a.5 uas maintenance, modification, repair, inspection ... report.pdfiv technical report...

A.5 UAS Maintenance, Modification,

Repair, Inspection, Training, and

Certification Considerations

Task 7: Draft Technical Report of UAS

Accidents/Incidents Data Recording List

22 May 2017

Final Report

ii

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government

assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government does not

endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. The

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily represent the views of the funding agency. This document does not

constitute FAA policy. Consult the FAA sponsoring organization listed on the

Technical Documentation page as to its use.

iii

Legal Disclaimer: The FAA has sponsored this project through the Center of Excellence for

Unmanned Aircraft Systems. However, the agency neither endorses nor rejects the findings of this

research. The presentation of this information is in the interest of invoking technical comment on

the results and conclusions of the research.

iv

Technical Report Documentation Page

Title: A.5 UAS Maintenance, Modification, Repair, Inspection, Training, and Certification Con-

siderations – Task 7: Draft Technical Report of UAS Accidents/Incidents Data Recording List

Report Date: 8 June 2017

Performing Organizations: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU)

Authors: Dr. John Robbins, Mitch Geraci, Richard Stansbury, Charles Nick, Benjamin Griffith,

Russell Gillespie

Performing Organization and Address:

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd

Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC 20591

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

2 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2

3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

4 Task 7a Review current requirements for data collection and reporting of UAS

accidents/incidents versus manned requirements .................................................................. 5

4.1 Current Data Collection for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS).........................................5

4.1.1 Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting ............................................................................................. 5

4.1.2 Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) ........................................................................... 8

4.2 Current Data Collection for Manned Aircraft ............................................................................ 13

4.2.1 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) .......................................................................... 13

4.2.2 Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program ..................................................... 19

4.2.3 Service Difficulty Report (SDR) ................................................................................................ 22

4.2.4 Advisory Circular 43-16............................................................................................................. 25

4.2.5 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) ................................................................................ 26

5 Task 7b Assess effectiveness of current reporting requirements to capture maintenance-

induced failures ................................................................................................................... 29

5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 29

5.2 Emphasis on UAS Accident Reporting ...................................................................................... 31

6 Task 7c Develop recommendations for reporting maintenance-related accidents ............... 32

6.1 Recommendations for Accident and Incident Reporting Data Capture ................................... 32

6.2 UAS Telemetry and Component Condition Monitoring ............................................................. 36

7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 38

8 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 42

9 Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 45

10 References ...................................................................................................................... 46

vi

FIGURES

Figure 1: Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting Questionnaire (FAA 2017c) ................................... 7 Figure 2: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 1(FAA, 2017b) ........................ 9 Figure 3: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 2 (FAA, 2017b) ..................... 10 Figure 4: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 3 (FAA, 2017b) ......................11 Figure 5: 333 Summary Charts 2015-2016 ................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: AUVSI Exemption Totals for 2016 ............................................................................... 13 Figure 7: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 1 (NTSB, 2017) ......... 15 Figure 8: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 2 (NTSB, 2017) ......... 16 Figure 9: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Results (NTSB, 2017) .................... 17 Figure 10: General Aviation Accidents, 2005 – 2014 ................................................................... 18 Figure 11: Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents, 2014 .................................................. 18 Figure 12: Accident and Incident Preliminary Reports for UA, (FAA, 2017a) ............................ 21 Figure 13: Accident and Incident Preliminary Reports for Manned Aircraft, (FAA, 2017a) ....... 22 Figure 14: Service Difficult Report Query Search (FAA, 2017d) ................................................ 23 Figure 15: Service Difficult Report (FAA 2017d) ........................................................................ 24 Figure 16: Advisory Circular 43-16A - Aviation Maintenance Alerts (FAA, 2016a) ................... 26 Figure 17: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA, 2017) ..................... 27 Figure 18: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA,2017) ...................... 28

vii

TABLES

Table 2-1: A5 Task 7 Work Breakdown Structure .......................................................................... 2 Table 5-1: Composite Assessment Matrix of Incident Reporting Tools ...................................... 29

Table 6-1: UAS Incident/Accident Sample Reporting Data Fields ............................................. 32 Table 6-2: Telemetry Data ............................................................................................................. 36 Table 7-1: Collection Recommendations ...................................................................................... 39 Table 7-2: UAS Reporting Requirement Recommendations ........................................................ 40

of 47

1 Executive Summary

Research and recommendations conducted as part of Task 7 outline the need for incident/accident

reporting requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and analyze how methods currently

used with manned aircraft may be adapted to best support industry needs. Task 7 subtasks define

the review of current data collection and reporting requirements for UAS in order to assess the

level of effectiveness achieved by capturing maintenance induced failure data, further providing

sound recommendations for agency review.

The UAS industry is experiencing significant growth with the expansion of technology and vision

of future civil applications. With sustained growth in the number of aircraft operating in the same

environment as manned aircraft, integration and infrastructure concerns become apparent. Inci-

dent and accident reporting requirements are already in place for manned aircraft and have some-

what been adapted to support the operation of UAS outside of those classified as small Unmanned

Aircraft Systems (sUAS). Similarities between these facets of aviation exist; however, it is neces-

sary to define those elements found to be outliers, not indicative of their respective target group.

The expansion of UAS derived incident and accident data through online repositories have been

compared to existing frameworks such as the Aviation Safety and Information Analysis and Shar-

ing System (ASIAS) and Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting Questionnaire. The review of these

types of reporting tools is necessary to provide recommendations that create more efficient report-

ing systems. The term maintenance-induced failure is used extensively throughout this report and

is defined as a failure that disrupts normal flight operations due to the action or non-action of a

maintenance technician. Conclusions of this study recommend modifications that may offer indi-

cators and solutions to predictively define where maintenance-induced failures are most likely to

occur.

of 47

2 Scope

The scope of this document is defined in Task 7 as highlighted in Table 2-1 below: A5 Task 7

Work Breakdown Structure.

Table 2-1: A5 Task 7 Work Breakdown Structure

Task Description Team

Task 7 Examine Requirements for Maintenance-related Accident

Reporting ERAU

Task 7a

Review current requirements for data collection and reporting of UAS

accidents/incidents versus manned requirements ERAU

Task 7b

Assess effectiveness of current reporting requirements to capture

maintenance-induced failures ERAU

Task 7c Develop recommendations for reporting maintenance-related

accidents ERAU

Deliverable Draft technical report of UAS accidents/incidents

reporting recommendations ERAU

of 47

3 Introduction

Incident/accident reporting tools have provided operators of manned aircraft a method to report

occurrences that may impact or mitigate the likelihood of future failures. Existing databases, such

as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Database, managed by the NTSB, or the Avi-

ation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program (ASIAS), under the Federal Aviation Ad-

ministration (FAA), have allowed stakeholders a means to provide viable information that has

proven to be beneficial in determining the causal factors of incidents/accidents. Data collected

from centralized repositories must be analyzed by the oversight agency to interpret instances where

failures in the system are most likely to occur. For instance, the FAA would be responsible for

inferring aviation related incursion data through the use of skilled and experienced agents in dis-

ciplines such as operations, safety, human factors, etc., as where the NTSB may utilize agents

employed with expertise in metallurgy, avionics, powerplants, etc. to determine the cause of an

intra-modal incident/accident. In-depth analysis provides solutions to mitigate risk that may lead

to better predictive modeling. It is imperative that the data collection process be robust enough to

maintain the record of sampled data, however, the system must be user-friendly, accessible, and

understandable, so extraneous information that could supply limited or unusable results may be

extracted. Another consideration is anonymity of self-reported data and integrity/security of the

data reporting system. Some users may be apprehensive to include operational data for the threat

of reprisal.

For any widely disseminated system reliant upon self-reported data, it is important to assume the

user has some level of interest or at least some benefit in the final outcome of the data. The UAS

operator should be aware that self-reported data will increase safety through the enhancement of

culture, lower liability through the reduction of incidents/accidents, and awareness of issues that

may be pertinent to the operation of their respective system. Several reporting tools tested in the

manned aviation environment have provided successful user generated outcomes that allow avia-

tion manufacturers, operators, and users’ information that may reduce hazards to persons or prop-

erty. Tools such as ASIAS, Service Difficulty Reports (SDR), and Aviation Safety Reporting Sys-

tem (ASRS) have been used to support both the general aviation community and commercial avi-

ation through the development of materials such as Advisory Circulars (AC), Airworthiness Di-

rectives (AD), and Service Bulletins (SB).

Section 4 presents the research conducted under Task 7a, “Review current requirements for data

collection and reporting of UAS accidents/incidents versus manned requirements.” A literature

review was conducted to list tools and techniques that capture incident/accident issues for manned

and unmanned aircraft. For UAS, the study examined the reporting requirements under Title 14

CFR Part 107 for sUAS operators and Certificates of Waiver and Authorization (COA) holders.

of 47

Section 5 presents the research conducted under Task 7b, “Assess effectiveness of current report-

ing requirements to capture maintenance induced failures.” From Task 7a’s survey, each reporting

mechanism was examined to determine whether it captured sufficient data to identify maintenance

induced failures and their respective impacts. UAS specific incident reporting websites for both

Part 107 and COA forms and surveys are not sufficiently formatted to gain the insight required

and would require data mining techniques for thorough assessment. Each of the manned aircraft

reporting systems detailed through this report has advantages and disadvantages, however, they

remain the most comprehensive and robust data collection instruments when compared with cur-

rent tools designed to capture UAS specific failure data.

Sections 6 and 7 reveal recommendations and conclusions for Task 7c, “Develop recommenda-

tions for reporting maintenance-related accidents.” In summary, findings suggest the reporting

requirements of Part 107 should be enhanced to record more information about each reportable

event. The tools to capture this information may not be optimized in their current format for proper

assessment of maintenance-induced failure including causes, likelihood, and impact over an ex-

tended period of time. The team recommends changes to data fields required for UAS incident

reporting and modeling consistent with the use of ASIAS as a repository for both public and pro-

prietary data. Proprietary data implies protected materials that are not distributed in order to pro-

tect intellectual property as where public data may be disseminated freely via written or electronic

means. The ASIAS system currently in-place provides a solid foundation; however, work is

needed to improve tools that incentivize UAS incident/accident reporting, the creation of improved

menus and other tools for participants to locate incident/accident reporting forms, and the use of

forms with drop-down lists or checkboxes may eliminate unusable information from being for-

warded to investigator. Unusable information may be an open field entry that requires no valida-

tion to enter information into the form. Specific examples of drop down boxes may include ele-

ments such as aircraft category, which would include multi-rotor, fixed-wing, or hybrid. Table 6-

1 defines the type of input field for each variable.

Recommendations generated by this research explore topics unique to UAS incident/accident re-

porting. The modification and development of reporting tools specific to UAS applications are

imperative, given exponential industry growth and its perceived influence on operations in the

National Airspace System (NAS). Lower rates of UAS related incidents and/or accidents may be

anticipated due to the furthered development of framework for policies and guidance.

of 47

4 Task 7a Review current requirements for data collection and reporting of UAS acci-

dents/incidents versus manned requirements

4.1 CURRENT DATA COLLECTION FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

(SUAS)

Incident and accident reporting tools have been used extensively to enhance the safety and integrity

of not only the aviation industry, but other industries that support the use of complex equipment in

variable operational environments. UAS is differentiated by the removal of human operators phys-

ically onboard the aircraft. Levels of human interaction are qualified as Human-in-the-Loop

(HITL), which suggests the amount of involvement human operators have with the operation of

semi or fully automated technologies. Complexities associated with UAS operations are a function

of crewmembers being displaced from the actual flight environment and instead relying on data

that is being remotely transmitted. These conditions do not imply any negative impact and further

prescribe opportunities to expand knowledge of existing gaps between manned aircraft and UAS

operations. Operators of sUAS are required to stay within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the

aircraft at all times. However, failures due to inadequate maintenance or loss of communications

may result in increased incident or accident rates. Those aircraft outside of the sUAS category

may require enhanced incident/accident reporting guidelines due to Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS)

applications, aircraft complexity, regulations, and pilot requirements. Wide-scale operations over

people and in high-density areas will likely create new data collection points not referenced in the

most current iteration of the COA database.

This section is comprised of data collected from existing incident/accident reporting tools used in

both aviation and similar transportation related industries. This effort works to adapt existing

frameworks to support current and future applications related specifically to the operation of UAS.

4.1.1 Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting

According to Title 14 CFR §107.9 (FAA, 2017c), the operator of a sUAS must report to the FAA

within 10 days any operation of a sUAS involving at least:

Serious injury to any person or any loss of consciousness; or

Damage to property, other than sUAS, unless one of the following conditions is satisfied:

The repair costs do not exceed $500; or

The fair market value of the property does not exceed $500 in the event of total

loss.

The operator may report the incident/accident by telephone to the nearest jurisdictions Flight

Standards District Office (FSDO) or use the FAA reporting form, which is available

at www.faa.gov/uas (Refer to Figure 1) The online form allows operators to report the incident/ac-

cident in accordance with FAA requirements listed under existing Part 107 guidance. This allows

the agency to build a foundation of quantitative and qualitative data that may be used to understand

why accidents or incidents involving Unmanned Aircraft (UA) occur. The form lists three possible

effects that could have occurred with each reportable incident or accident. These categories indi-

cate the severity of injury, if any, along with proposed damage to property if over $500 U.S. Dollars

of 47

(USD). The section immediately following impact allows the user to provide a narrative assess-

ment, which should be encouraged to include high levels of detail. These metrics, when combined,

may effectively be used to correlate common causes of incidents or accidents to impact predictions.

It is important to note the filing of a report with the FAA does not necessarily remove the operator’s

responsibility to file a report with the NTSB as discussed in section 4.2.1 of this report.

The Part 107 incident/accident information was not retrieved from the FAA for analysis of effec-

tiveness for this report due to the late release of Part 107 mid-way into our research for A5. It is

recommended to perform an analysis of the 107 data at a later date.

of 47

Figure 1: Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting Questionnaire (FAA 2017c)

of 47

4.1.2 Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA)

According to the FAA (FAA, 2017b), a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) is an ap-

proval granted to operators for specific UA activity. After an application is submitted, the FAA

conducts a comprehensive operational and technical review. When an incident or accident is re-

ported, the FAA will record the findings on a COA 333 form. The Initial Unmanned Aircraft

Accident Report form can be found on the COA website at https://www.faa.gov/about/of-

fice_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/ (Refer to

Figures 2, 3 and 4).

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/


of 47

Figure 2: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 1(FAA, 2017b)

of 47

Figure 3: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 2 (FAA, 2017b)

of 47

Figure 4: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 3 (FAA, 2017b)

of 47

We received 40 accident-incident reports from the FAA reported by 333 exemption operators

through the COA form ranging from July, 2015 to October, 2016. There were 26 unique operators

using 13 multi-rotor, 51 fixed wing and 9 other unique airframes. Refer to the charts in Figure 5

below for more information.

Figure 5: 333 Summary Charts 2015-2016

According to AUVSI’s public database, around 5,500 exemptions were filed by August, 2016

(AUVSI 2016) (Refer to Figure 6). This provides an initial percentage of 0.7% of the operators

who filed a 333 exemption had an incident or an accident requiring the use of the online COA form

and also took the time to complete the form.

of 47

Figure 6: AUVSI Exemption Totals for 2016

Further inquiry into airframe type and use of the COA form reveals that fixed wing operators are

more likely to use the form. It is doubtful that multi-rotor aircraft are having fewer incidents and

may be more of an indication of the closer relationship to UAS hobby operators’ use of multi-rotor

platforms. Fixed wing operators representing only 13% of the 333 exemption operators are filing

69% of the reports, while the multi-rotor operators representing roughly 80%, are filing 18% of

the COA reports for their incidents. Therefore, the effectiveness of the COA form varies largely

depending on the type of vehicle being operated. This report did not evaluate the added variability

due to operations because of the limited information contained in the 333 accident reports.

4.2 CURRENT DATA COLLECTION FOR MANNED AIRCRAFT

4.2.1 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

According to Title 49 CFR §830.5, “Immediate Notification,” (U.S. Government, 2017), the oper-

ator of any aircraft will immediately notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) office when specified criteria of an incident/accident are met. Examples of reportable

incidents include, but not limited to:

Flight control malfunctions

Engine malfunctions

Inflight fires

Aircraft collisions

Specified system failures (i.e. electrical and hydraulic)

Propeller blade failures

Loss of cockpit displays

Property damage exceeding $25,000

of 47

The NTSB added wording to indicate the inclusion of UA in 2010. The term “accident” quali-

fies the following criteria as specified in CFR §830.2:

“An occurrence associated with operation of any public or civil unmanned aircraft system that

takes place between the time that the system is turned on with the purpose of flight and the time

that the system is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in which:

1) Any person suffers death or serious injury; or

2) The aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater and sustains

substantial damage” (NTSB, 2016).

If the aircraft was involved in an accident per NTSB guidelines, the agency will conduct a full

investigation, as where incidents may or may not be investigated on a case-by-case basis. If an

incident or accident is reported to the NTSB that requires an investigation, the Pilot/Operator is

required to complete and submit Form 6120.1 per the instructions on the form. Upon the com-

pletion of a comprehensive investigation by the NTSB, findings and recommendations are docu-

mented for analysis. These reports can be accessed via the NTSB Aviation Accident and Synop-

sis Database. A detailed search can be performed by entering specific data for the incident/acci-

dent. This database can be viewed by accessing the NTSB website at http://www.ntsb.gov/_lay-

outs/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx (Refer to Figures 7, 8, and 9).

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx


of 47

Figure 7: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 1 (NTSB, 2017)

of 47

Figure 8: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 2 (NTSB, 2017)

of 47

Figure 9: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Results (NTSB, 2017)

The general aviation segment has shown a decline in accident rates, per data obtained in the range

from 2005 – 2014 (Refer to Figure 10). Statistically, general aviation accidents account for a

higher percentage of incidents/accidents within industry. A summary of accidents from 2011 in-

dicated general aviation accounted for 95% across all aviation operations (NTSB, 2011). The root

cause of aviation accidents in 2014 indicates human-factors play a significant role, which has re-

mained consistent. Mechanical failures to include powerplant and non-powerplant system mal-

functions accounted for only 18% of Part 91 accidents (NTSB, 2014) (Refer to Figure 11).

of 47

Figure 10: General Aviation Accidents, 2005 – 2014

Figure 11: Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents, 2014

of 47

By obtaining detailed results from industry, the NTSB along with the FAA have shown success in

gaining statistical incident/accident statistics that include root cause analysis data. The process to

gather this information along commercial and non-commercial segments of aviation varies from

in situ data collection to the use of incident/accident reporting tools depending on severity. The

integrity of this system is a function of user participation with voluntary/mandatory incident/acci-

dent reporting tools, which will ultimately transition into the UAS sector through the development

of a positive safety culture. Trends indicate improved reporting in the UAS industry, as indicated

in section 4.1.2. These findings suggest results congruent with enhanced safety and reporting

metrics achieved by manned aviation.

4.2.2 Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program

According to the FAA (FAA, 2016c), the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing pro-

gram (ASIAS) is a repository for approximately 185 data and information sources across govern-

ment and industry from 89 members. ASIAS works in conjunction with the Commercial Aviation

Safety Team (CAST) and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) where the non-

punitive, voluntarily provided safety data can be utilized by the industry for data mining, trend

analysis, and system failure predictability. ASIAS retains access to a wide variety of public data

sources. Each source provides information from different segments of industry.

Current examples of these sources include:

ACAS (AirCraft Analytical System),

ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program),

ASDE–X (Airport Surface Detection Equipment–Model X),

ASPM (Airspace Performance Metrics),

ASRS(Aviation Safety Reporting System),

ATSAP (Air Traffic Safety Action Program),

FOQA (Flight Operational Quality Assurance),

METAR (Meteorological Aviation Report),

MOR (Mandatory Occurrence Reports),

NFDC (National Flight Data Center),

NOP (National Offload Program office track data),

SDR (Service Difficulty Reports), and

TFMS (Traffic Flow Management System).

There is a need to increase the quantity and types of participants for the ASIAS program to include

GA and UAS communities. The addition of UAS specific reporting tools such as the COA,

Maintenance & Repair (M&R), and sUAS reporting databases may yield useful data if included in

the ASIAS repository.

ASIAS reports may be incorporated to better understand and process UA incident or accident data.

The centralization and isolation of data pertinent to UAS related incident or accident causal factors

is necessary in order to minimize or eliminate unusable data. For instance, UA FOQA data may

be combined with TFMS and ATSAP data to maximize flight operations in the NAS for a specific

of 47

classification of UA. This data may also suggest where accidents or incidents related to mainte-

nance-induced failures are most likely to occur by tracking operational parameters specific to UA

from varied sources. The lack of a repository supporting UA specific data such as operational

performance by aircraft classification may limit predictive analysis of UA related incidents or ac-

cidents, however, feedback mined from similar industry data sets may indicate or infer issues for

further review.

ASIAS is capable of gathering data from multiple sources and should be modeled to gather every

piece of information related to a query. For instance, UAS database search features should be

able to retrieve data from multiple sources that includes “key words” or “phrases”, much like a

typical internet based search engine. The current sUAS reporting tool must be modified to cate-

gorize the cause of each incident/accident. Reference to “Mechanical Malfunction or Failure” is

listed in Table 6-1 and includes the following systems:

Flight Control Malfunction

Engine Malfunction

Propulsion Failure

Loss of Communication

Ground Control Station Failure

Electrical System Failure

Hydraulic System Failure

Avionics Failure

Other; Specify

The ASIAS tool is web-based in nature. The team feels that to process to extract data from the

reporting tool should be modified to include multiple file formats listed below:

.XML

.CSV

.DOC

.TXT

A search of ASIAS reports can be performed by entering specific data for an incident/accident.

This database can be viewed by accessing the ASIAS website at

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:446:0::NO:446. Examples of ASIAS Accident and

Incident Preliminary Reports for both UA and manned aircraft can be reviewed in figures 12 and

13, respectively.

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:446:0::NO:446

of 47

Figure 12: Accident and Incident Preliminary Reports for UA, (FAA, 2017a)

of 47

Figure 13: Accident and Incident Preliminary Reports for Manned Aircraft, (FAA, 2017a)

4.2.3 Service Difficulty Report (SDR)

According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-109A, (FAA, 2017d), the Service Difficulty

Reporting program (SDR) is a system designed to provide assistance to aircraft owners, operators,

maintenance organizations, manufacturers, and the FAA for identifying aircraft problems encoun-

tered during service. The SDR program provides a collection of data mining information to im-

prove service reliability of aeronautical products. The FAA requests the cooperation of all aircraft

owners, operators, mechanics, pilots, and others in reporting service difficulties experienced with

airframes, powerplants, propellers, or appliances/components. Challenges linked with SDR re-

porting tools are associated with the temporal aspect of completing the form, maintainer/pilot in-

centive, and in the case of UAS, differences involved with systems/hardware variability. The mit-

igation for these areas of concern relies on the understanding of how and why voluntary reporting

tools protect industry by making it safer and more reliable. Although SDR reporting tools are used

only for Type-Certificated manned aircraft at this time, they could be transitioned to UAS with the

exception of further work needed to address variability. Projected development of systems classi-

fied outside the sUAS category will yield airworthiness regulations and ground control station

standards not yet known. Education may be enhanced by delivering workshops, creating online

tutorials, or disseminating materials such as posters/brochures to enhance a positive safety culture.

A search for SDRs can be performed using the FAA database Query Search by entering specific

data such as aircraft/engine make and model by the use of pull-down tabs. This database can be

accessed at http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Default.aspx. An example of SDR Query Search may be

reviewed in figure 14.

The results of the search will provide a description of the problem. This information can be used

for data mining to predict future malfunctions. An example of the SDR can be reviewed in Figure

15.

http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Default.aspx

of 47

Figure 14: Service Difficult Report Query Search (FAA, 2017d)

of 47

Figure 15: Service Difficult Report (FAA 2017d)

of 47

4.2.4 Advisory Circular 43-16

According to FAA Advisory Circular 43-16A (Cancelled on 05/2015), (FAA, 2016a), Aviation

Maintenance Alerts provided a way to disseminate information on aviation service experiences

which led to improved aeronautical product reliability. The FAA used the information from the

SDRs to prepare the Aviation Maintenance Alerts. November 2012 was the last date of publication

for these Alerts, which were published monthly. Industry feedback suggests the information pro-

vided by these alerts were useful in the data mining necessary to predict future malfunctions. Dur-

ing the time these reporting tools were in effect, the FAA stated the use of Aviation Maintenance

Alerts improved aeronautical product durability, reliability, and safety (FAA, 1999). Future work

should be done to consider the development of a new reporting tool that is more user-friendly and

less time consuming than the previous form for UAS applications.

An example of Advisory Circular 43-16A and the Aviation Maintenance Alerts may be reviewed

at https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/aviation_maintenance/ (Refer to Figure 16).

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/aviation_maintenance/

of 47

Figure 16: Advisory Circular 43-16A - Aviation Maintenance Alerts (FAA, 2016a)

4.2.5 Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

The ASRS is a voluntary, confidential, and non-punitive reporting system that utilizes the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a third party to receive and process Aviation

Safety Reports, (NASA, 2017). The ASRS urges maintenance personnel, pilots, and other users

of the NAS to report to NASA actual or potential malfunctions and deficiencies involving the

safety of aviation operations. This information is utilized by the FAA that will take corrective

action to remedy defects or deficiencies. These reports provide important data mining information

for improving reliability and safety in the NAS. A detailed Aviation Safety Reports can be sub-

mitted by mail or electronically through the ASRS website at https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html.

(Refer to Figures 17 and 18).

Anonymous and non-punitive reports can be searched and viewed using the ASRS database by

entering specific data (i.e. make/model, location, narrative of incident, etc.). The ASRS will also

publish a document titled “CALLBACK.” CALLBACK is a monthly safety newsletter, which

includes ASRS report excerpts with supporting annotations in a “lessons learned” format. The

public may subscribe to CALLBACK or access it electronically through the ASRS website.

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html

of 47

Figure 17: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA, 2017)

of 47

Figure 18: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA,2017)

of 47

5 Task 7b Assess effectiveness of current reporting requirements to capture maintenance-

induced failures

5.1 SUMMARY

Incident or accident reporting tools specific to the operation of UAS have not been in place long

enough to suggest levels of effectiveness. Future work must be done to assess the effectiveness of

UAS reporting tools when a repository of reviewable data has been developed. However, similar

reports such as the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), implemented by the FAA, but man-

aged by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has shown great success.

Twenty-five years past its implementation, over 550,000 reports had been filed (NASA, 1999).

High levels of participation indicate the need and practicality for such systems to exist. They also

indicate the positive safety culture expressed by most complex industries. Similar industries, not

only in transportation have adopted reporting utilities that enhance knowledge through user-re-

ported feedback.

The success of incident and accident reporting systems is contingent upon the element of non-

reprisal or punitive action by the intended reporting population. Complete anonymity suggests the

option for users to not be identified for explanation of any failure; however, it is often necessary

to identify users or user-related hardware to properly assess a given situation. In the above-men-

tioned scenario with ASRS and its distribution through NASA, the FAA recognized data would

flow more freely if the reporting was not managed through the agency responsible for enforcement

in many cases. Neutrality offered a means for users to share possibly sensitive data with less

apprehension.

Table 5-1 summarizes reporting tools by factors that may indicate service life and use by target

survey populations. The number of reports filed from most of the collection instruments was un-

available for review. Elements from table 5-1 have been adapted from a recent FAA published fact

sheet available at: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20214.

Table 5-1: Composite Assessment Matrix of Incident Reporting Tools

Instru-

ment

Description Year

Imple-

mented

Agency

Part 107

Accident

Reporting

UAS Accident Reporting tool disseminated upon the release

of Small Aircraft Rule Part 107.

2016

FAA

Airport

Voluntary

Reporting

System

Allows FAA employees who work in the Office of Airports

to elevate safety concerns without fear of retaliation. This is

used in partnership with National Air Traffic Control Asso-

ciation (NATCA).

2016 FAA

Mainte-

nance

& Repair

Database

Proposed Database for UAS related Maintenance and Repair

Reporting. Database has been released for review, but has

not been disseminated as a reporting tool.

N/A

FAA

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20214

of 47

Instru-

ment

Description Year

Imple-

mented

Agency

Aircraft

Certifica-

tion

Service

Pilot

Program

Partnership with the National Air Traffic Controllers Associ-

ation (NATCA) and an 18-month pilot program, Safety Re-

view Process (SRP). Allows FAA employees who work in

the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) to elevate safety

concerns without fear of retaliation.

2015 FAA

Certificate

of Waiver

or

Authori-

zation

Database

Reports filed by Certificate of Authorization (COA) holders.

The intention of this database is to support data acquisition

from those who are operating under a current COA waiver.

2012

FAA

Technical

Opera-

tions

Safety

Action

Program

Agreement between the FAA and the Professional Aviation

Safety Specialists (PASS) that allows technicians to report

potential safety hazards voluntarily and confidentially.

2011 FAA

Voluntary

Disclo-

sure

Reporting

Program

Provides incentives for an air carrier, repair station, qualified

fractional ownership program, or other eligible FAA-regu-

lated entity to voluntarily identify, report, and correct in-

stances of regulatory non-compliance.

2009 FAA

Air Traf-

fic Safety

Action

Program

Cooperative agreement between the FAA, NATCA, and the

National Association of Government Employees (NAGE).

This reporting tool is designed to foster a voluntary, cooper-

ative, non-punitive environment for FAA air traffic employ-

ees to openly report safety concerns. 41,000 reports were

filed from 2008 – 2011 (FAA, 2012)

2008 FAA

Aviation

Safety

Infor-

mation

Analysis

and

Sharing

Programs

Designed to monitor known risk, evaluate the effectiveness

of deployed mitigations, and detect emerging hazards.

2007 FAA

Flight

Opera-

tional

Quality

Assurance

Collects and analyzes flight data in an effort to enhance

training effectiveness, operational procedures, maintenance

and engineering procedures, and air traffic control proce-

dures.

2004 FAA

of 47

Instru-

ment

Description Year

Imple-

mented

Agency

Aviation

Safety

Action

Program

Developed to encourage air carrier and repair station em-

ployees to voluntarily report safety information that may be

critical to identifying potential precursors to accidents.

1997 FAA

Service

Difficulty

Program

Reporting requirement for certificated repair stations to re-

port any serious failure, malfunction, or defect or articles

listed under 14 CFR §145.221.

1984 FAA

Source (FAA, 2012).

5.2 EMPHASIS ON UAS ACCIDENT REPORTING

The transportation industry has used incident and accident reporting as an effective tool to gather

data from industry stakeholders for decades. Many of the studies conducted to determine effec-

tiveness of these types of systems are in use with Part 121 air carriers because of the availability

and amount of data that is routinely collected during normal operations. The International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) released the findings of a Safety Report conducted to analyze

scheduled commercial international and domestic operations (ICAO, 2014). Findings indicated

that accident rates have shown significant decline coupled with industry growth, therefore the avi-

ation industry in the United States and globally is influenced by the participation of its stakeholders

and the desire to maintain a well-developed and positive safety culture. It is imperative that UAS

stakeholders understand the value of a positive safety culture in order to maintain the same repu-

tation other facets of the aviation industry have achieved. The UAS industry should also mimic

similarities to a decrease in incidents like previous similar industries as they grew.

The UAS industry has shown positive growth trends recently due to changes in regulation, reduc-

tion of technology costs, systems availability, and user interest. The FAA has cooperated in the

development of awareness programs, such as “Know Before You Fly”, that influence UAS opera-

tors to gain knowledge in operations and regulation. This sustained industry growth will allow

incident and accident reporting data to be collected efficiently through an online medium as long

as its users are aware of its purpose and intent. The dissemination of data should also be repre-

sentative of other reporting tools that use online resources for data collection in ease of distribution.

In order for the use of these tools to show high levels of success, it is imperative that the user

understand how the integrity of the overall system may be compromised with gaps in safety.

Proper user education through the use of advisory circulars (AC) and well-developed tutorials is

necessary in order to develop and further maintain the positive safety culture expressed in other

facets of the industry.

of 47

6 Task 7c Develop recommendations for reporting maintenance-related accidents

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT REPORTING DATA

CAPTURE

Accident reporting is currently mandated per 14 CFR §107 for sUAS through the use of an elec-

tronically transmitted form. Data fields are used to report pilot in command (PIC) demographics,

aircraft identification, and incident/accident metrics. Once complete, the form is submitted for

agency review. As discussed in section 4.2.1 of this report, the submission of a sUAS accident-

reporting questionnaire does not necessarily satisfy the requirement to submit notification to the

NTSB. The operator is still required to report to the NTSB if the incident/accident meets the

criteria described under 49 CFR 830.

The sUAS accident reporting questionnaire suggests ease of use by the user, but does not support

transferable data fields listed on the COA Initial Unmanned Accident Report or NTSB Form

6120.1. This form thoroughly details incident or accident investigations and is listed as the Pi-

lot/Operator Aircraft Accident Incident Reporting Form. Many of the fields contained in NTSB

Form 6120.1 are relevant to both manned and unmanned aircraft, however, if used only for UA,

relevant data fields from the form may be hybridized and condensed to create an accident/incident

reporting tool more robust than the sUAS accident reporting questionnaire. This form may also

be adapted for use in the reporting of incidents or accidents that occur with those UA outside the

sUAS classification, further supporting inter-agency reporting requirements and collaborative data

sharing opportunities.

It is also important to consider how the input in certain data fields may link to maintenance-induced

failures and infer possible interactions between incidents and accidents. Table 6-1 lists content

sections followed by justifications that could be relevant for more inclusive analysis.

Table 6-1: UAS Incident/Accident Sample Reporting Data Fields

Data Field Options Justification Input Style Applicability

Demographics and Experience Check

Box or

Pull

Down

Menu

Fill-

In or

Free

Form

sUAS UAS

Greater than

55 lbs.

(MGTOW)

Remote Pilot in

Command

First Name

Last Name

Phone

Email Address

Pilot Demographics

X X X

FAA Airman

Certificate

(Check all that apply)

Remote Pilot Certifi-

cate

Student

Recreational

Sport Pilot

Private

Commercial

Airline Transport

X X X

of 47

Pilot

None

Approximate

Flight Time

Category

Type

Pilot Experience

X X X

Additional

Crewmembers

Name

Position

Phone

Other Crewmember

Information

X X X

Aircraft Information

Aircraft Category Airplane

Rotorcraft-Helicopter

Rotorcraft-Gyroplane

Hybrid

Blimp/Dirigible

Glider

Experimental

Other, Specify:

Aircraft Descriptive

Data

X X X X

Aircraft Maximum

Gross Takeoff

Weight (MGTOW)

Specify:

X X X

Aircraft Type Aircraft Manufacturer

Aircraft Registration

Number

Aircraft Serial

Number

If Experimental,

Detail:

X X X

Powerplant Gas

Electric

Hybrid

Other, Specify:

X X X X

Propulsion (Check all that apply)

Propeller

Rotor

Ducted Fan

Thrust Vectoring

Other, Specify:

X X X X

Autopilot Specify: X X X

Sensors/Avionics Specify: X X X

Additional Equip-

ment

(Check all that apply)

ADS-B

Transponder

GPS

Data Recorder

Video Recording

Device

Ballistic Recovery

Chute

Other, Specify:

X X X X

Launch and Recov-

ery

Specify: X X X

Ground Control Station and Datalink

Ground Control

Station

Specify: Ground Control

X X X

of 47

Station and Datalink

Descriptive Data

Primary Datalink

(Aircraft)

Frequency

Power

Antenna Type

Ground Control


Descriptive Data

Ground Control


Descriptive Data

X X X

Secondary Data

Link

(Aircraft)

Frequency

Power

Antenna Type

Antenna Location

X X X

Primary Data Link

(Ground Control

Station)

Frequency

Power

Antenna Type

X X X

Secondary Data

Link

(Ground Control

Station)

Frequency

Power

Antenna Type

Antenna Location

X X X

Maintenance Inspection

Last Inspection

Type

Date

Visual Inspection

Other, Specify:

Maintenance Data

X X

Maintenance Pro-

gram

Conditional

Manufacturer’s

Inspection

Program

Continuous

Airworthiness

Other, Specify:

None

Maintenance Data

X X

Last Maintenance

Action

Date

Action:

X X

Flight Operations

Meteorological

Conditions

Day

Night

Dusk

Dawn

Sky Conditions:

IFR/VFR

Wind: Direc-

tion/Speed

Temperature

Visibility

Operational

Environment

X X X

Flight Conducted

Under

Certificate of

Authorization (COA)

333 Exemption

Specify Operations

under Part:

Operational

Environment

X X X X

Was this flight con-

ducted Beyond

Visual Line of

Sight (VLOS)

Yes

No

X X X

Did you obtain a

weather briefing

prior to the flight?

Yes

No

X X X

Background Data

of 47

Accident

Information

Date

Time

Location:

Address

Lat./Long.

Accident Descriptor

X X X

Aircraft Damage None

Repairable

Destroyed

Unknown

Accident Descriptor

Description of

Accident by

Pilot/Operator

X X X

Other Damage (Check all that apply)

Persons, Describe:

Property, Describe:

Other, Describe:

X X X

Aircraft Fire None

In-Flight

On-Ground

Both Ground and In-

Flight

Fire at Unknown

Time

Unknown

X X X

Aircraft Explosion None

In-Flight

On-Ground

Both Ground and In-

Flight

Explosion at Un-

known Time

Unknown

X X X

Collision with

Other

Aircraft

Mid-Air

On-Ground

None

X X X

Collision with

Ground Based

Objects

Specify: X

Collision with

Other

Specify: X

Mechanical

Malfunction

or Failure

Flight Control

Malfunction

Engine Malfunction

Propulsion Failure

Loss of

Communication

Ground Control

Station Failure

Electrical System

Failure Hydraulic

System Failure

Avionics Failure

Other, Specify:

X X X X

Narrative Free Form X X X

Recommendations Free Form Pilot/Operator

Recommendations

for Improvement

X X X

of 47

6.2 UAS TELEMETRY AND COMPONENT CONDITION MONITORING

The UAS industry is lacking in the acquisition of condition monitoring data necessary to develop

Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) predictive analyses for common time restricted components.

The development of a system, although challenging, is necessary to obtain telemetry data that may

indicate trends or predictive states where components may indicate failure. The acquisition of this

data is common in manned aircraft, as technology has become more adapted to the use of compu-

ting.

This data should be collected from UAS vendors where available. It is understood that aircraft

have different operational considerations and actual MTBF data is collected by testing criteria

defined by the manufacturer. However, User or software reported component times may quantify

the average lifetime of a given component, which can further develop an understanding of how

operations effect the life of components. For instance, an electrically driven rotor-wing aircraft

that spends a large part of its mission in a hovering condition will likely have a lower time to

failure than a fixed-wing system with adequate cooling and lower power requirements.

Data can be collected through self-reporting or routine software updates at intervals specified by

the software manufacturer. Data acquisition devices may record mechanical or software failures

such as motor failure, loss of signal, loss of lift/thrust, and un-commanded input. The challenges

associated with data storage and analysis are multifaceted, however, complexity may be modified

by extracting or partitioning data pertinent to specific operational elements.

Table 6-2 lists potential reporting elements that may provide useful data when extracted from te-

lemetry hardware:

Table 6-2: Telemetry Data

Data Field Justification Applicability

Engine health This element includes a variety

of engine health parameters in-

cluding exceeding throttle posi-

tion threshold, missing desig-

nated throttle position, excess

or insufficient engine RPMs,

etc.

Engine health parameters will

help diagnose cause of engine

failure, identify engine prob-

lems when they originate, and

provide a better assessment of

mean time to failure.

GPS health GPS health parameters includ-

ing number of satellites present,

signal to noise ratio, frequency

of GPS position drop, etc.

GPS integrity and signal moni-

toring.

Throttle (%) Throttle position measured in

percentage.

Positional analysis

Position Position measured in lati-

tude/longitude.

Positional analysis

Attitude Position in reference to the

horizon.

Positional analysis

of 47

Lost C2 Link Occurrence of complete/partial

loss of C2 signal or weakness in

datalink.

Analysis of signal may indicate

where failures are likely to oc-

cur. This may also indicate sys-

tems components vulnerability.

Lost ATC Link Occurrence of complete/partial

loss of ATC communications.

Detail of where and at what

time full or partial loss of com-

munication occurred.

Engine failure Indicates complete loss of en-

gine power.

May indicate where engine fail-

ures are most likely to occur.

Data will also support MTBF

data collection for analysis of

specific components or power-

plants.

Emergency divert Indicates where the aircraft de-

viated from its intended path or

flight plan.

Analysis of data will indicate

where a diversion took place.

Flight termination Indicates where the aircraft ter-

minated its flight.

Analysis of data will indicate

where flight termination oc-

curred.

Sensors health Indicates specific elements that

monitor the integrity and health

of onboard sensors.

Analysis may suggest failure

modes for sensor components.

Battery charge Indicates battery charge in per-

centage.

System metrics

Battery voltage Indicates battery voltage System metrics

Communication Drop Rate Frequency at which the number

of dropped message packets

over C2 link exceeds a desig-

nated threshold.

Analysis will suggest the integ-

rity of communication links.

AHRS Status Indicates aircraft axial align-

ment at a given point in time.

Data suggest flight parameters

for analysis.

of 47

7 Conclusions

The current requirements for data collection and reporting of UAS incidents/accidents have been

reviewed to determine their effectiveness and likelihood of capturing data relevant to maintenance-

induced failures. The analysis conducted throughout this report provides the technical sponsor

with recommendations regarding improvements to collection and reporting requirements, which

are needed to ensure events are captured in sufficient detail, in a timely manner, and with enough

information to properly assess a given situation. Collection requirements and UAS reporting re-

quirement recommendations are listed in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. The analysis of this data may further

inform the agency of potential actions to predictively model issues before they become relevant or

obstructive to the industry.

With data mining being a primary goal of incident and accident reporting, it is recommended the

agency seek improvements to the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) pro-

gram. ASIAS is an excellent source of data collection and should be modeled for future inclusion

of UAS specific reporting tools. It is a repository of many public and proprietary data sources

such as SDR and ASRS. The accident reporting found in Part 107, Maintenance & Repair Database

(M&R), and the COA 333 reports must be incorporated so proper data extraction is more likely to

occur. Several components of ASIAS are non-punitive and are likely to contain more data than

the current reporting form mandated by Part 107. It is essential the accident reporting found in

Part 107, Maintenance & Repair Database (M&R), and the COA/ 333 reports are incorporated into

a central repository, so proper data extraction is more likely to occur. It is also necessary that

current data reporting tools be modified to include more robust data collection fields. More infor-

mation about each occurrence will lead to better analysis and better support conclusive data inter-

pretation and predictive modeling.

The current COA form has a modicum level of adoption by the rapidly growing new UAS industry.

The majority of operators using the form fly fixed-wing aircraft displaying a negative trend for

multi-rotor operators. Incident/accident reporting has proven successful for manned aviation as

demonstrated by lowered incident/accident rates over time, which is a function of a positive safety

culture, education, and awareness.

Potential threats exist with regard to incident/accident reporting to include, but not limited to:

Conflict of Interest

Accessibility

Timing

Untrained Perception for accuracy

Lack of technical knowledge

The mitigation for these threats may be found in the dissemination of educational outreach mate-

rials that must be easy to access and distributable via paper and electronic media. The development

of video materials by the FAA outlining topics such as runway and airport safety have been widely

distributed and effective for their intended audience. With mobile computing on the rise, applica-

tion based technologies are very popular. Campaigns showing great success such as “Know Before

You Fly” and others like it are an easy way to access and view educational materials.

of 47

Lastly, the development and enhancement of a positive safety culture amongst UAS operators is

imperative. It has been a mainstay for the aviation community and leads to growth and enhance-

ment of the overall system. The creation and dissemination of educational and guidance materials

help stakeholders understand why their cooperation is important. The use of radio-controlled

hobby aircraft in shared airspace with manned aircraft is a testament to the success of industry

growth and education through guidance. Widely distributed materials such as AC 91-57 estab-

lished best practices and community guidelines that were accepted and used by a sector influenced

by, but outside the confines of manned aviation.

Table 7-1: Collection Recommendations

Database Use Items

ASIAS Modify to include UAS

specific reporting tools In addition to the current

reporting tools for

ASIAS:

Part 107 Database

COA Database/

333 Database

M&R Prototype Database

AUVSI Database

NTSB Accident and

Synopsis Database

NTSB Form 6120.1

NTSB Form 6120.1 Modify to include UAS

specific options

Include relevant items from

Table 6-1

SDR Modify to include UAS

specific reporting Modify reporting form to

additionally include UAS: Aircraft

Engine

Propeller

ASRS Modify to include UAS

specific reporting tool

Include relevant items from

Table 6-1 in General

Report Form and

Maintenance Report Form

Aviation Maintenance Reports Provides a way to data mine

predictive data for

malfunctions.

Modify tool to be more

user-friendly and less time

consuming for UAS

applications

Part 107 Reporting Tool Modify to include Include checked sUAS

fields in Table 6-1

of 47

Table 7-2: UAS Reporting Requirement Recommendations

FORM QUESTIONS

Question Purpose Format

1 Did you perform any maintenance prior to the flight? For example, you may have performed a pre-flight inspection, replaced/charged a battery (servicing), replaced other components, etc

Help uncover potential maintenance induced failures. This tries to discover if the part replaced (maintenance performed) was installed incorrectly and can be linked to the type of incident.

Yes/No

[Drop Down Menu]

2 What Maintenance was performed? [Open Field]

3 Date [Date Field]

4 My aircraft is best described as: Determines how the aircraft was purchased and assembled

Manufacturer Kit

Manufacturer

Ready-To-Fly

Experimental/DIY

[Drop Down Menu]

5 Is the aircraft on a specified maintenance plan from the manufacturer?

Describes maintenance plan

in use by the operator

Yes/No

[Drop Down Menu]

6 Do you always follow manufacturer guideline for routine-maintenance?

Yes/No

[Drop Down Menu]

7 How much time has the aircraft flown since the last routine maintenance inspection, other than pre-flight?

Determines the amount of

time the aircraft has flown

since last routine inspection

0-1 Hour

2-10 Hours

Beyond 10 Hours

[Drop Down Menu]

8 Have you modified the aircraft in

any way to include items or

components different than those it

was originally manufactured with?

Determines how much, if

any, the aircraft has been

modified outside of

manufacturer specifications

Yes/No

[Drop Down Menu]

9 If yes, what equipment did you

add/remove from the aircraft

Define points of failure

where modification of an

item may have led to an

incident/accident

[Open Field]

10 How much time have you flown the

aircraft since modification?

Determines the amount of

time the aircraft has flown

since modification

0-2 Hour

2-10 Hours

Beyond 10 Hours

[Drop Down Menu]

11 Have you received any formal

training in UAS

repair/modification?

Describes

operator/maintainer level of

experience

Yes/No

[Drop Down Menu]

12 If yes, please provide a description

of your UAS maintenance

background.

[Open Field]

Refer to Table 6-1 for more recommendations

of 47

PROCESSES

Timeliness Requirement 1 The accident report should be filed within 24 hours.

Option 1 Web-based

Option 2 Android/IOS application-based

Option 3 Telephone to nearest jurisdictional FSDO

REPORTS

1 Modify the SDR Refer to Table 6-1

2 Modify the Part 107 Reporting Tool Refer to Table 6-1

of 47

8 Definitions

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

Aircraft Accident under guidance established by the National Transportation Safety Board means

an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any

person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and

in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial

damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft

accident, as defined herein.

Aircraft engine means an engine that is used or intended to be used for propelling aircraft. It

includes turbo/superchargers, appurtenances, and accessories necessary for its functioning, but

does not include propellers.

Airframe means the fuselage, booms, nacelles, cowlings, fairings, airfoil surfaces (including ro-

tors but excluding propellers and rotating airfoils of engines), and landing gear of an aircraft and

their accessories and controls.

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air that is supported in flight by

the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

Appliance means any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance, or ac-

cessory, including communications equipment, that is used or intended to be used in operating or

controlling an aircraft in flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part of an air-

frame, engine, or propeller.

Appurtenance means something subordinate to another, more important thing; adjunct; accessory.

Fatal injury means any injury, which results in death within 30 days of the accident.

Human Factors is a term that covers the science of understanding the properties of human capa-

bility, the application of this understanding to the design, development, and deployment of systems

and services, and the art of ensuring successful application of human factor principles into the

maintenance-working environment.

Incident means an occurrence involving one or more aircraft in which a hazard or a potential

hazard to safety is involved but not classified as an accident due to the degree of injury and/or

extent of damage.

Maintenance-Induced Failure means a failure that disrupts normal flight operations due to the

action or non-action of a maintenance technician.

Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight means the flyable weight of an aircraft at liftoff including all

permanent and expendable components, ie. Fuel.

of 47

Model aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that is:

(1) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

National Airspace System – The network of US airspace; airports; air navigation facilities; ATC

facilities; communication, surveillance, and supporting technologies; and operating rules and reg-

ulations. Its function is to provide a safe and efficient environment for civil, commercial and

military aviation.

Operator means any person who uses or authorizes the operation of an aircraft, such as the owner,

lessee, or bailee of an aircraft.

Propeller means a device for propelling an aircraft that has blades on an engine-driven shaft and

that, when rotated, produces by its action on the air, a thrust approximately perpendicular to its

plane of rotation. It includes control components normally supplied by its manufacturer, but does

not include main and auxiliary rotors or rotating airfoils of engines.

Serious injury under guidance established by the National Transportation Safety Board means

any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days

from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple frac-

tures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage;

(4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affect-

ing more than 5 percent of the body surface.

Small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff,

including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.

Small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) means a small unmanned aircraft and its associated

elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned

aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the

national airspace system.

Substantial damage means damage or failure, which adversely affects the structural strength,

performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major re-

pair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if

only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes

in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear,

wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered substantial damage

for the purpose of this part.

Unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including commu-

nication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe

and efficient operation of the unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system.

of 47

Unmanned aircraft accident under guidance established by the Federal Aviation Administration

Part 107 means an occurrence associated with the operation of any public or civil UAS that takes

place between the time that the system is activated with the purpose of flight and the time that the

system is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in which:

(1) Any person suffers death or serious injury; or

(2) The aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater and sustains sub-

stantial damage.

Unmanned Aircraft System – A system consisting of an Unmanned Aircraft and its associated

elements required for operation.

of 47

9 Acronyms

14 CFR- Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations

AC- Advisory Circulars

AD- Airworthiness Directives

ASIAS - Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program

ASRS- Aviation Safety Reporting System

BLOS- Beyond Line of Sight

COA- Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

FAA- Federal Aviation Administration

FSDO-FAA Flight Standards District Office

GAJSC- General Aviation Joint Steering Committee

HITL- Human-in-the-Loop

ICAO- International Civil Aviation Organization

M&R-Maintenance & Repair Database

NAS- National Airspace System

NASA- National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NTSB -National Transportation Safety Board

SB- Service Bulletins

SDR- Service Difficulty Reports

sUAS- Small Unmanned Aircraft System

UA- Unmanned Aircraft

UAS- Unmanned Aircraft System

USD- U.S. Dollars

VLOS- Visual Line of Sight

of 47

10 References

AUVSI. (2016). Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://www.auvsi.org/advocacy/exemptions70

FAA. (2004). Flight Operational Quality Assurance. AC No: 120-82. Retrieved December 2,

2016, from http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircu-

lar.nsf/0/40c02fc39c1577b686256e8a005afb0a/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

FAA. (2012). Long Term Success of ATSAP Will Require Improvements In Oversight, Account-

ability, and Transparency. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/de-

fault/files/Report%20on%20FAA's%20Air%20Traffic%20Safety%20Action%20Program%5E7-

19-12.pdf

ICAO. (2014). ICAO Safety Report. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from

http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_2014%20Safety%20Report_fi-

nal_02042014_web.pdf

FAA. (2016a). Aviation Maintenance Alerts. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from


FAA. (2016b). Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook - General. Retrieved January 28,

2017, from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_hand-

book/

FAA. (2016c). Fact Sheet – Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program (ASIAS).

Retrieved January 28, 2017, from


FAA. (2016d). Section 333 vs. Part 107: What Works for You? Retrieved January 30, 2017, from

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=86285

FAA. (2016e). Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from

http://www.faa.gov/uas

FAA. (2017a). Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program (ASIAS). Retrieved

January 28, 2017, from

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100%3A446%3A0%3A%3ANO%3A446%3A%3A

FAA. (2017b). Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA). Retrieved February 04, 2017,

from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/sys-

temops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/

FAA. (2017c). Report an Accident (Part 107). Retrieved February 04, 2017, from

https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/

http://www.auvsi.org/advocacy/exemptions70

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/40c02fc39c1577b686256e8a005afb0a/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/40c02fc39c1577b686256e8a005afb0a/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20FAA's%20Air%20Traffic%20Safety%20Action%20Program%5E7-19-12.pdf



http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_2014%20Safety%20Report_final_02042014_web.pdf

http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_2014%20Safety%20Report_final_02042014_web.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/


https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=86285

http://www.faa.gov/uas

http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100%3A446%3A0%3A%3ANO%3A446%3A%3A



https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/

of 47

FAA. (2017d). Welcome to the Service Difficulty Reporting Site. Retrieved January 28, 2017,

from http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Default.aspx

NASA. (1999) ASRS: The Case for Confidential Incident Reporting Systems. Retrieved Septem-

ber 23, 2016, from https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rs/60_Case_for_Confidential_Incident_Report-

ing.pdf

NASA. (2017). Aviation Safety Reporting Systems. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from


FAA. (2017). NTSB aviation accident database & Synopses. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from


NTSB. (2011). Review of Aircraft Accident Data; Calendar Year 2011. Retrieved May 22, 2017

from https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Documents/ARA1401.pdf

NTSB. (2016). Advisory to Operators of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the United States.

Retrieved February 2, 2017, from https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Docu-

ments/NTSB-Advisory-Drones.pdf

NTSB. (2014). Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents, 2014. Retrieved May 22, 2017,

from https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2014.aspx#

NTSB. (2014). General Aviation Accidents, 2005 – 2014. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2014.aspx#

U.S. Government. (2017). NTSB - eCFR - Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved January 28,

2017, from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-

idx?SID=4a75e5ab74481350037935886b3a9587&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5

http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Default.aspx

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rs/60_Case_for_Confidential_Incident_Reporting.pdf

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rs/60_Case_for_Confidential_Incident_Reporting.pdf



https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Documents/ARA1401.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Documents/NTSB-Advisory-Drones.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Documents/NTSB-Advisory-Drones.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2014.aspx

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2014.aspx

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4a75e5ab74481350037935886b3a9587&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4a75e5ab74481350037935886b3a9587&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5