The post We Break Down the State of MOSAIC By the Numbers appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Now, yes, 20 years later, we’re just getting around to fixing those issues—and in a big, bold way. In fact, the GA industry reacted almost entirely positively to the recommendations published on the eve of EAA AirVenture last summer. The comment period—extended after the government shutdown last fall and buoyed by the appointment of the new FAA administrator, Michael Whitaker—closed Monday. As anticipated, the usual aviation associations weighed in, but with an interesting nuance. Normally, AOPA, GAMA, EAA, NBAA, and NATA either comment completely separately or as one, it seems—but in this instance, GAMA stood apart. It had to, as its membership could not be so neatly addressed by the usual consolidated effort. 

• READ MORE: Comments from Aviation Associations Take On Pros and Cons of MOSAIC 

You see, GAMA represents a broad swath of the general and business aviation manufacturing business—and its interests do not necessarily match those of the pilot and user groups behind AOPA and EAA, in particular, and to a lesser extent NBAA and NATA.

And what GAMA diverged on has definite repercussions for other certification-defining efforts in play—notably, those aircraft seeking approval under the advanced air mobility umbrella, by and large as a new breed of aircraft entirely, the eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft.

Change Is Hard

So, you’ve gotta ask yourself: What’s a bigger flex for the FAA and industry, MOSAIC or the certification basis for eVTOLs? A great number of which—if you read their various timelines and PR—are set to begin darkening the skies late this year and next? 

If we can’t flex the rules to allow for equivalent levels of safety in a four-seat, 250-knot, 3,325-pound “light sport aircraft”—defying the term, really, but so many of these are already in the field and some certificated under EASA—how can we come to grips with those that fly using completely new (read noncombustion) propulsion systems and simplified (read highly automated) flight control regimes? 

I contemplated this question as I piloted (in loose terms) a Corolla down the 405 freeway, paddling my way toward LAX for a painful x-c home last week after a trip to demo a new—yet-traditional Part 23—airplane for an upcoming pilot report. I looked around me at my fellow humans commanding four-seat SUVs of a similar weight to MOSAIC LSAs (a ton or so), inflicting varying degrees of terror upon the drivers around them. I thought, ‘Do I really want all of these [frickin’ idiots] barreling through the skies over the LA Basin alongside me in their personal eVTOLs?’ They can barely manage two dimensions, let alone three…and isn’t SoCal Center already saturated with its current level of traditional fixed-wing and rotor traffic? At least the gates at LAX are saturated, perpetually. Local communities are more in the business of closing airports—Santa Monica—as opposed to opening them, these days.

And therein lies the promise of the MOSAIC NPRM, as EAA and the other signatories have chosen to cautiously embrace it, that’s distinct from the next stage, which is the road map for eVTOL certification on a broad basis. As it stands, the recommendations outline solid, incremental yet meaningful improvements. They meet the SMART goal standard—“A” for achievable with what we know now, and flexible enough to accommodate the future. 

I understand GAMA’s reticence to push all of its member companies into the future, but then again, five of the seven most recently added GAMA members announced this week are involved directly in AAM. The embrace of this future is real, even among those OEMs who have been until recently concerned solely with developing aircraft under the existing certification paths.

One thing seems clear to me: If the FAA and industry can’t wrap its collective brain around the thoughtful progress made by the ASTM’s F37 committee on LSA and its constituents, there’s no way any of us will be in the mindset to bring on the AAM revolution. And with the pushback now coming to a head in the general public regarding self-assessment and oversight—thanks to the Boeing door plug debacle and its cascade of realizations—that internal oversight formed a compelling part of what kept LSA development in check in terms of cost.

And that would be a shame. ’Cause even though the thought gives me pause now, I have a feeling I’ll be ready to pay good money at some point in the not-too-distant future to engage with the masses soon to be zooming above the 405 rather than on it.

The post Can the FAA Flex? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On July 6, the Transportation Department’s (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced its intent to review the FAA’s methodology for data analysis, risk identification, and measures to mitigate runway incursions. 

The audit comes as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating six incursion events since the beginning of the year. While the number of runway incursions has remained relatively stable, the industry has seen an increase in the most serious ones in which disaster was narrowly avoided.

• READ MORE: Watchdog Report: FAA ‘Lacks a Plan’ to Address ATC Shortages

In one such instance, a FedEx Boeing 767 and a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 came within 115 feet of each other in poor visibility conditions. The incident on February 4 at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (KAUS) could have ended in tragedy if not for the quick reaction of the FedEx pilots to conduct a go-around.

Several other near misses in Massachusetts, Florida, and New York have dominated media coverage, triggering public concern and scrutiny of the aviation industry as a whole. Ongoing events led then FAA acting administrator Billy Nolen to call for a March Safety Summit—the first  since 2009.

“These recent incidents must serve as a wake-up call for every single one of us, before something more catastrophic occurs, before lives are lost,” NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said during the summit.

On May 23, the NTSB hosted a roundtable with aviation leaders, safety experts, and government officials to discuss the state of the runway incursion issues and possible solutions. Homendy noted a total of 365 runway incursions this year, including the six  being investigated. She also mentioned that low staffing levels can have a significant impact on safety and called for more funding for the FAA.

• READ MORE: Who’s to Blame for Flight Disruptions During Fourth of July? 

As it stands, the agency is short about 3,000 air traffic controllers with plans to hire 1,500 this year and an additional 1,800 next year as it grapples with pandemic-related training backlogs. But a recent OIG audit of the agency contends the FAA has made a limited effort to ensure adequate staffing.

In the report, it was disclosed that 77 percent of critical air traffic facilities were staffed below the agency’s 85 percent threshold. The audit also revealed several facilities required mandatory overtime and six-day workweeks to cover staff shortages. Additionally, it highlighted that of the FAA’s 13,300 controllers, 26 percent are trainees.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg admitted it would take years for the FAA to be comfortable with its controller staffing: “I think it’ll be a while before we’re at levels we’d like to see.”

According to a Reuters report, the FAA said it welcomes the scrutiny and looks forward to sharing its progress with OIG.

The post DOT Watchdog Agency to Audit FAA Safety Protocols appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Senate Commerce Committee made the announcement after the release of a 97-page report summing up a multi-year investigation into accidents involving two Boeing 737 Max airplanes from two air carriers that happened within five months of each other. In all, 346 people were killed. 

Both losses were attributed in part to the malfunction of the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), a flight stabilizing program added to the 737 Max to counteract a nose pitch-up tendency. The pilots allegedly were not sufficiently trained on the use of the MCAS. In both crashes, the aircraft entered an uncommanded nose dive from which the pilots could not recover.

The accidents resulted in a 20-month grounding of the entire 737 Max fleet and prompted Congress to pass sweeping reforms on how the FAA certifies airplanes.

During the investigation, the Senate Committee received pages of documentation and testimony from whistleblowers, who raised concerns about the safety culture at Boeing where, the report concluded,  “the current aircraft certification process places too much pressure on line engineers and production staff.”

• Get FLYING Magazine delivered to your home with a subscription. Click to subscribe.

The report states the “FAA’s oversight of the certification process has eroded,” noting that the FAA had delegated much of its authority to Boeing to essentially self-certify the aircraft. This resulted in “undue pressure” at Boeing. In addition, there were allegations that whistleblowing—the practice of calling attention to safety issues—was met with retaliation.

According to a statement from Boeing, the company has received the committee’s report and has begun to review it.

“Safety and quality are Boeing’s highest priorities, and Boeing teammates are encouraged to speak up whenever they have safety or quality concerns,” a Boeing spokesperson noted, adding, “There are multiple channels available to report any such concerns, including confidentiality or anonymously, and employees are protected against any form of retaliation.”

The Senate Committee is chaired by Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington. The 737 Max is built in Washington at Renton Municipal Airport (KRNT) outside of Seattle.

In a letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, Cantwell asked him to “review the concerns raised by these whistleblowers, and implement necessary changes to improve safety in the aviation industry.”

The FAA has said that it “takes all whistleblower allegations seriously and does not tolerate retaliation against those who raise safety concerns.”

In addition, the FAA has a published document depicting the timelines of events in regard to the 737 investigation.

Boeing officials note that many of the issues covered by the committee’s report have been previously publicized and the aerospace company has worked to address them.

“Boeing has made significant changes to improve its safety culture, including the creation of a new organization dedicated to product and services safety across the Boeing enterprise and the implementation of a safety management system,” the document says. “And Congress has made numerous changes to aviation oversight in the Aircraft Certification, Safety, Accountability Act. We remain focused on those improvements, and we will review the report’s findings and recommendations as we continue that process.”

The post Senate Committee’s 737 Max Report Critical of FAA, Boeing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Department of Transportation’s inspector general has cited several issues with maintenance at American Airlines that resulted in flight by unairworthy aircraft.

The report, released Sunday, notes the IG’s office is critical of the FAA’s relationship with the airline, noting the agency lacks sufficient oversight to determine whether the airline appropriately identifies, assesses, and mitigates aircraft maintenance risks.

“FAA’s oversight controls are also not effective for evaluating if American Airlines’ (safety management system) sufficiently assesses and mitigates risk,” the report says. “The FAA requires American Airlines to use its SMS to determine the level of risk associated with maintenance non-compliances.”

Among the issues documented was a jet that flew passengers for 877 days with a broken emergency evacuation slide. In another instance, a jet flew for 1,002 hours with missing engine bushings and improperly installed struts holding the engines in place.

The report found “that FAA inspectors did not routinely or consistently evaluate whether the carrier adequately and effectively assessed and rated risks. This is in part because the FAA did not provide its inspectors with comprehensive training and tools for overseeing and evaluating the carrier’s SMS.”

The report also indicates that there were times when FAA inspectors prematurely closed out compliance actions before ensuring that the carrier completed them.

The report contains recommendations to improve American Airlines safety compliance, adding that the FAA is working with the IG to develop training and tools for inspectors to prevent future issues.

American Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the world and has not experienced a fatal accident in nearly 20 years.

American defended its safety record in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.

“This has always been our approach: open, transparent communication and collaboration with our regulators and immediate action to remedy issues and ensure the continued safety of our airline and the industry,” an airline spokeswoman wrote. “We plan to work with the FAA to ensure we take positive action and continuously refine and improve our safety controls”

The post DOT Report: American Airlines Flew Unairworthy Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.