Private Jet Travel, they Could not
Do it anyother way: www.OnDemandCharterJet.com 

NBAA Testimony

 

 

 

 

 

Before

TSA’s Large Aircraft Security Program Public Hearing

 

 

 

January 6, 2009

 

 

 

Westchester County Airport, New York

 

Good morning. My name is Ed Bolen. I am the President and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).  Our association represents 8,000 companies that have one key trait in common—they all depend on a general aviation aircraft to help their businesses survive and compete in a most challenging market environment.

 

In the United States, eighty-five percent of the U.S. companies that use a general aviation are small and mid-size businesses. These companies often operate to and from communities with little or no commercial airline service. They fly to multiple sites in a single day. And they often fly equipment that, for whatever reason, can’t be transported on a commercial airliner. For these companies, business aviation is not an alternative to the airlines—it is an essential mode of transportation. Without their airplane, many of these companies would not exist. 

 

As the TSA knows, NBAA and the other GA associations have been very aggressive promoting security initiatives since 9-11. When it comes to security, the general aviation community has led, not followed. We take a back seat to no one in our commitment to security, and our actions to date have demonstrated that fact. 

 

Our motivation in commenting on the TSA proposal should be clearly understood. We want to work with the TSA to enhance general aviation security and harden general aviation against attack while simultaneously facilitating the operations that are essential to the survival of tens of thousands of U.S. businesses. The goals of enhancing security and facilitating mobility are not mutually exclusive; but achieving them will require a thoughtful, careful and tailored approach that, quite frankly, we do not see in the proposed rule. 

 

Business aviation operations are a different animal than commercial aviation operations.  That is why is why the Federal Aviation Administration treats them as separate and distinct in their safety regulations. By thoroughly understanding these differences and regulating accordingly, the FAA has been able to develop separate and unique safety regulations that have resulted in equivalent safety records. The same can be done with security.

 

How are business aviation operations different? 

 

Well for one thing, the planes are smaller. Commercial airliners typically weigh about 160,000 pounds. The proposed rule targets business airplanes as small as 12,500 pounds. A 12,500-pound airplane is less than one-tenth the size of a Boeing 737. The entire cabin of a 12,500-pound airplane – from windshield to back bulkhead – could comfortably fit sideways into the planes used in the 9-11 attacks.

 

Make no mistake about it: The “large aircraft” security program will apply to some very small aircraft. 

 

Another key difference is that the commercial airlines have to transport unknown passengers. They hold themselves out to the general public and transport anyone who purchases a ticket. By contrast, business aviation is used to transport only individuals who known are known to the company. 

 

Comparing commercial operations to business aviation operations would be like comparing a city bus operation to the way a private company might use a passenger van for its internal operations. Knowing everything there is to know about who your passenger is changes everything. The proposed rule doesn’t seem to recognize that fact.

 

         

See Full Prep of the Shuttle

Shuttle Landing from the Flight Deck on the Shuttle. 

REGULATING PRIVATE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

Remarks by Patricia Grace Smith

 

Associate Administrator

Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

 

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, D.C. March 28, 2007

 

 

Good morning. 

 

Thank you for inviting me to be with you today.

 

          Vincent said he wanted me to talk about the regulation of the space tourism industry this morning. 

 

When he said that, I thought "Hmm.  Lets see.  The NCAA basketball finals are this weekend.  The Major League baseball season starts this weekend.  And he wants me to talk about federalregulations."

 

 Poor Vincent.

 

But then I thought well, no, actually wise and perceptive Vincent, because space flight, which has been almost exclusively a spectator sport since it began, is about to open the gates to public participation.

 

          What a remarkable development that is.  People who are not pilots, not scientists, not military officers, not specialists and, so far, not astronauts, will be able to take a ride to space.

 

          It will all be made possible by private entrepreneurs, investing their own resources in their own dreams and inviting the public to buy a ticket and join them.

 

          The governments principal role in this is developing a regulatory regime focused on the safety of the uninvolved public that at the same time regulates in a way that does not stifle the emerging private human space flight industry.

 

          So on this subject of federal regulation of space tourism, or whats becoming known as "new space," I think the best place to start is at the start.  And, right from the start, are these words: 

 

          "Space transportation is inherently risky "

 

          That notion of risk is so intrinsic to human space flight, and so important, that the congressional authors of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 put those words right up front so you read that before you read most anything else. 

 

          When Congress adopted this landmark legislation, it didnt pull any punches in pointing out to potential space travelers that if they wanted to do this, fine.  But they needed to do it with their eyes and their ears wide open.

 

          In the same paragraph about risk, Congress spoke to both potential passengers and vehicle developers alike when it pointed out

 

          "The future of the commercial space flight industry will depend on its ability to continually improve its safety performance."

 

          You cant frame the issues any better than that.  Private human space flight is risky, but it has a future.  That future hinges on everyone in, or connected with, the industry working all the time to make it as safe as possible, mindful that it will never be risk-free.

         

          Let me quote one more time from the legislation, a quote that will help explain why Im here. 

 

          "A critical area of responsibility for the Department of Transportation," the legislation said, "is to regulate the operations and safety of the emerging commercial human space flight industry."

 

          The FAA operates under the Department of Transportation and the Office of Commercial Space Transportation that I lead, is part of the FAA.

         

          So there you have the basic package.  Congress passed and the President signed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, essentially directing the FAA to regulate commercial human space flight to help ensure it is operated safely.

         

          To that end under the terms of the law, Congress mandated regulations to establish experimental permits, a project currently moving.  The whole point is that the more you test, the more you learn and the greater the likelihood that your vehicle becomes better and safer.  Ill come back to that in a minute.

 

          Congress also mandated rules governing private human space flight requirements for crew and space flight participants.  The final rule was published on December 15, 2006 and became effective in mid-February of this year.

 

          At the core of these regulations for space flight participants lets just call them passengers is the idea of informedconsent.  In a nutshell, that boils down to making sure any passenger intending to make a suborbital flight is fully informed of the risk involved so that the passenger can make his or her own choice based on the best and most extensive information available.  Most of us are familiar with "informed consent" in a medical context.  There the patient is required to demonstrate their cognizance, both verbally and in writing.  Our regulations say the same thing.

 

          The regulation requires an operator to inform space flight passengers of the risks of space travel generally and the risks of space travel in the operators vehicle in particular. 

 

The operator is obliged to tell the passenger that the United States government has not certified the vehicle as safe for carrying flight crew or space flight passengers. 

 

Realistically, it is not possible to give assurances to anyone preparing to board a rocket for a suborbital flight that theres nothing to worry about. 

 

Of course there is. 

 

Were talking about rockets here, very powerful vehicles powered by volatile fuels.  Risk attends any space flight, and its the operators obligation to make sure the potential passenger is aware of it. 

 

Even so, this is not to suggest in anyway that there is or ever will be any compromise on safety.  These rules have been developed within an overall environment that puts the safety of the uninvolved public as the primary factor in everything the Office of Commercial Space Transportation does.

 

That means we will, as we already do, work closely with vehicle developers and launch operators to license the safe operation of vehicles and launch site facilities, with our inspectors on hand to make certain that the terms of any license are scrupulously followed.

 

That approach is clearly evident in the features of the regulation dealing with the crew of a space flight vehicle.

 

In fact, let me take just a minute or two to give you a few details.

 

          To begin with, the rule applies to any applicant for a license or permit proposingtoconduct a launch or reentry with a human on board the vehicle, just as it also applies to a licensed or permitted operatorconducting a launch or reentry with a human on board a vehicle

 

          Next, the rule applies to flightcrew or spaceflightparticipants on board a launch or reentry vehicle.

 

          And, it applies to a remote operator of a launch or reentry vehicle with a human on board.

 

          Each crewmember must possess and carry an FAA second-class airman medical certificate.  They must complete training on how to carry out his or her role on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public.  And they must train for his or her role in nominal and non-nominal conditions.

 

          Each member of a flight crew must demonstrate an ability to withstand the stresses of flight, which may include high acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration to the vehicle that will not harm the public.

 

          A pilot or remote operators must have an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating.  They have to have aeronautical experience and skills necessary to pilot and control the vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System.  And they must receive vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight.

 

The rule also establishes requirements governing environmental control and life support systems, smoke detection and fire suppression.

 

The rule requires an operator to account for human factors whenever the crew must perform safety-critical roles.  The rule also requires an operator to implement a verification program sufficient to verify the integrated performance of a vehicles hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before carrying a space flight passenger.  In other words, were not only making sure the systems work, but that they work together.

 

And all these requirements rest on the foundation fact that the FAA regards the flight crew as part of the flight safety system.

 

The rule requires an operator to train each member of the crew and define standards for successful completion of the training.  The operator must update crew training by incorporating lessons learned from training and operational missions; document completed training for each crew member; and, establish a recurrent training schedule.

 

Consistent with the provisions of Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the rule now in effect requires crew and space flight passengers to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims with the U.S. Government.  The legislation also expressly excludes space flight passengers from eligibility for indemnification against third party claims.

 

What Ive discussed this morning doesnt cover everything in the rule, but Ive pretty much given you all the key pieces.

 

Im happy to tell you that although not everyone subject to this rule sees everything exactly the same way, the reception has been solidly positive.  And Im not surprised, given the industry-wide emphasis on safe operations.  They know what it means not to plan properly, not to emphasize safety, and what the broader implications are for the industry.  They want to get it right!

 

Earlier, I mentioned "testing" to help assure safe operations and that Id get back to the subject in a minute. 

 

This is the minute. 

 

At the FAA, we are at the end of the rule-making process for Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets.  This rule has bee reviewed and cleared and will be published shortly.

 

The aim of the proposed rule is to expedite research and development on the vehicles intended to carry passengers on suborbital flights.   To help facilitate testing of those vehicles, the allowable processing time for making a determination on a permit is reduced by law to 120 days compared to 180 days for a license.

 

An applicant for a permit must provide four things: (1) a program description; (2) a flight test plan; (3) operational safety documentation, including a hazard analysis; and (4) a plan for responding to a mishap.

 

Once issued, an experimental permit will cover multiple launch vehicles of a particular design and allow unlimited launches.  The FAA will identify the type of design changes that may be made to a launch vehicle without invalidating the permit. 

 

No person may operate a reusable suborbital rocket under a permit for carrying any property or human being for compensation or hire. The one-year permit is renewable following an FAA review.

 

The rules also prescribe the criteria for the physical area in which a launch vehicle with an experimental permit can operate.  Among other things, the area has to be large enough to contain any planned trajectory and cannot contain or be adjacent to a densely populated area.

 

Thats a partial sketch of the proposed experimental permit rule.  Cleary the aim is testing to promote safety.  Just as clearly, that kind of thinking is a feature of the emerging RLV industry.  Let me explain.