NTSB final rule - 5 additional reportable incidents

Everskyward

Everskyward

Experimenter
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
33,448
Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
FYI

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/E9-30398.htm

DATES: The revisions and additions published in this final rule will
become effective March 8, 2010.

>snip<

This NPRM proposed and the final rule
herein codifies the addition of five reportable incidents, the
reporting of which the NTSB believes will improve aviation safety. In
particular, the new subsections within 49 CFR 830.5(a) will require
operators to report the following: failure of any internal turbine
engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out
the exhaust path; release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from
an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact; a
complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50
percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays, known as Electronic Flight
Instrument System displays, Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System
displays, Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor displays, or other
such displays; Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
advisories issued either (1) when an aircraft is being operated on an
instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan and compliance with the
advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between
two or more aircraft, or (2) to an aircraft operating in class A
airspace; damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including
ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the
blade(s); and any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier
lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not
designed as a runway, or experiences a runway incursion that requires
the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.
Click to expand...
 
The requirement to report RA's is going to be interesting...
 
A reason to stay with steam gauges...

a
complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50
percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays, known as Electronic Flight
Instrument System displays, Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System
displays, Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor displays, or other
such displays;
Click to expand...

Of course, reporting this stuff "improves" safety.
 
Bob Noel said:
The requirement to report RA's is going to be interesting...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Since there are limited exceptions to complying with RA's there could be a lot of reports.

The display issue will be interesting too. Could generate some useful data on reliablility/availability

I'm sort of suprised they didn't require reporting of TAWS alerts - it would be interesting to see how many TAWS "saves" occur.
 
wsuffa said:
Of course, reporting this stuff "improves" safety.
Click to expand...

Its the first step to understanding if there is a problem, what its magnitude is, and collecting information to formulate mitigations.

The reason the FAA/NTSB are the standard around the world is becuase of the system of analysis and self correction that drives regulation, policy and certification. ASRS is an effort to adjust the system before the accidents accumulate. Lowering the bar for reportable events is the same.
 
I usually despise the FAA and all their works, but this doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
 
Notice that it doesn't say "inadvertent" or "without permission" when discussing taxiway landings....

Lots of gliders gonna be reporting those landings here soon, I take it?
 
SkyHog said:
Where are you getting that this only applies to Air Carriers?
Click to expand...

Here:

...any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier
lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not
designed as a runway, or experiences a runway incursion that requires
the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Here:

...any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier
lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not
designed as a runway, or experiences a runway incursion that requires
the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

D'oh!
 
twdeckard said:
Its the first step to understanding if there is a problem, what its magnitude is, and collecting information to formulate mitigations.

The reason the FAA/NTSB are the standard around the world is becuase of the system of analysis and self correction that drives regulation, policy and certification. ASRS is an effort to adjust the system before the accidents accumulate. Lowering the bar for reportable events is the same.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the current mechanism for reporting something like an EFIS failure/glitch is the FAA SDR system, which I think mechanics/technicians are familiar with, but individuals can also use to submit reports.

http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/

So, I guess the question is making reporting of such things mandatory rather than voluntary going to improve the quality of infomation gathered? I don't know the answer. But I can see duplication of reporting of events if I, the pilot, make an NTSB report, and my mechanic makes an SDR for the same thing, unless someone is doing a good job of combing through the data.


Trapper John
 
twdeckard said:
Its the first step to understanding if there is a problem, what its magnitude is, and collecting information to formulate mitigations.

The reason the FAA/NTSB are the standard around the world is becuase of the system of analysis and self correction that drives regulation, policy and certification. ASRS is an effort to adjust the system before the accidents accumulate. Lowering the bar for reportable events is the same.
Click to expand...

I don't see this being a big issue but a lot depends on how simple the FAA makes the reporting process.

I'm still completely blown away that the FAA doesn't require total time to be reported as part of the already required annual inspection (or condition inspection for homebuilts). Done online it wouldn't take two minutes per annual and would generate real numbers instead of the usual guesses for hours flown in various makes/models/categories etc.
 
If understanding magnitude is so frigging important, why don't the geniuses require airplane usage information? Why do the numerators matter if they don't have the number on the bottom?
twdeckard said:
Its the first step to understanding if there is a problem, what its magnitude is, and collecting information to formulate mitigations.

The reason the FAA/NTSB are the standard around the world is becuase of the system of analysis and self correction that drives regulation, policy and certification. ASRS is an effort to adjust the system before the accidents accumulate. Lowering the bar for reportable events is the same.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
I usually despise the FAA and all their works, but this doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Your feelings toward the FAA are irrelevant. This is an NTSB rule. Accident and incident reporting is covered by 49 CFR Part 830, not the FARs.

Jon
 
I want what the definition of a flicker is. Because if that isn't set in stone somewhere, the lawyers are going to be all over it.
 
SkyHog said:
Notice that it doesn't say "inadvertent" or "without permission" when discussing taxiway landings....

Lots of gliders gonna be reporting those landings here soon, I take it?
Click to expand...

It's an uncontrolled airfield.. who's permission ya gonna get?

(Note: We don't land on the taxiway.. it's within 1 wing span of the tie downs. :nono:) I should say the parrallel taxiway.

I have landed on the cross taxiway.. into a 30knt wind. Only rolled about 50ft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top