11news09GPO LAUNCHES FACEBOOK PAGE
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) has launched a Facebook page in an effort to continue to use social media as way of increasing transparency and engage with the public on the workings of this critically important agency of our Government. GPO’s Facebook page will feature announcements, press releases, agency job listings, photos, videos and a link to the award- winning Government Book Talk blog. GPO joins the White House, National Archives & Records Administration, Library of Congress and other Federal agencies on Facebook. GPO also utilizes other social media tools, such as Twitter and YouTube, to interact with Federal agencies, the library community and the public.
Link to GPO’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/US?Government?Printing? Office/162592897126454?v=wall
GPO maintains a Facebook account to share information with the public about agency activities. Please review all polices under the information section on the page. All official information can be found and verified through the agency’s official Web site: www.gpo.gov.
With 2,300 employees, GPO is the Federal Government’s primary resource for producing, procuring, cataloging, indexing, authenticating, disseminating, and preserving the official information products of the U.S. Government in digital and tangible forms. GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of information products and services for all three branches of the Federal Government, including U.S. passports for the Department of State as well as the official publications of Congress, the White House, and other Federal agencies. In addition to publication sales, GPO provides for permanent public access to Federal Government information at no charge through GPO’s Federal Digital System (www.fdsys.gov) and through partnerships with approximately 1,220 libraries nationwide participating in the Federal Depository Library Program.
Similar Posts
Release: Pilots: How to Handle Abnormal Situations
http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/
Now available online, the November/December 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on a subject fundamental to pilot safety: how to handle abnormal and emergency situations. The issue stresses the delicate art of planning for the unplanned and outlines several tools and resources pilots can draw upon to handle emergencies.
Articles provide tips on unusual attitude recovery, partial-power takeoffs, and knowing what to do when your aircraft’s electrical system fails. Also, this issue’s Hot Spots article highlights the work FAA has been doing to identify the leading causes of GA fatal accidents and lists the top 10 causes. The Vertically Speaking column lists the top 10 causes of helicopter accidents and highlights the regional safety seminars the FAA Safety Team is conducting with Helicopter Association International.
For Aviation Maintenance Technicians, the Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons article explains the Service Difficulty Reporting System and encourages AMTs to use it.
Comair Machinists withdraw from FAA’s ASAP
Delta Air Lines regional subsidiary of Machinists at Comair have withdrawn from the ASAP program, a 2008 initiative between the machinists union, Comair and the FAA was designed to identify potential aircraft maintenance-related safety issues and develop corrective action.
However, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) describe the ambitious program as dysfuntional, as Comair’s anti-collaborative procedure is to take action against union members who submitted voluntary reports.
The official press release is below:
Machinists Withdraw From Comair ASAP Program
Mon. August 02, 2010
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 142 today announced it has withdrawn from the maintenance Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) at Delta Air Lines’ regional subsidiary Comair.
“We have discussed the problems with this dysfunctional program with both Comair and the FAA for months.” said IAM District 142 President Tom Higginbotham. “We no longer have any faith that this program will ever be managed according to the regulations.”
The ASAP program, a joint initiative between the Machinists Union, Comair and the FAA in place since 2008, was designed to identify potential aircraft maintenance-related safety issues and develop corrective actions to improve air transportation safety. The program is dependant upon technicians submitting reports which are then reviewed by an Event Review Committee (ERC) comprised of FAA, Comair and Machinists Union representatives. The ERC then identifies any problems or systemic issues and develop corrective solutions to prevent a future reoccurrence.
The ASAP program is designed to take place without the reporting technician having to fear any punitive or disciplinary actions. Comair has taken actions against Machinist Union members who have submitted voluntary reports, contrary to the letter and spirit of the FAA’s ASAP program. Additionally, Comair has failed to provide a collaborative environment needed for an effective program to work.
“We should not have to wait for an accident to occur before addressing safety issues,” said Higginbotham. “We are disappointed that Comair failed to take this program, which is effective and runs well at over 35 other carriers, seriously.”
IAM District 142 represents 530 Comair Mechanic and Related employees in Cincinnati, OH; Boston, MA; New York, NY; Greensboro and Raleigh-Durham, NC and Detroit, MI. More information about the IAM at Comair is available at www.iamdl142.org.
:
IATA Statement:Press release
Date: 26 April 2009
Swine Influenza
IATA statement
Geneva – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is monitoring events concerning the recent cases of ‘swine influenza’ in Mexico and the United States. On 25 April 2009 the World Health Organization (WHO) convened a meeting of its Emergency Committee, and subsequently determined that the situation represented a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ under the terms of the International Health Regulation.
WHO statement
The World Health Organization has released a statement.
WHO is not recommending any travel or trade restrictions.
IATA goes on to say:
“At the present time, IATA recommends that airlines review their preparedness plans for public health emergency and consider how they may be implemented in the event that the current situation becomes more widespread. No specific additional measures are currently advised. Recommendations will be reviewed in light of WHO evaluation of the evolving situation”
Press Release: NTSB issues update on its investigation of Flight 188 that overflew intended Minneapolis Airport
In its continuing investigation of an Airbus A320 that overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP), the National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information: On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 144 passengers, 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants.
Both pilots were interviewed separately by NTSB investigators yesterday in Minnesota. The following is an overview of the interviews:
The first officer and the captain were interviewed for over 5 hours combined.
The Captain, 53 years old, was hired in 1985. His total flight time is about 20,000 hours, about 10,000 hours of A-320 time of which about 7,000 was as pilot in command.
The First Officer, 54 years old, was hired in 1997. His total flight time is about 11,000 hours, and has about 5,000 hours on the A-320.
Both pilots said they had never had an accident, incident or violation.
Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical conditions.
Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued. They were both commuters, but they had a 19-hour layover in San Diego just prior to the incident flight. Both said they did not fall asleep or doze during the flight.
Both said there was no heated argument.
Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit. The pilots said there was a concentrated period of discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or calls from ATC even though both stated they heard conversation on the radio. Also, neither pilot noticed messages that were sent by company dispatchers. They were discussing the new monthly crew flight scheduling system that was now in place as a result of the merger. The discussion began at cruise altitude.
Both said they lost track of time.
Each pilot accessed and used his personal laptop computer while they discussed the airline crew flight scheduling procedure. The first officer, who was more familiar with the procedure was providing instruction to the captain. The use of personal computers on the flight deck is prohibited by company policy.
Neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about 5 minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival (ETA). The captain said, at that point, he looked at his primary flight display for an ETA and realized that they had passed MSP. They made contact with ATC and were given vectors back to MSP.
At cruise altitude – the pilots stated they were using cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications, not their headsets.
When asked by ATC what the problem was, they replied “just cockpit distraction” and “dealing with company issues”.
Both pilots said there are no procedures for the flight attendants to check on the pilots during flight.
The Safety Board is interviewing the flight attendants and other company personnel today. Air traffic control communications have been obtained and are being analyzed. Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed the following:
The CVR recording was 1/2 hour in length.
The cockpit area microphone channel was not working during this recording. However, the crew’s headset microphones recorded their conversations.
The CVR recording began during final approach, and continued while the aircraft was at the gate.
During the hours immediately following the incident flight, routine aircraft maintenance provided power to the CVR for a few minutes on several occasions, likely recording over several minutes of the flight.
The FDR captured the entire flight which contained several hundred aircraft parameters including the portion of flight where there was no radio communication from the flight crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters to see if any information regarding crew activity during the portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be obtained.
The Safety Board’s investigation continues.
-30-
NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway
hollowk@ntsb.gov
(202) 314-6100
Fuel Management Problems Continue into 2012
Fuel exhaustion happens when there is no useable fuel to supply the engine.
Running out of fuel in a plane is not like running out of gas in a car.
Fuel starvation happens when the fuel supply to the engine is interrupted although there is still enough fuel on board.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau made a statement on January 9th that they believe that fuel management is a serious risk in today’s aviation climate. Too many fuel related occurrences happen yearly–more than 20 reports of fuel exhaustion or starvation incidents and accidents last year, and these lead to diversions and accidents. The tragedy is that these incidents are avoidable, simply with better management.
FAA Addresses:Pilot Flight Time, Rest, and Fatigue
For Immediate Release
November 23, 2009
Contact: Alison Duquette or Les Dorr
Phone: (202) 267-3883
Ensuring that all pilots receive adequate rest is key to maintaining a safe aviation system. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt has made the creation of new flight, duty, and rest rules based on fatigue science a high priority. The FAA is working on an aggressive timeline to issue a new proposal.
Airplanes operate globally in 24 time zones. Domestic short leg, multi-leg, and long-haul flights all present challenges. Engine technology has evolved enabling airplanes to fly much further than in the past. Since many air carriers fly non-stop ultra-long-range flights, the FAA continues to evaluate the latest research on the effects of time zone changes on circadian rhythm and time zone changes to mitigate pilot fatigue. The FAA continues to be at the forefront of raising awareness of fatigue and mitigation techniques.
The FAA last proposed updating the rules in 1995 but, based on industry comments, the rule was not adopted. Since then, the agency has reiterated the rules and kept pace with a changing industry by allowing airlines to use the latest fatigue mitigation techniques to enhance safety.
Overview of the Current Federal Aviation Regulations
Regulations limiting flight time and pilot rest have been in place since the 1940s. The rules for domestic flights do no explicitly address the amount of time a pilot can be on duty. Rather, the rules address flight time limitations and required rest periods. Current FAA regulations for domestic flights generally limit pilots to eight hours of flight time during a 24-hour period. This limit may be extended provided the pilot receives additional rest at the end of the flight. However, a pilot is not allowed to accept, nor is an airline allowed to assign, a flight if the pilot has not had at least eight continuous hours of rest during the 24-hour period. In other words, the pilot needs to be able to look back in any preceding 24-hour period and find that he/she has had an opportunity for at least eight hours of rest. If a pilot’s actual rest is less than nine hours in the 24-hour period, the next rest period must be lengthened to provide for the appropriate compensatory rest. Airline rules may be stricter than the FAA’s regulations if the issue is part of a collective bargaining agreement.
Flight time and rest rules for U.S. air carrier international flights are different from the rules for domestic flights. International flights can involve more than the standard two-pilot crew and are more complex due to the scope of the operations. For international flights that require more than 12 hours of flight time, air carriers must establish rest periods and provide adequate sleeping facilities outside of the cockpit for in-flight rest.
An air carrier may not schedule any pilot and no pilot may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or other commercial flying if that pilot’s total flight time will exceed the regulatory limits.
It is the responsibility of both the air carrier and the pilot to prevent fatigue, not only by following the regulations, but also by acting responsibly while serving the traveling public. This means taking into consideration weather conditions, air traffic, the health of each pilot, and any other personal circumstances that may affect a pilot’s performance. The FAA has recommended that air carriers include fatigue training as part of their crew resource management training programs.
FAA Actions
Withdrawal of the 1995 Proposal
In order to move forward with a new rule, the FAA formally withdrew the old proposal by publishing a notice in the Federal Register on November 23. The notice reiterated that the 1995 proposal was outdated and raised many significant issues.
Fatigue ARC
On June 24, Administrator Babbitt announced that the FAA would undertake an expedited review of flight and rest rules. This followed Administrator Babbitt and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s June 15 meeting with airline safety executives and pilot unions to strategize on how to best reduce risk at regional airlines. The FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which began work in July. The ARC, which consisted of representatives from FAA, industry, and labor organizations, was charged with producing recommendations for a science-based approach to fatigue management by September 1. The ARC met their deadline and provided the FAA with a broad framework for drafting the basis for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
2008 FAA Fatigue Symposium
In June 2008, the FAA sponsored the Fatigue Symposium: Partnerships for Solutions to encourage the aviation community to proactively address aviation fatigue management issues. Participants included the National Transportation Safety Board, the Institutes for Behavior Resources, Inc., and many of the world’s leading authorities on sleep and human performance. The symposium provided attendees with the most current information on fatigue physiology, management, and mitigation alternatives; perspectives from aviation industry experts and scientists on fatigue management; and information on the latest fatigue mitigation initiatives and best practices.
Ultra Long-Range Flights
In 2006, the FAA worked with Delta Air Lines to develop and approve fatigue mitigation for flights between John F. Kennedy International Airport and Mumbai, India. The flights were operated for more than 16 hours with four pilots provided that the airline followed an FAA-approved plan to manage rest and mitigate the risk posed by fatigue. The mitigation, approved as an Operations Specification issued to Delta Air Lines, was specific for that city pair. Although that specific route is no longer flown by Delta, the FAA viewed Delta’s fatigue mitigation strategy as a model program.
As a result of Delta’s efforts, the FAA proposed in November 2008 to amend Delta’s, American’s, and Continental’s Operations Specifications to incorporate fatigue mitigation plans for their ultra long-range flights. Based on comments received from the three air carriers, the FAA withdrew the proposed amendments on March 12, 2009. The FAA is currently working with airlines to gather data that will help the agency enhance the safety requirements for ultra long-range flights. The agency believes that it is in the best interest of passenger and crew safety for airlines to use an FAA-approved fatigue mitigation program to reduce the risk of pilot fatigue.
2001 ATA/RAA Request
The FAA denied requests made on June 12, 2001 on behalf of the Air Transport Association (ATA) and Regional Airline Association (RAA) to stay all agency action regarding the November 20, 2000 Whitlow letter of interpretation and the May 17, 2001 Federal Register notice of the FAA’s enforcement policy regarding pilot flight time and rest. The FAA’s letter and Federal Register notice were consistent with the agency’s long-standing interpretation of the current rules. The documents were consistent with the statutory mandate to issue rules governing the maximum hours or periods of service, the use of plain language in regulations and the regulatory history of the rules. ATA subsequently petitioned for review of the Whitlow letter and the enforcement policy.
On Sept. 5, 2001 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a motion by the ATA to stay the May 17, 2001 Federal Register notice. On May 31, 2002, the court denied ATA’s petition for review, ruling in favor of the FAA.
2001 Federal Register Notice
An FAA in the May 17, 2001 Federal Register reiterated the agency’s long-standing interpretation of pilot flight time and rest rules. The notice informed airlines and flight crews of the FAA’s intent to enforce its rules in accordance with the Whitlow letter. Each flight crewmember must have a minimum of eight hours of rest in any 24-hour period that includes flight time. That calculation must be based on the actual conditions on the day of departure regardless of whether the length of the flight is longer or shorter than the originally scheduled flight time. The FAA did not anticipate that the notice would result in major disruptions to airline schedules. Beginning November 2001, the FAA would review airline flight scheduling practices and deal stringently violations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a stay of the notice.
2000 FAA Letter
On November 20, 2000, the FAA responded to a letter from the Allied Pilots Association that set forth specific scenarios that could affect a very small number of all commercial pilots. The FAA’s response, known as the “Whitlow Letter,” was consistent with the agency’s long-standing interpretation of the current rules. In summary, the FAA reiterated that each flight crewmember must have a minimum of eight hours of rest in any 24-hour period that includes flight time. The scheduled flight time must be calculated using the actual conditions on the day of departure regardless of whether the length of the flight is longer or shorter than the originally scheduled flight time.
1999 Federal Register Notice
In response to concerns raised by the pilot community, the FAA Administrator notified the aviation community on June 15, 1999 that it had six months to ensure that it was in full compliance with the agency’s current flight time and rest requirements. Reviews of airline scheduling practices conducted in December 1999 and discussions with pilot unions and airlines confirmed that the vast majority of pilots are receiving the amount of rest required by the FAA’s rule.
1998 ARAC
In July 1998, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to work with the industry to reach a consensus and develop a new proposal. If no consensus could be reached, the FAA would subsequently enforce the current regulations. In February 1999, ARAC reported that there was no consensus. The group offered five different proposals to update the flight and rest regulations.
1995 Proposal for Pilots
In 1995, the FAA proposed a rule to change flight time and rest limits. The agency received more than 2,000 comments from the aviation community and the public. Most of those comments did not favor the rule as proposed, and there was no clear consensus on what the final rule should say. Highlights of the 1995 proposal:
Reduce the number of duty hours (the time a flight crewmember is on the job, available to fly) from the current 16 hours to 14 hours for two-pilot crews. It would have allowed up to 10 flight hours in the 14 duty hours. Current rules allow up to 16 hours continuous duty time.
Additional duty hours would be permitted only for unexpected operational problems, such as flight delays. In no event could such delays add more than two hours to the pilot’s duty day.
Airlines could no longer schedule pilots in advance that exceeds the duty time.
To ensure that pilots have an adequate opportunity to rest, off-duty time would be increased from eight hours to 10 hours under the proposal.
Pilots would have to be given at least one 36-hour off-duty period every seven days. Current rules call for a 24-hour period.
###