Aviation Safety Course Conclusion

The importance of safety in aviation cannot be stressed enough. Although many would agree that safety is cost driven, it is the cornerstone of a business that many, if not all countries in the world rely on heavily. Without the public’s trust in agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Europe’s Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), aviation as we know it today would not exist. Aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing, Bell, and Lockheed Martin have come a long way regarding aircraft design and reliability. Having airworthy aircraft is only half of the pie that makes aviation safe and reliable. There are many other slices contribute to aviation safety that include cost, survivability of aircraft, and competency training for pilots, maintainers, air traffic controllers, emergency response teams and everyone else in between. Although superior aircraft and infrastructure design and adequate training play a huge part in making flight safer, we can never totally eliminate risks or hazards, only minimize them to a level which is acceptable.

Researchers from the U-M Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) conclude that the distance of a typical non-stop flight which is roughly 1,157 km or 719 miles, is statistically sixty-five times safer than driving a route of the same distance. This study was done not only on normal flights, but the events of September 11, 2001 were also incorporated into the equation. More than 42,000 lives are lost annually in driving-related accidents as opposed to the annual average of 646 lives lost in aviation-related accidents.

Continuing our education and staying up-to-date with our industry is imperative to maintain and improve upon the aviation industry’s safety reputation.

Accident Causation and Reason's Model

To establish an effective and efficient safety program, we must first understand the contributing factors of aviation incidents and accidents. The primary purpose of accident investigation is to reveal the causal factors that led up to the incident or accident and to recommend control measures that will prevent the same type of event to take place again. Dr. James Reason's Accident Causation Model illustrates how latent errors are often times the root cause of aircraft accidents. Reason also hypothesizes that human error is the end result of one or more of five levels of failure, rather than the cause of incidents or accidents. These five levels of failure fall into these fundamental categories:

Decisions-Makers:

• Lack of regulation
• Poorly planned deregulation
• Too rapid expansion of routes or services
• Lip service to safety

Line Management Deficiencies:

• Inadequate procedures
• Poor scheduling
• Neglect of hazards
• Insufficient training

Preconditions:

• High workload
• Undue time pressures
• Acceptance of hazards
• Ignorance of the system
• Fatigued aircrew

Unsafe Acts:

• Omission of checklist item
• Forgetting fuel, equipment or running gear checks
• Use of wrong procedure
• Violation of weather regulations

Defenses Inadequate:

• Warning systems disabled
• Absence of monitoring
• Safety regulations not enforced
• Over-reliance on automation

The models below show us the trajectory of accident opportunity, and the causal sequence of human failures that lead to incidents or accidents.

As safety managers, we have tools available to us to reduce the risks of future aircraft operation, such as causation, 5M, and SHELL Models. Although it would be impossible to completely eliminate risk, if we use these tools in conjunction with each other we can make significant changes that will keep our aviators and passengers safe, with only a minuscule chance for small incidents or catastrophic failures.

ERAU Risk Management Plan

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

July 2010

SFTY 409 Aviation Safety

Prepared by: Ryan Pugeda

ERAU Student

Reviewed by: Donna Chen

Proofreader

Approved by: Steve Lambert

Instructor

Introduction

This two-section plan serves as a guide and/or a template for creating an aviation risk management program that can be applied to the management of flying and non-flying segments of the aviation industry.

The two sections are as follows:

Section 1: Fixed and Rotary-wing Operations

Section 2: Other Aviation Operations

Section I — Fixed and Rotary-wing

Safety Defined

Safety: The top priority for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is safety. Safety awareness is a mental attitude and individual commitment fostered by proper management. Procedures and practices are intended to prevent aviation mishaps from occurring, as defined below.

Accident—an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and the time all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person (occupant or non-occupant) suffers a fatal or serious injury or the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Fatal Injury— any injury that results in death within 30 days of the accident.

Serious injury— any injury that requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, results in a bone fracture, or involves internal organs or burns.

Substantial damage—damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Aviation safety cannot be legislated or mandated; it can only be successfully accomplished by fostering and inspiring an attitude in which aviation safety is the foremost priority. An undeviating and persistent commitment to professional conduct by everyone involved in the aviation program is paramount to achieving mishap prevention and successful risk management.

All ERAU students involved in the aviation program play a role in the successful and safe outcome of aviation activities. However, management is responsible for achieving safety goals. This can only be accomplished through awareness and uncompromising support of management.

Training

The Department of the Interior Office of Aircraft Services and the U.S. Forest Services has provided online Interagency Aviation Training courses applicable to aerial survey at http://iat.nifc.gov.

The following courses are required to be completed by all ERAU students to obtain a SFTY 409 certificate:

A-101: Aviation Safety

A-105: Aviation Life Support and Equipment

A-108: Preflight Checklist Briefing and Debriefing

A-109: Aviation Radio Use

A-112: Mission Planning and Flight Request Process

A-113: Crash Survival

Aircraft and Pilots

All ERAU aircraft used for training will carry an aircraft Data Card and must be shown to FAA authorities upon request. Aircraft must have a high wing, large windows for visibility, and adequate engine power. Suitable airplanes include Cessna models 182, 182RG, 206, 206 Turbo, and 210. Other acceptable single engine aircraft include the Cessna 185.

Unacceptable single engine, fixed-wing aircraft include Cessna models 152, 170, and 172 due to their lack of power necessary for mountain flight.

Requirements—The aircraft must have an internal intercom system equipped with noise-cancelling technology, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, seat belts, FM programmable radio, and a global positioning unit.

Light helicopters may also be used to cover a smaller area more intensely, following the same requirements listed above.

Federal Aviation Regulations require that passengers be provided with supplemental oxygen when cabin pressure is above 15,000 feet and pilots are required to have oxygen if cabin pressure reached 12,500 feet for 30 minutes or more.

Section II — Other Aviation Operations

AVIONICS/ELECTRICAL

The Aviation maintenance officer ensures the following avionics and/or electrical requirements are met:

Training:

• Does the unit have a training program to educate personnel in safety procedures and lifesaving techniques appropriate to the work being per-formed?
• Have electrical technicians completed initial training in CPR with annual refresher updates annotated by installation safety officer?
• Are calibration requirements for test equipment kept up-to-date?
• Are all test equipment properly grounded? Safety. How does the commander ensure knowledge of and compliance with the following:

• Does the unit have an adequate avionics maintenance SOP?
• A mounted safety board is present in the shop. Rubber floor mats or similar insulating materials are provided for repair positions.
• All power attachment plugs and connectors are serviceable with no exposed current-carrying parts except the prongs.
• Is the operational readiness float program established and maintained?
• Are unserviceable and non-repairable items being turned in promptly.
• Are technical inspections of repairable equipment being accomplished?
• Are necessary technical publications on hand and current?

Foreign object damage prevention:

• Is the FOD prevention annex to the ERAU SOP adequate?
• Is a specified time established for policing aircraft parking areas, run-up areas, exhaust areas, runways, and taxiways?
• Are there enough FOD receptacles in all work areas for trash, ferrous and nonferrous scrap, safety wire, and so forth?
• Is a checklist of all maintenance areas completed?

Fire prevention:

• Are smoking and no-smoking areas designated, and are no-smoking signs posted?
• Are the required number and types of fire extinguishers available in the shops and hangar?
• Are shop and hangar fire extinguishers inspected as required?
• Are shop and hangar personnel trained in the use of fire-fighting equipment?
• Are there enough grounding points to adequately support the unit’s aircraft parking areas and maintenance facility?
• Is the entire grounding system for which the unit is responsible inspected annually?
• Are all ground rods for which the unit is responsible tested every 2 years or when there is a possibility of mechanical damage?
• Does the unit keep a log that identities each rod the date tested, and the reading in ohms?

Sources:

Aviation Management Plan; Wyoming State Forestry Division, 2005

Commercial Aviation Safety, 4^th Edition

Alexander T. Wells, Ed.D. & Clarence C. Rodrigues, Ph.D., P.E.

3rd Squadron, 17^th U.S. Cavalry, U.S. Army

Aviation Ground Support Procedures

Human Errors: Keep It To a Minimum

Course Learning Outcome 3:

Categorize the types of human factors that are causal factors in aircraft accidents and assess the effectiveness of what is being accomplished to reduce human error.

There have been many advancements in technology that assist us in reducing human error. For instance, most of us have owned or at the very least seen vehicles outfitted with automatic safety belts. That is, as soon as the door closes, the safety belt mechanism automatically moves into the proper position to secure the driver or his passenger while in the vehicle. This reduces the chance that the driver or the passenger will forget to buckle his seat belt, thus minimizing human error. Although measures to automate are being practiced throughout the aviation industry, it would be too expensive to apply this type of solution to every situation.

There are five main causal factors for errors. The first is referred to as the error of omission, or failure to perform a task when required. A good example is not removing "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" streamers prior to takeoff. The second is known as the error of commission, or performing tasks when not required, for instance, deploying landing gear while at cruising altitude. The third error occurs when a task is performed incorrectly, known as the error of substitution. Shutting down the wrong engine during an in-flight maintenance check is a perfect example. Errors also occur when tasks are performed out of sequence. Skipping or reversing the the steps in a pre-flight checklist would qualify as this type of error. The final error is late performance, such as not braking in time and overshooting the runway.

There are two basic strategies used to combat human errors-engineering and administrative. The example I used earlier regarding the automation of safety belts in vehicles falls in this category. Along with automation, improvements to existing hardware and software designs are implemented to minimize the potential for human error through engineering. Administrative measures are not considered to be as effective or as permanent as engineering solutions, but it definitely has its place in error reduction. Employee selection and training, standard operating procedures and company management practices are prime examples of administrative solutions.

The operation of aircraft will perpetually involve humans and their potential to err. Even so, I firmly believe that with proper leadership, combined with appropriate engineering and administrative solutions, the aviation industry can improve upon its reputation as being one of the safest modes of transportation.

The Evolution and Effect of Federal Aviation Safety Laws

Course Learning Outcome 1:

Explain the evolution of Federal aviation safety laws and describe their effectiveness in improving the safety of flight in air carrier operations.

During the 1920s, the establishment of the U.S. Air Mail Service caused a large growth in commercial aviation. Although early regulatory requirements were minimal at best, they contributed to the improvement in aviation safety. For instance, the Post Office integrated aircraft inspections and preventative maintenance programs into their standard operations. The post Office Department also made it a requirement for their pilots to pass proficiency exams, as well as have a minimum of 500 flight hours as a prerequisite of employment.

In the mid 1920s, Congress passed legislation titled the "Air Mail Act of 1925", allowing the Post Office Department to delegate air mail service to private carriers, some of whom are today's modern airlines. Because it was much more profitable to transport packages, these early carriers had only limited passenger service, so the need for detailed air safety regulations for passengers was nominal. Over the next two decades, with the increase in demand for passenger services, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was created in 1940 and charged with the responsibilities regarding regulatory and investigatory affairs.

Since the creation of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) in 1958, (now known as the Federal Aviation Administration), many safety regulations have been imposed and enforced regarding the manufacturing, operation and maintenance of aircraft. These regulations ranged from standards for aircraft inspections, pilot training and testing, limiting pilot flight hours, air traffic control (ATC) operations, and even rules governing the supply of aircraft oil and aircraft fuel reserves. In addition to absorbing the CABs responsibilities, today's FAA is responsible for enforcing and improving upon existing regulations.