As Prepared for Delivery
Thank you, Chris (Lehman), for that introduction, and good morning to everyone. It’s great to be back in Orlando at WATS.
Today is April 19th, and for those of you familiar with U.S. history, it’s the day the American Revolution began in Lexington and Concord, with the shot heard around the world. Our country began as a bold experiment, built on ideals and aspirations. We set out to change the old order and create something that previous generations could not imagine – a country based on equals.
Aviation too, has always been a bold experiment. Through trial and error, and an undying desire to do what no one had done before, two bicycle mechanics from Dayton created a revolution that brought us into the age of flight.
Over the years, as technology has improved, aviation continues to adapt and evolve. Sometimes it’s an evolution and sometimes things change so quickly you’re swept up in a revolution.
We are at the dawn of the age of unmanned aircraft, changing the basic formula of aviation from pilot in the cockpit to pilot on the ground. We are moving from an air traffic system that relies on radar to one that uses satellites.
But the most crucial transformation may be one that's not as readily apparent: Weare in the age of Big Data, where more information is generated more quickly and from more sources than ever before.
So how is the FAA dealing with this change? What does this mean for the future of training and for the future of aviation? Simply put, using data to make decisions based on risk is the way of the future.
The FAA first delved into this kind of thinking when we created the Advanced Qualification Program, or AQP, a quarter century ago. Some people say the letters stand for “Awesome Quantities of Paperwork.”
Although it might take more work to conduct tailored training, the airlines are given this flexibility because the results show it’s worth it. All major carriers in the United States have chosen to use this voluntary training program to focus their training where they need it most.
With this program, if airlines look at training data and see pilots are doing very well with certain scenarios, then they don’t have to spend as much time continually training for those scenarios.
But if the data show other areas where pilots are not doing as well, the airline may concentrate training there instead.
I’m sure many of you have been around long enough to remember the life insurance kiosks inside the terminals at most major airports. For five bucks, you could buy a policy in case you didn’t make it to your destination.
Well, data sharing, new technologies and much more realistic training helped us put those guys out of business. Today, the most sought-after location in the terminal – other than a Starbucks – is an outlet to plug your charger into.
But here’s the challenge: With so few accidents, we have no choice but to move past the forensic approach of studying what went wrong after the fact.
Today, we have achieved a remarkable level of safety. Working with industry and sharing data has played a role in eliminating the leading causes of commercial accidents like controlled flight into terrain and weather.
To keep up the momentum, we have to continue to identify risks and address them before incidents occur. This is the idea behind Safety Management Systems.
These systems give airlines a structure to look at data from every aspect of their operations. They are designed to identify hazards, assess risks and put measures in place to mitigate them.
Safety Management Systems also foster an environment where aviation professionals will voluntarily provide us and their company observations about problems they have seen or encountered.
The revolutionary part about Safety Management Systems is putting all these parts together over the entire enterprise. It’s about creating cultural change in the organization.
One of the more remarkable stories of cultural change in corporate America is the turnaround at Ford Motor Company under the leadership of Alan Mulally. Some of you may remember Alan from his many years at Boeing.
At Ford Alan stepped into a culture where information was used against somebody if they volunteered that there was a problem in a particular program or area. There was no trust, and no way to have honest conversations that could lead to solutions.
Alan took some of the methods he developed at Boeing and demonstrated to this group of rivals that they were actually on the same team.
It worked. Ford’s new, collaborative culture helped it to become profitable again. It was the only major automaker to make it through the recession without a government bailout.
Creating an environment of trust where people can openly talk about safety problems is essential. At the FAA we believe that establishing trust with our stakeholders and having honest conversations about what’s working and what’s not working – without fear of reprisal – will bring us to the next level of safety.
As a result, we have changed the lens we use to look at compliance with our regulations.
The FAA is still a regulatory agency, and we will still use enforcement as a tool for operators who are unwilling or unable to comply. But compliance philosophy focuses on working with the majority of operators – those who are willing and able to comply – in order to find and fix problems before they result in incidents or accidents.
That means changing the way we interact with operators.
We want to work with companies so they will be willing to share information about failings without undue concern about blame. This will help us address problems and mitigate hazards to enhance safety.
There is a lot of churn in aviation and we still rely on our 4,000 safety inspectors to make sure that people are doing things the right way. Sometimes a single error can cause a big problem.
Many times these can be caught at a more local level. So, it’s a balance between using big picture data to guide us on the one hand, and our regular system of checks on the other.
In that vein, we continue to learn lessons from accidents, and we take these lessons very seriously.
New pilot training requirements mandated by Congress go into effect in 2019. These requirements include academic and flight training for the prevention of and recovery from full stall and upset events.
To prepare for this, we just released a new rule for simulator qualification standards that will help make sure simulators are better representing the airplane so pilots can train how to react to these very rare, but serious events.
This rule will allow everyone to get their simulators qualified and ready for 2019.
I mentioned earlier that we are in the age of Big Data. I’d like to circle back and acknowledge that the flight training industry was one of the first to recognize the potential power of data.
How many of you have ever had the opportunity to step inside an old Link Trainer?
During the early years in the 1930s, these little blue simulators were only slightly more sophisticated—when compared with today's models—than a soapbox derby racer, or a trash can with stubby wings, a door and a control stick.
But the industry kept searching for something better, and each successive generation of simulator became more and more realistic.
Then one day, some of the brightest minds in aviation began harnessing data from flight recorders.
Now, we not only simulate real situations, we duplicate them – in giant, articulating Star Wars-looking machines that are in many ways as complicated as the aircraft they mimic.
This remarkable use of data helped us to truly understand phenomena such as wind shear and microbursts.
The training scenarios you developed have since saved dozens of flights that might otherwise have fallen victim to one of nature’s most powerful forces. That’s really something, when you think about it.
Today, we’re seeing similar data being used to do more mundane, but still important tasks.
It’s possible for a technician on the ground to receive streaming data from the engines of a speeding jetliner. Something as seemingly innocuous as a slightly high oil temperature reading could be a precursor to a much more serious problem.
With this capability, the technician can order a quick check of the engine at the next stop, well before the problem manifests itself in a way that causes a flight to turn back or be diverted.
Yet, nomatter how much data we collect and no matter how sophisticated our simulators become, technology is just a tool. All the training in the world won’t matter if the people receiving it don’t retain what they’ve learned.
You may have heard the thoughts of Miracle on the Hudson Captain Chesley Sullenberger on this matter.
He said, “One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I’ve been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training,” and one day, “the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal.”
We could look at professionalism and consistent attention to training and behavior as another kind of Safety Management System that we practice individually. Do we follow procedures each time, even if no one is looking? Do our actions form the right habits?
You’ve heard the analogy that for an accident to happen it’s like lining up the holes in a block of Swiss cheese. A series of problems has to take place for the holes to align perfectly. If you change one factor, the accident won’t happen.
Our new Compliance Philosophy and more robust Safety Management Systems are our way of doing everything we can to prevent those holes from lining up.
If we put everything together – better training, better data, professionalism, and a renewed commitment to working together – the revolution we create in safety will be the legacy we leave for future generations of aviators.
Thank you for all the work that you do, and once again, thank you for being our partner in safety.