session=2015

Link to FAA UAS page: http://www.faa.gov/uas/

Link to recent FAA UAS exemptions: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=81565

02/05/2015

January 2015 was not a good month for many U.S. airlines: FAA fines over $4-million

Just in the month of January, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed over $4,009,375 in civil penalties (fines) against 7 U.S. airlines for various alleged violations. However, what the public needs to know is that an alleged violation is not a confirmed violation and a proposed financial penalty is not always the actual agreed to amount, if any.

The FAA does provide for a negotiation process that certificate holders should be smart about. Even the most upstanding and well-intentioned certificate holder can find themselves facing claims of violations. Unfortunately, the first time a certificate holder knows they might be in real trouble is when they receive a letter from an FAA lawyer. Once, a certificate holder is provided with the “Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty”, they are afforded an opportunity to engage in an “informal” meeting. The informal meeting can actually be a series of meetings, in person or over the phone or a combination of both. As each situation is different, the certificate holder should know the FAA’s compliance and enforcement regulations and procedures as well as, or better than, the FAA. Good sources for guidance on this process are 14 CFR 13, FAA Order 2150.3B and 49 U.S.C. § 46301.

Believe it or not, there have been occasions where FAA inspectors were not correct in their findings of violations. If the FAA certificate holder is in the opinion they have not violated any regulatory or certificate provisions, then they should defend themselves accordingly. Just make sure you do it with competence and documented facts. And, use the FAA’s policies to ensure you have a structured method of ensuring your side of the story is heard and considered. On the other hand, if there is indeed a violation at hand, the informal meeting is the best opportunity to resolve the situation.

FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 2, paragraph 3(g) provides;
“To be effective, the agency’s compliance and enforcement program must be fair and reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulation. This does not and should not imply an unwillingness to apply the full force of statutory sanctions where warranted. It does encompass the right of an apparent violator to be given objective, evenhanded consideration of all circumstances surrounding the allegations before final action is taken. It also requires good faith efforts to understand the apparent violator’s position and take it into account, as well as to apprise the apparent violator of the agency’s position in a timely manner.”

If you do not have the in-house FAA regulatory support, consider engaging an external expert to guide you through the processes of compliance and enforcement. If you need regulatory help, contact me and our team at ASD Experts, and if we can’t help, we will direct to who can.

Michael Dreikorn, Ed.D.
[email protected]
www.ASDExperts.com

References:
Link to FAA press releases that include proposed fines: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/
Link to 14 CFR 13, Investigative and Enforcement Procedures: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c2577c6c7f0bc3498c6f6c351e2cfd8d&node=pt14.1.13&rgn=div5
Link to FAA Order 2150.3B: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2150.3B_W-Chg_8.pdf
Link to 49 U.S.C. § 46301: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title49/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subpartiv-chap463-sec46301

With a client list spanning the most recognized names in the industry, and his team at have earned a reputation for delivering Credible, and expert support in the Aviation, Space, Defense (AS&D) and Maritime industries. For each project, we assemble the most capable team of AS&D experts to support…

01/28/2015

Fourth Circuit expands FCA theory of implied certification

The “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a panel decision that established a new and potentially significant False Claims Act (FCA) precedent when it unambiguously embraced—for the first time in Fourth Circuit FCA jurisprudence—the FCA theory of implied certification. “ (The United States ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy Inc.)

Implied certification is frequently found in “quality” cases, where it is alleged a contractor has in some way violated terms of a contract (typically ISO900 or a company standard). In the subject matter it had to do with falsification of “marksmanship skills” of security contractors. “Many FCA practitioners are concerned that the DOJ and whistleblowers sometimes assert technical issues or conditions of participation as material to payment, even in the face of substantial contract or other performance, and this decision will likely expand the potential for liability exposure in this jurisdiction and increase the number of qui tam filings. “

In summary, this seems to be “a triple win for the government because the court reinstated the government’s dismissed counts, embraced the FCA-implied certification theory, and held that a contractor may face FCA liability where it has allegedly withheld information about its noncompliance with material contractual requirements. “

It’ll be interesting to see how frequently this ruling will be cited in filings going forward.

Great summary article: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2a087394-6299-4f52-b83a-2467b2db847c

Authors of original article (Linked): Kathleen McDermott, Holly C. Barker and Teri J. Diaz

On January 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a panel decision that established a new and potentially significant False…