Comments on the Flight Recorder Proposal

Air Safety Week, August 1, 2005

"In addition, recording data-link communications on the FDR instead of the CVR would preclude the mixing of what is generally considered public data (ATC communications) with highly restricted private data (the intra-cockpit audio) on the same device."

Cost benefit

From Boeing:

"The subtle 'tweaking' of existing parameters imposes increased system cost to industry."

From Airbus:

"The NPRM would result in redesign of recording systems and other systems at considerable cost. We contend that the intent of the proposal can be met at significantly lesser cost."

From Empire Airlines:

"The FAA cost/benefit analysis does not take into consideration operators have been burdened in the last two years by unfunded mandates requiring TAWS [terrain alerting warning systems], TCAS [traffic collision avoidance systems], RVSM [reduced vertical separation minimums] and ELT [emergency locator transmitter] upgrades, nor do they make an adequate case for the safety benefit that would result if these changes were adopted. While it is politically incorrect to suggest that safety recommendations may cost too much, the reality is that the operator is up against the wall and cannot expect to stay in business while funding NTSB safety recommendations, whose safety concern cannot be substantiated."

From the Regional Airline Association (RAA):

"The cost benefit analysis should cite at least one regional or commuter airplane accident in which the NTSB could 'result in corrective actions taken sooner than would have otherwise been possible' and that without improvements (in the CVR/FDR equipment), 'investigators may not have all the data vital for determining the probable cause of some future aircraft accident.'

"If the benefits of a revised cost benefit analysis are shown to be negative, RAA requests that the proposed rule mandating retrofit of current fleets be withdrawn.

"If the benefits of a revised cost benefits analysis are shown to be positive, RAA requests that the proposed two hour recording capability retrofit for the CVR be applicable only for airplanes certificated for passenger seating of 60 seats or more, and that retrofit for Part 135 operators be deleted in its entirety."

On the need for harmonization

From Boeing:

"While we agree with much of the proposal, our main concern is that it will not be harmonized with the parallel activities currently underway by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Boeing urges the FAA not to issue the final rule until harmonization has been reached between the FAA and JAA rules, as well as with related industry technical documents and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.

"Without harmonization, the affected industry will be faced with conflicting requirements, unjustifiably high costs of compliance, and potentially complex system designs in an attempt to satisfy two different sets of regulations. With harmonization, there is the opportunity not only to standardize, but to stabilize flight recorder requirements."