Category Archives: Uncategorized

Don’t Get Grounded: Med Form Accuracy Matters

By Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg

“Always tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and amaze your friends.” This almost direct quote from Mark Twain is essential advice for pilots who are coming up for a medical certificate renewal, initial application, or going for BasicMed.

The online medical form 8500.8, as well as BasicMed form 8700-2, is perilous for the careless and those inclined to “stretch” the truth. MedExpress has lots of fine print, but it’s critical that pilots read and understand what it says, particularly question 18v, which asks “Have you EVER in your LIFE . . .,” and proceeds to list every possible way a driver could have encountered law enforcement relative to impaired driving, including drunk driving, being arrested without conviction, paying a fine, receiving suspension or administrative action, attending a rehab program or an education program—anything.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has a special investigation division in Oklahoma City whose sole function is to cross check medical applications with the National Driver Register (NDR). They’re very good at ferreting out any indiscretion, and even a slight fabrication can cost you every certificate you have. When you submit the paperwork, either for a medical certificate or BasicMed, you give the FAA permission to look you up in the NDR.

Let’s look at an example. A pilot provides an incorrect answer on the form, accidentally or not, then attests that everything on the form is true. A medical certificate is issued or, in the case of basic medical, the doctor maintains a record and one is provided to the pilot. Several months later, the Oklahoma City team checks the NDR, finds a record relating to the pilot, and sends a letter asking the pilot for information. A letter of revocation may follow, which the pilot may then appeal to an NTSB administrative law judge; however, as codified in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 67.403(c), inaccuracies on an airman medical application form are grounds for possible revocation of any and all FAA certificates, including those for which no medical is required (for example, ground instructor, A & P, AI, etc.). NTSB is required to follow both law and precedent so FAA’s revocation may not be easy to overturn unless there has been an error.

Now, let’s rewind to when the pilot is initially filling out the form. Say the pilot truthfully reports that he had an alcohol- or drug-related driving event, whether 20 years ago or last month. The FAA will ask some additional questions and will likely require additional documentation. Depending on the circumstances, such as length of time since the event, number of events, and level of impairment, the incident may not amount to much. If it’s a recent event, chances are good that there will be some additional hoops to go through and some delay in getting back in the air, but it’s unlikely that there will be a revocation action. Yes, it will take some time and money to work through the process, but nothing like what happens if a pilot tries to sneak through without reporting the event. It’s imperative to remember, also, that once you have reported an incident, you must report it on every subsequent medical application.

If an impairment incident occurs between medical exams, you should report it immediately. Title 49 CFR 61.15 states that you have 60 days after a law enforcement encounter involving alcohol or drugs to self-report to the FAA. Failure to make that report can result in suspension of your medical certificate.

For aviation medical examiners and personal physicians: please personally coach your applicants very carefully on these points. A false answer on the medical application could ground them permanently, while a truthful answer will likely result in some temporary delay before medical certification.

It’s in everyone’s interest to follow these rules to protect the public and to keep aviation out of the court of public opinion. The fine print on your medical forms matters! Don’t let a careless mistake—or a purposeful lie—keep you grounded.

Speeding: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

By Member Jennifer Homendy

Every day I drive to work on one of the busiest freeways in the country. That freeway has a posted speed limit of 55-65 miles per hour. I am amazed how many drivers disregard the posted speed limit and use the freeway as their opportunity to drive like they are in the Indy 500.

Many people speed because they are trying to make it to their destination sooner. But here’s the thing – according to AAA, on a 30-mile trip, you would only arrive 8 minutes sooner driving at 75 miles per hour (a dangerous, and rarely posted speed limit) than you would driving 55 miles per hour.

Saving 8 minutes on a trip isn’t worth the increased risk of taking a life. On average, 10,000 people die every year in speeding-related traffic crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In 2017, the NTSB released a Safety Study, “Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles” which examined the trends in speeding-related passenger vehicle crashes and identified proven and promising countermeasures to prevent these crashes. We issued 19 safety recommendations which, if implemented, will prevent future crashes and save lives.

One of those safety recommendations was issued to the Federal Highway Administration. We recommended that they remove guidance to states to set speed limits within 5 miles per hour of what 85% of the traffic is travelling at, which only leads to ever-increasing speed limits. Since the mid-1990s, we have watched more and more states increase their speed limits up to 80-85 miles per hour. Just because 85% of traffic is flowing at 80 miles per hour, doesn’t mean speed limits should be set at that speed! At this rate, in 10 years, we could see states increasing their speed limits to 90 miles per hour!

Slide1Slide2Slide3

Speeding increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash and intensifies the severity of injuries sustained in a crash. According to the World Health Organization, vehicle occupants involved in a crash with an impact speed of 50 mph are 20 times more likely to die than had the vehicle been traveling at 20 mph. Additionally, the impact of vehicle speed in urban areas where there are more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and bicyclists is even more serious.

Now, you might be thinking, Member Homendy, I’m not the Federal Highway Administration, I can’t implement this recommendation. That is true. What you can do is drive the posted speed limit and you can talk to your friends and family about doing that too. And if you’re a parent of a young driver, demonstrate and talk to them about safe driving behaviors and especially about speed limits.

Across the country, states have raised and are considering raising speed limits on their roads to dangerous levels. And many of those decisions are based on the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. We shouldn’t base decisions about speed limits on behaviors we know are dangerous. Higher speeds create the opportunity for even more fatal crashes.

 

The issue of speeding is highlighted on our 2019–2020 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements (Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes).

Episode 22 – NTSB 2019-2020 Most Wanted List

In this episode of Behind-the-Scene @NTSB, we talk with Nicholas Worrell, Chief of Safety Advocacy and Chris O’Neil, Chief of Media Relations, in the NTSB Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications, about the NTSB Most Wanted List.

https://safetycompass.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/2018-10-24-leah-walton-and-stephanie-shaw-interview-nicholas-worrel-and-chris-oneal.mp3

 

 

To learn more about the NTSB Most Wanted List visit: www.ntsb.gov/mostwanted

 

Get the latest episode on Apple Podcasts , on Google Play, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast platform.

And find more ways to listen here: https://www.blubrry.com/behind_the_scene_ntsb/

2019–2020 Most Wanted List

By Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt

Earlier this week we announced our 2019–2020 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements. The Most Wanted List (MWL) was developed from safety recommendations that we’ve issued but that haven’t been acted on acceptably.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In 2017, the last year for which we have complete numbers, 38,958 people died in transportation accidents and incidents in the United States—that’s 107 per day (or, about the capacity of the room in the National Press Building where we unveiled the MWL). These losses are unacceptable and, most often, completely preventable.

IMG_9584
NTSB Media Relations Chief, Chris O’Neil (at podium), Chairman Sumwalt, Vice Chairman Landsberg, Member Weener and Member Homendy at the 2019-2020 MWL unveiling

At the MWL unveiling, we shared the lessons we’ve learned from far too many transportation tragedies, and we reemphasized the actions that should be taken on the related recommendations we’ve made to prevent similar accidents and crashes. The 2019–2020 MWL promotes several specific safety recommendations that can—and should—be implemented during the next 2 years. It also features broad, longstanding safety issues that continue to threaten the traveling public.

Eliminate Distractions

Distractions come in all forms, and anything that takes a driver’s or operator’s attention away from the task at hand is potentially dangerous. Personal electronic devices are now commonplace, and distractions from these devices are a growing problem that must be curbed.

End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment in Transportation

Each year, more than 10,000 people die in highway crashes related to alcohol impairment. This does not account for highway deaths due to impairment by drugs other than alcohol. As the face of impairment continues to change, we must keep up with new developments while continuing to fight against an old nemesis—drinking and driving.

Ensure the Safe Shipment of Hazardous Materials

Our investigations have shown that moving ethanol by rail and crude oil by pipeline can be unnecessarily hazardous. These essential commodities must be conveyed in a manner that ensures the safety of those who are transporting it as well as those in the communities it passes through.

Fully Implement Positive Train Control

One year ago today, NTSB investigators were on scene in Cayce, South Carolina, investigating a collision between an Amtrak train and a CSX freight train. Like the 149 other rail accidents we have investigated over the years, this accident was preventable with positive train control (PTC).

PTC has been mandated by Congress, but there has been delay after delay in fully implementing the life-saving technology. Each day that we go without PTC, we risk another PTC‑preventable accident.

Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes

Speed kills. It contributes to more than 10,000 deaths each year on our nation’s roadways. It’s a factor in nearly one-third of all highway crash deaths—about the same proportion as alcohol.

Yet, there is little stigma to speeding, and we underuse speeding enforcement tools. If we are to reduce speeding-related crashes, we must combine education, enforcement, and technology together in a comprehensive strategy.

Improve the Safety of Part 135 Aircraft Flight Operations

“Part 135” aircraft flight operations include services such as medical flights and on-demand charter flights. Although many Part 135 flights operate with very high levels of safety, our accident investigations have highlighted that Part 135 operations aren’t required to meet some of the stringent safety regulations that are required for scheduled air carriers operating under Part 121 (such as scheduled airline flights). Our recommendations in this area seek to provide Part 135 passengers more of the safety benefits Part 121 passengers enjoy.

Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Systems in all New Highway Vehicles

Collision avoidance systems can prevent and mitigate the severity of crashes. In fact, collision avoidance systems could potentially save more than 1,000 lives each year that would otherwise be lost in rear-end collisions.

We support the broader adoption of collision avoidance systems, including their inclusion as standard equipment in all newly manufactured vehicles.

Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents

It is estimated that fatigue played a role in 90,000 highway crashes in 2015. But this problem goes beyond highway transportation; we have investigated accidents in all transportation modes that involve fatigue. We have 42 outstanding safety recommendations related to this widespread and life-threatening issue.

Require Medical Fitness—Screen for and Treat Obstructive Sleep Apnea

We have repeatedly investigated fatal accidents in which a transportation operator was fatigued due to undiagnosed or improperly treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and we have repeatedly called for OSA screening. The Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration initiated rulemaking to require such screening, but rescinded it in August 2017.

This inaction is unacceptable. Until we have robust requirements for OSA screening and treatment for operators, people will continue to die.

Strengthen Occupant Protection

Our investigations have shown that occupant protection systems must be improved to protect passengers in an accident or crash. In school buses, for example, compartmentalization alone isn’t enough to protect passengers in rollover crashes. In severe side-impact crashes and high-speed rollovers, three-point restraints provide additional protection. We believe all new school buses should be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Motorcoach occupants will benefit from window glazing and improved roof strength, and greater crashworthiness standards are needed for passenger rail cars, as well.

Our Most Wanted List is data-driven, based on the results of our investigations of tragic, senseless, and often preventable deaths. Our recommendations, if acted upon, will result in safer transportation and save countless lives.

We’ve issued a call to action. Although any member of our five-person Board can speak on these issues and testify by invitation to legislatures and to Congress, we have no power of our own to act. We are counting on industry, advocates, the safety community, and government regulators to implement these recommendations, and quickly. We are counting on you!

Lives depend on it.

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Aviation Safety

By Member Earl F. Weener

The NTSB is releasing a series of blogs highlighting the progress the transportation community is making in each mode to advance issues on our 2017-2018 Most Wanted List. This series sheds light on the progress made and what needs to be done going forward to improve transportation safety. This is the third blog of the series.  

DSC02888 copy
Member Earl Weener and John DeLisi, Director, NTSB Office of Aviation Safety, talk with attendees during the aviation session of the Most Wanted List midpoint meeting

Aviation is one of the safest forms of transportation—largely due to government-industry collaboration efforts such as the Commercial Aviation Safety Team and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee. We have seen no passenger fatality in the domestic operation of a U.S. airline (Part 121) since 2009, and the accident rate is trending slightly downward in General Aviation-GA (Part 91 and Part 125). While we celebrate the safety gains made across the commercial aviation industry, there is still work to be done across all sectors, especially in GA.

On November 15, the NTSB brought together government, industry, and advocacy representatives from the transportation safety community to get a progress report on our Most Wanted List (MWL) of transportation safety improvements. Aviation Safety Director John DeLisi and I led the aviation portion of the discussion.

 

 

We learned that industry is taking the lead to improve safety, and, while some Federal Aviation Administration initiatives have been helpful, more may be needed. Yet the best path to getting NTSB recommendations adopted, most agreed, was encouraging a more aggressive voluntary, collaborative approach to safety.

Our focus on preventing Loss of Control (LOC) In Flight in General Aviation (GA)—the only aviation-specific issue on the MWL—was the primary focus of our conversations. Successfully resolving this problem requires continuing collaboration, which, so far, appears to be occurring widely and effectively. The GAJSC is one organization helping to facilitate this collaborative approach. At the mid-point meeting, we also announced that the NTSB will be collaborating with the FAA, industry associations, flight schools, technology manufacturers, and others in an upcoming April 24, 2018, roundtable on LOC solutions. The number of LOC and fatal LOC accidents are both trending down as of 2016, our last complete year of data. We won’t call that progress yet, but we might look back one day and say that it was.

The changes to Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations reforming small aircraft certification standards have enabled streamlined adoption and installation of new technologies, such as AOA indicators that would prevent LOC, without a lengthy and costly supplemental FAA flight certification. Private industry can now do what it does best: innovate.

We also discussed another MWL issue, Expand Recorder Use to Enhance Safety. In particular, the NTSB would like to see more cockpit cameras, which aid in accident investigations and provide useful data for developing policies/procedures to prevent accidents. However, privacy issues, data protection challenges, and fears of punitive actions by companies appear to still hinder progress in this area.

Just as we have seen tremendous benefits in crash survivability on our highways with the use of seat belts and air bags, the aviation community so too must also recognize the significant safety benefits of enhanced occupant protection systems, such as five-point shoulder harnesses. While helicopter pilots appear to be buckling up, others in GA are not—including passengers. Child restraint systems (“car seats”) should also be used in planes; yet, they widely are not. The NTSB reported at this meeting that we are collecting more data on if/how seat belts are used in our accident investigations.

Progress is being made on the carriage of lithium-ion (LI) batteries. Heat from one battery can propagate to nearby batteries before a fire breaks out, introducing a challenge for fire detection and suppression. However, we expect the FAA to complete testing related to this risk within this MWL cycle. We also await the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration actions to harmonize its regulations with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s technical instructions regarding segregating lithium batteries carried as air cargo from other flammable cargo.

Just before the beginning of this MWL cycle, in 2016, the new flight and duty regulation went into effect, a huge win for managing fatigue in commercial aviation. We continue to fight for the small wins. We still need to apply the same level of safety to cargo flights, but we have seen progress toward applying it to maintenance personnel.

And, in 2017, the FAA communicated that they’ll research the prevalence of impairing drug use – OTC, illicit, and prescription – throughout aviation. Previously, we had studied their presence in pilots in fatal accidents, which revealed an alarming rate of OTC use in fatal accidents. It may be too early to discuss any changes to medical fitness in aviation due to BasicMed. However, one of the related concerns is the loss of flight time data that we previously gathered as part of the medical certification process.

After our progress report meeting, I felt optimistic that the improvements being made, especially by industry, will serve to make aviation even safer. I encourage all stakeholders and the general flying public to consider areas where we still need to make progress. Everyone has a role to play in improving aviation safety—whether you are a pilot, an operator, or sitting in the seats.

The Invaluable Service of Air Tankers

By Jeff Marcus and Clint Crookshanks

One enduring image of the fight against forest fires, like those that devastated California last year, is of a large airplane flying low and dropping red fire retardant. These firefighting air tankers are invaluable, and they operate in extreme environments.

2016 Pilot Fire Image by Cy Phenice
2016 Pilot Fire Image by Cy Phenice

Over the years, we’ve investigated several accidents involving firefighting aircraft, identifying issues and making recommendations to ensure the safety of these important assets. For example, in 1994, we investigated an accident in which a retired Air Force Lockheed C-130A Hercules, which had been converted into a firefighting airplane and was under contract to the US Forest Service (USFS), crashed while battling a fire in the Tehachapi Mountains near Pearblossom, California, killing all three flight crewmembers. In June 2002, another retired Air Force Lockheed C-130A Hercules, also converted into a firefighting aircraft and under contract to the USFS, crashed while dropping fire retardant near Walker, California, killing the three flight crewmembers onboard. Just a month later, a retired Navy Consolidated Vultee P4Y-2 Privateer, again under contract to the USFS to fight forest fires, crashed while maneuvering to deliver fire retardant near Estes Park, Colorado, killing both flight crewmembers. We determined that the probable cause in each of these accidents was in‑flight structural failure due to fatigue cracking in the wings, and we concluded that maintenance procedures had been inadequate to detect the cracking.

Firefighting operations inherently involve frequent and high-magnitude low-level maneuvers with high acceleration loads and high levels of atmospheric turbulence. A 1974 NASA study found that, at that time, firefighting airplanes experienced maneuver load factors between 2.0 and 2.4—almost a thousand times more than those of aircraft flown as airliners. The NASA study concluded that, because the maneuver loading in firefighting airplanes was so severe relative to the design loads, the aircraft should be expected to have a shortened structural life. Repeated and high‑magnitude maneuvers and exposure to a turbulent environment are part of firefighting service, and these operational factors hasten fatigue cracking and increase the growth rate of cracking once it starts.

Aerial firefighting is an intrinsically high-risk operation; however, the risk of in‑flight structural failure is not an unavoidable hazard; rather, fatigue cracking and accelerated crack propagation should be addressed with thorough maintenance programs based on the missions flown. Aircraft maintenance programs, which are typically developed by airplane manufacturers, usually point out highly stressed parts that should be inspected for signs of fatigue cracking, and they give guidance on how often these parts should be inspected. When specifying a maintenance program, manufacturers typically consider the expected loads that an airplane will encounter; however, in the past, for many aircraft used in firefighting operations, very little, if any, ongoing technical and engineering support was available because the manufacturer no longer existed or did not support the airplane, or the military no longer operated that type of aircraft. The maintenance and inspection programs being used for the firefighting aircraft mentioned above did not account for the advanced age and the more severe stresses of the firefighting operating environment.

As a result of our investigations, we issued safety recommendations to the USFS to hire appropriate technical personnel to oversee their airtanker programs, improve maintenance programs for firefighting airplanes and to require its contractors to use these programs. The USFS responded promptly and effectively, substantially improving the safety of its firefighting operations. The USFS hired a team to build out its Airworthiness Branch, to lead their effort to comply with the NTSB recommendations, and with this staff of engineers and technicians made needed revisions to the contracting, oversight, and operations of the USFS program using airplanes to fight forest fires. The agency hired aircraft engineering companies that performed in‑depth stress analyses on the firefighting airplanes in operation. The results were used to improve maintenance programs by identifying parts of the aircraft structure in need of continuing inspections and proposed the time and use intervals needed between inspections to prevent fatigue cracks from developing into catastrophic structural failures. The USFS also outfitted firefighting aircraft (tankers as well as helicopters and lead aircraft) with equipment that measures and records the actual flight loads experienced while fighting forest fires, then used that data to further improve the inspection program for airplanes in use and to develop programs for new types of airplanes being introduced to fight forest fires.

Clint Crookshanks, an NTSB aviation structural engineer and aircraft accident investigator who worked on these airtanker accidents, helped the USFS review its contractors’ maintenance and inspection program documents and provided advice on how they could better address our recommendations. On November 5, 2010, the USFS issued its first iteration of a Special Mission Airworthiness Assurance Guide for Aerial Firefighting and Natural Resource Aircraft, which contained the method, schedule, and standards for ensuring the airworthiness of firefighting aircraft. The USFS has revised the guide twice since then, with the latest revision issued on November 6, 2015. The guide now includes standards for USFS aircraft contracts, which are required for all aircraft used in USFS firefighting missions, satisfying our recommendations. Since these improvements were implemented, no aircraft performing aerial firefighting missions for the USFS have experienced an in‑flight structural failure.

We continue to work with the staff at the USFS to improve the safety of firefighting flights. At the beginning of January 2018, Clint attended a meeting in Missoula, Montana, to discuss the current and future large airtankers on contract to the USFS. Our recommendations are still relevant to the USFS and its contract operators and were the basis for most of the discussion at the Missoula meeting. The current USFS contract requirements have ensured that all contractors have effective maintenance and inspection programs that account for the extreme operating environments seen in aerial firefighting. Aircraft providing aerial firefighting services contain equipment that records the loads on the aircraft and even provides an alarm in real-time when a flight’s loads may have overstressed the airplane. In addition, the data recorded is downloaded and supplied to Wichita State University for mission profile development. British Aerospace, which originally manufactured the jet powered BAe 146 and RJ-85 airplanes currently used for USFS firefighting operations, provides technical support for these airplanes’ operators. The US Air Force also provides firefighting service using C-130 airplanes equipped with a Mobile Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) to assist the USFS on an as needed basis. The manufacturer of the C-130, Lockheed-Martin, is working with the Air Force to continually monitor and analyze the loads on airplanes used in the firefighting mission.

 

San Bernardino, CA, Wildfire- Image by Ben Cottman
San Bernardino, CA, Wildfire Image by Ben Cottman

The importance of keeping these unique aircraft and their crews safe and functional becomes even more evident during every forest fire season. The lessons we’ve learned from our accident investigations have been used to identify needed changes that have made it possible to more reliably and safely fight forest fires from the air and protect life and land.

 

Jeff Marcus is an Aviation Transportation Safety Specialist in the NTSB Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications. Clint Crookshanks is an aviation structural engineer and aircraft accident investigator in the NTSB Office of Aviation Safety.

 

 

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Marine Safety

By Member Christopher A. Hart

 The NTSB is releasing a series of blogs highlighting the progress the transportation community is making in each mode to advance issues on our 2017–2018 Most Wanted List. This series sheds light on the progress made and what needs to be done going forward to improve transportation safety. This is the first blog of the series. 

DSC02926 copy
Member Christopher Hart and Brian Curtis, Director, NTSB Office of Marine Safety at MWL midpoint meeting.

It’s been just over a year since we released our 2017–2018 Most Wanted List (MWL) of transportation safety improvements, so we decided to check in with stakeholders on our collective progress toward addressing these important safety issues. I had the opportunity to join in the discussion with our Office of Marine Safety and representatives from the US Coast Guard (USCG), the American Pilots’ Association, and the Cruise Lines International Association, and I came away encouraged that progress is being made on the issue areas that most affect our Marine safety efforts: expanding recorder use, ending alcohol and drug impairment, requiring medical fitness, and eliminating distractions.

Expanding requirements for voyage data recorders (VDRs) remains of paramount importance to the NTSB, as underscored by the information obtained from the VDR in our recently-completed investigation of the sinking of the El Faro. We certainly appreciate the extensive and sophisticated resources that several government and non-government entities deployed to find the basketball-sized canister containing the data because it proved to be invaluable to our investigation. Operators can also use VDRs to track and monitor vessel and fleet routes, and to help them determine crew training needs. The marine representatives we spoke with at our midpoint meeting are similarly interested in moving forward with VDR requirements, especially as the technology becomes more capable, affordable, and available. We’re hopeful that our recent report on the El Faro sinking will further encourage stakeholders to take action on increasing the installation and use of VDRs.

Ending alcohol and drug impairment is another important issue that we are working with stakeholders to address. The biggest hurdle here, which we discussed at the midpoint meeting with United States Coast Guard (USCG) representatives, seems to be coordinating rulemaking between the military and civilian sectors. Civilian labor unions are reluctant to support some of the recommendations we’ve proposed, largely out of concern for the rights of their members. The USCG continues to work on this issue to coordinate and implement our recommendations aimed at addressing alcohol and drug impairment.

When our conversation turned to a related concern—requiring medical fitness—I was pleased to hear assurances that the USCG is also making progress. Since its last update, the USCG has stood up an office supporting medical fitness issues and now requires medical certificates in addition to piloting credentials.

The final marine issue we discussed at our midpoint meeting was eliminating distractions. The USCG representatives informed us that the Coast Guard has released our safety alert associated with an accident that tackles this issue (SA-059 November 2016), and it intends to continue to follow up on recommendations related to distractions.

We are always eager to hear feedback from our recommendation recipients, and this midpoint meeting was an excellent opportunity for us to make sure we fully understand the issues. We have recommendation specialists in each mode who help facilitate ongoing feedback, help with questions about our recommendation process, and discuss potential solutions.

At this 1-year mark, I’m encouraged and hopeful that we’re making progress on these important safety issues, and I look forward to seeing the NTSB and our recommendation recipients continue to work together to address them.