Testimony – Before the Committee on Appropriations;Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies; Oversight Hearing concerning FAA Aviation Certification

/0 Comments/in /by

Chairman Price, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak with you about the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) certification process. The FAAs aircraft certification processes are well-established, thorough, and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs. Our aviation safety record in the United States bears this out; since 1997, the risk of a fatal commercial aviation accident in the United States has been cut by 94 percent. And in the past ten years, there has been one commercial airline passenger fatality in the United States in over 90 million flights. But one fatality is one too many, and a healthy safety culture requires commitment to continuous improvement.

The regulations and policies that guide our approach to aircraft certification have evolved over time in order to adapt to an ever-changing industry, and to ensure safety is always our first priority. Continuous improvement is an integral component of the FAAs safety culture and we are committed to learning from our experiences and using what weve learned to improve our process. With that as the basis for our approach to certification, I would like to outline for you the significant aspects of FAAs certification process and the recent initiatives that have been put in place to review our processes and procedures.

Aircraft Certification

Information sharing is a cornerstone of aviation safety and has significantly contributed to the United States outstanding safety record. One of the FAAs core functions, aircraft certification, has always relied on the exchange of information and technical data. The FAA certifies the design of aircraft and components that are used in civil aviation operations. Some version of our certification process has been in place and served us well for over 60 years. This does not mean the process has remained static. To the contrary, since 1964, the regulations covering certification processes have been under constant review. As a result, the general regulations have been modified over 90 times, and the rules applicable to large transport aircraft, like the Boeing 737 MAX, have been amended over 130 times. The regulations and our policies have evolved in order to adapt to an industry that uses global partnerships to develop new, more efficient, and safer aviation products and technologies. What has not changed is that, for any new project, the FAA identifies all safety standards and makes all key decisions regarding certification of the aircraft.

The use of delegation has been a vital part of our safety system, in one form or another, since the 1920s. Congress has continually expanded the designee program since creation of the FAA in 1958, and it is critical to the success and effectiveness of the certification process. Under this program, the FAA may delegate a matter related to aircraft certification to a qualified private person. During the past few years, Congress has endorsed FAAs delegation authority, including in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which directed the FAA to delegate more certification tasks to the designees we oversee.

Delegation is not self-certification; the FAA retains strict oversight authority. The program allows the FAA to leverage its resources and technical expertise while holding the applicant accountable for compliance. The FAA reviews the applicants design descriptions and project plans, determines where FAA involvement will derive the most safety benefit, and coordinates its intentions with the applicant. When a particular decision or event is critical to the safety of the product or to the determination of compliance, the FAA is involved either directly or through the use of our designee system.

In aircraft certification, both individual and organizational designees support the FAA. The aircraft certification process has four stages: (1) certification basis; (2) planning and standards; (3) analysis and testing; and (4) final decision and certification of design. The FAA determines the level of involvement of the designees and the level of FAA participation needed based on many variables. These variables include the designees understanding of the compliance policy; consideration of any new and novel certification areas; or instances where adequate standards may not be in place. The work FAA delegates primarily relates to analysis and testing. About 94% of work in this area is delegated, and that work involves lower risk and routine items. The FAA does not delegate the other functions. The FAA determines the certification basis, identifies the standards, and makes all key and final decisions.

The Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program is the means by which the FAA may authorize an organization to act as a representative of the FAA under strict FAA oversight. Currently, there are 79 ODA holders. ODA certification processes allow FAA to leverage industry expertise in the conduct of the certification activities and focus on important safety matters. The FAA has a rigorous process for issuing an ODA and only grants this authorization to mature companies with a proven history of designing products that meet FAA safety standards. ODA holders must have demonstrated experience and expertise in FAA certification processes, a qualified staff, and an FAA-approved procedures manual before they are appointed. The FAA delegates authority on a project-by-project basis, and the manual defines the process and procedures to which the ODA must adhere when executing the delegated authority. The ODA holder is responsible to ensure that ODA staff are free to perform their authorized functions without conflicts of interest or undue pressure.

There are many issues that will always require direct FAA involvement, including equivalent level of safety determinations, and rulemakings required to approve special conditions. The FAA may choose to be involved in other project areas after considering factors such as our confidence in the applicant, the applicants experience, the applicants internal processes, and confidence in the designees.

Something that is not well understood about the certification process is that it is the applicants responsibility to ensure that an aircraft complies with FAA safety regulations. It is the applicant who is required to develop aircraft design plans and specifications, and perform the appropriate inspections and tests necessary to establish that an aircraft design complies with the regulations. The FAA is responsible for determining that the applicant has shown that the overall design meets the safety standards. We do that by reviewing data and by conducting risk-based evaluations of the applicant’s work.

The FAA is directly involved in the testing and certification of new and novel features and technologies. When a new design or a change to an existing design of an aircraft is being proposed, the designer must apply to the FAA for a design approval. While an applicant usually works on its design before discussing it with the FAA, we encourage collaborative discussions well in advance of presenting a formal application. Once an applicant informs the FAA of the intent to develop and certify a product, a series of meetings are held both to familiarize the FAA with the proposed design, and to familiarize the applicant with the certification requirements. A number of formal and informal meetings are held on issues ranging from technical to procedural. Once the application is made, there is a structured way of documenting the resolution of technical, regulatory, and administrative issues that are identified during the process.

Once the certification basis is established for a proposed design, the FAA and the applicant develop and agree to a certification plan and initial schedule. In order to receive a type certificate, the applicant must conduct an extensive series of tests and reviews to show that the product is compliant with existing standards and any special conditions, including lab tests, flight tests, and conformity inspections. These analyses, tests, and inspections happen at a component-level and an airplane-level, all of which are subject to FAA oversight. If the FAA finds that a proposed new type of aircraft complies with safety standards, it issues a type certificate. Or, in the case of a change to an existing aircraft design, the FAA issues an amended type certificate.

737 MAX Post-Grounding Actions

The crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes in five months placed a spotlight on safety and FAAs approach to oversight of those we regulate. With respect to the certification of the 737MAX, the facts are these: it took five years to certify the 737 MAX. Boeing applied for certification in January 2012. The certification was completed in March 2017. During those five years, FAA safety engineers and test pilots put in 110,000 hours of work, and they flew or supported 297 test flights.

As part of the FAAs commitment to continuous improvement, we both welcome and invite review of our processes and procedures. A number of reviews and audits have been initiated to look at different aspects of the 737 MAX certification. After the FAA grounded the 737 MAX, Secretary Chao asked the Department of Transportations Inspector General to conduct an audit of the certification for the 737 MAX, with the goal of compiling an objective and detailed factual history of the activities that resulted in the certification of the 737 MAX aircraft. Secretary Chao also announced the establishment of an expert Special Committee to advise the department on aviation safety oversight and certification programs, including a review of the FAAs procedures for the certification of new aircraft. The Special Committee has been formed within the structure of the Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee (SOCAC). Established by Congress in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act, the SOCAC is an independent panel that will advise the FAA more broadly on aircraft and flight standards certification processes, oversight of safety management systems, risk-based oversight efforts, and utilization of delegation and designation authorities. Secretary Chao recently announced that the SOCACs 22-member panel will include officials from Delta Air Lines, GE Aviation, United Airlines, Bell Helicopter Textron, Garmin, Wing Aviation LLC, Pratt & Whitney (a unit of United Technologies Corp), and Gulfstream (a unit of General Dynamics Corp), as well as union, airport, and trade association officials.

The FAA established a Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR) to conduct a comprehensive review of the certification of the automated flight control system on the Boeing 737 MAX. The JATR is chaired by former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairman Christopher Hart and comprises a team of experts from the FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the aviation authorities of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

Additionally, the FAA met with safety representatives of the three U.S.-based commercial airlines that have the Boeing 737 MAX in their fleets, as well as the pilot unions for those airlines. This meeting was an opportunity for the FAA to hear individual views from operators and pilots of the 737 MAX as the agency evaluates what needs to be done before the FAA makes a decision to return the aircraft to service in the United States. In keeping with the FAAs longstanding cooperation with its international partners, the FAA also hosted a meeting of Directors General of civil aviation authorities from around the world to discuss the FAAs activities toward ensuring the safe return of the 737 MAX to service. We continue to be in frequent communication with the international aviation safety community and are working closely with our counterparts to address their concerns and keep them informed of progress.

The FAA also initiated a multi-agency Technical Advisory Board (TAB) review of Boeings software update and system safety assessment in order to determine compliance. The TAB consists of a team of experts from the U.S. Air Force, NASA, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and the FAA. None of the TAB experts have been involved in any aspect of the Boeing 737 MAX certification. The TAB is charged with evaluating Boeing and FAA efforts related to the software update and its integration into the flight control system. The TAB will identify issues where further investigation is required prior to approval of the design change. The JATR is looking broadly at the original certification of the 737 MAX flight control system, while the TAB is evaluating Boeings proposed technical solutions related to the two accidents. The TABs recommendations will directly inform the FAAs decision concerning the 737 MAX fleets return to service.

The FAA is following a thorough process, not a prescribed timeline, for returning the 737MAX to passenger service. We continue to evaluate Boeings software modification and we are still developing necessary training requirements. The 737 MAX will not return to service for U.S. carriers and in U.S. airspace until the FAAs analysis of the facts and technical data indicate that it is safe to do so.

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to your questions.

Speech – Boeing 737 MAX Status Meeting with Aviation Regulators in Montreal

/0 Comments/in /by

Administrator Stephen Dickson
Montreal, Canada

Welcome to everyone and thank you for joining us today.

When we fly anywhere in the world, we enjoy a certainty of safety that is unrivaled in the modern transportation era. All of us here understand that the success of the global aviation system rests squarely on our shared commitment to safety and our common understanding of what it takes to achieve it.

The grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX placed a spotlight on safety and the FAAs approach to oversight of those we regulate.For the MAX, as with all aircraft, we made use of a thorough certification process that has consistently produced safe aviation products.

However, that process and the regulations that we use in certification programs are not static. They are continuously evolving. In the name of continuous improvement, we welcome feedback from our fellow civil aviation authorities, the aviation industry and the important independent reviews of the MAX and the FAAs certification process.

The last few months have made it clear that, in the mind of the traveling public, aviation safety recognizes no borders. Travelers demand the same high level of safety no matter where they fly. It is up to us as aviation regulators to deliver on this shared responsibility.

The collaboration and transparency that has been so vital to our progress in understanding and responding to the 737 MAX accidents must continue as the world aviation community pursues new and more innovative ways to improve safety. Forums such as this weeks ICAO conference are vital to that ongoing exchange of ideas.

As we in the aviation world know, accidents in complex systems rarely are the result of a single cause; rather, they often happen due to a complex chain of events and interaction between man and machine. If we are to continue to raise the bar for safety across the globe, it will be important for all of us at ICAO to foster improvements in standards and approaches for not just in how aircraft are designed and produced, but how they are maintained and operated.

With respect to our international partners, the FAA clearly understands its responsibilities as State of Design for the 737 MAX. This meeting today is one of those key responsibilitiessharing the status of the FAAs efforts to date. In addition to bringing you up to date with our latest progress, we stand ready to assist you technically and discuss the next steps in safely returning the aircraft to service in the U.S.

This rigorous process and our commitment to improvement will get us to the right answer an aircraft that meets the highest safety standards. Our commitment to safety is unwavering, and we are doing everything we can to assure the public that we are being thorough in these efforts. I announced last week that I plan to fly the aircraft myself before the FAA returns the aircraft to flight.

As you make your own decisions about returning the MAX to service, we will continue to make available to you all that we have learned, all that we have done, and all of our assistance. You have my commitment on that. And because each of you is here, its clear you share that same commitment. I have every confidence and high expectations that this will be a constructive day.

Thank you for joining us.

News and Updates – Think Drone Safety As We Share the Sky

/0 Comments/in /by

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is encouraging the drone community to help spread the word on drone safety with the first National Drone Safety Awareness Week taking place, Nov. 4-10, 2019. The FAAs highest priority is to ensure the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS), and during National Drone Safety Awareness Week, the FAA reminds drone pilots and stakeholders that airspace safety is everyones responsibility.

During this weeklong campaign, key sectors of the drone community local governments, municipalities and recreational flyers will highlight their work on drones, engage the public in activities related to drones, and kick off new safety initiatives. As we integrate drones into the NAS, the FAA wants to do all that it can to ensure that these new operators are familiar with and adhere to the safety culture. Leading up to National Drone Safety Awareness Week, the FAA will provide leadership and support with downloadable materials from the FAA website.

Stakeholders will do their part by holding events that engage and educate the general community about drones.

Key sectors have a specific day of the week to focus on their area of interest or expertise:

  • Monday: Public Safety and Security
  • Tuesday: Business Photography, Real Estate, Insurance
  • Wednesday: Business Infrastructure and Agriculture
  • Thursday: Business Commercial and Medical Package Delivery
  • Friday: Education and STEM
  • Saturday and Sunday: Recreational Flyers

The FAA has provided guidance in the form of a Stakeholder Playbook for participants of National Drone Safety Awareness Week and graphics designed for each key sector:

For additional information, visit faa.gov/go/DroneWeek or email DroneSafetyWeek@faa.gov.

News and Updates – New York City Flight Restrictions September 21-29 During UN General Assembly

/0 Comments/in /by

General aviation pilots who are planning to fly in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area between September 21 and September 29 should check frequently and before every flight to make sure they are aware of the flight restrictions that will be in place for the 74thSession of the United Nations General Assembly.

Knowing the rules will help operators avoid airspace violations.

The FAA is also advising drone pilots that the airspace within the Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) area will be a No DroneZone at the same time. Operators may not fly their drones within that airspace while the TFR is in effect. The FAA, federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense will closely monitor the airspace for unauthorized operations. They may take action against drones operating in the No DroneZone that are deemed a credible safety or security threat. Pilots who operate drones within the TFR also will be subject to possible enforcement action.

The TFR starts at 8 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Saturday, September 21, and ends at 5 p.m. EDT on Sunday, September 29. The FAA strongly advises pilots to check regularly for Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) since the FAA expects to issue numerous notices at different times during the period that the TFR is in effect. It is essential for pilots to check regularly in order to have the most current information before their flights.

During this period, no pilot may operate an aircraft within the TFR unless authorized by FAA air traffic control, except for law enforcement, air ambulance and aircraft that are directly supporting the Secret Service and regularly scheduled commercial passenger and cargo carriers operating under an approved Transportation Security Administration security program.

General aviation aircraft cannot operate within the center or inner ring of the TFR. Aircraft operating under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules may operate within the outer ring of the TFR as long as they are on a flight plan, displaying an aircraft identifier code and are in two-way communication with air traffic control.

Pilots should check NOTAMS frequently, especially before their flights. Drone operators must stay away from the No DroneZone.

Speech – FAA Deputy Administrator Daniel Elwell at InterDrone 2019

/0 Comments/in /by

Deputy Administrator Daniel Elwell
Las Vegas, Nevada

As Prepared

Thank you, Mike (Pehel), for that kind introduction, and thank you InterDrone for inviting me to speak here again this year.

As you know, on August 12th Steve Dickson was sworn in as the 18th FAA Administrator, so Im back to the Number 2 position on the team. Thats ok though. Like the old tag line for Avis rental cars, being Number 2 just means I try harder.

The truth is, I very much look forward to working with Administrator Dickson. Even though we spent large parts of our earlier careers as pilots for competing airlines Steve at Delta, me at Americanwe have a lot in common. We both started out as Air Force pilots, in fact we both went to the Air Force Academy, and at the FAA we both have a laser focus on operationalizing the FAAs agendaand that includes your agenda.

Because of this, some higher-ups have referred to us as the Dynamic Duo. But please, dont call me Robin. And definitely dont call Steve Batman…

But what you can call us are UAS integration advocates, and Im here to tell you why.

You know its usually true that when summer heats up, life slows down. But in your line of business, this summer has been anything but sluggish. This summer has been all about action, the kind of action that suits the operators that come to InterDroneconstruction, cinema, photography, inspection, agriculture, public safety, energy, surveying and mappingthe list goes on and on because youre finding new ways to use drones every day.

Were making big progress on real-world testing for how to safely and securely integrate drones into the National Airspace System, or NAS, and developing or delivering new rules to codify what were learning so that drones can become regular participants in NAS operations rather than special or waivered one-offs.

At the same time, were heavily invested in educating todays drone community, especially hobbyists, on what they can and cant do. As you know, an uninformed recreational flier in the wrong place at the wrong time could ruin everyones dayrecreational and commercialby threatening manned aircraft or innocent bystanders. Since mid-April, the FAA has held seven drone webinars, three public safety seminars and two Facebook Live question and answer sessions that reached nearly 70,000 people, generating about 4,000 questions or comments. Thats a success story for outreach, but stay tunedwhile 70,000 may seem like a lot, were just scratching the surface since weve already registered more than 1.4 million drones.

So lets talk about some success stories for keeping the ball moving forward on integration.

Last month, we saw significant approvals and actions in North Dakota, Kansas and North Carolina, all part of the UAS Integration Pilot Program, or IPP, which Secretary Chao launched two years ago. Through the IPP, nine state, local and tribal governments across the U.S. are partnering with industrythe companies in this roomto develop UAS regulations, policy and guidance through practical applications. Perhaps more importantly theyve become the match that is lighting a creative fire in the industry and in the public for what this novel new form of transportation might achieve.

North Dakota had two major IPP success stories in August. For one, Xcel Energy can now remotely inspect a portion of the power lines outside an operators visual range along a stretch of urban roads in Grand Forks. They can do this in both daytime and nighttime conditions under a one-year waiver the FAA issued to the North Plains UAS Test Site. As you might expect, there are caveats. While the operator is in a remote location, there is a person launching the drone at the remote site, and command and communication links limit the Beyond Visual Line of Sight, or BVLOS, distance to a few miles at the moment.

While Xcel has been using drones for several years in remote areas to inspect electric and natural gas infrastructure, this is the first time theyve been approved for BVLOS flights within a city. I dont have to tell this crowd the significance of the waiverits the first time weve approved BVLOS operations without visual observers in an urban environment in a Part 107 waiver.

Xcel isnt spending its money and time on a whim. The company says inspecting distribution lines with drones allows crews to get better details on our energy systems without having to put workers in the air with a more expensive helicopter or bucket truck. Drones also minimize the impact on neighborhoods and the environment by avoiding the use of large trucks typically needed for these inspections.

In Bismarck, North Dakota, we just issued a Part 107 waiver for the Highway Patrol and the Burleigh (Burlee) County Sheriffs Office to operate drones over people, another advancement in operational capabilities.

As you can imagine, each waiver is unique, and each rests on the foundation of a successful safety case that the applicant made to the FAA. Included in a safety case are the location of the requested operations, the altitude, the reliability of the equipment, and in the case of operations over people, what injuries might be caused to a bystander if the drone falls out of the sky. Approvals may also be contingent on mitigations to reduce consequences of a failure.

The safety case for a Part 107 BVLOS waiver we just approved for the Kansas Department of Transportation has several layers. The flights will inspect power lines along a nine-mile route in rural Kansas over the next few months. The approval is based on a number of safety nets: The drones will operate next to manmade structurespower lines in this casewhere they are much less likely to be sharing the airspace with manned aircraft and they will use an onboard detect-and-avoid system. The operators in the ground control system will also have access to additional traffic data.

Now lets talk about a waiver we issued in mid-August involving drones flying over moving vehicles in North Carolina. Drone maker Flytrex, working with drone services company, Causey Aviation Unmanned Inc, will use the approval to fly food from a distribution center, across a highway, to customers at a sports and recreation park. This is part of an IPP with the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Their safety case for flying over the vehicles included the demonstrated reliability of the selected drone, and as a potential mitigation for failures, Flytrexs self-triggered parachute recovery system. Flytrex developed the parachute system using standards set by the FAA and American Society for Testing and Materials, better known as ASTM.

Those examples make clear how much practical progress were making with the IPP. When matched with the companion program, the Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management, or UTM, Pilot Program, or altogether, UPPand thank goodness for acronyms, right?! we are making concrete progress toward full UAS integration. We launched the UPP program three years ago to help us figure out how to do drone air traffic management.

NASA and the FAA have been working on UTM since 2015. Its essentially a set of concepts and tools that we are developing with industry to safely manage dense low-altitude drone operations. UTM is not a specific equipment system; it will be complementary to the existing air traffic management system and will not replace it. Were working closely with NASA who has done some of the heavy lifting with its UTM technical capability level, or TCL, demonstrations.

But were also running our own UPP tests and have made significant progress this summer.

In June, the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership demonstrated separate BVLOS drone flights delivering packages, studying wildlife, surveying corn fields and covering a court case for TV near the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia. All of the operators submitted their flight plans through a service supplier and received approval, and none were flying in airspace where regular FAA separation services are provided.

The true value of a UTM system became obvious when a simulated emergency helicopter needed to transport a crash victim to the hospital in the area where the drones were operating. The helicopter pilot submitted a request for what we call a UAS Volume Reservation or UVRthats an alert that the UTM system delivers to nearby drone operators. In this case, the deliveries were rerouted; the wildlife study, field survey and court coverage continued, but safely away from the helicopters path.

We ran similar tests in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in July, and here in Las Vegas, in early August. In both cases, either Medivac helicopters or first responders submitted UVRs that allowed multiple drone operators doing other business in the vicinity to safely accommodate the high-priority flight.

A key element of these UTM tests is having some form of remote identificationthe ability for those managing or monitoring the traffic to be able to contact the drone or its control station, or both, when necessary. We plan to publish a draft rule later this year on how we can do that.

Other regulatory advances were making include a new proposed rule we published in February that would allow Part 107 operations over people and at night. We received more than 900 comments that were now evaluating.

Thats a lot of work enabled under Part 107. But as you know, there is also a great deal of activity outside of Part 107. In fact seven of our nine IPP lead participants or their partners are applying for Part 135 certificates to be able to deliver goods. One of those participants, Wing Aviation, already received its approval in April. The Part 135 certificate requires much higher safety hurdles, including type certification for the drone and an economic authority approval by the Department of Transportation.

The future payoff for the additional safety measures and certification requirements will be in more liberalized operation. Wing, for example, will initially operate only in certain rural areas around Blacksburg, Virginia. Down the road, its likely that companies like Wing will take the lessons learned from these flights and apply them to more complex operating scenarios.

Helping with all of this is Secretary Chaos support for IPP and UPP, and a regulatory push from Congress. A whopping 130 pages of our 2018 Reauthorization covered drone-related provisions, including instructions to streamline the Part 107 waiver application process and to consider industry recommendations in other areas, a task we just assigned to the Drone Advisory Committee.

I think even the most skeptical among us would have to agree that the FAA and industry have made a lot of progress of late. Even so, were still in the crawl phase of our Crawl, Walk, Run strategy for full integration.

So what do we consider walking? More urban operations, day and night, more BVLOS flights of longer distances and multiple UAS per flight path and per operator.

Running? Im not even sure weve flushed that out yet. Earlier this summer, I would have said it was Urban Air Mobilityflying taxisthe Jetsons. Given how fast everything moves in this industry, its just possible that UAM has already been upstaged. I guess Ill find out when I walk the halls here…

In any case, walking and running are probably not that far off, especially given the hot pace weve all set this summer.

Thank you for your time. I know you guys are going to have a great conference.