Tag: Federal Aviation Administration

Boeing Whistleblower Continues to Raise Concerns

At the National Whistleblower Day celebration held on Capitol Hill on July 30, a Boeing whistleblower announced new documents which he claims further demonstrate shortcomings by Boeing around the manufacturing of the 737 Max which crashed in Ethiopia on March 10, 2019.

During his speech, Ed Pierson, the Executive Director of The Foundation for Aviation Safety, an aviation industry watchdog group, stated “since it’s Whistleblower Day, I thought I’d do some whistleblowing.”

Pierson went on to detail three sets of documents which he said Boeing employees had recently shared with him. The documents include the production records for the Ethiopian Airlines 737-8 MAX airplane, which according to the Foundation for Aviation Safety “paint a clear picture of the confusing and chaotic production operations going on at the 737 factory when this airplane was being manufactured.”

The documents also include information about a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigation into whistleblower complaints about alleged loss of quality control at Boeing’s Electrical Systems Responsibility Center (ESRC) in Everett, Washington. According to Pierson, this investigation occurred the same week that the Ethiopian Airlines 737-8 MAX airplane was being manufactured in nearby Renton, Washington.

Lastly, the documents include communication between Boeing and Ethiopian Airlines about an uncommanded roll that plane had allegedly taken within three weeks of being delivered to Ethiopia.

In recent months, a number of Boeing whistleblowers have come forward alleging both safety concerns as well as a culture of retaliation at the company.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
by: Geoff Schweller of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law Business Crimes section

Eliminating Use of PFAS at Airports May Be Harder Than Congress Thought

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are emerging contaminants that are subject to increasing environmental regulation and legislation, including legislation to outright ban their use in certain products. Congress directed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to stop requiring PFAS in the foams used to fight certain fires at commercial airports, and to do so by Oct. 4, 2021. In complying with this order, FAA shows the difficult tightrope it has to walk to meet the “intent” of Congress’ directive, while not really meeting the goal Congress had hoped for.

The FAA issued Certification Alert (CertAlert) 21-05, “Part 139 Extinguishing Agent Requirements,” addressing the continued use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in order to meet the Oct. 4 deadline. In Section 332 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress directed that after this date, FAA “…shall not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/5210–6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.”

The CertAlert directs airports to continue using AFFF with PFAS unless they can demonstrate another means of compliance with the performance standards stablished by the Department of Defense (DoD) for extinguishing fires at commercial airports. The FAA alert also reminds airports about the need to test their firefighting equipment. Airports can perform the required testing by using a device that has been available since 2019 which does not require the discharge of any foam. Finally, the FAA also reminded airports to comply with state and local requirements for management of foam after it has been discharged.

The FAA reported in its communication that it began constructing a research facility in 2014 that was completed in 2019 and that it has been collaborating with DoD in the search for fluorine-free alternatives for AFFF. The FAA reported that it has tested 15 fluorine-free foams and found that none of them meet the strict DoD performance specifications that also are imposed on commercial airports. More specifically, FAA said the tested alternative foams had the following failings:

  • Increased time to extinguish fires
  • Not as effective at preventing a fire from reigniting
  • Not compatible with the existing firefighting equipment at airports

AFFF was developed to fight fuel fires on aircraft carriers where the ability to suppress fires as rapidly as possible and keep them suppressed is vital to the health and safety of pilots, crews, firefighters and the ship. The military specification (commonly known as MilSpec) for effective firefighting foams for fuel fires is in place for both military and civilian airports.  For many years, the consequences of the use of AFFF to fight aircraft fuel fires – most specifically, the adverse impact on groundwater and surface water – was not fully appreciated. Only recently has this threat been understood and only even more recently has the management of firefighting debris been directly addressed.

Congress may have thought it was eliminating a threat with the legislation directing the FAA to no longer require airports to use AFFF. But FAA’s latest messaging on AFFF highlights just how difficult it is to find suitable replacements, especially when they also have to meet the DoD’s stringent performance standards. The FAA did invite any airport, if they identify a replacement foam that meets the performance standards, to share that discovery with the FAA. However, it is unclear what that would accomplish when it is the DoD and not the FAA that certifies a particular foam’s performance.

In essence, FAA could not solve the challenge that Congress gave it (approve a fluorine-free foam) and instead used the CertAlert to approve airports to use such foams if they can find them on their own. The bottom line is that inadequate progress has been made to fulfill congressional intent to stop using AFFF at commercial airports, and airports are left with no choice but to use PFAS containing foams.

There is legislative activity in many states to ban products with PFAS and at the federal level there have been legislative actions targeting the same – like removing them from MREs. The FAA’s removal of its mandate to use AFFF without offering a PFAS-free alternative is a particularly visible example of the challenge in transitioning away from reliance on PFAS chemicals.

© 2021 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more on travel and transportation, visit the NLR Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation section.

FAA Rules for Drones: The Waiting is the Hardest Part

drone operations

The May edition of “Unmanned Systems” magazine printed interviews with Earl Lawrence and Marke Gibson, two administrators at the Federal Aviation Administration who are focused on drone integration.  While the FAA currently authorizes commercial drone operations on a case-by-case basis, it is anticipated that a new rule will be finalized this year and will be comprehensive enough to fulfill the public desire for commercial drone operations.

Lawrence predicted that performance-based standards, rather than weight and speed classifications, may be used in the new rule because they provide a more effective response to safety risks posed by drones. Lawrence also believed the new drone rule will require a certification for commercial drone operators.

Gibson noted that testing has revealed drone pilots are able to see other aircraft approaching at a distance of two and one half miles in daylight hours, more than the one mile estimated for operations within visual line-of-sight.  Gibson found this, and other testing data, valuable as the FAA continues its rulemaking for drones.

At least until the new rule is passed, however, commercial operators must still follow the Section 333 exemption process.  Those that wish to operate drones for business purposes must convince the FAA to issue an exemption.  The FAA requires information like the intended use of the drone; its design and operational characteristics; and how its operation will be done safely.

Neither Lawrence nor Gibson told the magazine when the new rule would actually be rolled out by the FAA.  Last Friday at a drone seminar though, Gibson hinted that the new rule may be announced this summer.  Hopefully, the waiting, not the rule itself, is the hardest part.

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey K. Phillips
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

July 4th Puts the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Drone Policy to the Test

COV_cmyk_C

Dramatic videos posted over the holiday weekend show fireworks displays that were filmed from drones.  The videos are remarkable, with the drones often flying within the sweep of the exploding shells.  Burning fireworks frequently zoom past the cameras.  We found drone fireworks videos from Decatur, Ga., Lake Martin, Ala., Oak Mountain State Park, Ala., and Nashville, Tenn.  The drone operators may have been inspired by a popular YouTube video of fireworks over West Palm Beach that attracted more than 6 million views and considerable press coverage.

We expect that the videos are also causing post-holiday headaches at the FAA.  The FAA’s reaction to these videos may prove to be an early test of its recent regulatory notice interpreting its longstanding rules on model aircraft.

As we previously reported, the FAA is playing catch up on its drone rules.  For years, the agency’s regulation of drones was limited to an advisory circular from 1981 and a policy statement from 2007, neither of which provided a comprehensive set of rules.  In March, the agency lost an enforcement action against a drone operator largely because it had never adopted specific regulations for drones.

On June 23, the FAA took a substantial step forward by issuing a notice of the agency’s interpretation of its authority to regulate drones.  The notice interprets Congress’s 2012 FAA legislation, including a provision that prohibits FAA regulation of model aircraft that are flown for “hobby or recreational” purposes and that meet certain other criteria.

In a key provision of the interpretation, the FAA stated that Congress’s prohibition on regulating model aircraft does not prohibit the agency from enforcing – against drone operators – the “general rules . . . that apply to all aircraft.”  This interpretation would permit the agency, for example, to allege that the fireworks drone operators violated regulations that prohibit careless and reckless operations that endanger life or property.

Finally, for those following the FAA’s position on commercial operation of drones, the fireworks videos may present a novel issue related to compensation.  In the June 23 interpretation, the FAA reiterated its longstanding position that commercial drone operations are generally prohibited, and the agency cited the example of “photographing [an] event and selling the photos to someone else.”

Some of the fireworks videos we reviewed were preceded by advertisements, which would appear to indicate that they are part of the YouTube Partner Program, where a portion of the advertising revenue is paid to the video creator.  The FAA has traditionally adopted a very broad view of commercial operations, and it will be interesting to see whether it considers “monetized” videos to cross the line.

We expect the FAA may have something to say about these fireworks videos.

Article By:

Brian D Smith
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP