NTSB Most wanted safety improvements. Is FAA too slow to implement NTSB's recommendations? Are pax at risk?

Question

Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board said today that the government should be doing
more to prevent accidents and enhance safety for the traveling public. The Board updated its list of Most
Wanted Safety Improvements, noting instances where federal agencies had given unacceptable responses to
NTSB recommendations or were moving too slowly to implement recommended safety measures.
Two items were removed from the list, one because action on it is almost completed, and the other because the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) refused to adopt the recommended safety enhancement.
Established in 1990, the Most Wanted list is a way for the NTSB to focus attention on needed safety
improvements in all modes of transportation. The list highlights recommendations that the Board believes
would significantly reduce deaths and injuries.
"Our recommendations are derived from the hard lessons we have learned over the years investigating many
tragic accidents," said NTSB Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners. "Quite simply, implementing these measures
will save lives."
Aviation:
In aviation, the Board reviewed the status of recommendations in six issue areas --
Runway incursions - The Board's recommendation calls for a system that ensures safe movement of airplanes
on the ground and provides warnings of probable collisions/incursions directly to flight crews in the cockpit. To
illustrate the potential dangers of a runway incursion, the Board viewed a simulation, prepared by NTSB staff,
of a near-collision at Los Angeles last August involving two large airliners, a B- 747 and a B-737. This incident
was not reported by air traffic control officials as an operational error. "The fact that such incidents are not
being reported casts doubt on the FAA's claims that the runway incursion rate is declining," Chairman
Engleman Conners said. "The FAA needs to review its reporting process." Status: The Board changed the
classification of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) response to this recommendation from "Open-
Acceptable Response" to "Open-Unacceptable Response."
Fuel/Air Vapors in Fuel Tanks - Recommendations call for interim measures to reduce flammable fuel/air
vapors in fuel tanks and, longer term, airplane design changes to eliminate the generation of such vapors. Status:
Due to the lack of FAA initiatives on interim measures, the Board decided to reclassify the short-term
recommendation from "Open- Acceptable Response" to "Open-Unacceptable Response." On the longer-term
recommendation, the Board found the FAA's response acceptable. The Board is anticipating that the FAA will
begin the regulatory process to require a flammability reduction system in the near future. Overall, the Board
noted that implementation was progressing too slowly.
Aircraft Icing - To reduce the dangers of flying in icing conditions, NTSB recommendations call for expedited
research and upgraded airplane design and certification standards. Status: Noting that the oldest icing
recommendations on the list date back eight years, the Board changed the classification of this issue from
"Open-Acceptable Response," but progressing slowly, to "Open-Unacceptable Response" based on the FAA's
lack of progress in this area.
Audio, Data and Video Recorders - Recommendations specify at least two hours of audio recording capability,
back-up power sources, and a requirement for video recorders in the cockpit to give investigators more
information to solve complex accidents. Status: The Board noted some progress by the FAA on a few
recommendations in this issue area but retained the overall classification of "Open-Unacceptable Response."
Child Restraints - Recommendation asks for a requirement that infants and toddlers under age two be safely
restrained on takeoff, landing and in turbulence. Status: Unacceptable response from FAA.

Answer 1

I think the greatest misunderstanding is that people think the FAA can just tell everyone "Do this" and it has to be done. They can't. They have to follow rules like everyone else, and the most basic one is that in order to make something a requirement (take any of the NTSB recommendations as an example) the FAA has to make it a rule. That means it has to go thru the rulemaking process.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr11_main_02.tpl



The rule has to be drafted and has to conform to all the laws regarding rulemaking (like determining the financial impact to the people and companies effected by the proposed rule, and that the rule doesn't contradict existing rules), and then the proposed rule has to be opened up for public comment for a specified period. Anyone can comment, and the FAA must consider each and every comment, which may mean having to re-draft the rule and put that out for comment as well. Only after all that can the rule be finally implemented.



In my humble opinion, the FAA is already understaffed and underfunded, with Congress wanting to reduce their funding every year, so each year careful consideration has to be made as to which are the most beneficial projects to put through with the funds available. Congress screams that things need fixed, but they won't give the FAA the funds to do it.



To give some examples, sure it would be great if aircraft had two-hour FDR's and CVR's with hundreds of extra data points beng recorded, but is the flying public willing to pay the increase in ticket prices across the board to have it done? The government isn't going to pay for it. The airlines have to generate revenue to do it, and that means YOU and I have to pay for it. Is the margin of safety that much greater with two-hours of recording that it is worth doing? Say that two-hour recorders were mandatory. First manufacturer's would have to design and buld them, get them certified to put on aircraft, then build them in large numbers, write the technical data to install and maintain them and get that data approved, etc, etc, etc. It all takes time and money.



Having child restraints for children under 2 years is a great idea, and is already mandatory in cars. In an airplane, you would have to purchase a ticket for your under 2 year old child so you can use the child's car seat (you don't have to currently, as they can sit on your lap). That's the cost of an extra ticket that many young families can't afford, but nothing is stopping you from doing it. In fact the FAA already recommends it and has approved child restraint systems for aircraft. They haven't made it mandatory because they believe it is a financial decision on the part of the passenger. Maybe that isn't the response that the NTSB was looking for, but the systems are already in place if people want to use them.

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/crs/



Safety is the main focus of the aviation industry. There simply isn't enough resources and money to do everything that everyone thinks should be done. Aviation fatal crashes are at an all time low. Perhaps that shows that the important recommendations are being addressed by the FAA and maybe the "nice to haves" will have to wait until Congress can be convinced by the public that the FAA should be better funded.



Just like your personal budget at home, isn't it?

Answer 2

Ya know, you can make aviation really safe if everyone just sets the brakes and goes home. But be careful on the drive home. Wear a 5 point NASCAR style seatbelt and helmet.



Once you're inside your door, the NTSB is off the hook and you'll be some consumer product safety czar's worries. Life is full of risks that can't be regulated into oblivion. So get on with living and pay attention to what's going on.

Answer 3

this looks like homework to me, since all your other questions seem to all be about the same thing.



i would like to point out if someone, government or not, makes a rule which must be followed, this rule greatly affecting peoples life, like loosing their job, because its uneconmical for their employer to continue with these new rules, then that body is going to make themselves rather unpopular.



i would of said this was obvious.



just cause something would make life a little safer doesn't always make it a good idea.



otherwise, how about this rule, you cannot take off unless you can guarentee that there will be no faults however small, no terrorist on board, nothing that will cause any risk to anyone.



how many airlines would be flying, none!



so do you think that rule making body would be popular amongst the people?

Answer 4

Why do you keep pasting in long screeds, accompanied by rhetorical questions?