In fact three aircraft have been destroyed by fires caused by lithium
ion batteries, one in 2006, two in 2010. But the FAA, NTSB and other
government and official agencies categorize safety as related to
passenger safety or a cargo acft only hazard and of no interest to
passenger airline safety, such as the current FAA and EASA Cargo
Carve-out Exemption of new Flight Duty and Rest Regulations. However, by
summarily ignoring the distinct ties in safety that nevertheless may
validly exist between cargo airlines, passenger airlines and their
respective pilots safety, FAA, EASA and others may have gravely missed
the most valuable of all safety principles, that of early warning.The
early warning evidence in this case was the two cargo fires caused by
lithium-ion batteries. The fire dangers of lithium ion batteries have
been amply noted, the information on this hazard has been widely
available and mishap reports by FAA and EASA have identified a clear and
present danger since at least 2006.
Instead of keeping lithium-ion batteries away from commercial aviation however, FAA, EASA and others have made a clear choice to allow industry lobbyist lawyers to influence safety decisions when it came to lithium ion battery carriage regulation and by that same process, have kept the safety experts themselves at arms length.
No greater illustration of inverted safety logic is present in aviation government regulatory administration today than this example.
When will the FAA, EASA and other government aviation safety agencies place aviation safety experts in charge of making important public safety and industry regulatory safety decisions?
When will the direct, clear connection in commercial aviation safety between passenger and cargo airline operations be recognized by FAA, EASA and others? It is obvious that attorneys themselves appear unable to make that connection. Wouldn't the industry be better served by placing safety experts in charge of safety decisions and regulations?
Instead of keeping lithium-ion batteries away from commercial aviation however, FAA, EASA and others have made a clear choice to allow industry lobbyist lawyers to influence safety decisions when it came to lithium ion battery carriage regulation and by that same process, have kept the safety experts themselves at arms length.
No greater illustration of inverted safety logic is present in aviation government regulatory administration today than this example.
When will the FAA, EASA and other government aviation safety agencies place aviation safety experts in charge of making important public safety and industry regulatory safety decisions?
When will the direct, clear connection in commercial aviation safety between passenger and cargo airline operations be recognized by FAA, EASA and others? It is obvious that attorneys themselves appear unable to make that connection. Wouldn't the industry be better served by placing safety experts in charge of safety decisions and regulations?
No comments:
Post a Comment