DOCSLIB.ORG

The Use of Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs by the Federal Aviation Administration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Use of Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs by the Federal Aviation Administration COLLABORATING WITH INDUSTRY TO ENSURE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT: THE USE OF VOLUNTARY SAFETY REPORTING PROGRAMS BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Russell W. Mills May 2011 Dissertation written by Russell W. Mills B.A., Westminster College, 2005 M.P.A, University of Vermont, 2007 Ph.D, Kent State University, 2011 Approved by _____________________ , Mark K. Cassell, Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee _____________________, Renée J. Johnson, Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee _____________________, Daniel Hawes, Committee Member _____________________, Issac Richmond Nettey, Outside Reader _____________________, Paul Farrell, Graduate Faculty Member Accepted by _____________________, Steven Hook, Chair, Department of Political Science _____________________, Timothy Moerland, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... X LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. XII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 “Voluntary Regulation Does Not Work” ........................................................ 1 1.1.2 The Regulation Dilemma and Voluntary Regulatory Partnership Programs .. 3 1.1.3 The Federal Aviation Administration’s Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1.4 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 11 1.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 13 1.2.1 Regulation in the United States: An Overview ............................................ 13 1.2.1.1 Economic Regulation: The Market and Associational Regimes ........ 13 1.2.1.2 The Societal Regulatory Regime ......................................................... 15 1.2.1.3 The Efficiency Regime: Regulatory Reform and Deregulation ......... 17 1.2.1.4 The Reinventing Government and Voluntary Partnership Era: The Clinton and Bush II Years .................................................................................. 19 1.2.2 Perspectives on Regulatory Change .............................................................. 20 1.2.2.1 The Public Choice Perspective ............................................................ 20 1.2.2.2 The Structural Politics Perspective ...................................................... 21 1.2.2.3 The Behavioral/Punctuated Equilibrium Approach ............................ 22 iii 1.2.2.4 Wilson’s Perspective: Mission, Tasks, and Culture ........................... 23 1.2.2.5 The Historical Development of Reputation and Autonomy Perspective ............................................................................................................. 25 1.2.3 Types and Use of Regulatory Instruments .................................................... 26 1.2.3.1 Command and Control Regulation ..................................................... 27 1.2.3.2 Industry Self-Regulation ..................................................................... 29 1.2.3.3 Voluntary Programs ............................................................................ 30 1.3 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 33 1.3.1 Epistemological Foundations ........................................................................ 33 1.3.2 Summary of Research Design/Case Selection and Presentation ................... 34 1.4 Outline of Dissertation Chapters and Brief Description ......................................... 35 1.4.1 Chapter 2: The Use of Voluntary Regulatory Partnerships in the United States-The Case of the FAA’s Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs ...................... 35 1.4.2 Chapter 3: The Historical Development of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs .......................................... 36 1.4.3 Chapter 4: Fostering Bureaucratic Policy Learning through Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs: The Case of the Federal Aviation Administration ................. 37 1.4.4 Chapter 5: The Future of Voluntary Programs: Policy Implications, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations ................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER 2 THE USE OF VOLUNTARY REGULATORY PARTNERSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES: THE FAA’S VOLUNTARY SAFETY REPORTING PROGRAMS......................................................................................................... 39 iv 2.1 The Federal Aviation Administration ..................................................................... 39 2.1.1 The FAA’s Traditional Approach to Safety Oversight ................................. 39 2.1.2 An Overview of the FAA’s Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs ............. 42 2.2 Methodology and Research Questions .................................................................... 43 2.3 The Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRS) ................................................... 45 2.3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 45 2.3.2 Confidentiality and Reporting Incentive ....................................................... 46 2.3.3 Reporting and Data Analysis Process ........................................................... 47 2.3.4 ASRS Outputs Produced ............................................................................... 50 2.3.5 Challenges Facing ASRS .............................................................................. 52 2.4 Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program ............................................................... 53 2.4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 53 2.4.2 Confidentiality and Regulatory Incentive ..................................................... 53 2.4.3 The Six Stages of the VDRP Process ............................................................ 54 2.4.4 Analysis and Outputs of VDRP Data ............................................................ 56 2.4.5 The Southwest/American Airlines Incident .................................................. 57 2.4.6 Challenges Facing VDRP ............................................................................. 60 2.5 The Aviation Safety Action Program ...................................................................... 61 2.5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 61 2.5.2 Confidentiality and Regulatory Incentive ..................................................... 62 2.5.3 The Memorandum of Understanding and the Event Review Committee ..... 63 2.5.4 Analysis of ASAP Data ................................................................................. 67 v 2.5.5 Outputs of ASAP Data .................................................................................. 71 2.5.6 Challenges Facing ASAP .............................................................................. 72 2.6 Structural Differences Between ASRS, ASAP, and VDRP .................................... 74 2.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 79 CHAPTER 3 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S VOLUNTARY SAFETY REPORTING PROGRAMS 81 3.1 Introduction and Research Questions ...................................................................... 81 3.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Explaining the Development of Voluntary Regulatory Programs ........................................................................................................................... 82 3.2.1 Public Choice Agency Capture Theory ......................................................... 82 3.2.2 Structural Politics Theory.............................................................................. 84 3.2.3 Organization Reputation Theory ................................................................... 85 3.2.4 The Behavioral/Punctuated Equilibrium Theory .......................................... 87 3.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 88 3.4 The Historical Development of Aviation Regulation in the United States ............. 90 3.4.1 The Early Years: World War I and NACA .................................................. 90 3.4.2 Through Rain and Snow: The Air Mail Acts ............................................... 91 3.4.3 The Beginning of Modern Aviation Regulation: The Air Commerce Act of 1926 and the Aeronautics Branch .............................................................................. 92 3.4.4 The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 ............................................................... 96 3.4.5 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mark A. Dombroff Partner
    Mark A. Dombroff Partner [email protected] Tysons, VA Washington, DC Tel: 703.248.7002 Tel: 202.794.1211 Fax: 703.454.7651 Fax: 202.461.3102 Mark concentrates his practice on the aviation and transportation industries, including litigation, regulatory administrative and enforcement matters, investigations, airport and aircraft security and employment issues. Mark has handled numerous safety, enforcement and regulatory matters before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other administrative agencies, whether arising from an accident or incident or other material compliance matter, including issues involving the Departments of State, Justice, the Treasury and Homeland Security, and the Transportation Security Administration. Over the course of a career spanning more than four decades, Mark has tried dozens of jury and non-jury cases, ranging in length from one day to several months, and argued before state and federal appellate courts at all levels. He represented Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in the landmark Supreme Court case Boyle v. United Technologies, which established the government contractor defense, and in Mounsey v. Allied-Signal, a "friendly fire" litigation, winning the manufacturer's dismissal from the case after the government invoked the state secrets doctrine to avoid responding to third-party subpoenas. Mark has counseled and represented numerous airlines, including: • Alaska Airlines • Arrow Air • Colgan Air • Empire Airlines • Mesa Airlines • National Airlines • SkyWest Airlines • Southwest Airlines • Spirit Airlines • Trans State Airlines • US Airways • Virgin America He also advises and represents aviation service providers, including airports, fuelers, ground handlers, fixed base operators, maintenance and overhaul companies, catering companies, security companies, and airframe and other aerospace manufacturers.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Laboratory Massachusetts Institute Of
    ENERGY LABORATORY MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 THE U.S. SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT PROGRAM 1961-1971 An Examination in Search of Lessons for Current Energy Technology Commercialization Projects. by Beverly J. Bugos Working Paper MIT-EL 76-030WP December, 1976 PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Under Contract No. E(49-18) 2295 Task Order 6 "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States ERDA, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights." i PREFACE This paper was written as a background paper in support of the M.I.T. Energy Policy Study Group's report, "Government Support for the Commerciali- zation of New Energy Technologies; An Analysis and Exploration of the Issues" (M.I.T. Energy Laboratory Report No. MIT-EL 76-009, November, 1976). Like the other background papers, it examines a specific government program, historical or current, to draw lessons for present energy policies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . * . i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... .... ii 1. INTRODUCTION ....................... 2. INITIATING THE PROGRAM ................. 4 2.1 Industry . 4 2.2 Government . 5 2.3 Management Problems of the SST Program ...... 8 3. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS ................. .... 10 3.1 Initial Program Arrangements . .... 10 3.2 Modification in Cost-Sharing .
    [Show full text]
  • Substandard Flight Crew Performance I
    Running Head; Substandard Flight Crew Performance i Substandard Flight Crew Performance: Recurrent Human Factors in Flight Crew Initiated Aircraft Incidents and Accidents By Raymond Newell, BSc (Hons) MSc Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University June 2017 Substandard Flight Crew Performance iii ABSTRACT The objective of this research has been to understand more about aviation accidents in which the actions of the flight crew members (hereafter FCMs) were the main cause. A new con- struct has been developed known as substandard flight crew performance (hereafter SFP) to provide framework and context for this research. To support this construct, the most recurrent examples of SFP were identified from analysis of decades of investigations and reports. Based upon the frequency of occurrence, the potential contribution to aviation safety, and the feasibility of conducting meaningful research, three diverse but interconnected factors have been identified. The first of these related to the recurrent influence of verbal phenomena in aviation accidents, in particular, distracting conversations and unclear communications. The literature indicated that even those tasked with investigating accidents where these phenome- na had been present understood very little about the underlying reasons for their occurrence. Furthermore, although these phenomena have been studied within more general research populations, as far as is known no previous research has examined their function in the avia- tion context. A questionnaire and unstructured interviews with FCMs resulted in two taxon- omies, both of which have been supported by ethnographic1 observations. The next strand of this research critically examined some of the reasons why some flight crews become unsure of their position or orientation whilst navigating both in flight and on the ground, a phenome- non that has been associated with some of the most serious instances of SFP.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosenker FAA Safety Testimony
    Testimony of the Honorable Mark V. Rosenker Acting Chairman National Transportation Safety Board Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Aviation Safety: FAA’s Role in the Oversight of Commercial Air Carriers June 10, 2009 Good afternoon. With your concurrence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my testimony with a short summary of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) actions to date regarding the investigation of the accident involving Colgan Air flight 3407. I want to emphasize that this is still an ongoing investigation and that there is significant work left for our investigative staff. My testimony today will therefore out of necessity be limited to those facts that we have identified to date, and I will steer clear of any analysis of what we have found so far and avoid any ultimate conclusions that might be drawn from that information. On February 12, 2009, about 10:17 p.m. eastern standard time, Colgan Air flight 3407, a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400, crashed during an instrument approach to runway 23 at Buffalo- Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York. The crash site was in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 nautical miles northeast of the airport, and was mostly confined to a single residential house. The flight was operating as a Part 121 scheduled passenger flight from Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey. The four crew members and 45 passengers were killed, and the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. One person in the house was also killed and two individuals escaped with minor injuries.
    [Show full text]
  • 'We Are Happy to Be Ready' Says Gommander Armstrong
    \\ \ ■ \ PAGE TWENTY \ ■ ■ V . vA: MONDAY, JU L Y 14, 1969 mrbPBter iEoBnfng % ralii \ . Avnagie Daily Net Press Run ■br The Week Ended The Weathelr About Town One Motor Town Receives I f-i* n Home Ec Posts Red Cross Jme ts, icee Hi® Klwanis Club of V Men- Fair and warm tonlgM. Low rtwaber will meet tomorrow Equipment Bids I In the 60s. Tomorrow meetly V ital To Saturday at 11:27 a.m ., t»townI Difficult To FiU ■noon at the Manchester Coun­ Mrs. Grace F. Harrison of 27 Structure 15,459 sunny and hot with higha 90 to try Club. Members will discuss South Windsor Equipment Co. firelighters went to' the rear 95. Shower prabaUllty near pi South Wlnd-sor, the McOov- Oak St. where they Meadow Lane, State Depart­ the club’s planned golf tourney Moon L ift ment of Education consultant M anehe$ter— 4 City of ViUage Charm zero through Wednenday. end baxUo auction. ^ /• / 'em Co. of Windsor Locks and tlngulshed a fire In the engine T o Change for home economics education, n o (Continued from Page One) Hodges Co. of Newington were a 'car there, VOL. LXXXVIII, . 242 (TWENTY PAGES—TWO SECTIONS) the apparent low bidders — ------------------ said the shortage of home eco­ The National R ^ Croaa is MANCHESTER, CONN., TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1969 (Claaalfled Advertlafaig on nige Id) PRICE TEN CENTS The Manchester Rotary Club nomics teachers in the state Is reorganizing its abticture and will m eet tomorrow a t 6:80 p.m. at least six minutes,” said a three pieces of of equipment , space agency official.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Regional Airlines' Response to the Pilot Shortage And
    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 4-24-2018 An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots Jared Samost Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj Part of the Management and Operations Commons Recommended Citation Samost, Jared. (2018). An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 266. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/266 Copyright © 2018 Jared Samost This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Running head: REGIONAL AIRLINES’ RESPONSE TO THE PILOT SHORTAGE 1 An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots Jared Samost Submitted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for Commonwealth Honors in Aviation Science Bridgewater State University April 24, 2018 Prof. Michael Welch, Thesis Advisor Prof. Michael Farley, Committee Member Prof. Veronica Cote, Committee Member REGIONAL AIRLINES’ RESPONSE TO THE PILOT SHORTAGE 2 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impacts of the Government Shutdown on Our Economic Security
    S. HRG. 113–615 THE IMPACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN ON OUR ECONOMIC SECURITY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 11, 2013 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 93–946 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Apr 15, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\93946.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:20 Apr 15, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\93946.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on October 11, 2013 .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Safety Oversight and Failed Leadership in the FAA
    Table of Contents I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………….…….....…….2 II. Overview……………….......……………………………………………………………..3 III. Table of Acronyms……………………………………………………….……....….…...9 IV. Findings……..…………………………………………………………………………...11 V. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…...14 A. The Federal Aviation Administration …………….…….……………….……...…….15 B. History of Safety Concerns in the FAA……….……………………..……..……...…16 C. Whistleblowers……………………………………………………………………..…20 D. FAA Aviation Safety and Whistleblower Investigation Office………………………22 VI. Committee Investigation…………………………………………….............................24 A. Correspondence with the FAA………………………………………………..….......24 B. Concerns Surrounding the FAA’s Responses.……...…………………………..…….28 C. Other Investigations………………………………………………………………..…32 VII. Whistleblower Disclosures………………………………..……………………………38 A. Boeing and 737 Max………………………………………………………………….38 B. Abuse of the FAA’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP)……………………... 47 C. Atlas Airlines………………………………………………………………………….59 D. Allegations of Misconduct at the Honolulu Flight Standards District Office………...66 E. Improper Training and Certification………………………………………………….73 F. Ineffective Safety Oversight of Southwest Airlines…………………………………..82 VIII. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....99 IX. Recommendations…………………………………………………..……….………...101 1 I. Executive Summary In April of 2019, weeks after the second of two tragic crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation staff began receiving information
    [Show full text]
  • 24Th-Annual-Conference-Min.Pdf
    International Aviation Womens Association President’s Message Dear IAWA Members and Guests, As IAWA’s new President for 2012-2013, I am so honored to welcome you to our 24th Annual Conference in Dallas, Texas: “Cleared for Take Off—Aviation’s Impact on Growth, Jobs and World Commerce”. Thanks to our very dynamic Board and to our VPs Conference Cindy Durkin and Lisa Piccione as well as our past President Katherine Staton, who have prepared relentlessly for this conference, you will be able to enjoy very thorough discussions on global issues that we all have in mind as we work our way through economic challenges and global changes. We would like to welcome all our exceptional speakers and thank our sponsors, who have been more generous than ever and will allow us not only to hold a beautiful conference but also to use our proceeds for scholarship, mentoring and more. After Paris in 2011 and before Panama in 2013, where we will be celebrating our 25th year anniversary, Dallas will give us a real taste of America! We have added to our program our new “IAWA Aviation Woman of Excellence 2012” that we will offer to our very first recipient, Kathy Posner. We will be able to enjoy a formal Boeing sponsored dinner the first night and a fun cowboy and casual style the second night. Bring your nice dresses and your jeans! We are also fortunate to have Ambassador Oberwetter welcome us to Dallas on Wednesday night. Many of you came from all around the globe to network, listen to our panels, make new relationships, and get inspired by leadership and talent.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Ms. Dana Schulze Acting Director, Office of Aviation Safety
    Testimony of Ms. Dana Schulze Acting Director, Office of Aviation Safety National Transportation Safety Board Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure United States House of Representatives — On — Status of Aviation Safety — Washington, DC • July 17, 2019 An Independent Federal Agency Good morning, Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to testify before you today. I am the Acting Director of the Office of Aviation Safety within the NTSB. The NTSB is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. In addition, we conduct special transportation safety studies and special investigations and coordinate the resources of the federal government and other organizations to assist victims and their family members who have been impacted by major transportation disasters. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency – we do not promulgate operating standards nor do we certificate organizations and individuals. The goal of our work is to foster safety improvements, through formal and informal safety recommendations, for the traveling public. We investigate all civil domestic air carrier, commuter, and air taxi accidents; general aviation accidents; and certain public-use aircraft accidents, amounting to approximately 1,400 investigations of accidents and incidents annually. We also participate in investigations of airline accidents and incidents in foreign countries that involve US carriers, US-manufactured or - designed equipment, or US-registered aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • WASHINGTON AVIATION SUMMARY April 2012 EDITION
    WASHINGTON AVIATION SUMMARY April 2012 EDITION CONTENTS I. REGULATORY NEWS .............................................................................................. 1 II. AIRPORTS ................................................................................................................ 5 III. SECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY ……………………..................................................7 IV. E-COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 8 V. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 10 VI. U.S. CONGRESS .................................................................................................... 12 VII. BILATERAL AND STATE DEPARTMENT NEWS ................................................... 14 VIII. EUROPE/AFRICA ................................................................................................... 15 IX. ASIA/PACIFIC/MIDDLE EAST ................................................................................ 17 X. AMERICAS ............................................................................................................. 19 For further information, including documents referenced, contact: Joanne W. Young Kirstein & Young PLLC 1750 K Street NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-3348 Fax: (202) 331-3933 Email: [email protected] http://www.yklaw.com The Kirstein & Young law firm specializes in representing U.S. and foreign airlines, airports, leasing companies, financial institutions
    [Show full text]
  • Ground the Airbus? Page 1 of 14
    American Chronicle | Ground the Airbus? Page 1 of 14 Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:19:35 PM Ground the Airbus? June 19, 2009 William Cox Since entering service in 1974 with many technological innovations, such as computerized fly-by-wire control systems, user-friendly cockpits, and extended use of composite materials, 5,717 aircraft have been manufactured by Airbus, an European aerospace company. More than 5,100 Airbuses remain in service. Not including losses attributable to terrorism, rebellion or military action, Airbuses have been involved in 23 fatal crashes causing the deaths of 2,584 passengers, crew members and people on the ground. In addition, there have been five nonfatal accidents causing 21 serious injuries. While the overall number of accidents and fatalities are not disproportionate to the crash experience of Boeing aircraft, three of the Airbus crashes involved a separation of the composite vertical stabilizer (tail fin) from the fuselage. Five hundred, or one in five of the Airbus deaths, including 228 from Air France Flight 447, resulted from these three crashes. In addition, Airbus composite stabilizers, rudders and couplers have also been involved in a number of other emergency in-flight incidents that did not lead to crashes, injuries or deaths. There is now a question whether all Airbus aircraft equipped with composite stabilizers and rudders should be grounded until the cause of the crash of Flight 447 can be identified and it can be determined if the aircraft can be inspected, safely repaired, and returned to service. Used in law, science and philosophy, a rule known as Occam´s Razor requires that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex, and/or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
    [Show full text]