Good morning, and thank you, Joe [DePete].  I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

This is my second month as the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.  Although I am new to this position, I am certainly not new to FAA and its safety mission.  In fact, the FAA safety mission and the dedication of the employees in this organization were the key drivers for my return to the agency.  It is a privilege and an honor to be part of the AVS team again.    

Let me also take a moment and express my thanks and appreciation for what you all do for aviation safety.  There is no question that working together, we have a greater impact on promoting and advancing safety.  Industry and regulators have been very active to improve safety through proactive means … using data and identification of precursors.  And developing mitigation to address them.  We’ve made significant progress over the past two decades.  Each one of us should take pride in having a role in achieving our collective successes.  In this partnership, our respective roles and responsibilities can’t be overemphasized.   Today’s safety record is a testimony to what can happen when we work together, share information and take our role  and responsibility seriously.

The numbers prove it.  Colgan and UPS were a long time ago, but we certainly have not forgotten.  We’ve set the safety bar very high.  The target for the Commercial Air Carrier passenger fatality rate this year was no more than 6.4 fatalities per 100 million persons on board.  As of July 31, the actual number is zero point three.  The numbers for GA are headed in the right direction as well.  In FY 2017, our target for GA was not to exceed 1.01 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours.  As of July 31, the rate stands at 0.81 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours.  That’s remarkable. 

Despite these successes, despite advances in analytical tools to identify precursors, we became aware of shortcomings in a highly specialized segment of aviation, after a horrific crash, captured for millions to see, through the lens of a dashcam.  There are certain images that will always stay with us.  The accident in Bagram is definitely one of those images.

To be clear here, the FAA does not view this industry through the lens of that dashboard video.  Your position as an economic driver is without question:  a million jobs and revenues over a hundred billion.  90 percent of domestic revenue ton miles, and just about three-quarters internationally.  To say that you’re an important part of the economy in an ever changing world is an understatement.  You have as many business models as you have clients.  If it’s in someone’s house, chances are someone here touched it somewhere along the way. 

There is no doubt in my mind that everyone in this room recognizes the need for learning all the key lessons from that accident and doing our best to prevent similar unfortunate events.  However, I hope you agree with me that the first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that there is one:  awareness, acceptance, and the willingness to address it.  

The word focus implies a number of elements, all of which are necessary for defining solutions, communication, and eventual implementation of those solutions.  Focus is about being aware of our environment, being on top of it.  In aviation, we have to be fully aware of what’s really happening out there.  We’re here because we want to make absolutely sure that everyone is on the same page.  That we’re all aware of what’s going on.  That we know what everyone is doing about it.  That my plan and your plan are at the very least cognizant of a destination we can all agree on.

The time we spend talking here about challenges will help make sure we’re all communicating, working together and using the same language to describe the same issue.  That we’re aware that there are different perspectives, but we’ve all got to come out to the same place, and that place is safety.  Steve Moates is going to talk about that at greater length later. 

I’ve known many of you for many years, but for those of you I’m just meeting for the first time, this is where I’m coming from:  In safety, communication matters.  In cargo safety, consistency matters.  If you don’t have both of those, we’ll never get to the place where collaboration can make a difference. 

I want you to know we’re cognizant of your challenges.  A very diverse fleet and very diverse operations.  Lack of OEM support for legacy aircraft, which also happens to be a problem for us.  Attracting pilots.  Retaining pilots.  There’s a difference between supplemental and scheduled, just the way there’s a difference between cargo and passenger operations. 

With all of that as context, we’re moving in the right direction. 

If we walk away from Bagram thinking it’s only a lesson in special cargo and tie downs, I think we’re missing the point.  The NTSB made its thoughts clear on inadequate restraint procedures.  Operators must remain vigilant about the carriage of cargo.  What are they carrying?  How are they loading it?  And, how are they restraining it? 

The Cargo Focus Team is blunt recognition by us that we didn’t have a good grasp on cargo.  I think the Cargo Focus Team is the special attention that was called for.  Their mission is simple:  to improve the safety of cargo operations.  They evaluate cargo operations and provide technical support. 

This team makes things happen.  They issued a new notice on custom data collection tools for all 121s using computerized weight and balance programs.  They issued two SAFOs on non-compliance with the weight and balance manual, and another on pallet straps.  Separately, I should note that there is a rulemaking committee tasking on loadmaster certification. 

This is important work that we must do together.  The Cargo Focus Team makes educational outreach to ASIs in the field a priority.  Last year, they crisscrossed the country visiting Flight Standards and Aircraft Cert offices.  And they’re going to keep doing that. 

Our collaboration doesn’t end there.  I think the Commercial Aviation Safety Team seals the deal.  It shows all of us what happens when the regulator, industry and labor are all sitting down at the same table.  I don’t know if you know this, but the CAST model is catching on elsewhere, such as highway safety.  About a year ago, they came in, filled the FAA auditorium, and then they picked our brains about how we got so safe.  The short story is that when the automotive executives came in, it was a fireside chat—and CAST provided the spark. 

I talked about some short-term success a moment ago.  CAST is what’s going to help us build on those.  It’s a multi-step process, and everyone in the room is leaning in every step of the way.  At InfoShare, ASAP and FOQA.  With the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing system that helps us scrub data from across the industry.  And from CAST—which develops effective mitigation strategies that all of us voluntarily adopt.  Collaboration works.  And we see it in the cargo industry, where you and your labor partners are the cornerstone to ensuring the highest standards in safety. 

Speaking of CAST, some of its mitigation strategies might not be compatible with some of your operational requirements.  That’s OK.  You may have other mitigation strategies that are equally effective.  From our perspective, under a safety management system, carriers are expected to conduct a risk assessment of systemic risk identified by CAST … and then take appropriate action as the operator considers to be adequate.

I think we can get there.  I know from John Duncan that you’re interested in working with us on special cargo, on load master requirements, the Cargo Focus Team, and what is perceived as different treatment between domestic and foreign carriers.

I’m hopeful that you’ll view this conference as a sign that we can work through all of this.

My confidence is based on what is quickly becoming Exhibit A when it comes to demonstrating the agency’s ability to take a different approach and make it stick.  That’s the compliance philosophy, which by any measure is an overwhelming success.  The Compliance Philosophy is founded on the assumption that everybody in the aviation community wants aviation to be as safe as possible. And so far, the results are positive.

We’re finding that the time spent to correct problems through Compliance Actions is much less when compared with the time spent on enforcement. Since the program began two years ago, we have cut the number of enforcement actions by 70 percent. During the same time, we have corrected over 8,000 safety issues using non-enforcement Compliance Actions.  These actions represent issues that were identified, documented, and addressed with a corrective measure.  These are risks that were mitigated, problems eliminated, safety of the NAS improved. 

We used to measure success by how high our stack of hate mail was compared to the previous year.  That’s no longer the case. 

I know, for example, that the Cargo Focus Team has encountered numerous instances of inappropriate, incomplete or missing procedures.  In most cases, the carriers were given time to make corrections without interruption to their operations.  These instances did not create immediate safety of flight issues.  But when they did, the carrier was asked to discontinue the practice until correction could be accomplished. 

My point here is that when we, or the carrier discover noncompliance or potential noncompliance, if the carrier is willing and able to make correction and become compliant, we will use compliance actions rather than enforcement. 

We want to work with industry to determine the root cause of the noncompliance.  We want to establish mitigations that will prevent these type of issues from happening again. 

We’re about education.  We’re about making sure that issues come to the fore, that they’re analyzed, and that inappropriate behavior, techniques and situations are identified, mitigated and eliminated.  The feedback we’re getting is helping to drive the change.  The compliance philosophy is dynamic:  the better the feedback, the stronger it becomes.

The shift from forensics to data study that came about through CAST is showing us that we’re not going to raise the safety bar if we try to lift it with a heavy hand. 

Let me close with this:  Let’s never forget the lesson learned from Bagram.  We must pay greater attention to what cargo we are loading, and how we are loading and restraining it.  That’s a lesson we can’t afford to learn twice.  In our view, the whole cargo process has improved since the development of the Focus Team.  There’s a give and take that quite frankly wasn’t there before.  John Duncan calls it a different mindset.  I like that.

We recognize there’s a real difference between bulk cargo and special cargo, and you’ve helped us get a handle on that.  We’re light years ahead of where we were just four short years ago.  Cargo operations really are an ever-changing landscape, and I think we’ve demonstrated that we can change with you.  We’re not talking about new rules or standards:  just compliance with what we’ve already got. 

I think we’ve turned the corner.  I think you think that, too.