Federal Aviation Administration sets high bar for safety

Since 2003, more than 73 million planes have flown safely in the United States. The low aviation accident rate is evidence of the FAA's diligence when it comes to enforcing safety rules and regulations.

Anonymous anecdotes about warning lights that actually did their job aside, USA Today's cover article today understates the Federal Aviation Administration's vigilant oversight of airplane safety.

The FAA's top priority is to ensure passengers reach their destinations safely, and everyone who reads this blog knows that.

• If an aircraft is found to be unsafe to fly, the FAA does not hesitate to keep it on the ground.
• When maintenance standards are violated, the FAA levies fines and increases scrutiny of any carrier that is out of compliance.

FAA inspectors are out everyday looking for trends and potential safety violations before they become larger problems. Inspectors review airline safety systems, including quality assurance programs and other reported data.

As FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said:

“Our inspectors are hard at work every day across the country looking for any safety issues at airlines. When we find an apparent violation of our safety rules we conduct an investigation, pursue civil penalties when necessary and require the airline to correct the problems.”

Contrary to the assertion in USA Today, we are not allowing flights to leave the ground in "unsafe condition."

It's a bit ironic when you consider that only yesterday we announced a $2.5 million fine against American Eagle for using incorrect takeoff weights.

And when we do find a maintenance violation, even that does not mean an aircraft is unsafe to fly.

Of course, we want all maintenance violations corrected to maintain the level of safety in the system, and we work vigilantly to make sure they are. But airplanes are complex machines built with checks and redundancies to maintain safety. I've been doing a lot of flying over the past year, and not once have I doubted the safety of my aircraft. Not once.

And this idea that repair work done overseas is somehow of lesser quality is patently absurd. Foreign repair stations are re-certificated every 12 to 24 months by the FAA and inspected on a regular basis. All airlines sign off on maintenance performed on their aircraft, whether the work is done at a domestic or foreign repair station.

I'm even more perturbed by the allegation that the FAA has a culture that ignores the Inspector General. Actions FAA has taken over the years are consistent with the Inspector General's recommendations on maintenance issues. For example, we have:

• Revised our regulations on how repair stations operate;
• Given our inspectors guidance and new software to perform risk assessments; and
• Improved how we track and share information about safety inspections

Look, it's very simple. When planes are unsafe, they are grounded. When airlines are not operating to the highest levels of safety, they are subject to stiff fines.

The only thing Administrator Babbitt and the entire FAA can be accused of is working aggressively to make sure airlines comply with our rigorous safety standards. End of story.

Comments

[Michael E. Bailey]

I have to fly once in a while. But I have never had reason to be concerned with the safety of the planes I have been on. FAA is doing a great job but doing a great job won't sell newspapers or news magazines. Only accidents like the one in New York last year will sell lots of newspapers. And, you talk and we talk about cepll phones being used while operating equipment. I saw the NTSB news release on the accident in New York that came out earlier today. The NTSB talked like one of the things that was wrong was the captain talking on a cell phone instead of paying close enough attention to the instruments. It looks like the captain panicked when the stick shaker went off and did the opposite on the controls from what should have been done. More should be done to eliminate cell phone use on the flight deck. But I can't think of an air accident caused by a structural failure that caused a lot of deaths in this country since the plane crash in Chicago back when Jimmy Carter was President. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Steven Shultz]

I wanted to let you know that an employee blogger at San Diego International Airport has published a cool post about FAA Air Traffic Controllers and life in (and views from) the Airport Traffic Control Tower there:

http://ambassablog.com/2010/02/02/top-of-the-tower/

[Andy Hakes]

In my not so humble opinion, the USA Today article did exactly what it was supposed to do, which was namely to capture and hold viewers' attention with some spiced up "investigative journalism".

While not knowing the specific details of the B767 landing gear event, my 19 years of experience as an aircraft mechanic on large commercial equipment enables me to make an educated guess as to the circumstances. Erroneously reporting that the aircraft was "unsafe to fly" is patently absurd and disingenuous at best.

Does reporting tragic details of a mechanic's ingestion death indicate an airworthiness safety concern, or does it simply take a rather amateurish article and add some much needed seasoning?

I'm a realist, and I've been around the block. As most professionals in this industry know, there are indeed issues that need to be addressed and there are gaps to be filled. But to casually and repeatedly toss the term "unairworthy" around without any insight as to its context is akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I would hope (although I've been hoping for years) that airlines would proactively communicate and educate their customers about these matters before the media seizes the attention of their viewers. People would be amazed, stunned and appreciative of the breadth and depth of this machine we call aircraft maintenance.

[George P. Burdell]

Got a simple question - is the alligation that at least 65,000 aircraft have flown in the United States over the past couple of years in a "non-airworthy" condition false?

To be more specific - did air carriers "ensure compliance to functional and structural configuration as defined by the type certificate, any incorporated supplimental type certificates and all applicable / effective AD directives prior to dispatching an aircraft for the intention of flight"?

And remember the FAA's own legal review determined the courts have found that "an airplane that is in a condtion that is not known is PER SE in a NON-AIRWORTHY condition".

So is the USA Today article factually incorrect with respect to the question of airworthiness?

[Aircraft Charter]

I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers (65,000 aircraft flown in US in non-airworthy condition) is true. The FAA is doing a tremendous job in grounding aircraft which are not air-worthy considering they are under-staffed with inspectors. The good news is that many aircraft charter companies are also inspected by third-party, independent, safety auditing firms. If you use a reputable broker you will only be flown on the most airworthy aircraft crewed by the most experienced crews. As with anything, know who you are doing business with.

[Mark W. Welke]

As one that as trained aircraft mechanics for the past 27 years I can say that I have witnessed what some air carriers have done to us A&P mechanics. Out sourcing was the big down turn and created so much bitter-ness. Let's get back to letting the mechanic do their jobs and make the sky's safe as can be! The aircarriers need to support the training schools, not just asked for more mechanics.