welcome to the 12th issue of the nata safety 1st flitebag, our

NATA Safety 1st Flitebag – Issue 12 – 2nd Quarter 2008

Welcome to the 12th issue of the NATA Safety 1st Flitebag, our quarterly online safety newsletter, supporting the NATA Safety 1st Management System (SMS) for Air Operators. This quarterly newsletter will highlight known and emerging trends, environmental and geographical matters, as well as advances in operational efficiency and safety. Subsequent issues include a section with a roundup of real-time incidents and events, along with lessons learned. Flight and ground safety have been enhanced and many accidents prevented because of shared experiences.

UNDERSTANDING SAFETY MANAGEMENT IN AVIATION PART-2 By: Joe P. Brown President The Salus Network [email protected]

Now in Part 2 of our series, we will bring all the elements together by focusing on the last four steps in creating an effective, practical SMS. The remaining elements are:

• Safety Oversight; • Safety Training; • Quality Assurance, and; • Emergency Response.

Before we begin our discussion on safety oversight, let’s briefly revisit how we identify our organization from a systems-based perspective. In part one of our series we described how we identify our operation (systems, sub-systems, and working level processes or elements). See two system examples below.

• System: Flight Operations ⇒ Sub-System: Air Carrier Programs

and Procedures ⇒ Element: Deicing Procedures ⇒ Element: Airman Duties /

Flight Deck Procedures ⇒ Element: Operational Control ⇒ Element: Aircraft Performance

and Operating Limitations

• System: Ground Operations ⇒ Sub-System: Ground Support Programs

and Procedures

⇒ Element: Deicing Procedures ⇒ Element: Line Personnel Procedures ⇒ Element: Fueling Operations ⇒ Element: Aircraft Handling Operations

Each working level process or element represents a data collection / data distribution point. Considering each element, we can begin true safety management by analyzing the data generated in each. Safety oversight represents the first step in the safety management process.

Issue 12 2nd Quarter 2008

In This Issue: ► Understanding Safety Management in Aviation Part-2 ................................... 1

► NATA's 2nd Annual Air Charter Summit June 9-11, 2008............................... 9

► Legislative Update ......................................................................................... 10

► FAA News ...................................................................................................... 13

► FAA Airline Delays ......................................................................................... 13

► Dual J80 Routes............................................................................................. 14

► EMAS Installations ......................................................................................... 15

► Incident Roundup ........................................................................................... 18

► FAA Regulatory Inconsistencies Letter.......................................................... 19

► NTSB Accident Statistics ............................................................................... 21

► Information for Operators (InFOs) ................................................................. 22

► Safety Alert for Operators (SAFOs) .............................................................. 23

► Single Pilot Taxi at Non-towered Airport........................................................ 24

► Single Pilot Taxi at Towered Airport .............................................................. 25

► Flight Crew Briefing Teterboro Airport ........................................................... 26

NATA Safety 1st Flitebag – Issue 12 – 2ndQuarter 2008

Safety Oversight Safety oversight represents the door-way into the safety management process. Safety oversight establishes two pathways, based on method of discovery, through which to begin the safety management process. The two pathways are “reactive” and “proactive”. Most likely, the reactive pathway of safety management is what many of us are most familiar with. Something happens, usually bad, certainly unwanted, and we react to it. Typical activities involved in reactive safety management include; investigating an incident or accident, collecting data, soliciting and reviewing safety reports with the ultimate goal of changing the way business is conducted to avoid future occurrences. “Proactive” safety oversight takes a much more assertive role in safety management by collecting and analyzing data to perform an investigation before an incident or accident occurs. Basic proactive safety oversight involves going out into our system and preemptively identifying hazards and risks, by performing safety audits and reviewing non-punitive safety reports. Because we operate in a “data rich” environment, you can even take advantage of more sophisticated analytical techniques such as data mining tools. Let’s take a look at our system safety operating structure to see, first hand, how safety oversight impacts the safety management process.

Remember, each element is the data collection / data distribution point for all safety management activities. Considering safety oversight, within each working level process we can easily see how both “reactive” and “proactive” safety management begins. Simply put, if something has already occurred (i.e. incident or accident) we can react to the event and apply our safety management process, see the SMS Checklist Process below. On the other hand, we can choose to

2 Pathways to Safety Oversight


proactively take a look at a particular system applying forward looking safety assessments, otherwise known as our internal evaluation program to actively try to identify hazards and risks before something bad happens. Either way, it is at the element or working level process that we can enter our system, which allows for effective, data-driven safety management. What do we investigate in our operation? Answer: Everything. The difference is how far we take the investigation and analysis process. The answer is predicated on an initial risk assessment. If we find that based on an initial risk assessment the risk classification of what we are looking at is considered “low-risk,” then the analysis should stop and the occurrence be tracked in a safety database for negative trends. On the other hand, if our risk assessment reveals a risk classification of medium or higher risk, then further investigation and analysis is required. Below is a diagram of the safety management process or steps.

Safety Training Safety training is an interesting topic. So much has been written on the importance of safety training for all employees, yet it seems that a fundamental question remains. What exactly are we supposed to teach people about safety? The most practical answer to this question is simply: teach people whatever they need to know to effectively perform their jobs along with their specific role(s) in the company’s SMS. To illustrate, effective, practical safety training should include, but is not limited to, the following subject areas:

1. Safety – What is it? 2. Hazard and Risk – What is it, and what am I supposed to do when I discover it? 3. Safety Reporting – What, when, where, and how to report? 4. Threats and errors as they pertain to my work area and work activities.

SMS Checklist Process


5. Recognizing hazardous attitudes and what to do about them. 6. Company and industry “Lessons Learned.” 7. Expected work behaviors and

expected participation in the “Company Safety Culture.”

8. On-The-Job safety tools. Safety training really is about educating and informing personnel as to what the company expects them to do while performing their daily duties and responsibilities. Many, if not all of us, are very highly trained in the technical aspects of our jobs. However, most of us have not received a commensurate level of training related to safety, social skills, leadership, teamwork, risk management, etc. Company specific education in these areas will allow personnel to better understand their expected role(s) in safety management and expected working behaviors thereby lowering risk, improving safety, and achieving higher work efficiency. How often should employees be trained in safety? All employees should receive specific company safety training as a new hire during initial or basic indoctrination. Initial or basic indoctrination should be designed to establish a sound framework of the employees’ role(s) and responsibility(ies) in the SMS as well as to present and reinforce company specific, expected working behaviors. Other training footprints should include:

• Recurrent Training – Annual or as required. • Special Training – Scheduled as necessary to accommodate new equipment, services, procedures, operating

philosophies, management, major company changes, etc. Quality Assurance What is quality? Although we use the term “quality” in many different contexts, all quality products, programs, and services have certain characteristics in common. As such, two important characteristics come to mind when discussing quality. The first characteristic is “conformance to requirements”. In other words, the product, program, or service meets all predetermined specifications established by the manufacturer, organization, regulator, and customers. The second characteristic is “fitness for use” which means that the product, program, or service does what it is expected to do, or better yet, exceeds expectations.


System Safety Attributes

How does quality work in a SMS? There has been much debate over what quality really is and how, or even where, it fits in a SMS. Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to take a step back and look at a snapshot of our organization to gain an understanding of how all the operational pieces work together. To begin, if we refer back to the first article in this series, we can look at our organization’s system safety structure (i.e. systems, sub-systems, and working level processes). Once we’ve mapped out our organizational framework in this context, we can observe each working level process from a system safety point of view. In other words, system safety contains six attributes that are designed to analyze, assess, measure, and control hazards and risks.

If we consider the system safety attributes as applied to each working level process, we begin to see that quality control and quality assurance has taken the form of a multi-layered design in our overall operational structure.


First, we have clearly defined procedures that answer questions such as who, what, when, where, and how. Then we have controls to certain high-risk procedures. The control attribute serves as the first quality control check in our operational system. Think of it as an assembly line that utilizes quality control inspectors positioned at strategic locations along the assembly line ensuring that whatever is being assembled meets predetermined quality control standards or specifications. Moving on from the control attribute, we come to the process measurement attribute. Process measurement is really a fancy term used to describe our internal evaluation program or internal audit program. The process measurement attribute serves as the quality assurance portion of our multi-layered design to quality in our organizational structure. It is important to note that so far in our discussion on quality, from an FAA standpoint, we are describing only the voluntary portion of organizational quality programs. The last layer in our multi-layered organizational design for quality is evidenced in our CAS (Continued Airworthiness Surveillance) system, for those who have incorporated one. The CAS system, from an FAA point of view, serves as the regulatory portion of our organizational quality design.

Multi-layered Quality Design


QMS vs. SMS A Quality Management System (QMS) can be defined as a set of policies, processes, and procedures required for planning and execution (i.e. production / development / service) in the core business area of an organization. QMS integrates the various internal processes within the organization and intends to provide a process approach for project execution, which could be product design, program implementation, or service delivery. QMS enables an organization to identify, measure, control, and improve the various core business processes that will ultimately lead to improved business performance through enhanced quality. The moral of the QMS story is a good one but is distinctly different from a SMS. Quality, and its associated management system, focuses on the characteristics, typically expressed in terms of value, of its products, programs, or services, whereas safety is the minimization and management of operational risk. Both systems serve valuable purposes and if combined, can promulgate into a formidable safety and quality management system or SQMS. The latter is more reminiscent of an organization that has mature safety and quality programs. Emergency Response No discussion of SMS would be complete without covering emergency response. While emergency response is a program that hopefully is never utilized under real circumstances, it is a necessary working element of a complete and functional SMS. A few important assumptions about emergency response:

The first four hours following an incident or accident, especially those involving serious injury or loss of life, are the most critical hours for an organization. History is riddled with examples of how companies imploded during a major crisis. Leadership and the timely, accurate communication, and management of essential information and business processes are critical during this stressful time. WARNING: Every organization (U.S. operator) must be familiar with NTSB rules to be followed during a reportable incident or accident. Serious consequences can come to an organization that does not understand or comply with NTSB rules. For more information please consult http://www.ntsb.gov/. Accurate, timely communication channels and information is CRITICAL. The time to discover that communication channels (i.e. important phone numbers) have changed or are not available is not when the emergency response program is being used for real. Specific emergency response procedures and clear, accurate communication channels should be available to all personnel, all the way up to the board of directors. Additionally, an isolated but operationally convenient location should be dedicated as an emergency response center that serves as the “company command center” during a crisis. Regular emergency response drills are essential for everyone so they know what to do, when to do it, and how it is to be done! People need to know what to do, when to do it, and how it is to be done. A full emergency response program simulation should be conducted at least every two years. Tabletop reviews should be conducted annually and communication information / channels should be validated every business quarter. Remember, you still have a business to run. Business continuity should always be planned for even in the event of a crisis. Many businesses suffer unnecessarily during a crisis because people are so focused on the crisis that they forget that there is still a business to be managed.

As with any organizational process, always assign a person to be responsible for the emergency response process and someone who has the authority to modify the emergency response process (this may or may not be the same person).


Typical emergency response program elements include:

Emergency Response Policy & Procedures

Accident / Incident investigation

Emergency Response activation, mobilization and agencies notification

Response team

Personnel welfare Preservation of evidence Casualty and next of kin coordination

(Family Response) Media relations plan

Wreckage removal Insurance claim procedures Emergency response training Business continuity plan

Conclusion This two part series, Understanding Safety Management in Aviation, is intended to serve as a practical, efficient explanation of what safety management is and how it is applied in aviation. Many useful reference sources exist in our industry, all with the goal of improving safety while simultaneously reducing operational risk. The most important message of this two part series is that a SMS, similar to any other management system, should be systematic and practical in design, comprehensive enough to adequately encompass all organizational functions, yet simple enough for ease of use. If we end up with a SMS that does not provide clear operating instructions or only covers part of an organization, such as flight operations, then as an organization we risk overlooking critical safety management activities. A comprehensive, data-driven SMS will enhance our organization’s operating efficiency and safety performance. Simply put, safety is good business!

SMS Article #2 - References

• AC 120-59 Air Carrier Internal Evaluation Programs

• AC 120-92 Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air Operators.

• FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS). Volume 6 – ATOS, Chapter 12 & Volume 10 – Risk Management, Chapter 1 - Air Transport Oversight System.

• Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing Company, Brookfield, VT. ISBN 1-84014-104-2.

• Introduction to ISO 9001:2000: What every employee needs to know in an organization that is (planning to be) registered to ISO 9001. Excel Partnership, Inc. (PDF).

• http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/BIL/TP13739/PDF/HR/TP13739b.pdf • http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP13881/PDF/HR/TP13881E.PDF


NATA'S 2ND ANNUAL AIR CHARTER SUMMIT JUNE 9-11, 2008 REGULATORS TO BRIEF INDUSTRY ON KEY CHARTER ISSUES FAA officials directly responsible for the oversight of Part 135 on-demand air charter operators will provide an in-depth review of upcoming regulatory changes during a special session at the 2008 NATA Air Charter Summit. The FAA Regulatory Review will feature James Ballough, director of the FAA's Flight Standards Service, and Dennis Pratte, manager of the FAA's Part 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch. "Recent interest in how the FAA oversees airlines has many wondering about the implications for Part 135 air carriers, making this briefing critical for all 135 operators," said National Air Transportation Association President James K. Coyne. Lingering concerns over operational control, the increasingly complicated standards for using simulator training centers, Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operational Performance Standards, and the likelihood of mandatory Safety Management Systems, are just some of the critical topics that Ballough and Pratte are expected to explore. The 2008 NATA Air Charter Summit will be held on June 9-11 in suburban Washington, D.C. at the Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles Hotel in Chantilly, VA. Registration and program details are available at http://www.nata.aero/acs.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE EPA Proposes Aircraft Drinking Water Regulation

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aircraft passengers and crews will be able to drink safer water under new regulations proposed last week. The proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR) will tailor existing health-based drinking water regulations to fit the unique characteristics of aircraft public water systems. Although preliminary review of the rule indicates that NATA Airline Services Council (ASC) members will not be impacted, follow-on rulemaking by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be imposed on airport- (vs.

aircraft-) based watering systems. Air charter operators are not likely to meet the EPA definition of a "public water system" and should not be impacted by the rules. The goal of the proposed ADWR is to protect drinking water through monitoring, disinfection, and public notification. The approach will build on existing aircraft operations and maintenance programs and better coordinate federal programs that regulate aircraft water systems. The proposed ADWR applies to an aircraft's onboard water system only. The FDA is responsible for regulating the airport watering points that include the water cabinets, carts, trucks, and hoses from which aircraft board water. The EPA and the states are responsible for regulating public water systems that supply drinking water to the airport watering points. While the proposed rule only addresses aircraft within U.S. jurisdiction, the EPA is also supporting an international effort led by the World Health Organization to develop international guidelines for aircraft drinking water. The proposed ADWR can be viewed in its entirety at; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-7035.pdf. Read more information about aircraft drinking water; http://www.epa.gov/airlinewater/regs.html. House Member Blasts FAA/DEA on Charter Quest Activity

Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) blasted federal officials last week over recent actions taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to seize a constituent's aircraft. Real estate developer Mike Collier, a constituent of Congressman Westmoreland who owns a Beechcraft King Air B200, had his aircraft seized by the FAA and DEA via Operation Charter Quest, a multi-agency task force that investigates the illegal use of charter and business aircraft. The charges filed against Collier were ultimately dropped but not before the developer lost nearly $75 million in real estate development business. Westmoreland is now pursuing efforts to have the Department of Transportation's Inspector General review the matter and is also considering asking for a congressional hearing. For more information on this story, please contact Eric R. Byer, [email protected].


Customs Updates Guide For Private Flyers

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agency has revised the popular publication Guide for Private Flyers. The publication is available in an easier-to-use electronic format and includes detailed information on CBP requirements for private aircraft entering and leaving the country. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Guide for Private Flyers: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/private_flyers/private_flyers_guide.ctt/private_flyers_guide.pdf

Think FAA ETOPS Rules Don't Apply To You? Think Again.

Many Part 135 operators are unaware that regulations restricting long-range operations affect any air carrier conducting flights to Alaska, Hawaii, Canada and Mexico. The 2008 NATA Air Charter Summit will give you the information you need to stay ahead of the Extended Operations (ETOPS) regulations. New FAA ETOPS regulations restrict the ability for Part 135 operators to conduct long-range flights. These rules set numerous standards for aircraft that will be operated more than 180 minutes from an adequate airport. Although most charter operators won’t be required to comply with the new ETOPS rules, the FAA will require each operator flying outside the continental United States to be able to prove that his or her operations remain within the 180-minute limit. Before August 13, 2008, each Part 135 operator who conducts flights outside the 48 contiguous United States should have conducted the analysis necessary to determine that his or her aircraft will remain within the 180-minute limit.

During the 2008 NATA Air Charter Summit, industry leaders will give you the tools and information necessary to keep you in compliance with the regulations. Join us on Tuesday, June 10, for the session "ETOPS: Are You Prepared to Meet the New Regulation?" and make sure you won't be the subject of enforcement. For a complete agenda and to register for the NATA Air Charter Summit on June 9-11, 2008, visit www.nata.aero/acs.

FAA GA and Part 135 Activity Survey Underway

The 2007 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey (GA Survey) is now underway! The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) annual GA Survey is the only source

for important information on the general aviation fleet, the number of hours flown, and the reasons people use general aviation aircraft. NATA has supported this effort for several years and worked with the FAA to improve the survey. Operators are strongly encouraged to participate by completing any request for data received as part of the GA Survey. Data collected by this survey will help to determine funding for infrastructure and service needs and form the basis for critical research and analysis of general aviation issues. The GA Survey will also be used to prepare safety statistics and, under a recent FAA safety initiative, calculate the rate of accidents among general aviation aircraft. The entire general aviation community benefits from high quality information on the number and activity of general aviation aircraft. But to obtain an accurate picture of the general aviation fleet, full participation from all aircraft owners in the survey sample is essential. As a significant and unique part of the aviation population, a focused effort is being made by the FAA to improve the data quality for high-end, high-use aircraft. As a result, 100% of Part 135 and turbine aircraft are being selected to participate in the 2007 GA Survey. To reduce the reporting burden for multiple-aircraft owners/operators, a specialized version of the survey has been developed that allows activity to be reported for an entire fleet on a single shortened form, instead of completing a longer questionnaire for each aircraft. The GA Survey has been conducted annually since 1999 by PA Consulting Group, an independent research firm. Using an independent firm ensures that individual information is not reported to the FAA – all responses are completely confidential and used for statistical tabulation only. All data are reported in aggregate and free of any information (aircraft, personal, etc.) that would allow answers to be traced back to an individual or company. PA Consulting Group maintains a unique identifier for the sole purpose of keeping track of who has completed the survey. If you receive a postcard or letter inviting you to take part in this important study, NATA strongly encourages you to take this opportunity to contribute to quality data on general aviation. Sponsoring a Congressional Tour

What's at Issue NATA encourages its members to host a Congressional tour of their facilities.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/private_flyers/private_flyers_guide.ctt/private_flyers_guide.pdf


FAA Reauthorization continues this year! In an effort to enable America's aviation businesses and airline services providers to communicate directly with their Members of Congress, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) encourages its members to host a Congressional tour of their facilities. These tours will be used to inform key Congressional leaders on the principal issues confronting our national air transportation system. While Congress continues to consider the latest FAA reauthorization legislation, a tour of your facility will be instrumental in educating your Senators and Representatives regarding the important role aviation businesses like yours play in the nation’s air transportation system. This one-on-one interaction will give Members of Congress and their staff a better understanding of the value of America’s aviation businesses and airline services companies. In addition, NATA members can introduce their business to new and prospective Members of Congress, and forge stronger relationships with existing Members. To implement this program at your facility, it is best to schedule a tour when Congress is not in session. Listed below are the tentative dates that Congress will be in recess the rest of this year. Additionally, Congress is usually often not in session on Mondays and Fridays during the week, so tours could also be arranged on those days. We have drafted sample letters you can use to invite your Member of Congress for a tour and made them available on the NATA Web site: Please use one of the links above to access the appropriate letter and proceed in the following manner: 1. Select a date, time and place. While you will only put one date and time option in the letter, please remember that you will need to be flexible if the Member of Congress is going to agree. We suggest that you select a time between the following dates, as Congress will be in recess and Members will be home in their districts and states: 2008 Updated Congressional Schedule: (House and Senate) March 17-30 – Easter Recess (House & Senate) May 23-June 2 – Memorial Day Recess (House) May 26-June 1 – Memorial Day Recess (Senate) June 30-July 7 – Independence Day Recess (House & Senate) August 11-September 7 – August Recess September 26 — Target Adjournment

2. Print the draft letter on your letterhead, filling in the date, time and place. Also, we encourage you to add a few sentences to personalize the form letter to address specific concerns related to your company and/or airport. An electronic copy of this letter, in Microsoft Word format, is available to NATA members on our Web site. You can locate the contact information for your Senator or Representative on the Internet at either www.house.gov or www.senate.gov. Feel free to share a draft of the letter with NATA before sending it out. 3. When sending out the letter, be sure to send both a hard copy of the letter as well as a fax copy. You can also visit your Senator’s or Representative’s Web page for an email address. To make sure the letter reaches the proper assistant, it is best to send your letter to both the official’s Washington, DC office and the nearest local office. 4. Please provide a copy of your letter to Kristen Moore, NATA’s Legislative Affairs Director. Upon receiving a copy of the letter, NATA will call the scheduler for your Member of Congress to ensure that the letter was received and properly routed. This will also enable NATA to gauge the interest of the office and begin the negotiation process. Following this contact, NATA may call you to discuss what steps need to be taken to ensure that your Member of Congress accepts your invitation. 5. After your Member of Congress accepts the invitation, NATA will work with you regarding the actual tour, specific points you will want to make with your Member of Congress, background information on your Member of Congress, the status of current aviation issues, and other issues that may arise. NATA can provide you with applicable fact sheets, white papers and informational handouts to enhance the exchange of information with your Member of Congress. Thank you in advance for your time in sponsoring a Congressional tour. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Kristen Moore at (800) 808-6282 or by email at [email protected]. Staff Contact: Kristen Moore Director, Legislative Affairs NATA

http://www.senate.gov


NATA & ARSA Team Up On Airworthiness Release Concerns

NATA and the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) wrote to the FAA asking the agency to correct misinterpretations of the airworthiness release and aircraft log book entry required by 135.443. The associations are concerned that some FAA guidance documents state that a Part 154 repair station may not issue an airworthiness release or log entry approving the work on aircraft for return to service. NATA and ARSA provided the FAA with alternative guidance language that ensures the intent of the regulations is followed by both repair stations and operators. The FAA has not yet responded to the letter, but NATA will update the membership if the agency takes action.

More Detailed Taxi Instructions Improve Runway Safety

May 19 — Air traffic controllers are now giving more detailed directions to pilots and airport vehicle operators to improve runway safety by reducing mistakes. Starting May 19, controllers must tell pilots and airport vehicle operators the specific route an aircraft or vehicle should follow across the airfield, instead of simply giving them an intended destination point. The new mandatory detailed instructions require controllers to name the specific taxiways the aircraft or vehicle should use at each step along its route. FAA safety officials developed the new procedure to help eliminate pilot or driver confusion about which route to follow on the airport surface. The more detailed instructions are designed to reduce runway incursions caused by controller, pilot or vehicle driver mistakes. Safety Risk Management experts from the FAA's Flight Standards, Air Traffic, Airports and human factors offices evaluated the new procedure, along with pilot associations. Using a safety management system process to identify possible risks, the panel looked at taxi instructions already in use at several facilities. The group also analyzed several risk factors, such as longer periods of communication between controllers and pilots, and the increased chance of miscommunication. They concluded that the new procedure was safe.

The FAA's Runway Safety Call to Action committee identified the new taxi instructions as one of several procedural changes that could significantly improve runway safety. The Safety Risk Management panel is also reviewing recommendations for changes in takoff and landing clearance procedures.

FAA Notice Worrisome for Operators Using Simulator Training

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requiring inspectors to conduct a special emphasis review of training centers used by air charter operators and fractional program managers. The FAA believes that some operators' procedures and practices for ensuring that their approved training program is being properly followed by the training center are insufficient. Notice 8900.37 requires inspectors to verify that air carriers have complied with twelve separate actions designed to ensure operators are asserting proper control over training provided by simulator training centers. Most concerning to NATA, operators and training centers are requirements for operators to ensure that contract flight instructors and contract check airmen are in compliance with line observation requirements and requirements for operators to ensure that instructors and check airmen have received training in the operator's training program and procedures. Inspectors are required to complete the special emphasis review before the end of July 2008. All Part 135 operators and fractional program managers should review the Notice as soon as possible to determine what actions may need to be taken. Download FAA Notice 8900.37: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/notices/n8900_37.pdf. Santa Monica Airport

In March, the City of Santa Monica, CA, adopted a new ordinance prohibiting certain aircraft from operating at Santa Monica Airport (SMO). In response to these actions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an "Order to Show Cause" mandating the city to explain how the ordinance did not violate existing federal grant assurances between the City of Santa Monica and the FAA.


In April, the FAA requested that the city delay enactment of the ban during the formal review process currently under way. (A Part 16 Notice of Investigation to evaluate the city's actions was previously initiated.) The City has responded that it believes it is justified in issuing the ordinance and intends to stand firm on its ban prohibiting the operation of Category C and D aircraft beginning April 24th. The FAA followed through on its warning and issued a Cease and Desist Order demanding that the City of Santa Monica refrain from enforcing the ordinance until its legality is determined. While legal actions between both the FAA and the City of Santa Monica are ongoing, NATA is encouraging its members to use caution when operating into and out of SMO. The City seems intent on taking action against any aircraft operating in violation of the ordinance and has not yet issued a written statement that the ordinance will not be enforced. NATA is steadfastly opposed to the City of Santa Monica's actions, and supports the continuing efforts of the FAA. The FAA has put the City on notice that it intends to pursue all legal remedies to prevent enforcement of the ordinance. However until the City of Santa Monica affirms that it will not enforce the ordinance, NATA strongly recommends that operators of aircraft covered by the ordinance use other airports. The association will closely monitor this situation and update members as events unfold. For further information, please contact Eric Byer, [email protected] or Jacque Rosser, [email protected].

TSA Announces St. Paul Downtown Airport / Holman Field (STP) as New DCA Gateway

Last week, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) named St. Paul Downtown Airport / Holman Field (STP) in St. Paul, MN, the latest gateway airport allowing charter and general aviation operations into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). St. Paul Downtown Airport / Holman Field is now the 20th DCA gateway airport. The other 19 airports include Hanscom Field; Port Columbus; Dulles International; Bradley International; Dallas/Love Field; Memphis, TN; Milwaukee’s General Mitchell; Seattle-Tacoma; Boston Logan; Houston Hobby; White Plains, NY; LaGuardia, NY; Chicago Midway;

Minneapolis/St.Paul; West Palm Beach, FL; San Francisco; Teterboro, NJ; Philadelphia; and Lexington, KY. FAA NEWS For Immediate Release May 22, 2008 Contact: Paul Takemoto Phone: (202) 267-3883 Summer Delays 2008

Background Reducing delays is one of the biggest challenges facing the FAA. Commercial airline passenger delays in the U.S. amount to approximately $10 billion in delay costs each year. In 2007, 765 million people flew in the U.S. That number is expected to increase to one billion by 2016. Bad weather causes 70 percent of all delays. The situation is worse during the summer: unlike winter storms, which take time to develop and move slowly, summer storms can form quickly, stretch for hundreds of miles and travel rapidly over large portions of the country, grounding flights and sending chain reaction delays throughout the nation’s airspace system. In 1998 the FAA began Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), which represented a sea-change in how the FAA communicates with the airlines in order to reduce delays. Prior to CDM, airlines were hesitant to share certain information for competitive reasons. Airlines now share schedule information with the FAA’s Command Center in Herndon, VA, including flight delays, cancellations and newly created flights. The Command Center uses this information to monitor airport arrival demand and take steps to reduce delays caused by heavy traffic and severe weather. Telecoms are held every two hours throughout the day between FAA air traffic managers and representatives from the aviation community, including the airlines and general aviation, to discuss problems affecting capacity in the system and decide the most efficient way to handle them. What’s New for 2008? Western Atlantic RouteSystem This initiative will increase capacity along the East Coast over the Atlantic this summer by reducing lateral separation from 90 miles to 50 miles for aircraft with avionics that provide an appropriate level of accuracy. The area includes parts of


Miami and New York high altitude airspace, as well as the San Juan Center Radar Approach Control airspace. In the past, lateral separation in oceanic airspace has been set at 90 miles between aircraft to maintain safe separation. This initiative takes advantage of more precise aircraft position technology to allow for more Atlantic routes, 20 more transition route fixes and ultimately more access to the available airspace. The FAA began using the new procedures on April 1, 2008 and they are scheduled to be fully operational on June 5, 2008. New Playbook Routes New playbook routes will be in place this summer to provide alternate route options during periods of severe weather. Playbook routes are pre-coordinated routes that are developed to route aircraft around convective weather. Nineteen new playbook routes will be available, including four Virginia Capes Area (VACAPES) routes designed for use in military airspace when it is available. Integrated Collaborative Rerouting Tool This is a new automated tool that depicts constrained airspace to airlines and other users of the nation’s airspace system. The tool is valuable because it allows pilots to provide early intent of their preferred routing around constrained areas like storms. This alleviates the need for the FAA to implement required reroutes, which may be less favorable to the users. It gives the airlines scheduling options and a more efficient utilization of the available airspace. Adaptive Airspace Flow Programs (AFPs) This program was implemented as an enhancement to the Airspace Flow Program that was deployed in June 2006 that enabled the FAA to adjust to changing weather patterns, which is crucial during the summer convective weather season when storms grow rapidly and move across large swaths of the country. This summer, the FAA can adjust the parameters of an AFP based on changing weather intensity, providing a more effective way to manage traffic during severe summer storms that will minimize delays. Using AFPs, the FAA is able to target only those flights that are expected to encounter severe weather. The targeted flights are issued an Expect Departure Clearance Time (EDCT), giving the airlines the option to accept a delayed, but predictable departure time, to take a longer route to fly around the weather or to make alternate plans. Those using the EDCT will be safely metered through the constrained airspace.

Last summer — the period from May 2 through August 30, 2007 — a total of 58 AFPs were used, saving approximately $68 million for the airlines. Before the FAA developed the technology to implement AFPs, the FAA’s primary tool to manage delays was to use ground delay programs to prevent aircraft from taking off if they were headed for a delayed airport from any direction. Ground delay programs remain valuable under appropriate circumstances, but sometimes have the unintended consequence of delaying flights that would otherwise not encounter severe weather. AFPs, which focus on particular areas in the sky where severe weather is expected, generally are a more equitable and efficient way of handling flights during severe weather. Adaptive Compression This program, launched in March 2007, automatically identifies unused arrival slots at airports affected by AFP or ground delays and moves other flights into those slots. This means that maximum arrival rates will be maintained, easing congestion and delays. Adaptive Compression saved $27 million for the airlines and 1.1 million delay minutes for the airlines and the flying public in its first year of operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release May 22, 2008 Contact: Arlene Salac or Jim Peters Phone: (718) 553-3015

Dual J80 Route

On May 15, 2008, the Dual J80 Route, a new route alternative for flights from New York and Philadelphia metro areas, became operational. This route parallels the existing J80 route for departures to the west. It provides additional departure capability for west-bound traffic that alleviates constraints associated with airport departure flows that compete for room on the existing J80 route. The new route mirrors the existing J80 route to the north and extends through five air route traffic control centers — New York Center, Cleveland Center, Indianapolis Center, Chicago Center and Kansas City Center. Since FAA Air Traffic began using the new route, more flights are being shifted to the alternative. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of eligible aircraft used it the first day.


The route was placed in a location where it could best serve to alleviate constraints in the air traffic control system. It provides easy access for New York and Philadelphia departing traffic, which reduces departure delays for New York and Philadelphia airports. The route runs through airspace that is often constrained. That can be due to the number of aircraft in a particular sector (traffic volume and controller workload issues) or the number of aircraft on the three other available westbound routes. In order to address these constraints, a new airspace sector was implemented in conjunction with the new route at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center on Long Island. Additionally, the route location had to take into account existing traffic flows and routes in order to ensure that controller workload remained manageable when accommodating aircraft on the new route. The new route, eight miles wide, is approximately 735 miles. Once aircraft reach the western end of the new route at Kirksville, Missouri, aircraft will be either directed to the existing J80 route where air traffic demand is typically reduced, or the flight will proceed on its preferred routing. The following are the geographical references for the new DUAL J80 Route that are noted on the graphical representation that accompanies this fact sheet: MAALS - 15 miles west northwest of Lancaster, PA BRNAN - 30 miles southeast of Altoona, PA PSYKO - 20 miles southwest of Johnstown, PA BUBAA - 12 miles northwest of Bellaire, OH HIDON - 18 miles northeast of Zanesville, OH MIE - Muncie, IN DNV - Danville, IL IRK - Kirksville, MO The heavy lines represent individual air route center boundary lines. The route begins at New York Center and runs through Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago and Kansas City Centers. The fainter lines are sector boundary lines within each center. And the checkered areas represent Special Use Airspace delegated to the Department of Defense for military exercises. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release May 19, 2008 Contact: Marcia Adams Phone: (202) 267-3488 Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) Background

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. At most commercial airports the RSA is 500 feet wide and extends 1000 feet beyond each end of the runway. The FAA has this requirement in the event that an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or veers off the side of the runway. The most dangerous of these incidents are overruns, but since many airports were built before the 1000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, the area beyond the end of the runway is where many airports cannot achieve the full standard RSA. This is due to obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain. The FAA has a high-priority program to enhance safety by upgrading the RSAs at commercial airports and provide federal funding to support those upgrades. However, it still may not be practical for some airports to achieve the standard RSA. The FAA, knowing that it would be difficult to achieve a standard RSA at every airport, began conducting research in the 1990s to determine how to ensure maximum safety at airports where the full RSA cannot be obtained. Working in concert with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) of Logan Township, NJ, a new technology emerged to provide an added measure of safety. An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) uses materials of closely controlled strength and density placed at the end of a runway to stop or greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The best material found to date is a lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft rolls into an EMAS arrestor bed, the tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the material. Benefits of the EMAS Technology The EMAS technology provides safety benefits in cases where land is not available, where it would be very expensive for the airport sponsor to buy the land off the end of the runway, or where it is otherwise not possible to have the standard 1,000-foot overrun. A standard EMAS installation extends 600 feet from the end of the runway. An EMAS arrestor bed can still be installed to help slow or stop an aircraft that overruns the runway, even if less than 600 feet of land is available. Current FAA Initiatives The Office of Airports prepared an RSA improvement plan for the runways at approximately 575 commercial airports in 2005. This plan allows the agency to track the progress and to


direct federal funds for making all practicable improvements, including the use of EMAS technology. Presently, the EMAS system developed by ESCO using crushable concrete is the only system that meets the FAA standard. However, FAA is conducting research through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (project number 07-03) that will examine alternatives to the existing approved system. The results of this effort are expected in 2009. More information on the project can be found at the Transportation Research Board web site at http://www.trb.org/CRP/ACRP/ACRP.asp. Many of the EMAS beds installed prior to 2006 need periodic re-painting to maintain the integrity and functionality of the bed. FAA is working with ESCO to develop a retrofit of the older beds with plastic lids that are used on newer installations. This lid should eliminate the need for the periodic re-painting. EMAS Arrestments To date, there have been four incidents where the technology has worked successfully to arrest aircraft which overrun the runway and in several cases has prevented injury to passengers and damage to the aircraft. May 1999: A Saab 340 commuter aircraft overran the runway at JFK May 2003: Gemini Cargo MD-11 overran the runway at JFK January 2005: A Boeing 747 overran the runway at JFK July 2006: Mystere Falcon 900 airplane overran the runway at the Greenville Downtown Airport in South Carolina EMAS Installations Currently, EMAS is installed at 30 runway ends at 21 airports in the United Stated, with plans to install 18 EMAS systems at 12 additional U.S. airports.

Airport Location No. of Systems Installation Date

JFK International Jamaica, NY 2 1996/2007

Minneapolis St. Paul Minneapolis, MN 1 1999

Little Rock Little Rock, AR 2 2000/2003

Rochester International Rochester, NY 1 2001

Burbank Burbank, CA 1 2002

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Baton Rouge, LA 1 2002

Greater Binghamton Binghamton, NY 2 2002

Greenville Downtown Greensville, SC 1 2003*

Barnstable Municipal Hyannis, MA 1 2003

Roanoke Regional Roanoke, VA 1 2004

Fort Lauderdale International Fort Lauderdale, FL 2 2004

Dutchess County Poughkeepsie, NY 1 2004


Airport Location No. of Systems Installation Date

LaGuardia Flushing, NY 2 2005

Boston Logan Boston, MA 2 2005/2006

Laredo International Laredo, TX 1 2006

San Diego International San Diego, CA 1 2006

Teterboro Teterboro , NJ 1 2006

Chicago Midway Chicago, IL 4 2006/2007

Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Cordova, AK 1 2007

Charleston Yeager Charleston , WV 1 2007

Manchester Manchester, NH 1 2007

• General aviation airport

Additional Projects Currently Under Contract

Location No. of Systems

Expected Installation Date

Wilkes-Barre Scranton, PA 1 Spring 2008

Chicago O’Hare 2 Spring 2008

Newark Liberty, NJ 1 Spring 2008

San Luis Obispo , CA 2 Spring 2008

Charlotte, NC 1 Summer 2008

Worcester, MA 1 Summer 2008

Minneapolis St. Paul, MN

2 Fall 2008

Key West, FL 1 2009


Location No. of Systems

Expected Installation Date

Winston-Salem, NC 1 2009

Lafayette , LA 2 TBD

Telluride, CO 2 TBD

Groton-New London, CT

2 TBD

INCIDENT ROUNDUP A Boeing 757’s left wing panel came off the aircraft, striking and cracking a cabin window while flying at 27,000 feet. A Challenger CL-60 departed VFR and then entered a downwind squawking 7700. The aircraft turned base, landed and as it rolled past the tower, they noticed the main cabin door was missing. A Cessna Citation 10 had nose gear failure on rollout and went off the runway. Damage to the aircraft was substantial. An Embraer E170 aircraft’s left wingtip struck the right wingtip of an Airbus 319 aircraft while both were taxiing for the departure end of the runway. No injuries were reported. A Cessna 560XL’s nose gear collapsed on landing. Weather was no factor but the aircraft had substantial damage.

ENCOURAGE YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO REQUEST A GAO REPORT ON

STANDARDIZATION OF FAA REGULATIONS

April 22, 2008

What’s at Issue One of the biggest burdens confronting the general aviation industry is the varying interpretation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations by the agency’s Regional, Aircraft Certification (ACOs) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs). Currently, there are 9 FAA regions, 10 ACOs and more than 80 FSDOs that each issue approvals on a wide range of maintenance and operational requests made by regulated entities. These regulated entities include Part 135 ondemand charter operators, Part 145 repair stations, and Part 161 and 41 flight training facilities.

Why it’s Important Affected regulated entities continue to be challenged by regulatory interpretations that regularly vary from one inspector within one FSDO or ACO, to another. These varying interpretations of how to achieve or demonstrate compliance with FAA regulations (FARs) are estimated to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved actions are subject to “reinterpretation.”

For example, a Part 135 ondemand air charter operator contacted NATA stating that he had to spend approximately $25,000 to secure FAA approval to move an aircraft on his air carrier certificate from one FAA region to another. First, the operator demonstrated compliance with FAA officials from the region where the aircraft was based. The operator then had to work with FAA officials in the region to where the aircraft was being moved as its new base location. The new FAA office would not accept the determination of compliance from the original FAA office and insisted that the operator again demonstrate that the aircraft was in compliance with the FARs. The aircraft was out of service and unavailable for customer use for more than five weeks, at a cost of more than $200,000 in lost revenue to the operator.

As another example, an NATA member Part 145 repair station was informed by the FAA that the region with responsibility for oversight of the repair station would be changing. The NATA member company endured a lengthy, costly process as the new region with jurisdiction decided to reapprove the repair station’s manual, used to prescribe performance of maintenance functions, and identified more than 75 “deficiencies.” The manual had been deemed to be fully compliant with all FAR requirements and approved by the first FAA region, but the new region insisted that revisions be made according to its interpretation of the regulations. This drawn out process cost the repair station countless hours of employee time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue while the repair station implemented the new region’s revisions.

Inconsistent and varying interpretations of FAA regulations are not only costly for the industry, they also demonstrate a shortcoming in the FAA’s ability to coordinate its workforce and ensure that the decisionmaking abilities vested in inspectors are respected across all divisions of the agency, impairing efforts to achieve a uniform safety standard nationwide.

OVER…

What to do To eliminate the unnecessary and costly regulatory reinterpretation process that currently exists between FAA field offices, NATA recommends the following action:

• Encourage Members of Congress to send a written request to the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a thorough review of how inconsistent regulatory interpretations are costing the FAA and the aviation industry hundreds of millions of dollars in resources and raising serious concerns about unified safety standards. NATA has made available a sample form letter that may be downloaded and used to contact your Member of Congress.

NATA Position NATA believes that it is vital that this issue be addressed and, most importantly, would like to see NATA members educate their Members of Congress about how this issue is affecting aviation businesses in their districts.

Staff Contact: Kristen Moore Director, Legislative Affairs [email protected]

http://www.nata.aero/filedownload?databaseName=NATA&tableName=DOCUMENTS&columnName=DOCUMENT_FILE&referenceTableName=DOCUMENT_FILE_META&keyName=DOCUMENT_ID&rowId=4035

mailto:[email protected]


NTSB NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 16, 2008 SB-08-14 NTSB RELEASES 2007 AVIATION ACCIDENT STATISTICS

Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board today released preliminary aviation accident statistics for 2007. "The U.S. aviation industry has produced an admirable safety record in recent years," said NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "However, we must not become complacent. We must continue to take the lessons learned from our investigations and use them to create even safer skies for all aircraft operators and their passengers." The Safety Board's aviation accident statistics show that in 2007, there were 24 nonfatal accidents involving Part 121 airlines (aircraft with 10 or more seats). One fatality occurred involving a nonscheduled Part 121 aircraft when a mechanic was fatally injured while working on a Boeing 737 in Tunica, Mississippi. No fatalities occurred among Part 135 commuter operators (fewer than 10 seats). However, on-demand (charters, air taxis, air tours and medical services when a patient is on board) Part 135 operations reported 43 fatalities (62 accidents, 14 fatal accidents), up from the 16 fatalities that occurred in 2006. While the overall number of general aviation accidents rose from 1,518 in 2006 to 1,631 in 2007, the number of fatalities in 2007 was down from 703 to 491 (a 30 percent decrease), making it the lowest annual total in more than 40 years. Foreign registered aircraft accounted for 11 accidents in the U.S. in 2007, with 3 fatalities from a single fatal accident. Of the 14 accidents involving unregistered aircraft, 6 were fatal and resulted in 7 fatalities. The 2007 statistical tables are found at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm. NTSB Media Contact: Bridget Ann Serchak (202) 314-6100 [email protected] NTSB Recommends Transponders for Gliders In response to a midair collision between a glider and a Hawker business jet, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) eliminate exemptions from transponder requirements for gliders. The accident collision occurred at 16,000 feet MSL and resulted in significant damage to both aircraft. The glider was equipped with a transponder, but the pilot had turned it off to reserve battery power for radio communications. As a result, the Hawker's TCAS equipment and the local ATC facility were not able to properly detect the glider. The NTSB cited the limitations of current 'see-and-avoid' practices when aircraft are at high altitudes, especially when combined with the higher aircraft speeds typically found in operations at those altitudes as a concern supporting the need for mandatory installation of transponders in gliders. Additionally, the NTSB recommended the FAA establish of a national transponder code for gliders and publish guidance on feasible transponder installation options. In related recommendations to the Soaring Society of America, the NTSB called upon the group to use this accident as an educational tool to emphasize the importance of transponders and to work with local ATC facilities.

Sin

gle

-Pil

ot

Pro

ced

ure

s D

uri

ng

Taxi

Op

era

tio

ns

at

No

n-T

ow

ere

d A

irp

ort

s

Sto

p!

RE

AD

BE

FO

RE

TA

XI

Co

nd

uc

t P

re-T

ax

i P

lan

nin

g

•S

tud

y a

irp

ort

dia

gra

m B

EF

OR

E t

ax

i

•Id

en

tify

in

ters

ec

tio

ns

an

d c

ros

sin

g

run

wa

ys

•P

lan

tim

ing

of

ch

ec

klis

ts

•L

iste

n t

o a

nd

co

py A

SO

S/A

WO

S

Mo

nit

or

Air

po

rt A

cti

vit

y

•G

et

an

air

po

rt a

dvis

ory

if

av

ail

ab

le

•M

on

ito

r th

e C

TA

F

•W

atc

h f

or

no

n-r

ad

io t

raff

ic

•U

se

GP

S t

axi

map

if

ava

ila

ble

Main

tain

Sit

uati

on

al

Aw

are

ness

•K

no

w w

here

yo

u a

re a

nd

wh

ere

yo

u a

re g

oin

g

•M

on

ito

r C

TA

F a

nd

watc

h t

axiw

ays,

run

wa

ys

an

d t

he p

att

ern

fo

r o

ther

air

cra

ft

•L

oo

k T

WIC

E i

n a

ll d

irecti

on

s b

efo

re c

rossin

g

inte

rsecti

on

s o

r en

teri

ng

th

e r

un

wa

y

•H

old

sh

ort

un

til

read

y t

o t

ak

e o

ff.

Do

no

t u

se

“p

osit

ion

an

d h

old

” a

t n

on

tow

ere

dair

po

rts

•U

se e

xtr

a c

au

tio

n a

t n

igh

t o

r in

po

or

vis

ibilit

y

•B

e e

xtr

em

ely

cau

tio

us t

axii

ng

on

a r

un

wa

y

Man

ag

e C

ockp

it C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

s

•B

rief

the “

ste

rile

co

ckp

it r

ule

” w

ith

yo

ur

passen

gers

or

use i

nte

rco

m i

so

lati

on

sw

itch

•P

rog

ram

GP

S,

tun

e r

ad

ios a

nd

ru

n

ch

eckli

sts

on

ly w

hen

at

a c

om

ple

te s

top

Rem

ain

in

th

e C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

s L

oo

p

•M

ain

tain

a “

ste

rile

co

ckp

it” w

ith

eye

s

ou

tsid

e t

he a

irp

lan

e

•U

se s

tan

dard

AT

C p

hra

seo

log

y a

nd

rep

ort

s

•U

se s

igh

t, n

ot

the r

ad

io,

as y

ou

r p

rim

ary

traff

ic d

ete

cto

r

•W

atc

h f

or

pil

ots

fly

ing

no

nsta

nd

ard

patt

ern

s

•R

em

em

ber

YO

U a

re p

ilo

t-in

-co

mm

an

d!

©2008 Mastery Flight Training, Inc.

www.thomaspturner.net

Sin

gle

-Pil

ot

Pro

ced

ure

s D

uri

ng

Taxi

Op

era

tio

ns

at

To

wer-

Co

ntr

oll

ed

Air

po

rts

ST

OP

!

RE

AD

BE

FO

RE

TA

XI

Co

nd

uc

t P

re-T

ax

i P

lan

nin

g

•S

tud

y a

irp

ort

dia

gra

m B

EF

OR

E t

ax

i

•Id

en

tify

co

mp

lex

in

ters

ec

tio

ns

•P

lan

tim

ing

of

ch

ec

klis

ts

•L

iste

n t

o a

nd

co

py A

TIS

Wri

te D

ow

n T

ax

i In

str

uc

tio

ns

•W

rite

do

wn

tax

i in

str

uc

tio

ns

•R

eq

ue

st

PR

OG

RE

SS

IVE

TA

XI

if

yo

u’r

e n

ot

fam

ilia

r w

ith

th

e r

ou

te

•U

se

GP

S t

axi

map

if

ava

ila

ble

Main

tain

Sit

uati

on

al

Aw

are

ness

•K

no

w w

here

yo

u a

re a

nd

wh

ere

yo

u a

re g

oin

g

•M

on

ito

r A

TC

in

str

ucti

on

s t

o o

ther

air

cra

ft

•L

oo

k T

WIC

E b

efo

re c

rossin

g in

ters

ecti

on

s

•B

e v

igil

an

t w

ith

“p

osit

ion

an

d h

old

” c

leara

nce

•U

se e

xtr

a c

au

tio

n a

t n

igh

t o

r in

po

or

vis

ibilit

y

•B

e e

xtr

em

ely

cau

tio

us t

axii

ng

on

a r

un

wa

y

•U

se c

au

tio

n e

xit

ing

a r

un

wa

y i

f it

in

ters

ects

an

oth

er

run

wa

y

Man

ag

e C

ockp

it C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

s

•B

rief

“ste

rile

co

ckp

it r

ule

” w

ith

yo

ur

passen

gers

or

use i

nte

rco

m i

so

lati

on

sw

itch

•R

ead

back a

ll c

leara

nce

s

•D

o n

ot

assu

me y

ou

think y

ou

kn

ow

yo

ur

cle

ara

nc

e--

qu

ery

if

yo

u h

av

e a

ny q

uesti

on

s

•P

rog

ram

GP

S,

tun

e r

ad

ios a

nd

ru

n

ch

eckli

sts

on

ly w

hen

at

a c

om

ple

te s

top

•Im

med

iate

ly s

top

an

d q

uery

AT

C i

f yo

u d

on

’t

kn

ow

wh

ere

yo

ur

are

or

wh

ere

yo

u’r

e c

leare

d

to g

o

Rem

ain

in

th

e C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

s L

oo

p

•M

ain

tain

a “

ste

rile

co

ckp

it” w

ith

eye

s

ou

tsid

e t

he a

irp

lan

e

•U

se s

tan

dard

AT

C p

hra

seo

log

y

•F

ocu

s o

n w

hat

AT

C i

s i

nstr

ucti

ng

yo

u a

nd

oth

er

air

pla

nes t

o d

o

•R

ead

back a

ll h

old

sh

ort

an

d c

rossin

g

instr

ucti

on

s

•A

lwa

ys

cla

rify

an

y q

uesti

on

s o

r co

nfu

sio

n

•R

em

em

ber

YO

U a

re p

ilo

t-in

-co

mm

an

d!

©2008 Mastery Flight Training, Inc.

www.thomaspturner.net

NATA Safety 1st Flitebag – Issue 12 – 2ndQuarter 2008 Page 22

NTSB Safety Recommendations: http://ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_10_13.pdf Soaring Society of America Recommendations: http://ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_14_15.pdf

Information for Operators (InFO)

Each issue of the NATA Safety 1st Flitebag includes a review of the latest InFOs. If you have not read previous issues, please review all InFOs by clicking here: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/.

An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulator or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety. InFOs contain information or a combination of information and recommended action to be taken by the respective operators identified in each individual InFO.

08023 (PDF) Suitability of the SR-20/22 Pitot-Static System for 14 CFR Part 135 IFR Passenger Carrying Operations

08022 (PDF) FAA Safety Management System (SMS) developments – No. 1

08021 (PDF) New guidance for sign-off by part 119 designated management personnel for Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) submissions

08020 (PDF) Pilot Records Improvement Act – bankruptcy and shutdown, or liquidation

08019 (PDF) 14 CFR Part 135 Extended Operations (ETOPS) Guidance

08018 (PDF) Compilation of FSAT 99-12 (PDF), FSAT 00-03 (PDF), FSAT 00-08 (PDF), FSAT 00-16A (PDF) and FSAT 01-04 (PDF)

08017 (PDF) Compilation of FSAT 94-06 (PDF), FSAT 94-08 (PDF), FSAT 95-01 (PDF), FSAT 95-13 (PDF), FSAT 95-20 (PDF), FSAT 99-12 (PDF), FSAT 96-06 (PDF) and FSAT 98-16 (PDF)

08016 (PDF) Flight Attendant Certificate of Demonstrated Proficiency: Information on the Web

08015 (PDF) Flight Crewmembers Exceeding Flight Time Limitations

08014 (PDF) Minimum Crew Requirements for Boarding and Presence of Federal Air Marshals

08013 (PDF) Change in Canadian ATC Taxi Phraseology - LINE UP/LINE UP AND WAIT

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08023.pdf













NATA Safety 1st Flitebag – Issue 12 – 2ndQuarter 2008 Page 23

Canadian Taxi Phraseology Changing

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is alerting all pilots to an upcoming change in standard taxi phraseology by Canadian Air Traffic Controllers in an Information for Operators (InFO) document. InFO 08013 explains that Canada will in the near future adopt standard ICAO-recommended phrases as noted below. In Canada, controllers currently use the phraseology “TAXI TO POSITION” or “TAXI TO POSITION AND WAIT” when instructing an aircraft to enter the departure runway. In the near future, NAV CANADA will implement the ICAO-recommended phraseology “LINE UP” or “LINE UP AND WAIT” when controllers instruct an aircraft to enter the runway intended for take off. This table can be used as a guide for the different phraseology operators may experience.

ICAO CANADA UNITED STATES (FAA)

TAXI VIA (taxiway routing) TO HOLDING POINT RUNWAY(number)

RUNWAY (number) TAXI VIA (taxiway routing)

TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA (taxiway routing)

LINE UP AND WAIT LINE UP AND WAIT (REASON) RUNWAY (number) POSITION AND HOLD

Operators are encouraged to obtain and review InFO 08013 and ensure that all flight crewmembers are alerted to this change. When in doubt over any clearance, pilots should request clarification.

Safety Alert for Operators (SAFOs) – Maintain Currency

Each issue of the NATA Safety 1st Flitebag includes a review of the latest SAFOs. If you have not read previous issues, please review all SAFOs by clicking here: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/. What is a SAFO? A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest.

08011 (PDF) Embraer EMB-ERJ-190 — Unintended Deployment of the Emergency Evacuation Escape Slide

08010 (PDF) Accomplishing safety-related functions in Part 135 operations


http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2008/SAFO08011.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2008/SAFO08010.pdf


NATA Safety 1st Rolls Out Online Airport Flight Crew Briefing for Teterboro Airport NATA Safety 1st, under a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has produced the first of its kind online flight crew briefing for the Teterboro Airport. The online training is intended for informational training purposes to prepare flight crews with the local knowledge required for safe operations at Teterboro Airport. Teterboro ranks among the top 20 busiest general aviation airports in the country, providing access to Northern New Jersey and the New York Metropolitan area. The complex airspace surrounding Teterboro and the high volume of traffic during peak hours, demands that flight crews be thoroughly familiar with the air traffic procedures for the area and the airport layout before arriving and departing. There have been 40 runway incursions over a five-year period at Teterboro Airport. The majority of these incursions resulted from pilot deviations, where the pilot or flight crew did not follow ATC instructions. One section in the briefing highlights the airport “hot” spots where the incursions have occurred, points out the visual cues in these areas and reviews some of the common errors made during taxi operations. Consequently, the Teterboro information provides one of the best starting places for an airport flight crew briefing and familiarity training. The Teterboro Airport Flight Crew Briefing takes approximately 20 minutes to complete, depending on the pilot’s familiarity with the Teterboro Airport. The informational training includes four main topic areas pertaining to safety, security, noise abatement and ATC procedures specific to Teterboro. The safety briefing consists of an airport safety overview, runway incursion hot spot review, surface area movement problems and recommended practices for Teterboro. The security section includes a Teterboro security program overview, identification requirements, escort procedures/ vehicle access procedures and overnight securing of aircraft requirements. The noise abatement briefing covers the Teterboro rules and regulations, noise abatement procedures, runway 19 noise abatement procedures and Teterboro Airport updates. And finally, the Air Traffic Control (ATC) segment covers an overview of ATC procedures, the Teterboro Five/Dalton departures, the VOR/DME-A approach procedure and VFR operations applicable to Teterboro. The Teterboro Airport Flight Crew Briefing may be viewed, free of charge, at http://www.airportflightcrewbriefing.com/Teterboro/. NATA’s Safety 1st will continue to develop more airport specific briefings throughout the year and will include such available briefings in this column from time to time. We encourage your thoughts and comments on this vital safety initiative and informational training by email at [email protected]. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), The Voice of Aviation Business, is committed to raising the standard on air safety and implemented additional guidance through NATA’s Safety 1st Management System (SMS) for Air Operators. The Flitebag provides continuing education in support of the SMS program.

Subscribe to the NATA Safety 1st Flitebag. If you are not currently a subscriber to NATA Safety 1st Flitebag and would like to receive it on a regular basis, please email [email protected]. The NATA Safety 1st Flitebag is distributed free of charge to NATA member companies and NATA Safety 1st participants.

CONFERENCE FEES—Please check the events for which you are registering.

EVENTS Member Non-Member

Air Charter Summit (Meals Included) $595_______ $795_______

President’s Golf Tournament (Limited attendance) $150_______ $150_______

Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center Tour $25________ $25________

TOTAL $_______ $_______

SPECIAL REQUEST

� Check here if you require special accommodations to fully participate. NATA will contact you directly.

REGISTRATION PAYMENT—Registration will not be processed without payment. Refund request must be sent in writing prior to May 26, 2008.An administrative fee of $50 will be charged to any cancellation on/before May 26th. No refunds will be made for cancellations postmarked after thatdate. Make checks payable to NATA.

Total Amount Due: $____________ � Check Enclosed Make checks payable to NATA Credit Card � VISA � MC � AMEX

CARD HOLDER (Please TYPE or PRINT name) ACCOUNT NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE SIGNATURE

Mail or Fax your registration form to:

NATA 4226 King Street, Alexandria,VA 22302 | Fax (703) 845-4909 | (800) 808-6282 | (703) 575-2050

June 9–11 | Westfields Marriott, VirginiaOnline registration is available at

www.nata.aero/acs

REGISTRATION—type or print clearly. (Name badge will reflect this information)

FIRST NAME/ LAST NAME

BADGE NAME

TITLE

COMPANY

STREET

CITY STATE ZIP

PHONE FACSIMILE

E-MAIL

DUPLICATE THIS FORM FOR ADDITIONAL REGISTRANTS

ATTENDEE PROFILEComplete this section in full.

COMPANY

Check ALL that apply

� Air Charter Broker

� Aircraft Management

� Consulting/Professional

Services

� Fractional Ownership

Program Management

� Part 135 Certificate Holder

� Other (Specify)

___________________

AIRCRAFT FLEET

If applicable, how many

aircraft of each type does your

business manage/operate?

Airplanes:

Jet____

Turboprop____

Piston____

Rotorcraft:

Turbine____

Piston____

NATA 2008 AIR CHARTER SUMMIT REGISTRATION

welcome to the 12th issue of the nata safety 1st flitebag, our

Documents