tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/federal-aviation-administration-4589/articlesFederal Aviation Administration – The Conversation2024-01-19T13:41:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2210692024-01-19T13:41:11Z2024-01-19T13:41:11ZBoeing door plug blowout highlights a possible crisis of competence − an aircraft safety expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569659/original/file-20240116-21-w7tewc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C24%2C5439%2C3612&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An investigator examines the frame of a Boeing aircraft whose door plug blew out in flight.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BoeingEmergencyLanding/390bb7248d0f4069b1b987492afbc254/photo">National Transportation Safety Board via AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>In the wake of the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/us/what-happened-alaska-airlines-flight-1282/index.html">in-flight blowout of the side of a Boeing 737 Max 9</a>, federal regulators have grounded planes and are stepping up scrutiny of Boeing’s manufacturing process.</em></p>
<p><em>The Jan. 5, 2024, explosive decompression after takeoff was related to a component called a “door plug” being ejected from the fuselage of the aircraft. This was after <a href="https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-emergency-landing-aab8ee1e594369ab48fa3ce60f3acdc6">three prior flights of that plane</a> had registered warning signals about cabin pressurization. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating that incident.</em></p>
<p><em>In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration has launched an investigation into Boeing’s manufacturing process. Other incidents have raised concerns about other 737 Max aircraft – not just <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-how-airplane-crash-investigations-work-according-to-an-aviation-safety-expert-113602">fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019</a>, but more recent examples of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67919436">bolts or other fittings or fasteners</a> not being up to standards.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation U.S. asked <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=I0IMxAkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Daniel Kwasi Adjekum</a>, an aviation safety expert and professor of aviation at the University of North Dakota, to explain the significance of the incident, the government’s response and what it all means for the flying public.</em></p>
<h2>Why is Boeing – not the airline – responsible for the door plug being secure?</h2>
<p>Under U.S. federal requirements, the number of occupants in an aircraft and the seating arrangements determine the <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR88992669bab3b52/section-25.807">number and placements of emergency exit doors</a>. Airplane manufacturers build fuselages with enough openings to accommodate all the doors that might be needed. If airlines choose to use the highest-density seating arrangements, they need to use all of the openings for actual exit doors. But not all airlines pack the seats in that tightly; on those planes, some emergency doors are not needed. Those spaces are filled by door plugs.</p>
<p>In the case of the Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft, the door plugs are fitted by Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas, which is the supplier of the airframe to Boeing. The final assembly of the aircraft is carried out at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington. Quality control checks are done at Spirit AeroSystems, and then another round of quality checks is done by Boeing. These include a high-pressure test to ensure that the cabin can be pressurized safely and to ensure the integrity of the fuselage and pressure bulkheads.</p>
<p>Normally, the plugs are not removed during those tests at the Boeing facility, though they are checked to ensure they are correctly aligned with the rest of the fuselage. Overall, it is Boeing’s responsibility, as the original equipment manufacturer, to ensure the components conform to the FAA’s design, manufacturing, installation and performance requirements. </p>
<h2>Do the airlines have any reason to inspect the bolts that fasten the plugs in place?</h2>
<p>Under normal circumstances, once they are delivered and initially inspected, door plugs and their components are not adjusted by the airline maintenance team, though their integrity is checked as part of stipulated maintenance checks. Records from Alaska Airlines suggest that on previous flights before this incident, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/alaska-airlines-portland-oregon-emergency-landing-aab8ee1e594369ab48fa3ce60f3acdc6">pilots had received cockpit alerts</a> indicating a failure of the aircraft’s cabin auto-pressurization system.</p>
<p>In a situation like that, where there are suspected cabin pressurization issues, it may be possible for airline maintenance crews to check all cabin doors, windows, seals and potentially door plugs as part of a thorough troubleshooting process, but they would be subject to Boeing’s procedures for inspecting a door plug.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Airline seats sit next to an opening in the side of an aircraft." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569658/original/file-20240116-23-6pkv4l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A view of the opening in the side of a Boeing aircraft that lost a door plug in midflight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BoeingEmergencyLanding/d6bae2b392f74ac88efa0f8f7ffbb5af/photo">NTSB via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What do FAA investigations involve?</h2>
<p>The design, testing, certification and approval process for any new aeronautical product is supposed to be in compliance with strict <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25?toc=1">legal and FAA regulatory standards</a>.</p>
<p>As part of the investigations in this case, the FAA will <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug">review the engineering and manufacturing processes</a> for the Boeing 737 Max 9, including the processes for vendors and suppliers, to determine if those standards were met. The <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-reviews-data-from-preliminary-inspections-of-boeing-737-max-9/">FAA will review documentation</a> on quality control and assurance processes and analyze components. </p>
<p>The FAA has said it is <a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increasing-oversight-boeing-production-and-manufacturing">considering bringing in a third party</a> to conduct an audit of the engineering and manufacturing processes for the Boeing 737 Max 9. The findings and recommendations from the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/08/1223427243/boeing-flight-door-plug-alaska-airlines">National Transportation Safety Board incident investigation</a> may also provide valuable information.</p>
<h2>How do airlines deal with having so many airplanes that are now out of service pending their various inspections?</h2>
<p>With all these aircraft grounded, you need hangars and parking places for temporary storage. And it costs. In the U.S. alone we’re talking about <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/list-airlines-boeing-max-9-1858436">171 airplanes</a> on the ground. </p>
<p>That is a huge financial loss to airlines, which are otherwise benefiting from a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/12/business/alaska-and-united-flights-canceled-737-max/index.html">surge in air service demand and increased passenger interest</a>.</p>
<p>Airlines’ fleet plans – entailing which aircraft they send on which routes and in what sequence – will be disrupted. Some high-traffic routes normally served by these aircraft will have to be done by other aircraft with limited seat and load capacities. That can reduce expected revenue.</p>
<p>The current scenario will also affect flight crew scheduling. Some crew members may have their work hours reduced or eliminated, at least for a period of time.</p>
<p>Once investigators have determined what went wrong, and how to fix whatever it was, that corrective action will also take a lot of maintenance work, in addition to the normal maintenance work for keeping the rest of the planes fit for flying.</p>
<p>It also appears that the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft">FAA may want to inspect each plane</a> after it is fixed before certifying it to return to service. That will require significant amounts of inspection time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two planes sit parked on the tarmac at an airport." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569660/original/file-20240116-21-b90elk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft sit on the ground at an Oregon airport on Jan. 9, 2024, awaiting approval to take to the skies once again.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/alaska-airlines-boeing-737-max-9-aircrafts-n705al-and-news-photo/1913163434">Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How does an airliner manufacturer regain public confidence? Have other companies dealt with this before?</h2>
<p>In the 1970s, McDonnell Douglas had airworthiness issues with the DC-10 aircraft. Its <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/book-excerpt-flight-981-disaster-180967121">cargo door sometimes opened midflight</a>, resulting in injuries and <a href="https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9781588345608">fatalities</a>.</p>
<p>The incidents were a big public relations problem for McDonnell Douglas, but using recommendations from the accident investigations, the company managed to redesign the door. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, ATR had its own issues with the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N401AM">ATR 72’s de-icing system</a>. The company completely redesigned the system and gradually came back into the market.</p>
<p>Airbus has also faced similar challenges: Some <a href="https://simpleflying.com/a320neo-engine-troubles/">Airbus A320neos using Pratt and Whitney 1100G engines</a> had vibration problems that required review with engine manufacturers and regulators.</p>
<p>Most aircraft manufacturers are aware technical issues can surface after deploying a product into the market. That is why it’s important for them to get continuous feedback from operators on reliability and safety. </p>
<p>Boeing’s situation is difficult in part because of previous problems with other 737 Max models, including fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. In my view, the company will need a lot of transparency and leadership to address these hits to its reputation.</p>
<p>To me, the company’s best chance for surviving this crisis would be to take full responsibility for what has happened and avoid blaming its suppliers. Boeing could involve airline executives, pilots, engineers, cabin crew, media and others in a wide-ranging discussion of quality and safety. If Boeing could win the confidence of these key stakeholders who operate its aircraft, that could help reestablish credibility for its brand with the traveling public.</p>
<p>In early 2023, Boeing was planning to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-add-737-max-line-it-boosts-production-2023-01-30/">ramp up production of the 737 Max line</a>. My suggestion would be that the company make product safety and quality an immediate priority and worry later about maximizing production goals and profits, after Boeing’s reputation is restored.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Kwasi Adjekum has previously received funding from the National Academies of Sciences Gulf Research Program. </span></em></p>Boeing is under increased public and government scrutiny in the wake of dangerous events that have people worried about the safety of air travel.Daniel Kwasi Adjekum, Assistant Professor of Aviation, University of North DakotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1977542023-01-12T21:13:47Z2023-01-12T21:13:47ZWhat is the FAA’s NOTAM? An aviation expert explains how the critical safety system works<p><em>Late in the evening of Jan. 10, 2023, an important digital system known as NOTAM run by the Federal Aviation Administration <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148340708/faa-notam-ground-stop-flight-delay">went offline</a>. The FAA was able to continue getting necessary information to pilots overnight using a phone-based backup, but the stopgap couldn’t keep up with the morning rush of flights, and on Jan. 11, 2022, the FAA grounded all commercial flights in the U.S. In total, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148340708/faa-notam-ground-stop-flight-delay">nearly 7,000 flights</a> were canceled. <a href="https://aviation.osu.edu/people/strzempkowski.1">Brian Strzempkowksi</a> is the interim director of the Center for Aviation Studies at The Ohio State University and a commercial pilot, flight instructor and dispatcher. He explains what the NOTAM system is and why planes can’t fly if the system goes down.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A number of planes line up for takeoff on a runway." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504319/original/file-20230112-60827-1gx11f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pilots must check the NOTAM system before takeoff so that they know about any situations that may affect safety.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6_planes_in_one_photo!_United_Airlines_Boeing_787,_747,_777,_WOW_Airbus_A330_takeoff,_SWA_737,_United_CRJ_landing_SFO_runway_28_L_and_R_(30480576501).jpg#/media/File:6_planes_in_one_photo!_United_Airlines_Boeing_787,_747,_777,_WOW_Airbus_A330_takeoff,_SWA_737,_United_CRJ_landing_SFO_runway_28_L_and_R_(30480576501).jpg">Bill Abbott/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is NOTAM?</h2>
<p>Aviation is full of acronyms, and Notice to Air Missions, or NOTAM, is one acronym that pilots learn early on in their training. A NOTAM is quite simply a message that is disseminated to flight crews of every aircraft in the U.S.</p>
<p>The NOTAM system is a computer network run by the Federal Aviation Administration that provides real-time updates to crews about situations relating to weather, infrastructure, ground conditions or anything else that may <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/03_phak_ch1.pdf">affect the safety of flight</a>. Trained professionals – like air traffic controllers, airport managers, airport operations personnel and FAA personnel in charge of national airspace infrastructure – can access the system and enter any information they need to share broadly.</p>
<p>Pilots, air traffic controllers and anyone else who needs to know about flying conditions can access the NOTAM system and make appropriate changes to planned flights. It’s similar to checking the traffic on your phone or on the local news before you head to work in the morning. A traffic report will inform you of potential hazards or backups on the roadways that may lead you take a different route to work.</p>
<h2>What’s in the NOTAM system and how is it used?</h2>
<p>NOTAMs are issued for a wide range of reasons. Some of the notices are good to know but don’t affect a flight – such as personnel mowing grass alongside a runway or a crane working on a building next to the airport. Others are more critical, such as a runway being closed because of snow, ice or damage, forcing a plane to take off or land on a different runway. Changes in access to airspace are also logged with a NOTAM. For example, airspace is always closed above the president and when he or she travels; a NOTAM will alert pilots to changes in airspace closures.</p>
<p>Pilots <a href="https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/">review these NOTAMs</a> during their preflight briefings. Generally this is done digitally using a computer, but pilots and air traffic controllers can also access the system by calling flight service briefers, who can share <a href="https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/home;jsessionid=624B2EEA87E48B2E1DF67CB0B791E054?desktop=true#!/phone-numbers-quick-steps">live weather and NOTAM information</a>. Airline pilots also rely on their dispatchers to relay any relevant NOTAMs not only before but also during the flight. </p>
<p>The NOTAMs themselves use a lot of abbreviations and are often cryptic to nonaviation folks, but a small amount of text <a href="https://www.notams.faa.gov/downloads/contractions.pdf">can carry a lot of information</a>. Hundreds of different acronyms can convey a range of information, from taxiway closures to certain types of airport lighting being out of service to a notice that some pavement markings may be obscured.</p>
<p>But not all NOTAMs are straightforward. I remember once seeing a notice from an airport alerting pilots that a fire department was conducting a controlled burn of a house nearby.</p>
<h2>Why can’t you fly if the NOTAM system is down?</h2>
<p>The Federal Aviation Authority requires flight crews to <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRe4c59b5f5506932/section-91.103">review NOTAMs before every flight</a> for safety reasons. Without access to this information, a plane cannot legally depart, because there may be an unknown hazard ahead. </p>
<p>As an example, a pilot departing Seattle to fly to Miami would need to know that the Miami airport is open, that the runways are clear and that all the navigational sources – like GPS signals and ground-based navigation antennas – that a pilot may use while in the air are working. Theoretically, they could call the Miami airport and ask, and then call the person who oversees every navigational aid on their route, but that would take a lot of time. A much more efficient way to gather this information before and during a flight is to use the NOTAM system. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the NOTAM system is about safety. When the system is down, pilots can’t fly as safely. It is for good reason that planes don’t go anywhere unless the NOTAM system is up and running.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197754/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Strzempkowski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Notices to Air Mission system failed on Jan. 10, 2023, leading to thousands of canceled flights. The system is where all important safety information for pilots and dispatchers gets posted.Brian Strzempkowski, Interim Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1171392019-06-03T12:40:55Z2019-06-03T12:40:55ZPilots sleeping in the cockpit could improve airline safety<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277100/original/file-20190529-192405-10gywgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C5596%2C3702&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Airline pilots are often exhausted.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Airline pilots are often exhausted. An extreme example happened in 2008, when a pilot and a co-pilot <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/faa-suspends-pilots-who-fell-asleep-on-hawaii-flight-overshooting-airport/">both fell asleep at the controls</a>, missing their landing in Hawaii – earning pilot’s license suspensions as well as getting fired. More recently, overtired pilots came very close to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/after-near-disaster-ntsb-eyes-tech-to-keep-planes-on-runways">landing on top of another airplane</a> at San Francisco International Airport in 2017.</p>
<p>It’s not uncommon for a pilot for a major commercial airline to, for instance, start work in Florida at 5 p.m., with her first flight departing an hour later for a five-hour trip across the country, arriving in California just after 8 p.m. local time. Then she might get a short break and fly a 90-minute short-hop flight to to another California city. When she lands from this second flight, she has spent six and a half hours of the last nine in the cockpit. She is also three time zones from where she started work, and her body thinks it’s 2 a.m. There’s no doubt she’s tired – and she’s lucky not to have encountered any <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2018/10/21/airline-pilot-schedules-vary-widely/1690756002/">schedule adjustments</a> for aircraft maintenance or weather delays.</p>
<p>The airline industry and the government agency that regulates it, the Federal Aviation Administration, have taken steps to reduce <a href="https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fatigue">pilot fatigue</a>, but many pilots and others <a href="https://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/default/files/eca_barometer_on_pilot_fatigue_12_1107_f.pdf">remain worried</a> that two pilots are required to remain awake and alert for the entire flight, though one or both may be dealing with symptoms of fatigue. One possible suggestion is letting pilots take <a href="https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Controlled-Rest.pdf">brief naps in the cockpit</a>. As researchers of consumer opinions about the airline industry, we’ve found that the American public is wary of this idea, but may feel better about it once they’ve heard an explanation of how it actually makes their flights safer.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aGQlQFn0euI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An Air Canada plane flown by overtired pilots nearly lands on a taxiway in San Francisco in 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Limiting pilots’ work time</h2>
<p>Pilot fatigue can be difficult to predict or diagnose – especially since tired pilots usually manage to take off, fly and land safely. Even when something goes wrong, accident investigators may have little evidence of fatigue, except perhaps the sound of someone yawning on cockpit audio recordings.</p>
<p>In 2014, the FAA imposed the first <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=7fc4e6fe69deee75c9d2ffd80b47d30f&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr117_main_02.tpl">new pilot-rest rules</a> in 60 years, limiting overall on-duty time and flight hours per day depending on when a pilot’s shift starts. The rules also established a process by which pilots can report fatigue without being disciplined by their airlines or the government.</p>
<h2>Resting in the cockpit</h2>
<p>It’s widely known that a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.010">short nap can improve a pilot’s alertness</a>. Some planes, such as those commonly used on long international flights, <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/article/airlines-crew-rest-areas-beds-12941787.php">have beds their pilots and other crew can use</a>, but smaller planes don’t have the space. Only flights that are longer than eight hours require an additional pilot to be on board so one pilot at a time can rotate out for rest. On shorter flights, U.S. regulations expect both pilots to remain alert for the entire length of the flight, without any chance for rest during the flight.</p>
<p>Some countries, including <a href="http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part7-standards-720-2153.htm#720_23">Canada</a> and Australia, allow for pilots to nap in the cockpit. In an example from <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/china-airlines-pilot-asleep-taiwan-boeing-747-a8790591.html">China</a>, a pilot was caught napping and faced disciplinary action for napping in the cockpit. The official procedure to allow for pilots to nap in the cockpit is called “<a href="https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Controlled-Rest.pdf">controlled rest in position</a>.” CRIP has established policies and procedures to allow pilots to rest.</p>
<p>The rules are strict. The Air Canada Flight Operations Manual, for instance, says a pilot who wants to rest must notify the co-pilot and a flight attendant. The pilot can sleep for no more than 40 minutes, and must wake up at least half an hour before the descent for landing. They get the first 15 minutes after the nap to fully awaken, during which they can’t resume actually flying the plane, unless they need to help deal with an emergency.</p>
<h2>Consumers’ opinions</h2>
<p>As consumer opinion experts, we have conducted a series of studies to see <a href="https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.18.100461">what members of the public think</a> about letting pilots use this CRIP procedure to nap in the cockpit. In general, people are less willing to fly when they know a pilot might be allowed to sleep at the controls, and women are less willing than men. </p>
<p>In our research, we find that this is mostly attributed to fear, because they don’t understand the benefits of pilot naps. Some of our earlier work has shown that when consumers understand the value of a new procedure, they’ll <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.002">feel better about it</a>. It seems likely that explaining to people how better-rested pilots makes a flight safer could help more people feel comfortable flying in a plane where the CRIP procedure is allowed.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277252/original/file-20190530-69055-raqahw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An aircrew rest and sleep area is tucked away off the business class section on this Boeing 747.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Outtakes-AP-A-F-WA-USA-WATW210-Delta-Alaska-Asia/a52b89451b1247cfac9ace34ad2f4f2a/2/0">AP Photo/Ted S. Warren</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What do pilots think?</h2>
<p><a href="https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=ijaaa">In a follow-up study</a>, we asked pilots what they thought about being allowed to rest in the cockpit during flight – and they were much more enthusiastic than nonpilots. Seventy percent of pilots favored allowing CRIP. On average, all participants who completed the survey felt that naps of 45 minutes should be approved, which was closely related to the <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19950006379">40 minutes suggested by scientific evidence</a>. They also recognized the need for the pilot to be awake at least 30 minutes before beginning the descent to landing. Overall, the participants thought there were <a href="http://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/CARI/article/view/7733/7158">very few potential problems</a> with CRIP and said it would be useful.</p>
<p>However, some pilots did express worry about unintended consequences of CRIP implementation. The airlines, knowing that pilots could take naps during the flight, might be tempted to impose more rigorous flight schedules that would eliminate any benefits derived from CRIP. Lastly, participants commented on how this procedure is already being used by international carriers such as Air Canada and Qantas with success. So far, those companies’ crews have not registered widespread complaints about abuse of scheduling practices, and none of the survey respondents who fly for those airlines complained about this potential problem.</p>
<h2>Will the US allow it?</h2>
<p>It is hard to say whether the FAA would ever move to let U.S. pilots nap in the cockpit. The <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950006379.pdf">scientific research</a> provides empirical evidence as to its advantages, and while consumers are somewhat hesitant, pilots seem very supportive of it.</p>
<p>What is clear is that fatigue in the cockpit remains a threat to the aviation industry worldwide. Given the scientific evidence supporting CRIP to counter fatigue, clearly there is value in considering how it could improve aviation safety. Perhaps it’s time to listen to the pilots we trust to fly these airplanes and let them rest when they need to – within reason, and so they can fly more safely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117139/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott R. Winter has received funding from the Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation. The opinions in this article are solely the opinions of the authors.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Rice has received funding from the Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation.</span></em></p>Pilots are often overtired, making them prone to errors. Some countries let them sleep on the job – under strict rules. Pilots love the idea, but consumers are wary, for now.Scott Winter, Assistant Professor of Graduate Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityStephen Rice, Professor of Human Factors, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1150342019-04-16T10:47:35Z2019-04-16T10:47:35ZBoeing crashes and Uber collision show passenger safety relies on corporate promises, not regulators’ tests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269076/original/file-20190412-76859-gv4t4i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=163%2C465%2C2322%2C955&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Automation can often get ahead of safety regulators' efforts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/running-business-people-chasing-robot-humanoid-1101214268">Tarikdiz/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Advanced technologies deliver benefits every day. But, sometimes interactions with technology can go awry and lead to disaster. </p>
<p>On March 10, the pilots aboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/25/anti-stall-system-was-in-play-on-ethiopians-boeing-737-max">unable to correct a failure</a> in one of the Boeing 737 Max 8’s automated systems, resulting in a crash and the deaths of all passengers and crew. A year earlier, almost to the day, another automated vehicle – not an airplane but an Uber self-driving car – struck and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html">killed Elaine Herzberg</a> in Tempe, Arizona. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://ifis.asu.edu/content/cscr-people">experts in how humans</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VX2EqQgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">technologies interact</a>, we know that it is <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/6596.html">impossible to completely eliminate risk</a> in complex technological systems. These tragedies are the result of regulators and industry experts overlooking the complexities and risks of interactions between technologies and humans and increasingly relying on companies’ voluntary self-assessment, rather than objective, independent tests. Tragically, that appears to have happened <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/with-its-ties-in-washington-boeing-has-taken-over-more-and-more-of-the-faas-job/2019/03/24/6e5ef2c6-4be8-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html">with Boeing’s aircraft</a> and the Uber car.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LVOwxV9dVmg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Inside the cockpit of a Boeing 737 Max 8.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Risky business</h2>
<p>The crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, as well as that of <a href="https://theconversation.com/despite-consumer-worries-the-future-of-aviation-will-be-more-automated-113807">Lion Air Flight 610</a> in 2018, happened despite oversight from one of the most technologically capable regulators in the world. Air travel is <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stats.aspx">remarkably safe</a> in light of the potential risks. </p>
<p>Before the 737 Max 8 took to the air, it had to pass a series of Federal Aviation Administration inspections. Over the course of that process, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/fast-tracked-aircraft-certification-pushed-by-boeing-comes-under-the-spotlight-11553428800">Boeing convinced the FAA</a> that the <a href="https://gizmodo.com/aviation-experts-have-been-warning-us-of-the-dangers-of-1833419813/">automated system was safer than it actually was</a>, and that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-simulator-exclusive/ethiopia-crash-captain-did-not-train-on-airlines-max-simulator-source-idUSKCN1R20WD">pilots would need very little training</a> on the new plane. </p>
<p>The FAA cleared the 737 Max 8 and its flight control system to fly – and retained that clearance not only after the Lion Air crash, but also for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/canada-737-max.html">three days after</a> the Ethiopian Airlines tragedy.</p>
<h2>From airplanes to automobiles</h2>
<p>As airplane automation is increasing, the same is true for cars. Various companies are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.org/program/government-innovation/bloomberg-aspen-initiative-cities-autonomous-vehicles/">testing autonomous vehicles on roads all around the country</a> – and with far less oversight than the aviation industry. Local and <a href="https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a23602511/self-driving-cars-requirements-loosened/">federal rules are limited</a>, often in the name of promoting innovation. Federal <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2662.html">safety guidelines</a> for autonomous vehicles require them to pass only the same performance tests as any other car, like minimum fuel economy standards, seat belt configurations and how well they’ll protect occupants in a rollover crash. </p>
<p>There’s no reliability testing of their sensors, much less their algorithms. Some states do require companies to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/13/18223356/california-dmv-self-driving-car-disengagement-report-2018">report “disengagements”</a> – when the so-called “safety driver” resumes control over the automated system. But mostly the self-driving car companies are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-industry-favorite-self-driving-hub.html">allowed to do what they want</a>, so long as there is a person behind the wheel.</p>
<p>In the months before the March 2018 collision, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/waymo-now-has-a-serious-driverless-car-rival-gms-cruise/">Uber was under pressure</a> to catch up with GM Cruise and Waymo. Uber’s cars had a sensitive object-recognition system, which at times would be deceived by a shadow on the road and brake to avoid an obstacle that wasn’t actually there. That resulted in a rough, stop-and-start ride. To smooth things out, Uber’s engineers <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-crash/uber-disabled-emergency-braking-in-self-driving-car-u-s-agency-idUSKCN1IP26K">disabled the car’s emergency braking system</a>. The company appears to have assumed the single safety driver would always be able to stop the car in time if there was really a danger of hitting something.</p>
<iframe title="USATODAY- Embed Player" width="100%" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://uw-media.usatoday.com/embed/video/33167231?placement=snow-embed"></iframe>
<p>That’s not what happened as Elaine Herzberg crossed the road. The Uber self-driving car that hit and killed her <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-crash-arizona-ntsb-report/">did see her with its sensors and cameras</a>, but was unable to stop on its own. The safety driver appears to have been <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17492320/safety-driver-self-driving-uber-crash-hulu-police-report">distracted by her phone</a> – in violation of Uber’s policies, though it’s unclear how the company briefed its safety drivers about the change to the automated system.</p>
<h2>Policing themselves</h2>
<p>Regulators are relying on safety self-assessment practices, whereby private companies vouch for their own products’ compliance with federal standards. The best assurances they – and members of the public – have for the safety and reliability of these vehicles are the guarantees of the companies who intend to sell them. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment">What reports companies do provide</a> can be slim on hard evidence, touting the number of <a href="https://www.govtech.com/fs/Self-Driving-Cars-See-Less-Human-Intervention-in-California.html">real and simulated miles driven</a>, without details of how the cars are performing under various conditions. And car companies are constantly releasing new models and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/2/17413732/tesla-over-the-air-software-updates-brakes">upgrading their software</a>, forcing human drivers to learn about the new features. </p>
<p>This is all the more unnerving because there are far more cars on the roads than there are planes in the air – <a href="https://hedgescompany.com/automotive-market-research-statistics/auto-mailing-lists-and-marketing/">270 million cars registered</a> in the U.S. alone, compared with <a href="https://www.planestats.com/mro1_2018jan">25,000 commercial aircraft worldwide</a>. In addition, self-driving cars have to handle not just weather conditions but also close-range interactions with other cars, pedestrians, cyclists and e-scooters. Safety drivers don’t get nearly the amount of training that pilots do, either.</p>
<p>Arizona, where we’re based, is a popular place for public testing of autonomous vehicles, in part because of <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/20/595115055/arizona-governor-helped-make-state-wild-west-for-driverless-cars">looser oversight</a> than in other states. In the Phoenix area, however, there is growing public concern about safety. Some citizens are <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/12/11/waymo-self-driving-vehicles-face-harassment-road-rage-phoenix-area/2198220002/">harassing autonomous vehicles</a> in efforts to discourage them from driving through their neighborhoods. As one Arizona resident told The New York Times, the autonomous vehicle industry “said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/waymo-self-driving-cars-arizona-attacks.html">their real-world mistake</a>.” </p>
<iframe title="AZCENTRAL- Embed Player" width="100%" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://uw-media.azcentral.com/embed/video/2314126002?placement=snow-embed"></iframe>
<h2>Connecting with the public, innovating responsibly</h2>
<p>In the absence of federal safety standards for autonomous vehicles, states and local governments are left to protect the public – often without the expertise and resources to do so effectively. In our view, this doesn’t mean banning the technology, but rather insisting on corporate transparency and true regulatory oversight.</p>
<p>Engaging the public about what’s happening and who is – and isn’t – protecting their safety can help officials at all levels of government understand what their citizens expect, and push them to ensure that technological innovation is done responsibly. </p>
<p>Universities can play an <a href="https://meetingoftheminds.org/self-driving-ride-share-service-waymo-one-has-launched-whats-next-for-cities-29661">important role</a> in supporting responsible innovation on these issues. The Arizona State University Center for Smart Cities and Regions is working with the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes to host <a href="http://themobilitydebate.net/find-a-debate/">public forums on self-driving cars in cities across the U.S. and Europe</a>. </p>
<p>Airplane and car passengers need to trust their vehicles and understand what risks are unavoidable – as well as what can be prevented. Relying on industry to self-regulate when lives and public trust are at stake is not a viable path to ensure that rapidly emerging innovations are developed and deployed responsibly. To the riders, customers and others sharing the road and the skies, there is only one bottom line – and it doesn’t have a dollar sign attached to it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Government regulators and industry experts often overlook the complexities and risks of human-technology interactions and increasingly rely on companies’ voluntary oversight and self-assessments.Adam Gabriele, Ph.D. Student in Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityThaddeus R. Miller, Assistant Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society and The Polytechnic School; Co-Director Center for Smart Cities and Regions, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1140512019-03-25T20:52:36Z2019-03-25T20:52:36ZBoeing is doing crisis management all wrong – here’s what a company needs to do to restore the public’s trust<p>In a crisis, time is not on your side. </p>
<p>A crisis creates a vacuum, an informational void that gets filled one way or another. The longer a company or other organization at the center of the crisis waits to communicate, the more likely that void will be filled by critics.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what’s happening to Boeing.</p>
<p>On March 10, Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/ethiopian-airlines-plane-crash/index.html">crashed outside Addis Ababa shortly after takeoff</a>, killing all 157 passengers on board. This was the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/lion-air-plane-crash-updates-intl/index.html">second Boeing 737 Max</a> to crash in fewer than four months, putting the total death toll at almost 350 people.</p>
<p>I’ve been both a manager and teacher of <a href="http://prosintraining.com/about/">crisis communications</a> for more than a decade. One thing I know for sure is that in crises in which there’s loss of life, it’s important to be compassionate, empathetic and careful. </p>
<p>However, in the two days after the Ethiopian Air crash, Boeing made crisis communications missteps that may have a long-term effect on its reputation and credibility.</p>
<h2>Too little, too late</h2>
<p>The key problem with Boeing’s approach is that its response was initially too defensive, slow and passive, suggesting a lack of openness and accountability.</p>
<p>For two days, <a href="https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130403">Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg insisted</a> the 737 Max planes were safe, even as country after country <a href="https://www.apnews.com/64698c6e79be4e6ca109f9c9d3e5e86a">grounded the aircraft</a>. Then on March 13 when the Federal Aviation Administration <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/canada-grounds-boeing-737-max-8-leaving-us-as-last-major-user-of-plane/2019/03/13/25ac2414-459d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html">eventually followed suit</a>, Boeing <a href="https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130404">again maintained</a> that its planes were safe. </p>
<p>But other than these statements and <a href="https://twitter.com/BoeingCEO">two tweets from Muilenburg</a>, Boeing’s leadership has been silent.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222805535_Apologies_and_public_relations_crises_at_Chrysler_Toshiba_and_Volvo">Silence is passive</a> and suggests that an organization is neither in control nor trying to take control of a situation. Silence allows others to frame the issues and control the narrative. </p>
<p>As a result, Boeing has found itself playing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/boeing-is-in-crisis-is-it-still-a-good-investment/2019/03/15/3375bd54-44e8-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html">defense to a storyline</a> that suggests the company was more interested in profits than people in the rush to produce an aircraft that accounts <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/737-max-groundings-put-a-major-source-of-boeings-revenue-at-risk-wall-street-warns.html">for about a third of its revenue</a>.</p>
<p>That narrative is being pushed by other <a href="https://twitter.com/flyethiopian/status/1108700486016946178/photo/1">airlines</a>, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704373869/seattle-times-questions-certification-process-of-boeings-737-max">media</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/business/boeing-737-max-crash.html">employees</a> and airplane safety advocates like <a href="https://twitter.com/Captsully/status/1108139085485539329">Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1108139085485539329"}"></div></p>
<h2>Being proactive</h2>
<p>Boeing could have adopted a proactive approach, such as by taking the initiative to ground its own planes.</p>
<p>Instead, Boeing hesitated, wasn’t transparent and didn’t shoulder any responsibility for what had happened, leaving it to airlines, countries and regulators to ground the 737 Max. </p>
<p>According to crisis communications scholar Timothy Coombs, <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/ongoing-crisis-communication/book245663">corporate openness</a> is defined by a company’s availability to the media, willingness to disclose information and honesty. Boeing failed in all three regards.</p>
<p>And the <a href="https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130404">few statements</a> it has issued are chock-full of platitudes – such as “safety is a core value” – and lack meaningful information. In its statement after the FAA grounded the 737 Max, Boeing suggested it was complying “out of an abundance of caution.” But Boeing didn’t have a choice. The decision was made. </p>
<p>Boeing is now on the defensive and, going forward, will have to counter the damaging narrative circulating in the court of public opinion. It has its work cut out for it. Research shows that people <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-14467729/prepare-for-business-related-crises">are quick to believe the worst about organizations</a>, which feeds negative speculation.</p>
<h2>Turbulence ahead</h2>
<p>The challenge Boeing faces is serious. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/business/737-grounding-airplane.html">Many of its planes</a> continue to be grounded, which could cost Boeing as much as US$5 billion, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/investing/boeing-max-737-grounding/index.html">early estimates</a>. Boeing has paused delivery on the 737 Max and orders for future planes are at risk – it recently <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/boeing-receives-first-public-order-cancellation-request-for-737-max-8">received its first public cancellation</a>. The company has about 4,500 of the airplanes on order. </p>
<p>Boeing does have one thing in its favor. The company has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/boeing-capitol-hill-lobbying/index.html">built strong relationships</a> with government officials in Washington over the years. </p>
<p>But those relationships, which could be useful and shield the company to some degree, are now under stress as <a href="https://www.registerguard.com/news/20190321/defazio-pledges-full-inquiry-into-boeing-737-max-crashes">Congress</a> and the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/business/boeing-justice-department-subpoenas/index.html">Justice Department</a> investigate how Boeing got the 737 Max certified to fly. </p>
<h2>Turning things around</h2>
<p>So is it too late to turn things around? </p>
<p>I believe it isn’t, but Boeing must immediately change its strategy from passive and closed to active and open. Rather than wait for lawmakers or investigators to get to the bottom of things, which could be devastating for Boeing, the airplane manufacturer should collect all the relevant information and disclose as much as possible, however damaging. </p>
<p>Boeing should be able to answer questions like what happened, who is responsible and why did it happen. The best way to demonstrate its commitment to safety is not with platitudes but concrete actions that reveal openness and accountability. <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Crisis-Communication-Theory-and-Practice/Zaremba/p/book/9780765620521">Research has shown</a> that transparency and honesty are key to effective communication in a crisis. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the company needs to show that the lives of passengers on its planes are more important than profits or its reputation. And in the long run, doing so <a href="https://www.sagepub.com/hi/nam/effective-crisis-communication/book246198">will help it recover</a> and regain trust that’s been lost. </p>
<p>We all expect airplanes to be safe. Boeing has violated that expectation. </p>
<p>The decision about whether and when the 737 Max is back in the air – and how much this will ultimately cost Boeing – will be made by airlines, regulators and legislators. And, in turn, they will listen to their customers and constituents. </p>
<p>If the court of public opinion finds Boeing guilty of putting their lives and their families’ lives at risk, those decision-makers will find it hard to support the company.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114051/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelli Matthews does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boeing’s response to the crisis over its 737 Max planes has made the company seem defensive and passive. A crisis management expert explains how Boeing could reclaim the narrative.Kelli Matthews, Senior Instructor of Journalism and Communication, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1138922019-03-22T10:44:06Z2019-03-22T10:44:06ZBoeing 737 Max: The FAA wanted a safe plane – but didn’t want to hurt America’s biggest exporter either<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265143/original/file-20190321-93057-19m3e1w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Boeing is accused of not being fully forthcoming about changes it made to the 737 Max.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Ethiopia-Plane-Crash-Boeing/658cb7a4c88e4e6d88f6ad3846dd6b0a/29/0">AP Photo/Ted S. Warren</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent incidents aside, air travel <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/04/19/airlines-including-southwest-so-safe-its-hard-rank-them-safety/533166002/">is incredibly safe</a> these days. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.baaa-acro.com/statistics/death-rate-per-year?page=0">Global airplane fatalities averaged 840 a year</a> from 2010 to 2018, compared with almost 2,000 in the 1990s. In fact, this decade is on pace to see the fewest casualties since the dawn of jet travel in the 1930s. </p>
<p>Yet the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/africa/ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-questions-intl/index.html">March 10 crash</a> of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 serves as a stark reminder that despite the significant safety gains in commercial aviation, accidents are still possible. And when they occur, the number of fatalities is often large.</p>
<p>What makes the most recent crash particularly concerning is that the airplane design <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-a-boeing-safety-feature-became-a-suspect-in-crashes/2019/03/19/904243b4-49fb-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.5dcd549c4081">may have played a significant contributing role</a>. Perhaps even worse, there are early indications that regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration – the agency that oversees the development and certification of all U.S. airplanes – may have been more concerned <a href="https://medium.com/@dsaintgermain/the-boeing-debacle-is-the-latest-example-of-regulatory-capture-2a8e138a9c8b">about bringing the Boeing 737 Max to market</a> than about consumer safety.</p>
<p>As a result, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/capt-sullenberger-737-max-crashes-reveal-cozy-relationship-between-boeing-faa">observers have accused</a> the FAA of being too cozy with Boeing. And <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/transportation-secretary-asks-departments-inspector-general-to-audit-faas-certification-of-boeing-737-max.html">transportation officials in both the U.S.</a> and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/canada-re-examining-boeing-max-approval-after-faa-certification-probe.html">Canada</a> plan to review how the plane got certified to fly by the FAA.</p>
<p>As experts on the regulatory process, we see this as a tragic example of what happens when an agency must <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Government-Agencies-Basic-Classics/dp/0465007856">balance competing goals</a>. The FAA was supposed to protect air travelers and regulate aircraft makers. At the same time, it doesn’t want to make it harder for companies like Boeing to make money in a very competitive global market.</p>
<p>And a heated rivalry is exactly where Boeing’s current troubles began.</p>
<h2>Competing in a global market</h2>
<p>The global market for jetliners has been dominated by two major competitors: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/why-the-airbus-boeing-companies-dominate-99percent-of-the-large-plane-market.html">Boeing and Airbus</a>. Since the 1990s, they’ve been in a bruising battle over market share. </p>
<p>Competition has been particularly fierce in the narrow-body or single-aisle aircraft market. This segment historically has made up about two-thirds of deliveries for both <a href="https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/orders-deliveries.html">Airbus</a> and <a href="http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries">Boeing</a>. It also holds <a href="https://www.planestats.com/mro9_2018mar">significant growth potential</a> in the future. Altogether, they have sold and delivered almost <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2018/03/14/how-the-airbus-boeing-single-aisle-jet-party-could-end/#60ce0ba95a53">20,000 aircraft</a> from the A320 or 737 families since their respective launches in the 1970s and 1980s.</p>
<p>When one company gains even a slight edge by offering a more efficient product, the implications can be massive. This occurred with the <a href="https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2011/06/airbus-with-new-order-record-at-paris-air-show-2011.html">highly successful launch of the Airbus 320neo in 2010</a>. The cost savings from reduced fuel consumption proved so significant that even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/global/american-places-record-order-with-2-jet-makers.html">American Airlines</a>, an exclusive Boeing customer at the time, ordered several hundred 320neos. Fuel is the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-are-major-expenses-affect-companies-airline-industry.asp">second-highest expense for airlines after labor</a>.</p>
<h2>Boeing playing catch-up</h2>
<p>Falling behind its rival, Boeing felt the need to update its 737 family. And it had to do it fast, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-did-the-faa-allow-the-boeing-737-max-to-fly">particularly with regard to fuel efficiency</a>.</p>
<p>So Boeing decided to alter the position of the plane’s engines. But doing so changed the plane’s aerodynamics in a way that could cause the plane’s nose to tip upward into a stall, which is what appears to have happened repeatedly before the recent crashes. </p>
<p>Boeing sought to solve this engineering problem using an <a href="https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/">automated correction system</a> known as MCAS. A <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">malfunction of this system</a> may have contributed to the crashes of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane/ethiopian-crash-crews-voices-could-unlock-high-stakes-boeing-inquiry-idUSKCN1R0183">Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/world/asia/air-lion-crash-610.html">Indonesian Lion Air Flight 610</a> in October – although investigations are ongoing.</p>
<p>Boeing <a href="https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-03-18-Letter-from-Boeing-CEO-Dennis-Muilenburg-to-Airlines-Passengers-and-the-Aviation-Community">has put out a statement</a> saying that it working with investigators to determine the cause of the crash. </p>
<h2>The FAA and the Boeing 737 Max 8</h2>
<p>Even before these incidents, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">there were concerns</a> that the FAA was delegating too much safety oversight to Boeing itself.</p>
<p>The FAA allowed Boeing to <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">handle much of the safety certification process</a>, and Congress <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/03/18/boeing-safety-vetting-faa/">supported doing so</a> – though recent events may be prompting lawmakers to <a href="https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/18/boeing-737-max-faa-congress-investigation">change their tune</a>. Reports have suggested that Boeing <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">even excluded FAA technical experts</a> from some of those decisions. </p>
<p>In addition, recent analyses suggest that <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">Boeing made several misjudgments when it designed MCAS</a> and <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/">hasn’t been fully forthcoming</a> with both the FAA and airlines about how it worked. The airline has also been accused of providing inadequate training for pilots. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/265146/original/file-20190321-93039-u4huwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The National Transportation Safety Committee Chairman Soerjanto Tjahjono, right, spoke about a third troubled Boeing flight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Indonesia-Lion-Air-Crash/8ac04371398647dd93df2a774c1c1648/1/0">AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Regulatory capture’ at the FAA?</h2>
<p>This has led <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/03/18/boeing-safety-vetting-faa/">critics to argue</a> that the FAA has gotten too close to the entity it was supposed to oversee. </p>
<p>This situation – when regulatory agencies created to protect the public interest become overly entangled with commercial and special interests – is known as “<a href="http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-1/issue-1/essays/regulatory-capture.html">regulatory capture</a>.” Many see this <a href="https://tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Introduction%20from%20Preventing%20Regulatory%20Capture.pdf">as corrosive for society</a>. The 2010 <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/oil-spills-biggest-losers-74817">Deep Water Horizon oil explosion</a>, the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-of-2010">largest marine spill in history</a>, is considered an example of this.</p>
<p>Yet, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preventing-regulatory-capture/reconsidering-agency-capture-during-regulatory-policymaking/73AD5D37B4A5769BB9B828818ECD3B81">capture is difficult to prove</a>, especially in an era when businesses must work closely with government to ensure that agency officials have the best and latest technical information to develop and issue appropriate regulations. </p>
<p>During this process, public regulators are supposed to act in the “public interest.” However, the term is inherently vague and open to a multitude of competing interpretations. Unless it involves outright bribes or other corrupt activities, business influence on regulators fails to amount to criminal conduct.</p>
<p>To us, it seems that the FAA was simply caught in an impossible position between the competing goals of protecting consumers and protecting American business interests. In this case, the pendulum may have swung too far to the side of the latter.</p>
<p>Unquestionably, we want our airplanes to be safe. And, to be clear, we believe <a href="https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/aviation-safety.page">Boeing does</a> as well. Yet we also want American companies to be successful, and regulations are inherently <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/publication/cumulative-cost-regulations">costly and time-consuming for businesses</a>, many of which are competing with companies worldwide.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that Boeing was eager to move forward with the 737 Max as fast as possible. Nor is it surprising that the FAA and other regulatory bodies are hesitant to impose excessive burdens on American companies – particularly on one of the <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/u-s-facing-fresh-scrutiny-over-close-ties-with-boeing/">nation’s premier exporters</a>. </p>
<p>And generally, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/influence-and-the-administrative-process-lobbying-the-us-presidents-office-of-management-and-budget/638F34BC73235AB4833C852B24C431AF">business interests tend to be much more successful</a> in obtaining their preferred regulatory outcomes than public interest groups. Our own recent work shows that the White House – regardless which party controls it – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy033">is more likely to interfere</a> with regulations coming out of more liberal and arguably pro-regulatory agencies. </p>
<h2>The pendulum keeps swinging</h2>
<p>The existence of competing incentives confronting regulatory agencies is nothing new. Public agencies must serve a multitude of goals and objectives and somehow find an appropriate balance.</p>
<p>Yet, at times, the balancing act by public agencies may tilt too far in one direction. And unfortunately, when the imbalance occurs at agencies tasked with protecting public safety, the consequences can be exceedingly dire. </p>
<p>It seems likely that increased public scrutiny in the wake of the two crashes may force the FAA to take a more aggressive stance on the side of consumer safety in the future. Eventually, however, business interests are likely to begin pushing back, and once again the pendulum will swing the other way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Webb Yackee has an Innovation in Regulatory Science Award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and her research is also supported by the Russell Sage Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon F. Haeder is a Fellow in the Interdisciplinary Research Leaders Program, a national leadership development program supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to equip teams of researchers and community partners in applying research to solve real community problems.</span></em></p>Some are calling the FAA’s relationship with Boeing an open-and-shut case of ‘regulatory capture.’ The reality is more complicated.Susan Webb Yackee, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-MadisonSimon F. Haeder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/681992016-11-23T10:58:34Z2016-11-23T10:58:34ZHow much should air traffic controllers trust new flight management systems?<p>With airfares at their lowest point in seven years and airlines adding capacity, this year’s Thanksgiving air travel is slated to be <a href="http://airlines.org/news/a4a-projects-thanksgiving-air-travel-to-rise-2-5-percent-to-27-3-million-passengers-in-2016/">2.5 percent busier</a> than last year. Between Nov. 18 and 29, 27.3 million Americans are expected to take to the skies. </p>
<p>The system we use to coordinate all those flights carrying all those Thanksgiving travelers through the air is decades old, and mostly depends on <a href="http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/53-2021.00">highly trained air traffic controllers</a>, who keep track of where all the planes are, where they’re heading, how fast they’re going and at what altitude. </p>
<p>As the national airspace gets more crowded, and as technology improves, the Federal Aviation Administration has begun <a href="https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/">upgrading the air traffic control systems</a>. The new system is called <a href="https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/">NextGen</a>, and some of its capabilities are already being rolled out across the country. It is intended to make air traffic faster, more efficient, more cost-effective and even, through fuel savings, less damaging to the environment. It will also help air traffic controllers and pilots alike handle potential hazards, whether they involve weather, other aircraft or equipment problems.</p>
<p>But we the traveling public will be able to realize all these benefits only if the air traffic controllers of the future make the most of the technology. As a human factors researcher, seeking to understand how people interact within complex systems, I have found that there are challenges for controllers <a href="http://gradworks.umi.com/15/97/1597782.html">learning to properly trust</a> the computer systems keeping America in the air.</p>
<h2>Use as directed</h2>
<p>The NextGen system is designed for humans and computers to work in tandem. For example, one element involves air traffic controllers and pilots <a href="https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/priorities/?area=dcom">exchanging digital text messages</a> between the <a href="https://www.volpe.dot.gov/safety-management-and-human-factors/aviation-human-factors/changing-way-pilots-and-controllers">tower and airplane computer systems</a>, as opposed to talking over the radio. This arrangement has several benefits, including eliminating the possibility someone might mishear a garbled radio transmission.</p>
<p>Human controllers will still give routing instructions to human pilots, but computers monitoring the airspace can keep an eye on where planes are, and automatically compare that to where they are supposed to be, as well as how close they get to each other. The <a href="https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/eram/">automated conflict detection tools</a> can alert controllers to possible trouble and offer safer alternatives.</p>
<p>In addition, air crews will be able to <a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=19375">follow routing instructions</a> more quickly, accepting the digital command from the ground directly into the plane’s navigation system. This, too, requires human trust in automated systems. That is not as simple as it might sound.</p>
<h2>Trust in automation</h2>
<p>When the people who operate automated tools aren’t properly informed about their equipment – including what exactly it can and cannot do – problems arise. When humans expect computerized systems to be more reliable than they are, tragedy can result. For example, the owner killed in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/tesla-autopilot-fatal-crash-investigation.html">fatal Tesla crash while in autopilot mode</a> may have become overreliant on the technology or used it in a way beyond how it was intended. Making sure human expectations match technical abilities is called “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392">calibration</a>.”</p>
<p>When the people and the machinery are properly calibrated to each other, trust can develop. That’s what happened over the course of a 16-week course training air traffic controller students on a <a href="https://hsi.arc.nasa.gov/groups/aol/technologies/macs.php">desktop air traffic control simulator</a>.</p>
<p>Researchers typically <a href="https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/Research/media/SA_and_Trust.pdf">measure trust in automated systems</a> by asking questions about the operator’s evaluations of the system’s integrity, the operator’s confidence in using the system and how dependable the operator thinks the system is. There are several types of questionnaires that ask these sorts of questions; one of them, a trust scale <a href="https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/Research/media/SA_and_Trust.pdf">aimed at the air traffic management system as a whole</a>, was particularly sensitive to discerning changing trust in the student group I studied.</p>
<p>I asked the air traffic controller students about their trust in the automated tools such as those provided by NextGen on the first day, at the midterm exam in week nine of their course, and at the final exam at the end of the training. Overall, the students’ trust in the system increased, though some trusted it more than others. </p>
<h2>Too much trust, or too little?</h2>
<p>There is such a thing as trusting technology too much. In this study, some students, who trusted the system more, were actually less aware than their less trusting classmates of what was going on in the airspace during simulated scenarios at the final exam with lots of air traffic. One possible explanation could be that those with more trust in the system became complacent and did not bother expending the effort to keep their own independent view (or “maintain the picture,” as air traffic controllers say).</p>
<p>These more trusting students might have been more vulnerable to errors if the automation required them to manually intervene. <a href="http://gradworks.umi.com/15/97/1597782.html">Correlation analyses</a> suggested that students with more trust were less likely to engage in what might be called “nontrusting” behaviors, like overriding the automation. For example, they were less likely to step in and move aircraft that the automated conflict detection tools determined were far enough apart, even if they personally thought the planes were too close together. That showed they were relying on the automation appropriately.</p>
<p>These trust disparities and their effects became clear only at the final exam. This suggests that as they became familiar with the technology, students’ trust in the systems and their actions when using it changed. </p>
<p>Previous research has shown that providing <a href="http://gradworks.umi.com/15/24/1524202.html">specific training in trusting the automation</a> may reduce students’ likelihood of engaging in nontrusting behaviors. Training should aim to make trainees more aware of their potential to overly trust the system, to ensure they remain aware of critical information. Only when the users properly trust the system – neither too much nor too little – will the public benefits of NextGen truly be available to us all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68199/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This study was supported by NASA cooperative agreement NNX09AU66A, Group 5 University Research Center: Center for Human Factors in Advanced Aeronautics Technologies (Brenda Collins, Technical Monitor).</span></em></p>The FAA’s NextGen system should bring safety and efficiency to American air travel, but its users need to understand it clearly.Tannaz Mirchi, Human Factors Engineer, Lecturer in Psychology, California State University, Long BeachLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/571722016-04-07T09:50:54Z2016-04-07T09:50:54ZWe need a national conversation about sensible drone laws<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117545/original/image-20160405-29002-3m8xsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking off in a yard near you?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Package_copter_microdrones_dhl.jpg">Frankhöffner</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Not long ago, most Americans could safely ignore congressional deliberations about Federal Aviation Administration authority, leaving the details to industry experts and lobbyists. But this time, we may need to fasten our seatbelts and actually read the card in the seat pocket. </p>
<p>A bill under discussion this week in <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2658/text">Congress</a>, an otherwise routine reauthorization of federal spending on the FAA, also sets the stage for the widespread use of unmanned aircraft systems (aka drones) at very low altitudes across the United States. This legislation could affect privacy, property, local control and even America’s position as a leader in innovation.</p>
<p>Federal authorities have, since the passage of the <a href="http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/aircommerceact1926.pdf">Air Commerce Act of 1926</a>, controlled the navigable airspace starting hundreds of feet above us. But the lowermost airspace – our backyards, neighborhoods, business properties and campuses – has <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674030824">historically</a> been the domain of the <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html">landowner</a> and local governments. </p>
<p>The promise of lucrative new drone technologies appears to be upending this tradition.</p>
<h2>Industry eyes lower-level airspace</h2>
<p>Aviation industry proponents view the quiet space just above our homes as the next frontier in commercial aviation, a “<a href="http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/01/04/nasa-drone-highways">public highway</a>” for <a href="http://www.auvsi.org/auvsiresources/economicreport">a multi-billion-dollar industry</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>Suggesting that drones could fly in an “unobstructed highway” not far above the trees and power lines, robotics innovator Helen Greiner <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/helen-greiner-roomba-co-inventor-drone-industry">told <em>The Guardian</em></a>, “You can solve a mobility problem easier because they don’t have to deal with all that stuff on the ground. It’s almost like you are cheating.”</li>
<li><a href="https://3dr.com/skyward-announces-first-commercial-drone-network-demonstration/">SkyWard</a>, a company building traffic management systems for unmanned aircraft, proclaims on its website that “The airspace is a great place to build a new highway.”</li>
<li>David Vos, the leader for Google’s Project Wing drone-delivery service, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones-alphabet-idUSKCN0SR20520151103">said</a>, “Our goal is to have commercial business up and running in 2017.”</li>
</ul>
<p>The FAA reauthorization now before Congress would lay the legal foundation for this. A section of the law would take federal control of all airspace, preempting state and local regulation of all aspects of unmanned aircraft flight, “including airspace, altitude, flight paths … [and] purpose of operations.” It might seem an innocuous clarification. </p>
<p>However, the FAA has recently started <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/204615520/FAA-FOIA-Response-2-4-14#page=5">asserting</a> that “Private landowners do not have any jurisdiction over the airspace above their property and cannot prohibit or allow aviation operations over their land” at any altitude, “<a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240">from the ground up</a>.” These “<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AJ60/operation-and-certification-of-small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-suas-">aviation operations</a>” include Frisbee-sized drones and even toys. </p>
<p>These statements suggest the FAA intends to regulate drone flights much more tightly than it has handled model airplane and other low-altitude, lightweight aircraft flights in the past.</p>
<h2>Tightening restrictions?</h2>
<p><a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-thinks-it-can-regulate-paper-planes-and-baseballs">Recent enforcement actions</a> are raising concerns:</p>
<ul>
<li>A federal administrative judge admonished the FAA for <a href="http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Documents/Pirker-CP-217.pdf#page=3">making</a> “the risible argument that a flight in the air of, e.g., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the ‘operator’” to FAA oversight. </li>
<li>In South Dakota, an FAA investigator <a href="http://www.today.com/news/feds-crack-down-shoot-drone-gatherings-target-practices-1D80069182">showed up at rural gun club</a> and ordered members to stop using home-built model airplanes for target practice like modern-day clay pigeons because they were flying drones as part of a business.</li>
<li>A man in California was <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/19/man-jailed-beach-drone-confrontation/">briefly arrested</a> by local authorities for using a T-shirt to down a drone that was hovering close by.</li>
</ul>
<p>The federal penalty for “destruction of an aircraft,” <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/faa-responds-to-colorado-towns-drone-hunting-plans/">apparently even a small unmanned one</a>, is up to 20 years in prison.</p>
<h2>Moving to protect research and innovation</h2>
<p>Our nation’s colleges and universities have been hit particularly hard by these growing restrictions. U.S. researchers face severe limits on putting anything in the air, even a few feet above the ground on university property.</p>
<p>Getting permission to fly for scholarly purposes involves lots of paperwork and usually requires researchers to use specific commercial drones operated by a licensed pilot. With restrictions like that, is not surprising that <a href="http://www.aeriographer.com/surprise-dji-dominates-the-faas-list-of-exemptions-for-commercial-drone-use/">70 percent of the unmanned aircraft that the FAA has approved</a> for commercial use are engineered and manufactured in China.</p>
<p>To address this concern, U.S. senators Gary Peters (a Michigan Democrat) and Jerry Moran (a Kansas Republican) recently introduced the <a href="http://www.peters.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/peters-moran-introduce-legislation-to-support-educational-use-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems">Higher Education UAS Modernization Act</a>. Backed by nearly 30 U.S. universities and three higher-education associations, it would allow researchers to fly drones at low altitudes for research and educational purposes, while preventing academics from using drones to “survey, create a nuisance on, or overfly private property without the permission of the owner of the private property.”</p>
<p>In other words, if the bill passes – as it should – university drones will be free to educate our students and support cutting-edge research in fields as diverse as aeronautical engineering, archaeology and agriculture. But they won’t invade your backyard, photograph you on your patio, or disrupt your quiet afternoon.</p>
<p>This is a good first step. But we also need a broader national discussion about how commercial and recreational drones should operate near the ground – in the space where we live, work and play – while respecting landowners and maintaining a sensible balance between federal, state and local control.</p>
<p>These issues are simply too important to leave up in the air.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57172/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Voss is an Associate Fellow in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Smith College is one of the 30 colleges and universities endorsing the Higher Education UAS Modernization Act. Voss offered some comments on a draft of the bill.</span></em></p>A bill before Congress could pave the way for the opening of our backyards, neighborhoods, business properties and campuses to commercial drone traffic.Paul Voss, Associate Professor of Engineering, Smith CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/567702016-04-07T09:50:48Z2016-04-07T09:50:48ZAre drones really dangerous to airplanes?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117758/original/image-20160406-28940-1ldksel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Birds are more dangerous to aircraft than drones.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kvoloshin/17204675910/">kvoloshin/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine boarding a plane. Economy class. There’s a kid behind you kicking the seat. You put on headphones and try to tune out the world. Immediately after takeoff, you feel a thud and hear an explosion over the sound of your music. The plane lurches. You look out the window at the plane’s engine and see fire and black smoke. Terrifying, right?</p>
<p>That’s the fear that animates the Federal Aviation Administration’s hostile approach to drone regulation. The agency, required by Congress to finalize permanent regulations of commercial drones under section 332 of the <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/html/PLAW-112publ95.htm">FAA Modernization and Reform Act</a> by September 2015, has <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/faa-misses-deadline-creating-drone-regulations-n437016">missed that deadline</a>. So far, the agency’s only efforts appear to be issuing rules under a more restrictive part of that law, <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/">section 333</a>, intended to be in effect temporarily – until the FAA finished the final ones. And it has imposed a requirement that people register noncommercial “<a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84386">model aircraft</a>,” a move <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263249-critics-assail-faa-drone-tax">criticized</a> as onerous, and <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/politics/faa-drone-registration-lawsuit/">currently facing a court challenge</a>.</p>
<p>But drones don’t pose much of a risk to traditional aviation. Though there is always a risk when you board a plane that an object will be ingested into an engine, our research shows that the problem is far more likely to be a bird than a drone. </p>
<h2>Colliding with aircraft</h2>
<p>There are on the order of 10 billion birds in U.S. airspace. Although efforts are made to keep them away from airports, where they pose the biggest threat, pilots, airlines, airports and others voluntarily reported 13,414 bird-aircraft collisions <a href="http://wildlife.faa.gov/">on the FAA’s dedicated wildlife strike website</a> in 2014, split about equally between passenger jets and other aircraft including helicopters and small planes. Rarely, these collisions are serious enough to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jZvlFmqQU">take out a jet engine</a>. In 2014, birds were reported ingested into engines only 417 times, and only 112 of those reports indicated any damage to the aircraft.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L1jZvlFmqQU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A bird strike on an airliner causes engine failure.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meanwhile, to date, no modern quadrocopter, commercial or otherwise, has ever collided with a manned aircraft in U.S. airspace. The FAA has raised the alarm about drones in the airspace, and now receives <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/law_enforcement/uas_sighting_reports/">over 100 reports of unmanned aircraft flying near other manned aircraft or airports per month</a>. However, as the <a href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_091415.pdf">Academy of Model Aeronautics has noted</a>, many of these sightings do not reflect any danger to passengers. Analyzing 921 reported incidents, a <a href="http://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf">study at Bard College</a> found that in only 158 of them did a drone come within 200 feet of a manned aircraft. In only 28 incidents did pilots even decide to take evasive action.</p>
<h2>Harming aircraft passengers</h2>
<p>My colleague Sam Hammond and I <a href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Dourado-Wildlife-Strikes-MOP-v2.pdf">extrapolate from wildlife strike data</a> to estimate the danger that drones pose to manned aircraft and the people aboard them. We estimated how often drones will strike manned planes by assuming that drones are roughly equivalent to birds – that they are of similar size, and that drone operators are at least as able to avoid aircraft as birds are.</p>
<p>There are vastly more birds than drones in the U.S., and birds spend far more of their time aloft than battery-powered drones, which need to recharge and are often left unused for days at a time. However, we could calculate a frequency of aircraft strikes per hour of bird flight. Assuming the rate is the same for a drone, we estimate that drones are likely to collide with manned aircraft once every 374,000 years of drone operation. </p>
<p>Not all collisions cause damage to the aircraft, much less harm to people flying in it. We focused on 2-kilogram birds, because this is the weight being discussed as a possible threshold for a lighter class of drone regulation. About one in every five aircraft that hit a bird weighing around two kilograms experienced at least minor damage. There was at least one person injured in the collision for every 500 aircraft struck by a 2-kilogram bird.</p>
<p>In other words, if there were a million 2-kilogram drones operating in the airspace 24/7 with as much awareness of human aviation as birds possess, there would be an injury to a human passenger onboard a manned aircraft once every 187 years.</p>
<h2>Teaching drone pilots to be responsible</h2>
<p>So drones are safe if their operators have at least as much cognitive capacity as birds. It’s true that the dumbest humans may deliberately fly drones in the path of airliners. Enforcing prohibitions on this is difficult. To keep airspace safe, the FAA needs a two-pronged strategy of operator education and technological solutions to manage a more crowded airspace.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117752/original/image-20160406-28950-1jyv5cc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An explanation of drone flight regulations from KnowBeforeYouFly.com.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org">FAA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The agency has undertaken some educational efforts. For example, it partnered with AUVSI, a trade organization, and the Academy of Model Aeronautics, a hobbyist association, to create a website called <a href="http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/">Know Before You Fly</a>, which provides accessible and easily comprehensible guidelines for safe and legal operation of drones.</p>
<p>The FAA also launched a dedicated smartphone app, <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/b4ufly/">B4UFLY</a>, that uses the phone’s geolocation feature to inform the user of the restrictions on and requirements for flying a drone in the area.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117755/original/image-20160406-28945-1c86d94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=814&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An alert from an FAA smartphone app for drone pilots.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">B4UFLY, Federal Aviation Administration</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, the app is laughably bad, currently receiving a 1-star rating on the iOS app store. The reviews complain of restrictions being erroneously reported for landing strips that have been out of service for years. Drone operators report being instructed to contact a control tower, but the app provides no phone number. Other times, users are told to contact completely unattended helipads.</p>
<p>The agency should prioritize giving operators accurate information about where they can and can’t fly, and it should provide users with a quality app experience so that they actually consult the app. The private sector has joined the effort. One such service compiling this type of information is <a href="https://www.airmap.com/">AirMap</a>, with a mobile-optimized website hobbyists can use to determine where they are not supposed to fly.</p>
<p>In addition to education, the agency should focus on short-run and long-run technological solutions to the problem of an increasingly crowded airspace. In the short run, a technology called “<a href="http://www.howtogeek.com/221077/htg-explains-what-geofencing-is-and-why-you-should-be-using-it/">geofencing</a>” is promising and has already been adopted by drone manufacturers such as DJI and 3D Robotics: drones are equipped with GPS and know to keep themselves out of places it is illegal for the drone to fly, such as near airports; in the Washington, D.C., area; in national parks; or near crowded stadiums.</p>
<h2>Advancing airspace interconnections</h2>
<p>In the longer run, the FAA should focus on modernizing airspace for the likelihood that even manned aviation will benefit from the technologies currently developing in the unmanned sector. While most “drones” are currently remote-controlled, the ultimate vision is that they will be autonomously piloted and communicate with each other to avoid collisions.</p>
<p>That same type of machine-to-machine communication and onboard computerized decision-making has the potential to greatly increase the safety of manned air transportation by eliminating pilot error.</p>
<p>To increase the safety of unmanned and manned aviation, as well as of the mixture of the two, the FAA should accelerate its plans to incorporate this new model of airspace management into the system. <a href="http://utm.arc.nasa.gov/index.shtml">Engineering and field testing done by NASA</a> is a great first step, but airspace modernization should be a central theme in the FAA’s approach to drone integration.</p>
<p>As our wildlife strike study shows, drones themselves aren’t the real threat. If the FAA wants to make American airspace safer and more conducive to innovation, it should leverage education and technology instead of outright prohibitions and unenforceable registration requirements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56770/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eli Dourado does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Drones don’t pose much of a risk to traditional aviation. Our research shows that collisions with manned aircraft are far more likely to involve a bird.Eli Dourado, Director of Technology Policy Program and Research Fellow at Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/523302015-12-14T18:34:49Z2015-12-14T18:34:49ZWhat’s the real risk from consumer drones this holiday season?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105825/original/image-20151214-9501-zxvied.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yay, a holiday drone! What could possibly go wrong?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/photonquantique/11538153286">PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This holiday season, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is estimating that <a href="http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/faa-nightmare-million-christmas-drones">over one million</a> small “Unmanned Aerial Systems” (sUAS’s) – drones, to the rest of us – will be sold to consumers. But as hordes of novice pilots take to the air, just how safe are these small bundles of metal, plastic, video cameras and whirling blades?</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, a British toddler lost an eye as an <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739">out-of-control drone sliced into his face</a>. It may have been a freak occurrence, but it hammered home the message that sUASs – at least in some hands – can be accidents waiting to happen.</p>
<p>This hasn’t escaped the attention of the FAA. Earlier this year, the agency <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Registration%20ARC%20Charter.pdf">convened a task force in the US</a> on overseeing UAS safe use with a legally enforceable registration system.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105834/original/image-20151214-9531-163qtwx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Let’s get this thing in the air!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/franklyrichmond/8637772670">Cola Richmond</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Tracking who’s doing what with drones makes sense for commercial users. But there are fears it could put the brakes on a booming consumer drone market. So the task force set out to determine where a line could be drawn between safe (and therefore not regulated) drones and those that required more oversight.</p>
<p>In an impressive display of numerical dexterity, the task force – which included manufacturers and retailers like Parrot, Best Buy and Walmart – calculated the likelihood of a small consumer drone <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf">inadvertently killing someone</a>.</p>
<p>Through their mathematical machinations, they concluded that a drone weighing 250 grams (just under nine ounces) is likely to kill fewer than one person per 20 million flight-hours.</p>
<p>Putting aside the many assumptions made to reach this figure, the risk sounds pretty low. That is, until you consider that a million new drone operators this holiday period each wouldn’t need to rack up that many flight hours before the chances of someone being killed got serious.</p>
<p>The FAA has <a href="http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856">just announced new drone registration guidelines</a> based on the task force recommendations – and yes, if you own a drone weight less that 250 grams, you don’t need to register it. (If it’s between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds, though, you’ll have to <a href="http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/">register online</a> before taking to the air.) </p>
<p>The registration weight cutoff is based on the calculated chances of a fatal drone encounter. At least as worrying, though, are the nonfatal threats – the chances of physical injury from out-of-control or badly operated drones, or the much talked about Peeping Tom users who treat their sUAS as a second pair of prying eyes.</p>
<p>And then you have the dangers of drones getting where they were never meant to be – into the flight paths of aircraft, for instance. In under two years, <a href="http://dronecenter.bard.edu/drone-sightings-and-close-encounters/">246 manned aircraft close encounters with quadropters</a> were recorded by the Bard College Center for the Study of the Drone. And that’s before the surge in drone ownership we’re expecting to see over the next few weeks.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mV2qASDQuYA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Drone operators likely aren’t too adept for their first flights.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Retailers and professional organizations – and to give them their fair dues, the FAA – have been quick to try to fill safety gaps around lightweight consumer drones. Best Buy, for example, has recently teamed up with the Academy of Model Aeronautics to provide new drone customers with a <a href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/safetyinsert-bestbuy.pdf">guide to responsible flying</a>. And the FAA has a <a href="http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/2015-FAA-383-UAS_Holiday_Pre-flight-checklist_1200x627_ae05.pdf">preflight checklist</a> to encourage safe use.</p>
<p>These voluntary initiatives will certainly help reduce the chances of emergency care visits this holiday. But they work on the assumption that consumers actually want to be responsible in the first place.</p>
<p>As drone popularity increases, we’re going to have to get more creative if the risks to people and property are to remain acceptable. Despite the new registration requirements for larger drones, regulations are going to remain several steps behind the technology for some time, and “guides to responsible flying,” while laudable, won’t do much to curb an excess of irresponsibility – or simple lack of awareness – in some pilots.</p>
<p>Instead, manufacturers, retailers, regulators and other organizations need to get better at finding innovative ways to create a culture of safe use. It isn’t enough to tell consumers to be responsible this holiday; safe flying needs to become the norm.</p>
<p>Of course, it’s possible to argue that the odd eye, or the occasional death, is a worthy price to pay for what the Academy of Model Aeronautics calls <a href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/safetyinsert-bestbuy.pdf">“The most fun you can have (without a license)”</a> – so why be a party pooper with all this talk of risk and responsibility?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105835/original/image-20151214-9515-1n05s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What did you see up there?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quadcopter_landing_at_Head_of_the_Charles.agr.jpg">ArnoldReinhold</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, the more drones are involved in accidents, the harder it will become for manufacturers to keep the market for their products buoyant. And the more likely it will be that regulators end up acting to limit the technology’s use.</p>
<p>This doesn’t bode well for the future of amateur drone operators. But there’s a more worrying potential consequence, and that’s to future socially beneficial uses of drones.</p>
<p>Commercial drones are getting increasingly close to providing services such as helping <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/science/as-aging-population-grows-so-do-robotic-health-aides.html">care for the elderly</a>, or getting <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/drone-delivers-medicine-to-rural-virginia-clinic-1437155114">medical services and supplies to remote locations</a>, or <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/22/agricultural-drones-change-way-farm/WTpOWMV9j4C7kchvbmPr4J/story.html">improving crop yields</a>. Even Amazon’s much-touted <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?node=8037720011">drone delivery service</a> is likely to be advantageous to some.</p>
<p>Yet if public perceptions and regulations end up being swayed by amateur users, applications like these are likely to hit a roadblock in their development.</p>
<p>And this is perhaps the most important safety issue this holiday season – not the small chance of injury, but the bigger risk of losing the best the technology can offer in the future. All because we were having the most fun we could without a license, without thinking about the consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52330/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
New FAA guidelines call for consumers to register drones over a certain weight. As more and more drones take to the skies, we’ll see how amateur use influences the development of UAS technologies.Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/471342015-10-16T05:25:22Z2015-10-16T05:25:22ZComplaints, peeping toms and airplane near-misses show drone regulations are needed now<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98114/original/image-20151012-17843-1s3enfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Phantom drone from Chinese firm DJI. Who's watching whose watching us?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DJI_Phantom_2_Vision%2B_V3_hovering_over_Weissfluhjoch_(cropped).jpg">Lino Schmid</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The thing about unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones as they’re commonly known, is that they’re very useful. They’ve been put to use for inspecting infrastructure, firefighting, monitoring in disaster areas or for environmental purposes, for border control, and of course their military use has been clearly demonstrated. </p>
<p>The problem is that, as a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/11/drone-incidents-reported-to-uk-police-on-the-rise">recent Freedom of Information request has shown</a>, drones have been put to all sorts of other unofficial uses, from transporting drugs into prisons or using cameras to voyeuristically spy on neighbours, in some cases leading to landowners responding with shotguns and rifles. Clearly, developing and enforcing regulations that ensure drone use respects others’ safety and privacy is proving difficult.</p>
<p>A report from researchers at the University of Birmingham in 2014 warned that the use of drones in the UK would rise over the next 20 years, raising “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29717771">significant safety, security, and privacy concerns</a>”. The number of drones in France rose by 350% in 2014, for example. Sales of drones are booming in the UK today, available for as little £30, and we need the regulations in place to deal with the sort of increase that has been seen in France. </p>
<p>Recreational drones, relatively easy to fly thanks to the stability of their four rotors, range from tiny toys to more advanced versions fitted with high definition video cameras used by the police and the media. Authorities have warned that the rising use of drones will lead to more prosecutions of those that do not stick to the rules. For example the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/22/us-britain-drones-idUSKCN0PW1DQ20150722">issued a warning recently</a> after seven incidents where drones had flown near planes at different British airports in less than a year. But the use of drones by civilians will undoubtedly be met with resistance.</p>
<p>The potential danger of irresponsible drone use around busy air traffic is real. Imagine yourself out jogging or riding a bicycle when a fly or bee strikes your face, or even your eye, even leading you to stumble or fall. Something similar happens when a bird hits an aircraft, a phenomenon known as a birdstrike, which can take out an engine. The effect would be similar were a drone to hit an aircraft, although drones vary from those the size of a tiny bird, to large military drones the size of a small aircraft. Of course, taking down an aircraft filled with passengers is a bigger deal than a jogger knocked off their feet by a bee.</p>
<p>While aircraft engines are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c">tested against birdstrikes</a>, there is no data yet on a turbojet engine’s resistance to ingesting a 4-5kg metal and plastic drone. It could destroy the engine, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlDWCDnXZ2k">damage the cockpit windshield</a>, endangering the crew and flight, or simply ricochet from the fuselage.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nWTb0QRIt0c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Legislation is needed to at least make drones identifiable – air traffic control authorities have called for drones to be registered so that misbehaving drone pilots can be banned. However, the rules for operating drones in the UK are clear. It is illegal to fly a drone over a built-up area or within 150ft from other people, vehicles or buildings, and they are banned from any fly zones around airports. </p>
<p>In Europe, no-drone zones, software using GPS location trackers to prevent drone flight within sensitive areas and compulsory drone registers are among proposals from aviation experts and the European Union to ensure they don’t cause dangerous run-ins with passenger aircraft. Many cities already have no-fly areas for drones, but that <a href="https://vimeo.com/78822120">has not stopped people</a> – even <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arrest/">over the White House</a>. Sense-and-avoidance technology, which would detect and avoid potential mid-air collisions, might also help.</p>
<p>The concerns of the aviation industry focus on smaller drones, operated like model planes and flown for recreation, because their users are generally unfamiliar with the rules of the air. Education is needed in the first instance, before talk of enforcement and punishment. Enthusiasts operating drones have to understand that with use comes responsibility. The Federal Aviation Authority in the US is among those in the industry that have produced <a href="http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/">educational materials</a> and spread them through social media in an attempt to prevent accidents. </p>
<p>There’s no doubt that drones have been developed as military weapons; there seems hardly a day where someone, somewhere in the world is not killed by a drone strike. But many modern inventions in the civilian world came from the military or spaceflight industries – not least the internet, for example – and much of our transport and communications infrastructure would be far from the level of technology we currently enjoy without the funding and demands of military research.</p>
<p>However, the civilian use of such technology has to be carefully guarded, with allowable uses for drones yet to be established, and pilot and airspace regulations yet to be enacted. The anonymity and ease with which drones can be used as a tool of execution could lead to greater numbers of deaths by miscommunication – we need clear answers to these problems from regulators, and we need them soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47134/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivan Sikora is affiliated with Royal Aeronautical Society (A Member) as well as International Society of Air Safety Investigators. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tilmann Gabriel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Once everyone gets a taste for flying their own drone the skies will be chaos – we need to draw up rules, and enforce them, now.Ivan Sikora, Senior Lecturer, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/470242015-09-09T15:07:51Z2015-09-09T15:07:51ZThe age of drones has arrived quicker than the laws that govern them<p>Just because you may not have seen a drone overhead doesn’t mean it hasn’t seen you. And, as was demonstrated by the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475">killing of two British jihadis</a> in Syria recently, these unmanned aerial vehicles are increasingly deployed by the West as frontline weapons of war. </p>
<p>Drones are set to become a defining feature of this century. Thousands are already in operation in most developed countries worldwide – and that is likely to grow to hundreds of thousands as drones of different shapes and sizes are deployed by the media, emergency services, scientists, farmers, sports enthusiasts, hobbyists, photographers, the armed forces and government agencies.</p>
<p>Eventually commercial uses will dwarf all others. Amazon promises to deliver purchases within 30 minutes via delivery drones. Domino’s Pizza has staged hot pizza drone delivery. More than <a href="http://www.auvsi.org/blogs/auvsi-membership/2015/07/31/section333report2">20 industries are approved to fly commercial drones</a> in the US alone, and developing countries are following suit.</p>
<p>The question is, is this boom in drones moving faster than the law? How to fit such a proliferation of drones into the current regulations? The answers will need to be written into national and international laws quickly in order to govern an increasingly busy airspace. Many existing laws may need to be tweaked, including those governing cyber-security, stalking, privacy and human rights legislation, insurance, contract and commercial law, even the laws of war.</p>
<p>There have after all been numerous suspect or dangerous uses of drones already. For example, <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20150129-france-civilian-drone-legislation-lessons-usa-obama">illegal flights over seven nuclear plants across France</a>, disruption to <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/">US forest fire-fighting</a>, and seven <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/drone-near-miss-passenger-plane-heathrow">near-misses at airports in the UK</a>. In the US several landowners have <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/31/american-shoots-drone-in-garden">shot them down</a>, leading to court cases that pit claims of trespass and the right to privacy against criminal damage.</p>
<h2>Piecemeal legal changes not enough</h2>
<p>French legislators responded swiftly with a police order to the first balloon flights by the Montgolfier Brothers in 1784 by <a href="http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1557232&fileOId=1564253">prohibiting all flights over Paris</a> without prior authorisation. In the same way sovereign states ought to define precisely how and when they will permit drone flights over their territory. So far legal development to govern drone use has been very piecemeal; most countries have done nothing yet. </p>
<p>Again, it was France that was first to introduce dedicated legislation governing drones through a decree in 2012 bringing drones within its civil aviation regulations. Drones are allowed to fly between 50-150 metres from the ground and there are penalties up to five years in prison and fines of 75,000 euros for <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20150129-france-civilian-drone-legislation-lessons-usa-obama">unlawful use of a drone</a>.</p>
<p>Also in 2012, the US congress passed the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf">Modernisation and Reform Act</a> which required the <a href="http://harvardnsj.org/2015/02/drones-in-the-u-s-national-airspace-system-a-safety-and-security-assessment/">integration of civil drones into national airspace</a> by the end of September 2015.</p>
<p>The Italian Civil Aviation Authority issued <a href="http://www.enac.gov.it/repository/ContentManagement/information/N122671512/Regolamento_APR_ed.1.pdf">commercial drone regulations</a> in April 2014. The law vaguely requires the operators to comply with data-protection laws and hold insurance. In the meantime, controversial Italian surveillance firm Hacking Team is already developing drones capable of <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/310493-wifi-hacking-spy-drones">delivering spyware to computers and smartphones</a>, infecting them via Wi-Fi.</p>
<p>However, the UK has struggled with fitting drones into its legal framework as neither the Civil Aviation Act nor the Air Navigation Order provide a good fit. The Department for Transport recently announced plans to introduce <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/technology/article4546793.ece">fines of up to £2,500 for flying drones in built-up areas</a>. Some clarity is provided by the CAA’s <a href="https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415">Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace Guidance</a>, which requires drone pilots to maintain direct line of sight with drones and limits their altitude to a maximum 120 metres. Small drones must avoid and give way to manned aircraft at all times.</p>
<h2>Flying in the face of the law</h2>
<p>The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) plans to introduce policies to regulate civilian drone flight by 2028 worldwide. The EU and US have signed a formal agreement to cooperate on integrating drones into civil air traffic management. But consensus is notoriously difficult in international regulation – it could take decades to achieve a global agreement. </p>
<p>The last international civil air treaty of note is the <a href="http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx">1944 Chicago convention</a>. This impressive treaty created the standards for the <a href="https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415562126">common use of airspace between nations</a>. For example, that every nation has sovereignty over its airspace and that no aircraft operated by the state (such as military or police) will fly over other states without authorisation. It also required nations air regulations to be obeyed and required aircraft to be registered and display their registration marks.</p>
<p>For drones, however, it’s not clear what types and sizes of drones are required to be registered and display their nationality. There are drones the size of small birds or even coins that can fly across national borders in near-invisibility, upsetting these egalitarian rules. It’s vital these issues are comprehensively dealt with quickly in a new treaty, in the same spirit of egalitarianism as at Chicago in 1944.</p>
<h2>Dronefare versus Lawfare</h2>
<p>For many, drones are typified by their use for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is reported to have up to <a href="http://nation.time.com/2011/06/26/the-new-u-s-smalls-air-force-over-afghanistan/">7,000 drones in Afghanistan</a>, with the main source of funding for developing modern drone technology coming from the military. </p>
<p>Successive US governments’ policies of conducting drone assassinations will perhaps go down as one of the most egregious use of air power in human history, with thousands of lives lost in an <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14650045.2012.749241?src=recsys">amorphous conflict</a> against vaguely-defined al-Qaeda and ISIS “affiliates”. The only legitimisation in most cases appears to be White House’s early morning bureaucratic meetings. </p>
<p>The American Civil Liberties Union has correctly addressed this, stating: “The <a href="http://dronewars.net/drones-and-targeted-killing">targeted killing program</a> itself is not just unlawful but dangerous … it is dangerous to characterise the entire planet as a battlefield.” A recent RAF strike was the first targeted <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34181475">UK drone attack</a> on a British citizen. However, UK armed Reaper drones have accounted for <a href="http://dronewars.net/2015/01/14/uk-airstrikes-in-iraq-hit-100-one-third-by-drones/">up to a third of the 100 airstrikes</a>) in Iraq alone as at January 2015.</p>
<p>Lethal drone technology is going to be available to nearly all countries in a very short time. The possibility that even a few dozen states might follow the path beaten by the US is really a scary proposition – as what goes around may fly around.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gbenga Oduntan is author of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in Airspace and Outer Space: Legal Criteria for Spatial Delimitation published with Routledge in 2012.
<a href="https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415562126">https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415562126</a>
</span></em></p>Drones are here, carrying cameras, delivering packages and even toting guns. But the laws to govern their use are way behind.Gbenga Oduntan, Senior Lecturer in International Commercial Law, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405942015-04-22T05:24:30Z2015-04-22T05:24:30ZIf airlines offer in-flight Wi-Fi, they should invest in an extra black box for security<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78791/original/image-20150421-9032-364x8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hackers in seat 61? Not what passengers want to see in-flight.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/28q81q/united_inflight_entertainment_provided_by_linux/">Reddit</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In-flight Wi-Fi is one of the most sought-after facilities for air travellers these days, now that laptops and smartphones are so common and so much of our working and personal life revolves around online services.</p>
<p>But a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/">US Government Accountability Office</a> report has suggested that many in-flight wireless networks could expose the plane to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32314568">being hacked or remotely controlled</a>. In fact it’s of such a concern to US authorities that when a well-known computer security expert made an admittedly ill-thought-out joke about doing so on Twitter, he was promptly arrested, his computers confiscated, and subsequently <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/20/flight-wifi-hack-tweet">banned from the airline</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"588433855184375808"}"></div></p>
<p>And all he was suggesting was to make the oxygen masks drop down. So it would appear that the stuff of Hollywood may jump from fiction to fact: Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore starred in the 2014 film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2024469/">Non-Stop</a>, where a passenger hacking the aircraft’s internal wireless network was entwined into the plot-based peril.</p>
<h2>Networks are already there</h2>
<p>Let’s step back in time for a moment: those who’ve had the privilege of enjoying the in-flight entertainment delivered from the back of the headrest in front of yours may not be aware that the films and music available is delivered in broadly similar fashion to that used by digital television services like Netflix and Amazon Prime.</p>
<p>This means that at around 30,000ft there is a computer network plumbed into every seat on board the aircraft, with a server running alongside it delivering the requested content to each user. The notion of adding wireless capability to this existing network and making the last hop to the internet proper via the aircraft’s satellite communication equipment isn’t a great scientific leap. The challenge has always been cost, more than concerns regarding security: satellite bandwidth is slim and expensive.</p>
<p>What is a surprise is the possibility that the same internet network for delivering films could also be used to control the aircraft. This is clearly not the case for all makes and models of aircraft, but it would seem that the US Federal Aviation Authority at least feel there’s a risk.</p>
<h2>Separation of powers is key</h2>
<p>Any junior network technician knows that when you create a network, firewalls may filter traffic and intelligently monitor what passes through them, but they can be deceived. There are many pieces of software that can be easily found and downloaded that can tunnel network streams through firewalls by disguising a blocked type of content stream as another that’s allowed. There are many layers of security, but equally there are also many tools that can be used to counteract them, when used by someone with the right knowledge.</p>
<p>In fact, it seems the authorities have rather given the game away – effectively declaring that this is a problem and that aircraft are vulnerable. Which ones, no one knows, yet – but if nothing else hackers love a challenge, and less noble-minded souls could easily <a href="http://blog.edreams.com/in-flight-wifi/">do their homework</a> to find out. How many other international security and aviation agencies are pleased with this?</p>
<p>Back on the ground in a traditional network, managers monitor their systems. These are not 100% foolproof nor hack-proof, which is why we have systems that alert us to potential threats and knowledgeable security experts who can interpret the data and react accordingly.</p>
<p>In the air, the system has to run under the assumption that there is no ability for any remote intervention of an engineer on the ground. This means that if the in-flight system is compromised there may be nothing that can be done about it. If Wi-Fi is to be provided by the airlines to their customers, the aircraft’s control systems must categorically be entirely separated from any network that passengers could access.</p>
<h2>Record and analyse</h2>
<p>While we’re no fans of surveillance, in this instance we’d consider going one step further. If wireless networks for passengers are to be used on aircraft they should be logged, with all passenger network traffic copied into an additional black box flight recorder. Filters could flag any interesting, dubious or dangerous traffic to be passed on to an expert team on the ground via a satellite uplink, with bandwidth reserved for a compressed stream sharing this as well as other essential data regarding the flight.</p>
<p>This would enable a security analyst to share any concerns they may have with air traffic control, the pilots and any other appropriate authorities. These days not only do we know <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-wed-used-the-cloud-we-might-know-where-mh370-is-now-24542">where the aircraft is</a>, experts may also have a view of what is happening in the cabin.</p>
<p>Convenience brings problems that must be catered for: if we want the freedom of sending emails mid-Atlantic, we must first look to the safety of the flight and its crucial systems. Otherwise, no Wi-Fi is far better than having someone else flying the plane.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yijun Yu receives funding and support from ERC, EU, QNRF, Cisco, Huawei, RealTelecom in the research areas of adaptive security and privacy requirements for cloud computing-based software systems.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If passengers are to be offered in-flight Wi-Fi, then airlines should add another black box to record what’s happening on their networks.Yijun Yu, Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing and Communications, The Open UniversityAndrew Smith, Lecturer in Networking, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/395932015-03-31T12:20:55Z2015-03-31T12:20:55ZRising number of inexperienced pilots may lead to more crashes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76592/original/image-20150331-1253-dqqlke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not as easy as flicking on autopilot.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/caribb/98956751/">Doug via Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been much media analysis of the range of factors involved in the crash of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/flight-4u9525">Germanwings Flight 4U9525</a>, the low-cost airline owned by Lufthansa. However, as a retired US naval aviator and former United Airlines pilot, I have been less interested in the investigation of cockpit doors or the mental health of Andreas Lubitz, who is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32113507">suspected of deliberately crashing the plane in the Alps</a>. </p>
<p>What concerns me is how a pilot with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11496066/Andreas-Lubitz-Everything-we-know-on-Tuesday-about-Germanwings-plane-crash-co-pilot.html">only 630 flight hours</a> was in the position to kill 149 people in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-crash-with-no-obvious-cause-we-must-wait-for-answers-from-germanwings-black-box-39278">state-of-the-art Airbus A320</a>, one of the most sophisticated jet aircraft on the market. Unfortunately, I find evidence of a troubling trend – in an increasingly competitive industry, many airlines are cutting costs by employing less experienced pilots.</p>
<p>As part of the research for my latest book, <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100289350">The Next Crash: How Short-Term Profit Seeking Trumps Airline Safety</a>, I analysed the flight experience, training and background information for the ten pilots involved in the five fatal passenger airline accidents involving pilot error in the US commercial airlines in the decade following September 11 2001. These were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14pilot.html">Colgan Air in 2009</a>, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flight-data-plane-on-wrong-runway/">Comair in 2006</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401580.html">Corporate</a> and <a href="http://www.aviationpros.com/news/10393629/ntsb-joy-riding-pilots-caused-2004-pinnacle-crash">Pinnacle Airlines in 2004</a>, and <a href="http://abc13.com/archive/9322475/">American Airlines in 2001</a>. Although none of these crashes were the result of an alleged suicide, the findings are nonetheless revealing.</p>
<p>Four of the five crashes involved a regional air carrier, the low-cost area of the US airline industry that has rapidly expanded in recent years due to major airline outsourcing. Analysis revealed that 50% of these accident pilots had less than 1,000 hours of flight experience in the accident aircraft; 60% had been in their flight crew position for less than two years and almost a third crashed within their first year on the job. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76586/original/image-20150331-1240-9iax0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">State of the art: the Airbus A320.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Airbus_A320-200_Airbus_Industries_(AIB)_%22House_colors%22_F-WWBA_-_MSN_001_(10276181983).jpg">Laurent Errera</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nearly all had been trained in civilian flight programmes, not military flight schools, where historically pilots built up significant experience. Perhaps most alarming is that 50% of the accidents involved pilots who had received their basic training in accelerated professional pilot training programmes – just like First Officer Lubitz. All crashes had questions of professionalism or a lack of adherence to standard procedures as a cause.</p>
<h2>Cost cutting</h2>
<p>Like US air carriers, almost all major international airlines are eager to exploit the cost advantage of employing younger, less experienced – and therefore cheaper – pilots. In the past, a fledgling pilot had years to accumulate the requisite flight experience as he moved up from small propeller-driven planes to larger multi-engine aircraft before occupying the right seat of a jetliner. </p>
<p>With the advent of regional jets and proliferation of low-cost airlines flying mid-sized Airbus aircraft today, an accelerated career path such as First Officer Lubitz is not unusual. But this reduces the opportunity for co-pilots to develop as professionals before progressing to a position of greater responsibility. This loss of seasoning has led to the assignment of pilots who may not be operationally mature to positions previously occupied by highly experienced pilots, all to save airlines money. </p>
<p>To stay safe, the system increasingly relies on the experience and professionalism of airline employees who are already stressed, fatigued and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/28/germanwings-crash-exposes-pressure-pilotes">working more while earning less</a>. As one co-pilot I interviewed reported, employees are so distracted that: “it’s almost a miracle that there wasn’t bent metal and dead people” at his airline. Although opinions like this are pervasive, employees’ issues do not concern the right people – namely airline executives, aviation industry regulators, politicians, watchdog groups, or even the flying public – in the right way often enough.</p>
<h2>New rules needed</h2>
<p>In the case of First Officer Lubitz, a longer career trajectory might have ensured that his health problems would have become evident. It is time to hold airlines around the world responsible for the increasing risks their hiring policies have imposed on the flying public. </p>
<p>In the US, the FAA has recently increased the minimum hiring criteria for a commercial airline pilot <a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14838">to 1,500 flight hours</a> – double the flight experience First Officer Lubitz had amassed. If this accident has taught us anything, it has shown it is time for international air carriers to follow suit.</p>
<p>Aviation industry risk-management processes have not kept pace with a rapidly changing environment. While the FAA claims that this is the <a href="http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=10032">“Golden Age of Safety”</a>, and other aviation researchers assure us the chance of dying in an airline accident is infinitesimal, 70% of US commercial pilots I studied believed a major airline accident would happen soon. </p>
<p>Who should we believe? As one captain explained: “Everybody wants their $99 ticket” but added: “you don’t get <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/chesley-sullenberger-20851353">[Captain] Sully</a> for ninety-nine bucks”. Instead, you you might get an accident waiting to happen.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ih5CPeKl-Ds?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Fraher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cost cutting by commercial airlines has led to a worrying rise in inexperienced pilots.Amy Fraher, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour , University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/377822015-02-20T11:05:20Z2015-02-20T11:05:20ZNew FAA rules say drones can take to the skies – with restrictions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72537/original/image-20150219-28197-1tyo85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">I'm a drone. Can I fly in the sky?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unten44/9631706311">Richard Unten</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week, the Federal Aviation Administration finally released <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_sUAS_Summary.pdf">proposed rules</a> for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) – better known to the general public as drones. Current restrictive rules – including that drone operators possess civilian pilot’s licenses and other certifications – have generated nationwide frustration for start-up and existing UAS companies that want to be able to fly drones in commercial or testing capacity. The growth of a commercial UAS industry in the United States has been minimal compared to other countries across the globe that have more quickly embraced the new technology.</p>
<p>When these new rules go into effect, they’ll govern small unmanned aircraft of 55 pounds or less. Aimed at allowing drones to operate in the national airspace safely intermixed with manned aircraft, they’re largely favorable to commercial operators who have been waiting years for workable regulations.</p>
<h2>Current state of the drones in the air</h2>
<p>When Congress approved the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, it mandated that the FAA create an implementation plan for how to introduce UAS to American skies without endangering manned aircraft. The FAA selected six UAS test sites to figure out the issues associated with this blending of technologies. One was the state of Nevada, which helped spur the development of my home institution, the <a href="http://www.unr.edu/naasic">Nevada Advanced Autonomous Systems Innovation Center</a> at the University of Nevada, Reno. It’s taken until now for the FAA to take the assessments of these test sites into account and release proposed rules.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72539/original/image-20150219-28212-sxley6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A UAV fitted with a camera.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevlar/13655934114">Kevin Baird</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the meantime, companies trying to test and commercialize these technologies have been left in limbo. Up until last December, the FAA didn’t allow any commercial exploitation of UAS aircraft at all. This restriction was softened a bit by exemptions for companies seeking commercial usage in four specific areas: agriculture, package delivery, cinematography and news gathering. This was not a blanket approval, and still requires any company desiring this exemption to apply individually with the FAA. </p>
<p>Current issues with UAS rules or lack thereof that the proposed regulations would address include: </p>
<ul>
<li>Applying for Certificates of Authorization for UAV’s is very difficult; in my experience, at least four to six months or more, and commonly results in a denial from the FAA.</li>
<li>A radio control model bought on Amazon is immediately subject to a ridiculous amount of FAA paperwork if you try to do anything commercial with it. The fact that you can operate the same drone following the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/">RC model rules</a>, purchase your Academy of Model Aeronautics membership for $58 and fly all day long with insurance has UAS companies crying foul.</li>
<li>Requiring a pilot’s license and an FAA Class II medical certificate to fly the same RC model aircraft in its commercial application is unfathomable by most, yet currently required. </li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72542/original/image-20150219-28215-1cfx88n.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Indoor drone test flight – since outdoors is prohibited.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UNR Media</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>US commercial UAS companies in a holding pattern</h2>
<p>So how are UAS commercial companies able to test and promote their products if they can’t fly them in the national airspace? Simply put, workarounds. </p>
<p>We here at University of Nevada Reno identified this problem early in the process, and opened up some of its largest buildings on campus for indoor flight testing. Some testing has also been done outdoors underneath netted areas which are not governed by FAA regulations. But large enough netted areas that can host fixed wing and rotary UAS flight operations are relatively non-existent. The University of Nevada, Reno is also in the planning stages of constructing such a facility. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, some companies are flying in rural areas without FAA approval, betting on the fact that the FAA doesn’t have the resources to police these areas for airspace violators. </p>
<p>The last option left to companies hurts the US economy the most: taking their businesses overseas to test their products in foreign countries that have much more lenient airspace restrictions. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International estimates that every day the FAA waits to approve UAS rules and regulations is nearly $30 million <a href="http://www.auvsi.org/econreport">lost to the US economy</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72541/original/image-20150219-28197-1ya3z4h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UNR engineering students contemplate technical options on their UAV.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UNR Media</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Proposed rules head in right direction</h2>
<p>Most of the current major issues seem to be addressed in these new regulations. </p>
<p>No longer will you need a pilot’s license and medical certificate to fly a 55-pound class UAS. You’ll need take an aeronautical knowledge test every two years and possess an “operator’s certificate” for the specific UAS aircraft you are flying. The rules would dictate a minimum age of 17 years – which may affect the numbers of UAVs being sold online if this restriction is somehow enforced. These rules don’t apply to hobbyists; RC modelers have their own set of FAA rules. But if you use your model for money procurement, it immediately is classified as a UAS by the FAA.</p>
<p>But there are also some big negatives associated with the proposed regulations. No autonomous flights are allowed. This means you can’t program your UAV and let it fly itself on a predetermined route or mission. The operator has to keep it in the visual line of sight at all times, and in some scenarios have a spotter. </p>
<p>This rule thwarts what has thus far been the most productive use of UAS systems in the agriculture arena. UAS systems are already thriving in Japan, autonomously servicing crops with fertilizers and pesticides. These methods prove to be only a <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/drones-will-revolutionize-farming-first-not-delivery">fraction of the cost</a> when compared to traditional farming methods which typically use heavy tractor equipment or manned helicopters to do the same jobs.</p>
<p>No nighttime flying is allowed, which makes sense if you can’t maintain your visual line of sight on the aircraft in the air. However, many search and rescue units already employ UAS systems with thermal cameras at night if they are trying to find missing or injured persons in remote areas, so the FAA will likely need to issue some exemptions in this category as well. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72543/original/image-20150219-28197-1ntp2gr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">With 7,000 aircraft in the air over the US at any given time, drones are entering a crowded airspace.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/briefing/">FAA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All in all, the newly proposed regulations are a great start by the FAA to make it all work. While it will likely be a couple of years before the proposed regs are finalized, we’re one step closer to drones becoming commonplace in the United States. From the growing of the vegetables you eat, to helping stranded hikers that need medical supplies, there will be few limits to the areas that can be supported by drone technologies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Warren Rapp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Aimed at allowing drones to operate in the national airspace safely alongside manned aircraft, they’re largely favorable to commercial operators who have been waiting years for workable regs.Warren Rapp, Business Development Director at Nevada Advanced Autonomous Systems Innovation Center, University of Nevada, RenoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/356172014-12-18T00:45:49Z2014-12-18T00:45:49ZWhen ‘selfies’ extend to plane cockpits, pilots could land themselves in trouble<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67570/original/image-20141217-31052-1rsoftn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pilots have the privilege of a birds-eye view, but should they resist the temptation to snap from the cockpit?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Frans Zwart/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week, Quartz published an <a href="http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/">article</a> showcasing photographs pilots have taken from the cockpit of aircraft to post on Instagram. As <a href="http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/">explained</a> in the story, by taking these photos – many of which appear to have been snapped during flight, take-off, or landing – pilots are violating the rules of the air. This is certainly the case in the United States and the European Union, for example, but what about elsewhere?</p>
<h2>United States regulations</h2>
<p>The longstanding <a href="http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/7027DA4135C34E2086257CBA004BF853?OpenDocument&Highlight=121.542">“sterile cockpit” rule</a> requires pilots to refrain from non-essential activities during critical stages of flight, including while the aircraft is involved in taxi, take-off and landing (and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight). <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3b907ccf9792f163ac73c61649c28397&node=se14.3.121_1542&rgn=div8">“Non-essential activities”</a> include eating and engaging in conversation and reading publications not related to the operation of the aircraft. It certainly covers cockpit selfies during landing. Alarmingly, as <a href="http://qz.com/233165/the-pilots-of-instagram-beautiful-views-from-the-cockpit-violating-rules-of-the-air/">reported</a> in Quartz, one #iger – or for those of us unfamiliar with the Instagram hashtag “Instagrammer” – posted: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[a]bout to land this plane but first, #lmtas” (that is, first, let me take a selfie). </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Earlier this year, the United States Federal Aviation Administration further issued new <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3b907ccf9792f163ac73c61649c28397&node=se14.3.121_1542&rgn=div8">regulations</a> barring airline pilots from using electronic devices, including laptops and mobile phones while on duty in the cockpit unless the purpose of using such devices is directly related to the operation of the aircraft or emergency, safety-related or employment related communications. These rules further restrict the ability for pilots to use these devices, placing a complete ban on personal use of such devices while piloting a commercial aircraft. Again, this restriction certainly covers taking photos – even at cruising altitude. </p>
<h2>EU regulations</h2>
<p>There are similar regulations in the EU. The European Aviation Safety Agency’s <a href="http://easa.europa.eu/28EE9A1E-F09B-4453-BB17-95F067742197/FinalDownload/DownloadId-D036060B6AC365102AAD994853CB512C/28EE9A1E-F09B-4453-BB17-95F067742197/system/files/dfu/Annex%20to%20ED%20Decision%202014-015-R%20-%20Part-CAT_0.pdf">Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material</a> sets out that due to the higher risk of interference and potential for distracting crew from their duties, portable electronic devices should not be used in the flight compartment, other than to assist the flight crew in their duties in certain circumstances. </p>
<p>The rules applying to pilots in Australia, however, are somewhat different.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67569/original/image-20141217-31028-18b7a09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Depending on the circumstances, it’s generally ok for crew members to take photos inside an aircraft cockpit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kent Wien/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Australian regulations</h2>
<p>Under Australian law, a common law duty of care (an obligation owed to any person whom it is reasonably foreseeable would be injured by the lack of care of that person) is owed by the pilot in command of an aircraft to persons including passengers and fellow crew members.</p>
<p>There are also statutory duties owed by the crew members of an aircraft under legislation which includes the <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/">Civil Aviation Act</a> and regulations made under that Act.</p>
<p>Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act provides that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[a] person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger’ either the life of another person or the person or property of another person.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/">Civil Aviation Regulations</a>, a pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time, the safety of people carried on the aircraft, and the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft. </p>
<p>Under the same regulations, the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot “is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to a flight until the engine or engines is or are stopped at the termination of a flight”. </p>
<p>If two or more pilots are required to be on board an aircraft, the pilot in command must ensure that two pilots remain at the controls at all times when the aircraft is taking off, landing and during turbulent flight conditions.</p>
<p>There appear to be no Australian laws or regulations which specifically prevent the taking of photographs by crew members of an aircraft. It is clear that crew members can take photographs – of each other and the view outside the aircraft. It is also clear, however, at common law and under statute that, depending on the operation of the aircraft and the circumstances – and it all comes down to circumstance – the taking of such photographs may well be prohibited. </p>
<p>It may also be an #offence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35617/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last week, Quartz published an article showcasing photographs pilots have taken from the cockpit of aircraft to post on Instagram. As explained in the story, by taking these photos – many of which appear…Rebecca Johnston, Adjunct Lecturer, Law School, University of Notre Dame AustraliaDavid Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, Law School, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/185572013-10-01T20:38:12Z2013-10-01T20:38:12ZGood news, flyers: ‘flight mode’ is safe during take-off and landing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32156/original/nkntdddm-1380523009.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You'll still have to put your tray table up, though.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">simone.brunozzi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this year, the US Federal Aviation Authority (<a href="http://www.faa.gov/">FAA</a>) put together a <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/337">panel of aviation experts</a> to look at whether personal electronic devices (PEDs) could be used on planes without compromising safety.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/business/faa-panel-would-ease-policy-on-electronic-devices-aloft.html">results are in</a>: the committee is recommending that electronic devices - such as tablets, e-readers and other PEDs - be allowed during all phases of flight (including take-off and landing).</p>
<p>The FAA asked the Advisory and Rulemaking Committee to investigate this particular issue after growing public scepticism about limitations, and increased public pressure to allow passengers to use their electronic devices during all phases of flight.</p>
<p>When applicable, passengers will have to switch their devices to airplane/flight mode. Passengers will hence be allowed to listen to music, watch a movie, play games or read an e-book on their e-reader or tablet - as long as the data was downloaded and saved on the device before take-off.</p>
<p>As the committee’s report points out, many new generation aircraft have the appropriate shielding to prevent any interference from PEDs that may be on board.</p>
<p>The FAA is widely expected to follow through with the committee’s recommendations and will likely begin implementation next year. Other regulatory agencies, such as Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (<a href="http://www.casa.gov.au">CASA</a>), are expected to follow FAA’s lead on the issue.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32161/original/yw9ktt4y-1380526800.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Vermeer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>No talking on mobile phones</h2>
<p>The committee is maintaining restrictions on devices capable of connecting to a mobile phone network and/or with data communication capability. Hence, mobile phones are not expected to be allowed to be used during take-offs and landings any time soon. They will be required to be put on “flight mode”.</p>
<p>A mobile phone searching for a network tower emits much higher energy radio waves and is therefore more likely to cause electromagnetic interference (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference">EMI</a>). Another concern is that a plane flying with several hundreds of phones attempting to connect to a nearby tower would cause unnecessary strain on the mobile phone network.</p>
<p>However, some airlines are already offering products that allows their passengers to make phone calls on their flight. <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/emirates-lets-passengers-use-cell-phones-during-flights/">Emirates</a> has been pushing for this technology for several years. It relies on <a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/in-flight-mobile-phone-services1.htm">pio-cell technology</a> which is basically an on-board antenna which relays calls to towers on the ground. The system is controlled by the flight crew.</p>
<h2>What’s taken so long?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32160/original/v4rkyc9r-1380523897.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Felipe Luchi’s ‘Jailhouses’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">陈从峰</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pressure on the FAA sharply increased over the past few years as electronic device use skyrocketed and airline passengers became increasingly dependent on them. </p>
<p>As Brazilian illustrator Felipe Luchi so perfectly illustrated in <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5981609/the-perfect-definition-of-this-goddamn-digital-life">his artwork</a>, we are becoming increasingly dependent on our mobile devices.</p>
<p>The decision to allow the use of electronic devices on planes may seem self-evident to some, but the committee was rigorous. The committee was set to release its recommendation months ago but asked for an extension as there was a large amount of data to review and evaluate.</p>
<p>Public perception that a small device like a mobile phone could not possibly interfere with a plane’s electronics is at the core of the issue - as shown by the parody below.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JYAq-7sOzXQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Parody on PEDs ban on planes (bit of swearing in it, too).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recently conducted <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/05/13/one-third-airline-passengers-confess-to-leaving-gadgets-on-inflight/">survey</a> showed that 30% of passengers admitted to not turning off their mobile phone when flying - but how many of them are actual aviation safety experts? Does knowing how to use an iPhone give someone the expertise to assess whether it can take interfere with a plane’s electronics?</p>
<p>Evidence-based policy is - as the term suggests - <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-and-policy-makers-its-time-to-bridge-the-gap-6003">based on evidence</a>. As is usually the case with research, it is extremely difficult to come up with a black-and-white answer. Research outcomes are made up of shades of grey: assessing likelihood, risk and so on. </p>
<p>As pointed out in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-a-turn-off-why-your-phone-must-be-powered-down-on-flights-15387">previous piece</a> for The Conversation, interference allegedly due to phone calls during flight has been reported - but the lift of the ban on electronic devices such as e-readers and tablets is certainly most welcome.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18557/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hamza Bendemra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Earlier this year, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) put together a panel of aviation experts to look at whether personal electronic devices (PEDs) could be used on planes without compromising safety…Hamza Bendemra, Doctoral Candidate, Engineering, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116842013-01-19T01:00:14Z2013-01-19T01:00:14ZGrounded: looking at the 787 Dreamliner recent troubles<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19378/original/fgwzxz5m-1358485219.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">US regulators have grounded all 787 Dreamliners until a battery fire risk is fully assessed and fixed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr: Drewski2112</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week, US civil aviation safety regulator, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration">Federal Aviation Administration</a> (FAA) took the massive step of grounding all US Boeing 787 Dreamliners. Its equivalent European counterpart, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Aviation_Safety_Agency">European Aviation Safety Agency</a> (EASA), quickly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-boeing-787-easa-idUSBRE90G05A20130117">followed suit</a>. </p>
<p>The 787 Dreamliner has been facing some <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/boeing-crisis-deepens-as-dreamliners-grounded/4470272">difficulties of late</a>. Reported issues include a fuel leak, engine cracks, an oil leak, and a damaged cockpit window. The final straw came when a Japanese All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/travel/japan-dreamliner-emergency-landing/index.html">emergency landing in Japan</a> after the aircraft’s lithium batteries overheated. Those on board reported a burning smell in the cabin.</p>
<h2>Boeing 787 Dreamliner: first of its kind</h2>
<p>In terms of technological advancement, the Boeing Dreamliner 787 is not an innovation, it’s a revolution. </p>
<p>As previously <a href="http://theconversation.com/lets-stick-together-composite-materials-aeroplanes-and-you-7207">reported</a> on The Conversation, the 787 is made primarily of composite materials. Both the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner">Boeing 787</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350">Airbus A350</a> feature more than 50% of composite materials (by weight) – the largest amount ever used on a commercial aircraft.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19372/original/jzq8m3vx-1358483517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boeing 787 being assembled.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Boeing</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Compared to metals, composites offer better strength- and stiffness-to-weight ratio, better corrosion properties, and better fatigue resistance. By using composites, Boeing has significantly reduced the aircraft weight increasing its fuel efficiency by 20%. </p>
<p>By using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-fiber-reinforced_polymer">carbon fibre composites</a>, the plane can also be moulded back in single pieces during the assembly process. The manufacturing process relies on automated techniques (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_fiber_placement">automated fibre placement</a>) which provide increased accuracy and repeatability. </p>
<p>Initially, Boeing had to face a number of challenges with the use of composites. In 2008, the <a href="http://www.atsb.gov.au/">Australian Transport Safety Bureau</a> (ATSB) investigated the challenges around composite materials capabilities and safety. In 2011, the US <a href="http://www.gao.gov/">Government Accountability Office</a> (GAO) released a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-849">report</a> identifying concerns about the limited information on the behaviour of these new composite aircraft models. However, after years of being behind schedule, Boeing came through and received both <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/787-wins-certification-from-faa-and-easa-361346/">FAA and EASA certification</a>. </p>
<p>Another revolution in the making of the 787 Dreamliner is its power system. Indeed, part of the reason why the 787 is so light is that it relies far more than any other aircraft on electrical systems to function. Boeing opted for the use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery">lithium-ion batteries</a>. However, it resulted in unanticipated issues. </p>
<h2>More power, more problems</h2>
<p>The main reason for the recent grounding resides in the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57564492/revolutionary-batteries-at-heart-of-787-issues/">use of lithion-ion batteries</a>. These batteries generate a great amount of electrical power but they can also leak corrosive fluid and potentially start fires. </p>
<p>In the case of the ANA aircraft which prompted the grounding, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte">electrolytes</a> (a flammable battery fluid) were found to have leaked from the plane’s main lithium-ion battery and burn marks were found around the damage. It is <a href="http://business.time.com/2013/01/17/lithium-batteries-central-to-boeings-787-woes/">reported</a> that in the first battery incident (a JAL 787 auxiliary power unit caught fire), it took firefighters 40 minutes to put out the blaze.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19367/original/hw9kpnxn-1358483190.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Burned auxiliary power unit battery from the JAL Boeing 787.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">US National Transportation Safety Bureau</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Battery fluid is extremely corrosive and can damage electrical wiring and components. It is a main safety concern even though composite materials are more resistant to corrosion than aluminium. </p>
<p>Boeing’s chief engineering, Mike Sinnett, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/battery-baffles-boeing-as-787s-grounded/story-e6frg95x-1226556207716">insisted</a> that the plane’s batteries have operated through a combined 1.3 million hours and never had an internal fault. </p>
<h2>Regulators: better be safe than sorry</h2>
<p>The last time the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-17/the-787-and-the-dc-10-a-history-of-two-troubled-jets">FAA grounded an entire fleet was in 1979</a>, when it grounded the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10">DC-10</a> after a couple of fatal incidents: a Turkish Airlines DC-10 crashed over Paris in 1974 killing 346 people, and in 1979 an American Airlines DC-10 crashed during takeoff in Chicago resulting in 293 people killed.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19373/original/s492mgd2-1358483904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FAA Administrator Michael Huerta called for the grounding of all US 787 Dreamliner.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">C-SPAN</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Compared to the troubles experienced by the DC-10, FAA’s decision may seem excessive as the Dreamliner hasn’t crashed in its 15 months of service. But the revolutionary aspects in the 787 Dreamliner design and production prompted the agencies to take a closer a look and ground of the fleet. </p>
<p>These “teething” issues (i.e. problems that arise when a new aircraft is put into service) are not <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-airbus-a380-wing-cracks-an-engineers-perspective-5318">uncommon</a> and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/17/travel/dreamliner-grounding-history/index.html?iref=allsearch">experts</a> expect them to be swiftly resolved. Fortunately, emergency procedure and built-in redundancies resulted in no lives being lost in the 787 incidents.</p>
<p>At this stage, it is up to the regulatory bodies to go in and have a look at the source and extent of the damage. It could be between two weeks and a couple of months before the fleet is allowed back in the air. </p>
<p>In the meantime, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-cuts-dreamliner-order-prepares-for-emirates-alliance-20130118-2cx5s.html">Qantas has cut its order</a> of 15 Dreamliners by one but has said it is unrelated to the current issue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hamza Bendemra has previously received funding from Boeing in 2011. The research project outcomes did not directly relate to the 787 Dreamliner.</span></em></p>This week, US civil aviation safety regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) took the massive step of grounding all US Boeing 787 Dreamliners. Its equivalent European counterpart, the European…Hamza Bendemra, Doctoral Candidate, Engineering, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.