Most US citizens are familiar with the statistics: more than 40,000 people die every year on the country's highways; last year, a particularly bad one, 264 people died in commercial aviation accidents. With the odds of being killed in a plane crash calculated at roughly three in a million, a passenger in an animal-drawn carriage runs a higher risk of death.
So it was with great interest that close to 1,000 airline professionals gathered in Washington in early January at the request of US Department of Transportation secretary Federico Peña and Federal Aviation Administration head David Hinson. They came to hear just exactly what was wrong with their safety record, blemished in the previous three months by two particularly high-profile accidents: USAir flight 427, the Boeing 737 which fell from the sky last September near Pittsburgh killing 132; and American Eagle flight 4184, the ATR72 which crashed in late October with the loss of 68 lives. There were four other fatal accidents in 1994.
But many came with a jaundiced view. In the weeks preceding the gathering, the ATR accident resulted in the grounding of all aircraft of its type in the US in winter conditions after FAA testing of the aircraft. Then the DOT made good on a longstanding recommendation to merge the Part 135 aircraft safety rating category into Part 121. The former applies primarily to regional airlines and requires less stringent training and operating protocols.
These high-profile decisions forced service cuts and scheduling problems, as American Airlines' commuter affiliate Eagle had to move 41 ATR aircraft from Chicago to Dallas, while Continental Express cut its Newark capacity in half and smaller airlines simply stopped using the aircraft.
In private, airline managers are less concerned about the revenue losses arising from the ATR grounding than the negative effects the ruling has had on passenger perception. 'The government has legitimised everyone's fears, instead of saying these fears are unfounded in the data,' says one regional carrier executive, voicing a commonly heard complaint that '135' operators include helicopter operators and carriers in Alaska where severe weather conditions can skew the statistics. 'It's a tragedy how many more people will die getting in their cars instead of flying.'
DOT officials say they were aware of the potential negative effects and tried to mitigate these concerns. During the highly publicised proceedings, they praised airline safety by suggesting that standards would only be improved by a zero accident record. But apart from that challenge, participants complained they heard little new. Hundreds of points were raised, including the need for better use of flight recorder data and the legal concerns of airlines and their employees in sharing information and reporting safety problems. By the time the show was over, 540 recommendations had been proffered, of which 70 were prioritised.
On a more refreshing note, Hinson and other FAA officials candidly admitted the agency's performance has been poor in implementing several safety recommendations, including some proposed by its departmental rival, the National Transportation Safety Board. These include such initiatives as ground surveillance radar for taxiing aircraft and establishing the single rating criteria for all aircraft. Hinson has promised quicker action, and Peña, flush with what had apparently turned into a two-day public relations dream, walked out dismissing industry concerns that the government's actions had lent credence to mounting public fears about flying.
Some airline officials accuse Peña of focusing on safety in an attempt to fill a policy vacuum, which has enveloped the transportation secretary since he took office. 'This is all meant to save lives - political lives,' says one airline executive. But any attempt by Peña to capitalise on such an emotive issue could yet backfire and lead to further policy lapses in Washington. Besides focusing attention on FAA's slow response time on safety matters and the shortcomings of some US airline management structures in creating a safety-led environment, the proceedings helped shift the focus onto a politician who could become Secretary Peña's new congressional nightmare: Larry Pressler, the Republican senator from South Dakota, who was recently appointed chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee.
Last year, Peña's fractious relationship with Congress was best symbolised by his dealings - or lack thereof - with former Senate Aviation Subcommittee chairman Wendell Ford. Pressler, as head of the full committee, has even more power than Ford. He quickly made clear his intention closely to scrutinise Peña, the DOT and the FAA by holding a hearing on FAA safety oversight two days after the DOT-sponsored conference had ended.
Pressler, considered by many to be an unpredictable force on many issues, is anything but when it comes to aviation safety. He was personally affected by tragedy when the governor of South Dakota died in a helicopter crash three years ago. The aircraft was of a type exempted by the FAA from some key safety regulations and it was this experience that many believe is the primary force motivating his interest in the subject.
Unlike his preceding Democrat counterparts, and to the surprise of officials at DOT, Pressler has no difficulty in making aviation safety a political issue and the transportation secretary a target of his wrath. In a CBS television interview the morning of his FAA oversight hearing, the senator firstly linked Peña, the former mayor of Denver, with the Denver International Airport 'management disaster'. Then, moments later, he dismissed the DOT conference earlier in the week, complaining that the department was in 'chaos,' and that the FAA had failed to act on all NTSB recommendations: 'The flying public needs to be assured of its safety. Peña is in charge of the FAA, it is in his department, and he cannot duck that responsibility.'
What many fear will happen this year is a battle of wills between Peña and Pressler, with aviation interests caught in the middle. 'It could be very expensive for the airlines,' says one airline government affairs official. 'We saw this coming, and it is irresponsible. Which is not to say [safety decisions] shouldn't be made. Pressler's point is that if NTSB makes recommendations, why shouldn't the FAA just implement them? Technically, many things are feasible, but it doesn't mean it makes sense.'
Still, few airlines are complaining about increased safety standards, since many new systems improve efficiency as well as safety. And many mandates that have come from the DOT have already been in process at US majors, in some cases for years. The requirement for each airline to establish a position for a senior officer of safety to report directly to the CEO, for example, will not be difficult for AMR Corp to fill, since the carrier already has a senior manager reporting to executive vice president of operations Bob Baker.
Practically, the focus on safety may bring the tiers of the airline industry into a closer working relationship. Delta, for example, has established a committee comprised of itself and the four Delta Connection carriers to create a common training programme that will bring the regional affiliates into Part 121 compliance. And according to Al Prest, vice president of operations at the Air Transport Association, that kind of example is influencing his group's relations with the Regional Airline Association: 'It looks like this conference will bring the mother carriers closer to the regional airlines, and it might mean the ATA will work closer with the RAA.'
And as for Peña's aim of a zero accident record? 'It's a fine goal, but in the end unachievable,' says Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. 'However, I would never endorse an administrator who would say any number of accidents is a fine goal.'
And as for Peña's aim of a zero accident record? 'It's a fine goal, but in the end unachievable,' says Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. 'However, I would never endorse an administrator who would say any number of accidents is a fine goal.'
Statistics notwithstanding, there are few things that can completely calm the innate fear many people have towards flying.
At the recent US DOT conference on safety, representative James Oberstar, former chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, said that airlines, for better or worse, exist 'on a pedestal' above other, less safe forms of transport.
This, however, does little to calm the anger that many airline industry officials feel towards a small circle of 'safety gadflies' who regularly achieve notoriety in the media for their willingness to comment on aviation matters - sometimes with an alarmist spin. 'I have no problem with responsible reporting,' says one industry official. 'But there are people out there who have an ability to sensationalise and distort our records. People who stand to profit from scaring the public.'
Though the official refuses to give names, it takes little effort for those familiar with US aviation to figure that the reference is toward David Stempler, president of the International Airline Passengers Association.
IAPA is a Dallas-based organisation whose primary business is to provide travel information and insurance. For $49, 'members' - there are 110,000 regulars, according to Stempler - receive a newsletter and updates on the safety of airlines and travel around the world. For $99 members can get travel insurance policies starting at $100,000.
Many in the airline industry believe IAPA's two functions - providing safety warnings and offering life insurance for travellers - lead to a conflict of interests. But Stempler, a former aviation attorney, fiercely denies the accusation, saying that his motives are divined by IAPA members looking for safety information on travel destinations. 'We have been accused of a lot of false motives, but we are just trying to do what our members pay us to do,' he says. 'The airline system runs for the benefit of airline passengers, not manufacturers, airlines or airline employees.'
In the last year, Stempler's high-profile efforts have won him a great amount of press coverage after IAPA released reports warning travellers away from Russian ('Russia - Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!,' led his April newsletter), as well as Chinese, Columbian and US commuter airlines. It was the latter which, not surprisingly, ruffled the feathers of the US carriers, primarily because the report was a consideration of fatal regional accidents over the last 15 years and deemed 30-seat aircraft and below unsafe. Critics charge that the survey of fatal accidents should be more representative of the industry's younger fleet. The latest IAPA target is the notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the DOT that will bring commuter aircraft into compliance with training and maintenance rules that govern larger jet aircraft. The complaint targets the exemption given to aircraft with 10 seats or less.
But even without a specific target, Stempler is always ready with his opinions. Most recently he has been used by many journalists as a source on safety concerns since the USAir and American Eagle crashes. 'The point I try to make, once [airline executives] get over the problems and concerns [my action] has raised, is that this will greatly improve the industry. I don't like [being a pariah], but if have to take some heat, I'll do it.' He refutes the charge of scaremongering that is constantly levelled against him: 'We never recommend that anybody get off the planes and into cars.'
Source: Airline Business
