From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 8/30/1982
Response: The board does not accept your assumption that cvr benefits accrue where safety improvements arise from accidents in which cause/factordata were obtainable from no source other than the cvr. We have never considered the information obtained from the cvr in isolation, but have used it primarily as a tool in uncovering (sometimes) subtle clues to assist us in determining probable cause and in making recommendations for preventing future accidents. More often than not, the raw cvr data has (1)provided extremely valuable clues to the cause, (2) allowed more rapid dissemination of safety information to operators, (3) established the sequence of events in the cockpit and the timing of critical events, and (4) in conjunction with the fdr, provided the basis for aircraft perform- ance analysis which, in turn, either uncovers or corroborates the probable cause and contributes to safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. . . . . Because of the factors discussed above, the safety board does not accept the faa’s cost benefit analysis as demonstrating that its recommendation is not feasible. We are, therefore, classifying recommenda-tion a-78-29 as closed–unacceptable action.
Telemetry makes more sense for crash analysis. 1) First off, you don’t have to try and find a CVR buried somewhere in the rubble, and then pray that it survived. 2) Secondly, pilots are not a primary source of good information because what people say is not always what they are thinking or doing. 3) Telemetry is already proven in the space program; it keeps providing data even after a crew is incapacitated.
2 replies
Thank you Raf for your service to this community by posting this 1982 NTSB reply to the FAA. It’s slightly horrifying and very embarrassing that anyone who reads the same forums I do needs to have the value of CVRs and FDRs explained. Let’s assume this needn’t have been done for any of the flying professionals among us. Please?
1 reply
YARS said:
> I can’t endorse real-time surveillance of every flight in the skies.
We already have it, it is called ADS-B. It has already provided lots of information about this flight (yes, it was ADS-B equipped) that would have otherwise been unavailable before. That is, second by second position, direction, speed. This will be instrumental in the final accident analysis.
ADS-B will revolutionize accident investigation (by providing detailed flight path data and even details such as autopilot selections and settings) and search and rescue operations (by providing bread crumbs to the accident site). ELTs are worthless and the FAA should eliminate the requirement to carry one if you have 1090ES ADS-B equipment.
As for TAWS, that is a red herring. The rapid roll over and descent was not due to unawareness of terrain, but due most likely to spatial disorientation in cloud. TAWS doesn’t change that. TAWS also doesn’t work in many cases. Read about Flying Tiger Line 66, the pilot flew calmly right into a mountain with the TAWS yelling at them.
As for CVR/FDR, they don’t prevents a crash, and they won’t add a lot for a spatial disorientation event like this one seems to be. The FAA makes the standards for CVR/FDR so high and so costly that everybody fights having them. So their own rules make it LESS safe because they won’t accept a lesser standard for the devices. Indeed, the NTSB often gets FAR better data from consumer devices like the iPad or portable GPS units than they do from certified expensive black boxes. The FAA is sometimes negative safety and this is such a case.
Mike C.
1 reply
I can’t endorse a lot of laws that were enacted in the name of “safety”.
I would estimate that the dollars that will be spent on this tragedy could equip (with TAWS and CVR) the balance of the helo fleet not already equipped. Not saying that CVR or TAWS would have prevented this accident, but the total cost, when done, will be mind blowing. One of the hidden costs, of the total cost, will be new regulations; such as no more special VFR for helo’s etc… and yes mandatory CVR and TAWS for 6 pax+ turbine 91/135 helo’s. And then the NTSB will remind us that they have recommended cameras in cockpits too… …
I don’t get a warm, “fuzzy” from this inspector’s comments. She must be “the” appointed NTSB spokesman because she doesn’t know anything about aviation and they want her out of the way. The only thing that would have saved this flight is if the pilot stayed home.
> …the NTSB’s Jennifer Homendy reminded reporters that the FAA failed to act on two safety recommendations that would have required Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWs)…
How would TAWS have helped? TAWS warns a pilot when they are flying near terrain. This pilot deliberately flew into a canyon. TAWS alerts telling this pilot something he already knew would have been distracting, not helpful.
> …the NTSB’s investigator in charge, Bill English, said no assumptions are being made about equipment. “We don’t have a conclusion that TAWs and this scenario are related to each other,” he told reporters during the press conference.
Exactly. So why the hell even mention it? All Ms. Homendy has done is stoke ignorant media interest in finding “the culprit.”
Telemetry is a lot easier to capture real-time from a vehicle that is always* within line-of-sight of a ground-based (or space-based) receiver. Aircraft may not always be within line-of-sight, and even if it is, there may be situations where it can’t transmit, so an on-board collector is needed. Even the space program used on-board recorders.
I agree John, I rarely read these posts for just that reason. Internet surfing pilots. They are all accident reconstruction experts.
ELTs can be removed from the aircraft and taken with the occupants to another location (assuming they survive the crash). I support the continued requirement for an ELT (they aren’t that expensive compared to some other mandated equipment).
I suspect that the pilot may very well already have been disoriented when he flew into the canyon and I also suspect a voice recorder may – in this case – been revealing. That said, I am not in favor of the latter.
There is another angle here – which is definitely less glamorous to the general media than embedding technology in the cockpit. And that is certification and training and best practices. From what I have heard, Island Express was certified for Part 135 VFR helicopter only. Which could mean – having looked at the regs: 1) helos were not adequately IFR equipped (tho this one could have been) 2) pilots were not necessarily current IFR (or should I say comfortably current) and 3) operator limitations/guidelines about operating in Special VFR that added a safety margin to these operations.
but maybe should be considered
In the wonderful world of aviation, human errors contribute more to incidents and accidents than any other factor. Be it from regulators, management, product designers, aircraft or avionics factory workers, mechanics, air traffic controllers, ground or flight crews. Throw in more training, another “safety” piece of equipment, separate wire bundles, reinforce vertical stabs, limit rudder controls, and don’t forget the MAX and the British Comet and the A300. In a perfect world, the goal post keeps moving. It’s complicated. But, we keep a-goin!
I’m in agreement with all you say here, Barbara. My additional thought is; why does the FAA issue VFR only certificates for charter ops?
Investigators say the pilot appeared to be trying to climb, either out of the weather or away from terrain. The aircraft crashed at high speed in a left descending turn.
Huh??
TAWS is a bit silly. If you are unable to not see and avoid a planet, you should not be in the left seat.
I also have seen those prices on Trade A Plane and was wondering the very same things. Especially the aircraft with original radios, no ADSB, trashed interiors and paint peeling. Yes, I have flown those. As a rental. But I certainly wouldn’t be buying one. Maybe that’s why new sales are up?
1 reply
I’m not tracking all the GA crashes on a spreadsheet,but from what I am reading there is at least one GA accident every day, mostly older single engine,(except for a few of those newer Cirrus types).
638 piston engine deliveries in the first half of the year, so maybe around 1300 for the whole year. Hard to believe that in 1979 the total piston engine aircraft produced exceeded 17,000…
1 reply
I’ve been in the market for a used 182 for several months but am not willing to pay $120K for an aircraft that’s as old as I am with high TT, a mid-life engine, original interior and minimal panel upgrades. I’m just going to sit on my pile of cash and wait until some sanity returns.
I suspect many of the new piston deliveries are to flight schools (receiving substantial discounts for volume purchases) as who’s paying $650K for a new 182 or $1.3M for a Baron? Wow!
1 reply
In 1979 the average new price for a Cessna was around $40,000, that would be $167,000 today. Can you find a NEW Cessna for that price? No, Greed rules the cost of planes. Better to build a few with a cheap workforce and sell to the mega rich than to make a good affordable product for the masses. We the “little” can lump it. That is also why there are much fewer pilots today, who can afford to fly? I don’t anymore.
“I’m just going to sit on my pile of cash and wait until some sanity returns.”
I suggest fluffing your cashpile to provide maximum comfort. If the “sanity” that you await is lower prices for new aircraft, Hell is likely to freeze over before that occurs.
A “dog” with good bones can be an excallent alternative to a nearly-seven-figure personal aircraft.
Buy it; strip it; repair it; upgrade it; fly it; enjoy it. You’ll still save 50% or more of the cost of a new bird.
Sometimes, “sanity” wears strange disguises. Happy aviating!
1 reply
Sounds like you’ve been around the block a few times.