What’s at Issue
NATA’s concern with the progress of the Take-Off and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).
August 27, 2008
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service
Federal Aviation Administration (AFS-1)
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Re: Take-Off and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee
Dear Jim,
I am writing today to express NATA’s concern with the progress of the Take-Off and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).
In your comments to the ARC at our last meeting, you stressed that the purpose of the ARC is for the FAA and industry to come together to create an alternative solution to concerns about runway overruns. You also noted that the reason we have an ARC is that the original FAA proposal to impose an additional 15% margin was met with resistance and the agency made the decision to listen to and work with the industry to develop a better solution. However despite your comments to the group at the beginning of the meeting, we are increasingly concerned with the non-collaborative approach demonstrated by the FAA team. It has become quite worrisome to NATA that the FAA team appears to have entered into the ARC with a predisposition towards the 15 percent solution put forth in SAFO 06012. It seems that several FAA representatives believe that the solution they developed (as articulated in the SAFO) is the only acceptable intervention strategy. In retrospect, it may not have been ideal for the FAA to place the same landing performance team that developed the SAFO in a position where perhaps they feel a need to defend their prior work. There is little motivation on their part to embrace other potential solutions.
The message being received by industry participants is that the mission of the ARC is merely to justify and implement the SAFO. This is absolutely contrary to the process we have come to anticipate as a member of prior ARCs. Our industry approached this ARC, and advocated for its creation, because we found problems with the methodology contained in the SAFO. We believed that working with the FAA we would be afforded the opportunity to dispassionately analyze the available safety information, absent preconceived prejudices, so that we could then engage in a collaborative discussion to develop appropriate recommendations which consider safety, the unique operational environments common to our industry, public access needs, and a review of the overall costs versus benefits.
Although we are not a member of the 135/125/91K working group, as a member of the steering committee we have closely monitored their progress and believe the members have followed a course that is grounded in facts and that correctly balances the many issues that must be considered in order to develop a rulemaking package that will be effectively implemented without causing undue hardship on operators, airports, customers and the general public.
Unfortunately, despite extensive effort to satisfy the identified need, the proposals offered by the 135/125/91K work group (including a split system of safety margins based on additional training relevant to our section of the industry) have been summarily rejected by the FAA team. To us, it appears that in addition to dismissing any safety concept other than the 15% scheme, the FAA is also not willing to entertain an alternative method for enhancing safety for the 135/125/91K segment of the industry, despite the additional training or other factors the work group may propose. Mr. Jerry Ostronic, the FAA co-chair, specifically states in a recent email to all ARC members, “Very simply stated the FAA wants a landing distance assessment based on the realistic operational landing distance the manufacturer feels is appropriate for their aircraft for the conditions present and an added safety margin of 15% (unless something else can be justified).”
Such views and actions directly contradict the purpose of the ARC, and effectively make the work of the 135/125/91K work group irrelevant. If the FAA’s intent was to have industry rubber stamp SAFO 06012, what was the purpose of forming the ARC? If the FAA intends to dismiss the concept of individualized standards for 121 and 135/125/91K, what was the purpose of having two separate working groups at all?
As you know, NATA and its members are expending significant resources to participate on the ARC. This commitment was made with the understanding that all views would be heard and that industry would have the opportunity to help shape the regulations in this area. It is increasingly difficult to encourage our operators to continue their work on this ARC when the FAA team seems inflexible and steadfastly wedded to their solution despite numerous identified flaws in its development and potential implementation.
At this point, NATA believes that we must now definitively state that it is not our intention to be a rubber stamp empowered only to approve the SAFO so that its recommended actions may become regulation. As articulated in our other communications, both formal and informal, with the FAA we do not believe that the blanket application of a 15% additive is justifiable given the accident/incident information pertaining to Part 135 and 91K operations, nor do we believe that the agency is capable of adequately answering the numerous procedural questions raised by this policy (i.e., how operations at uncontrolled/unmanned airports would be conducted) that will unnecessarily restrict operations if the SAFO process is adopted unchanged.
At this time, we would appreciate your acknowledgement of our concerns and ask that you consider how you might intervene to ensure that the remarkable success of the ARC process continues and we are able to produce meaningful results endorsed by industry that will have a positive impact on safety.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Byer
Vice President, Government & Industry Affairs