Oral arguments were quick in emergenciesed last Wednesday in the US Court of Appeals regarding the use of partial trials and computer simulations instead of full-scale passenger evacuation demonstrations.

Oral arguments were quick in emergenciesed last Wednesday in the US Court of Appeals regarding the use of partial trials and computer simulations instead of full-scale passenger evacuation demonstrations. The Aviation Consumer Action scheme (ACAP) is suing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) onward behalf of pilots and airline passengers throughout the use of data analysis in certificating novel passenger aircraft, such as the B777-300

Readers will recall the firestorm that stemm from the FAA's March 1998 Policy Statement to allow analysis in lieu of full-scale evacuation trials (see ASW, March 30 1998; April 6 1998; April 13 1998) The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and seven aviation unions are oppos to the use of analysis to demonstrate that aircraft can be evacuated within 90 seconds

"We don't have an explanation for what purpose the FAA should abolish this procedure" said Nicholas Cobb instruction for the plaintiffs, in arguing before the court. connoisseur Laurence Silberman replied, "This happens all the time in administrative acts. In an informal judication, you're not going to have an explanation." Bruce Forrest, a Justice Department lawyer arguing for the FAA's defense said that the FAA's March 1998 policy statement was "misconstrued."

"They're claiming this thing is a authority when in fact, this is barely one way to comply with the regulations, on the other hand not the only way to comply" Forrest said. connoisseur Silberman then expressed reservations about the policy. "You're relying and putting more emphasis in succession logic to support the certification?" Silberman asked, to which Forrest replied, "Yes"

An opinion is likely to be issued within 1-3 month Forrest would not remark after the court proceedings on the contrary Cobbs feels they have a chance of winning. "This is the first degree in the process and, ultimately, we would like this matter to be sent back to the FAA and have them evaluate public annotates before making such a change in policy."

A 13-year Timeline of Controversy

1967: Requirement for full-scale evacuations demonstrations introduced into Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

1986: The then-FAA Administrator Donald Engen established policy onward limiting use of analysis to passenger capacity increases of 5% or les owed to the absence of an industry standard of when as it is analysis is appropriate.

1989: FAA issues Advisory Circular 25803-1 stating that a full-scale demonstration should be convoyed for passenger capacity increases of greater than 5% because of the continued absence of an industry standard of analysis.

1991: FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee takes up the issue in determining when as it was analysis is appropriate.

1995: No consensus is reached among ARAC committee members forward the use of analysis.

March 1998: FAA issues a policy statement allowing analysis as a substitute to full-scale demonstrations where sufficient data are available.

July 1998: ACAP officials file suit in Federal Court.

October 1998: FAA releases draft advisory circular to amend the 1989 AC; provides guidance upon using analysis and testing in lieu of a full-scale demonstration.

September 1999: Oral arguments currented in US Court of Appeals.

Sources: FAA, ACAP

...

Home