Safety Recommendation A-12-064

In our March 13, 2013, letter, we noted that, although you agree with the intent of these recommendations, you did not agree with collecting this information during the triennial re registration or using FAA Form 8050-1A to do so. Regarding the alternatives you said were being considered, we commented that we did not consider your suggested action (enhancing the standards for the size, number, and location of warnings and placards on an aircraft containing a safety device with an explosive component) to constitute an acceptable response to these recommendations.

We said that the potential was too great for such warnings and placards to be damaged or destroyed in a crash or a post-crash fire, rendering them useless. We also emphasized that information about explosive components should be readily available to first responders and accident investigators before they arrive at an accident site.

Despite our concerns, after considering various alternatives, you continue to believe that the first responder training and education and the placarding currently required are sufficient. None of these actions were taken after these recommendations were issued, and none will provide any information to first responders or accident investigators about explosive components on a crashed airplane before they arrive on scene to help them prepare adequately. We do not agree that you have effectively addressed these recommendations, although you have made it clear in your letter that you plan no further action.

Consequently, Safety Recommendations A 12-64, -65, and -66 are classified CLOSED—UNACCEPTABLE ACTION.

-From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: As stated in our previous letter. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 8050-1 A, Aircraft Re-Registration Application. would require rulemaking to effectively capture which aircraft contain a ballistic safety device. Rulemaking, however, is not supported since there is no history of injury or death related to these devices. After considering various alternatives, as discussed in our previous letter, the FAA believes that first responder training. education, and the placarding currently required is sufficient. Aircraft manufacturers are responsible for providing this training.

Cirrus Aircraft, for example, has conducted training for first responders and the public and published various media about their ballistic safety devices.

Additionally, the FAA Safety Team has educated first responders and the public about such devices, and we provide publicly available information on the proper interaction with ballistic safety devices at the following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport safety/aircraft_rescue_fire_fighting/

The installation of a ballistic safety device is rare. For accident airplanes equipped with such a device. to date, no device has deployed due to postaccident activation. This lack of activation supports the current FAA/ industry approach to train and educate first responders. The FAA is committed to providing a safe working environment for first responders, and will continue to monitor the incorporation of ballistic safety devices into the general aviation fleet.

We acknowledge the concerns cited by the FAA as the reasons why the agency agrees with the intent of these recommendations but does not agree with either collecting this information during the triennial re-registration or using FAA Form 8050-1A to collect it. We look forward to learning what alternative action the FAA will take, but we offer the following comments on some of the alternatives that the FAA is considering.

We do not regard enhancing the standards for the size, number, and location of warnings and placards on an aircraft containing a safety device with an explosive component, to constitute an acceptable response to these recommendations. We believe that the potential is too great for such warnings and placards to be damaged or destroyed in a crash or a post-crash fire, rendering them useless. We also believe that information about explosive components should be readily available to first responders and accident investigators before they arrive at an accident site. The airworthiness certification process may form the basis for an acceptable alternate response, provided that—

• It can be used reliably to record all aircraft containing explosive components in safety devices including, for example, surplus military aircraft equipped with ejection seats. • Information will be consistently and reliably recorded in the aircraft registry when a safety device that contains an explosive component is installed under the provisions of an STC. • Information collected on these components will reliably and consistently be placed in the aircraft registry. • The aircraft registry will be revised to make this information readily available to accident investigators and first responders who will know only the N number of a crashed aircraft.

Pending the FAA’s taking the recommended actions or acceptable alternate actions, Safety Recommendations A-12-64 and -66 are classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

-From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) agrees with the intent of this recommendation. However, the FAA does not agree with using FAA Form 8050-IA to collect information on safety devices that contain explosive elements. There are a number of practical impediments to implementation of this safety recommendation as written: • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not approved Form 8050-1A for the collection of aircraft safety equipment data during the aircraft registration process; • Since the FAA currently has no rule in place to require submission of data regarding aircraft safety equipment, it would be voluntary; and

• Significant IT programming changes to aircraft registry systems, rulemaking to establish an enforceable requirement, and multiple registry process changes would be necessary to implement this recommendation and would require years to accomplish.

The FAA is considering the following alternatives to enhance the availability of information to first responders:

• The Board notes that information, in the form of warnings and placards on the aircraft or aircraft safety devices, is always at the crash site in some form and immediately available to all first responders. The FAA could consider enhancing the size, number, and location of these warnings and placards to mitigate the potential that this information is destroyed; • The airworthiness certification process is better connected to collecting information concerning aircraft equipage.

Information concerning safety equipment could be collected and reported during initial certification inspections, following approved modification, and during other inspections that occur during the aircraft lifecycle; and • At the time of installation, FAA designated airworthiness representatives and other authorized individuals could be required to report the addition of such devices to the FAA for inclusion in the airworthiness portion of the aircraft record.

Appropriate FAA offices will meet with first responders and crash investigators to evaluate the feasibility of these alternative actions, and determine the most appropriate path forward.

I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on this safety recommendation and provide an updated response by January 30, 2014.