FAA: a paper tiger?

[wuzatforus?]

For quite a few years now, the FAA has been assessing safety in the worlds airlines, and has been blind to the problems on it's own doorstep.
Since crew duty limits affect the economics of an airline, one cannot help but wonder if the blind spot to the safety implications of crew fatigue is driven by the economic imperatives of the FAA's " constituents" the US airline industry.
One might even wonder if the rating system is really driven by safety considerations at all, but rather political or economic considerations.
Perhaps the USA should be downgraded to category 2 for it's unsafe duty limits, and it's inability to divorce itself from the economic interests of the US airline industry.
Surely if it has to go to extreme lengths to warn operators that it is finally going to enforce laws that have been there since the day dot, and the operators openly challenge it's authority, it is no more than a paper tiger, good at enforcing fine print in non-controversial legislation, but without credibility in taking hard and proactive safety decisions.

[Elevation]

I agree with you wuzatforus, another example is the "requirement" to fix the 737 rudder PCU by 2006 while it is proven that the faulty rudder PCU is directly related to at least 2 crashes so far.

All thanks to the good job of the lobbying group at D.C.

[Jack Handy]

Did you just have this revelation? :rolleyes:

The FAA is ‘the tombstone agency’. The only reason they are finally doing something is because they have a big enough body count now.

With dubya in DC nothing’s going to change. He says he won’t let the union strike because it’s bad for the economy. What do you think grounding the 737 fleet would do to the economy?

[PaperTiger]

You rang, Sir ?

Yes the FAA has been weak, a legacy of its dual mandate to both promote aviation and oversee safety. For a long time the former took precedence, but after a number of public damnings (ValuJet, Alaska and so on) they are hopefully beginning to switch the emphasis. A paradigm shift, the consultants call it I believe.

But the FAA is a huge bureaucracy with untold hidden empires and various other organizational impediments. The culture is not going to change overnight, but I think there are some signs (finally) that it's beginning to. Don't expect any b@llsy directives aimed at Boeing though, just not politically viable.

[wuzatforus?]

Oops, sorry Tiger, perhaps I should have said paperwork tiger!
Wonder if the WTO will look at unfair competition because of the FAAs leniency?
:) :) Guess not! :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by wuzatforus? (edited 23 June 2001).]

[GotTheTshirt]

As an FAA guy said to me" We are not looking to put the world to rights - just a fully certificated fatal accident"

[SKYDRIFTER]

"Magically," the federal law governing the FAA responsibility was changed so that they now facilitate profits and very selectively enforce safety regulations. The FAA has distinguished itself with a long list of felonies which go on without serious investigation.

Even with the Alaska 261 Grand Jury investigation, nothing has changed, except for the FAA getting caught repeatedly.

If history is consistent, the Grand Jury investigation will drag out until the Statute of Limitations has run it's course, with the Department of Justice / FBI announcing that there's nothing that can be done.

That's an old song.

In the mean time, look for more disasters facilitated and covered up by the FAA et al.

Despite the proven record of the FAA as the "Tombstone Agency," nothing has been done, nor will it be. A body count won't get Jane Garvey excited anymore.

Even the White House will cover for her.

[ClearDirect]

Has the USA been audited by ICAO, and if so where is the report available?
I am sure it would make interesting reading.

------------------
lost in hold.

[PaperTiger]

ICAO audits are confidential and done only when requested by the country concerned. Hard to imagine the US asking http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

There is/was a proposal for a mandatory audit program (with the approval of the country), whatever that's supposed to mean.
The audit covers a specific set of topics, crew hours not being one of them. I don't want to say it's a superficial audit but it does seem to concentrate on the obvious (how tall are the fences etc.) rather than the more insidous problems.
I suspect ICAO is even more bureaucratic than the FAA, given the multinational make-up. If ICAO was doing a bang-up job of monitoring safety, then the FAA wouldn't need to publish its own list. Or maybe it would anyway.
Politics. Ptooey.

For the insomniacs, here's a link:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/5304_ar1.htm

[TR4A]

The B737 rudder problem has never been proven. It is only a theory. We have been flying the 737 for over 30 years without a problem.

From NTSB http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/aar9901.pdf

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT

UNCONTROLLED DESCENT AND COLLISION WITH TERRAIN
USAIR FLIGHT 427

20. It is possible that, in the main rudder power control units from the USAir flight 427, United flight 585, and Eastwind flight 517 airplanes (as a result of some combination of tight clearances within the servo valve, thermal effects, particulate matter in the hydraulic fluid, or other unknown factors), the servo valve secondary slide could jam to the servo valve housing at a position offset from its neutral position without leaving any obvious physical evidence and that, combined with a rudder pedal input, could have caused the rudder to move opposite to the direction commanded by a rudder pedal input.

21. The upsets of USAir flight 427, United flight 585, and Eastwind flight 517 were most likely caused by the movement of the rudder surfaces to their blowdown limits in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots. The rudder surfaces most likely moved as a result of jams of the secondary slides to the servo valve housings offset from their neutral position and overtravel of the primary slides.