a.5 uas maintenance, modification, repair, inspection ... report.pdfiv technical report...
Post on 15-Jul-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Page 1 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.
Page 2 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
Page 3 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.
Page 4 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.
Page 5 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
Page 6 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.
Page 7 of 47
Figure 1: Part 107 sUAS Accident Reporting Questionnaire (FAA 2017c)
Page 8 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).
Page 9 of 47
Figure 2: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 1(FAA, 2017b)
Page 10 of 47
Figure 3: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 2 (FAA, 2017b)
Page 11 of 47
Figure 4: COA Initial Unmanned Aircraft Accident Report- Page 3 (FAA, 2017b)
Page 12 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.
Page 13 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
Page 14 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).
Page 15 of 47
Figure 7: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 1 (NTSB, 2017)
Page 16 of 47
Figure 8: NTSB Aviation Accident and Synopsis Database Search-Page 2 (NTSB, 2017)
Page 17 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).
Page 18 of 47
Figure 10: General Aviation Accidents, 2005 – 2014
Figure 11: Defining Event for Personal Flying Accidents, 2014
Page 19 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
Page 20 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.
Page 21 of 47
Figure 12: Accident and Incident Preliminary Reports for UA, (FAA, 2017a)
Page 22 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.
Page 23 of 47
Figure 14: Service Difficult Report Query Search (FAA, 2017d)
Page 24 of 47
Figure 15: Service Difficult Report (FAA 2017d)
Page 25 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).
Page 26 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.
Page 27 of 47
Figure 17: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA, 2017)
Page 28 of 47
Figure 18: ASRS Electronic Maintenance Reporting Form-Page 1 (NASA,2017)
Page 29 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
Page 30 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
Page 31 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.
Page 32 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
Page 33 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
Page 34 of 47
Station and Datalink
Descriptive Data
Primary Datalink
(Aircraft)
Frequency
Power
Antenna Type
Ground Control
Station and Datalink
Descriptive Data
Ground Control
Station and Datalink
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
Page 35 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
Page 36 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
Page 37 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.
Page 38 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.
Page 39 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
Page 40 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
Page 41 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
Page 42 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.
Page 43 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.
Page 44 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.
Page 45 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
Page 46 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
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/aviation_maintenance/
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
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=18195
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/
Page 47 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
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html
FAA. (2017). NTSB aviation accident database & Synopses. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx
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
top related