Something We All Suspected...

[FlyingMonkey]

It turns out that, for many accident types, extensive certification rules for aircraft do not improve safety, and in some cases actually reduce safety:

 

http://www.avweb.com...ty221068-1.html

 

I think those of is in the LSA and E-AB communities know this instinctively, but it's nice to see research supporting it!

[Anticept]

A lot of certification rules are knee-jerk reactions to events that have happened once. It's like the nitrogen charged fuselage aux tank on one of the boeings (747 i think). It came out of an accident where the wreck is practically vaporized, but yet somehow it was suspected that a fuel pump in the tank shorted and started a fire. The tank was empty for the duration of the flight.

 

Because of that, every aircraft in that line had to be retrofitted to charge those tanks with nitrogen.

 

There are a lot of AD's and things caused by flukes and one offs. Many certification standards are being universally applied, when it only needed to be for one particular model.

[S3flyer]

I won't hold my breath, but the FAA could easily speed the adoption of ADS-B by providing a simple requirement of WAAS and a validation similar to the dual VOR check for IFR:

© If dual system VOR (units independent of each other except for the antenna) is installed in the aircraft, the person checking the equipment may check one system against the other in place of the check procedures specified in paragraph ( of this section. Both systems shall be tuned to the same VOR ground facility and note the indicated bearings to that station. The maximum permissible variation between the two indicated bearings is 4 degrees.

Basically, just do a log book entry on a periodic basis where you compare your navigation GPS versus another independent unit and allow for XX feet variation.

[Jim]

A lot of certification rules are knee-jerk reactions to events that have happened once. It's like the nitrogen charged fuselage aux tank on one of the boeings (747 i think). It came out of an accident where the wreck is practically vaporized, but yet somehow it was suspected that a fuel pump in the tank shorted and started a fire. The tank was empty for the duration of the flight.

 

Because of that, every aircraft in that line had to be retrofitted to charge those tanks with nitrogen.

 

There are a lot of AD's and things caused by flukes and one offs. Many certification standards are being universally applied, when it only needed to be for one particular model.

 

Yeah. Writer and fellow pilot William Langewiesche wrote an excellent article about unintended consequences in aviation. He focused on the Valuejet crash caused by a fire from oxygen canisters in the cargo hold. He maintained that the oxygen canisters, installed and maintained at great expense in airliners, have never saved a single life in operation, but resulted in the loss of an aircraft and 110 lives when they were improperly secured for transport.

[FlyingMonkey]

I won't hold my breath, but the FAA could easily speed the adoption of ADS-B by providing a simple requirement of WAAS and a validation similar to the dual VOR check for IFR:

 

Basically, just do a log book entry on a periodic basis where you compare your navigation GPS versus another independent unit and allow for XX feet variation.

 

Absolutely. Most GPS units are scary accurate, even iPad internal GPS, certified or not. The check could be as simple as putting the GPS unit over a dot on the ground with a known do a few decimal places lat/long, while installed in the airplane with all electronics running, and comparing where the GPS thinks it is. Within some arbitrary accuracy, good to go sign the logbook.

[WmInce]

The check could be as simple as putting the GPS unit over a dot on the ground with a known do a few decimal places lat/long, while installed in the airplane with all electronics running, and comparing where the GPS thinks it is. Within some arbitrary accuracy, good to go sign the logbook.

 

Kind of like the "compass rose" at the airport for calibrating the wet (stanby) compass?

[Doug Hereford]

I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. To be fair though, one should maybe consider all of the operations that are captured by small aircraft certification rules, and the millions of miles traveled, and thousands of souls that are moved safely under the system we have. Aviation in this country is built on predictable, and even boring situations. "Experimental" is very necessary, but it does imply that one is experimenting with something.

[FlyingMonkey]

Kind of like the "compass rose" at the airport for calibrating the wet (stanby) compass?

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Once the point is calibrated, it requires no equipment other than the GPS being tested.

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. To be fair though, one should maybe consider all of the operations that are captured by small aircraft certification rules, and the millions of miles traveled, and thousands of souls that are moved safely under the system we have. Aviation in this country is built on predictable, and even boring situations. "Experimental" is very necessary, but it does imply that one is experimenting with something.

 

I agree with this for commercial operations, but for general aviation it's really overkill.

[Anticept]

 

 

Yeah. Writer and fellow pilot William Langewiesche wrote an excellent article about unintended consequences in aviation. He focused on the Valuejet crash caused by a fire from oxygen canisters in the cargo hold. He maintained that the oxygen canisters, installed and maintained at great expense in airliners, have never saved a single life in operation, but resulted in the loss of an aircraft and 110 lives when they were improperly secured for transport.

 

The problem is ultimately the general public. Under educated and over opinionated about aviation, having no understanding of the insane checks that pilots and planes have to go through, which in turn only leads to apathy and less attention to detail. But, if the FAA doesn't have a reaction to events, the people in office pull political drama stunts to boost their careers.

 

This was the case with a malfunction many years ago, which got the attention of a senate hearing committee that got started with representatives coming from states that were well known hosts to rivals of the manufacturer. Pressure and dirty powerplays were coming from all angles, and everyone was waiting for the NTSB ruling on the case. The logbooks were in perfect order, and flawlessly maintained. The engine was certified to FAA specifications just fine. But, SOMEONE had to be blamed, because of all the political bullshit and mud slinging and demands for answers, and at this point, whoever got blamed was effectively going to be ended.

 

The NTSB had a stroke of genius on that ruling. The FAA is a legislative department formed by Congress, and that is who they answer to. So guess what? The NTSB ruled congress at fault for poor oversight, effectively throwing the collective sh--storm right back into their lap, and creating a fury of political backlash so strong, that there really hasn't been another stunt like that pulled again.

[WmInce]

A major problem is the FAA wears two hats.

They are task with promoting commercial aviation.

They are also task with regulation and safety.

It is almost a conflict of interest.

 

It would be much better if the NTSB took over safety and regulation . . . and leave the promoting aviation to the FAA.

 

I have always opined that the NTSB does a great job in safety, investigation and making recommendations (many of which are never implemented).

 

On the other hand, the FAA is a giant, bureaucratic, self-sustaining, political mess. It has been that way since the CAB conversion days.

 

Just like all government entities in this country, it boils down to money and power.

[FlyingMonkey]

A major problem is the FAA wears two hats.

They are task with promoting commercial aviation.

They are also task with regulation and safety.

It is almost a conflict of interest.

 

We can see they resolved the conflict by chucking promotion of aviation out the window and focusing on regulation, like good bureaucrats. Even when they have programs to "promote" aviation, they are really just thinly veiled attempts to get increased compliance with their regulations.

 

Real promotion of aviation is done through EAA.

[WmInce]

. . . "Real promotion of aviation is done through EAA." . . .

 

Indeed.