Safe-Skies International

The FAA
ICPTF
Compliance
vs Conformity
Operating in a Regulatory Environment

FAA Faulted for Inadequate Oversight of Alaska Airlines

SSI thumbnail analysis on the difficulties ofUN-grounding the Concorde
Regulatory Special -
Read Mr McSweeny's Speech

We were very pleased to obtain a copy of a speech presented to the Royal Aeronautical Society on behalf
of Mr. Tom McSweeny, FAA Associate Director for Regulation and Certification. In his February 1, 2001 speech, Mr McSweeny questioned the direction the European Union is taking as they develop the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). A quick review of the speech tells us the FAA is concerned with the sovereignty of EASA member states, insufficient safety regulations and potential lack of safety independence.This is well worth reading if you are interested in the global regulatory environment.

FAA Faulted for Inadequate Oversight of Alaska Airlines

SSI Opinion:This situation is not an indictment of the FAA or Alaska, but of the entire system, comprised of the FAA and ALL certificate holders under their surveillance, including airlines, manufacturers, repair
stations, TSO holders, designees (DAS/DOA/SFAR 36/DER/DAR), etc, etc. The FAA has too few people to conduct surveillance at the detailedlevel required to assure compliance, certificate holders typically lack the internal discipline to conduct thorough self audits & manage systemic corrective action
(CA) programs because such activity is considered overhead, AND the antiquated system allows this to happen.The fundamental problem with operating under the existing system is encapsulated in one word - money.The FAA lacks budget allocation from congress, we can expect less as time goes on, and certificate
holders put low priority on internal self evaluation and CA because the structure does not hold them accountable at the proper level.FAA inspectors thus work to intuition and judgment, conducting low level audits and finding problems in documents and individual activities, which leads to major inconsistencies among regions.Certificate holders react to such oversight by developing "relationship" staffs who have the responsibility to keep an eye on the FAA and keep them satisfied, accepting the fact that there will be
occasional civil penalties.And we dance.

The system must change, plain and simple. No one person has THE answer but here is one possibility:

All certificate holders must be THIRD PARTY ACCREDITED to an ISO standard (try AS 9100) by 2007.Oddly enough, this might possibly improve profitability if done correctly, but initiation can be difficult,
expensive and traumatic for a well established company.

By 2006, develop a delegation system that requires FAA certificate holders to report all audit findings in real time, followed by regular (quarterly?) analyses that tie audit findings together systemically,
showing accountability at the executive level. This can probably be done within existing regulations but may require enabling legislation.

At the highest levels, hold company executives personally accountable for repeated systemic failures.

Turn FAA employees into Systems Managers, who evaluate trends and act at the proper levels within their certificate holder's organizations.This does NOT mean work from a distance!Time on the floor must never be discounted as unimportant, and relationships must be strong but structured. The quot;new" inspectors, however, would probably need serious education and experience in managing such systems, and selection criteria must be something other than being a "dandy mechanic" or a "fine engineer",
or just a good friend.

Enable the FAA rulemaking system to make the changes required to accomplish this.The current system is bogged down in bureaucracy, politics and fear of public reactions driven by perceptions, and the
simplest rulemaking takes a full decade at best. That is unacceptable, and leads to reinterpretation of existing regulations, rulemaking by policy, self contradictory policies and vast inconsistencies in regulatory
application and behavior at the individual and organizational levels.

LAST - Develop a balanced and equitable enforcement system that minimizes the ability of individual FAA inspectors to conduct themselves in the inconsistent fashion that is now all too prevalent. With good reason, certificate holders today fear retribution from appealing enforcement actions, and an automatic appeal may be a solution, if combined with a highly structured systems management program outlined above.

A personal statement - The opinion above comes from 20 years of extensive experience working within the FAA and industry, and from discussions with many people who have earned my respect and admiration. Above all it is an individual opinion, and it is based on my personal belief that we simply cannot work as we always have. Something must change or something's gotta give. We're headed for trouble, and Alaska is nothing more than the canary in the coal mine. Next time a story like this arises, let's put the needle in the groove and replay the same old record, this will happen again, and again, and again, until we decide to make the necessary painful changes. Let's cut the lip service and begin now.(Contact
Mike Borfitz
PRACTITIONER'S ALERT!!
Derivative Aircraft Face Newer Standards
-SeeText of NPRM for FAR 21
Click
HERE For News &
Updates

Click
HERE for Government & Regulators
align="left">

Compliance vs Conformity? - SSI has been asked several times to
discuss the differences between COMPLIANCE and CONFORMITY in FAA certification.
Try this.
The SSI Regulatory Position
Safe-Skies.com takes the position that aviation regulations and regulators must exist and must
be of the highest possible integrity.We will even refrain from taking the middle ground of calling regulations a "necessary evil" - they must exist if the public needs are to be met.While the vast majority of organizations and individuals in aviation are competent and act with integrity, we must always
have a clear understanding of the boundaries that we operate within, and there must be tools to get and keep the bad actors out.For now, the FAA functions that Safe-Skies.com will address are compliance and enforcement.To get into aviation we must demonstrate compliance, then the enforcement arm conducts
surveillance and takes corrective action when compliance is not maintained.First you get your ticket, then you must work to keep it.
Let us not forget, Aviation manufacturers and operators are ultimately accountable for the
safety of their services and products, not the FAA.That is a fundamental premise of our Regulatory system.The United States Supreme Court drove a permanent stake in the ground when they said, "The FAA certification process is founded upon a relatively simple notion: the duty to ensure that an
aircraft conforms to FAA safety regulations lies with the manufacturer and operator, while the FAA retains the responsibility for policing compliance…".
We consider the regulations to be a framework that defines the aviation system that we live
and work in today.It has some serious problems and flaws but it is not likely to be replaced in the short term unless there is a significant unforeseen event that drives immediate changes.We can begin to deal with those problems by putting them on the table.
The problems we see include but are not limited
To:
The FAA Certification and Flight Standards Services are seriously under-staffed and under-funded.
Air traffic control is a service, it conducts neither compliance nor enforcement and it should be separate and/or
privatized.
The rulemaking process is seriously flawed.A typical regulation may take a decade or more to be completed.
Because of slow rulemaking, FAA Orders, Handbooks and interim guidance have assumed the regulatory role - Confusion and contradiction are increasing.
In many ways the FAA is victimized by politics and bureaucratic controls.The FAA requires more autonomy.
It is too easy for individuals in the FAA to have more local authority than is reasonable, and regional differences are high.Clarity of individual roles and responsibility is required. Accountability must be clear, an effective recourse process for the regulated must be available and there must be a threat-free, balanced appeal process.
Increased organizational delegation is acceptable and unavoidable, but neither the FAA nor industry is prepared for it, trust seems to be lacking and the political environment makes it difficult for the FAA to take the necessary steps.
Industry must step up and become more process based, providing consistent metrics to the FAA to allow more systemic oversight.
We've spent too much time and energy examining isolated and local problems, and we must consider taking a systemic look at the entire WORLD business and regulatory system if we are to succeed.