{ "id": "R45939", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45939", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606126, "date": "2019-10-03", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:20:35.397707", "title": "Cockpit Automation, Flight Systems Complexity, and Aircraft Certification: Background and Issues for Congress", "summary": "The increasing complexity and automation of flight control systems pose a challenge to federal policy regarding aircraft certification and pilot training. Despite significant commercial aviation safety improvements over the past two decades, flight control automation and aircraft complexity have been cited as contributing factors in a number of major airline accidents, including two high-profile crashes overseas involving the recently introduced Boeing 737 Max variant in 2018 and 2019. These crashes have directed attention to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight of aircraft type certification and pilot training practices for transport category aircraft, particularly as they pertain to complex automated flight control systems. As aircraft systems have evolved over the past three decades to incorporate new technologies, Congress has mandated FAA to streamline certification processes, with the primary motivation being to facilitate the development of new safety-enhancing technologies. \nModern commercial aircraft rely on \u201cfly-by-wire\u201d flight control technologies, under which pilots\u2019 flight control inputs are sent to computers rather than through direct mechanical linkages to flight control systems. The fly-by-wire software contains flight control laws and logic that, in addition to optimizing performance efficiency, protect the aircraft from commanded actions that could put the airplane in an unsafe state. Automated flight control systems have largely been viewed as having a positive effect on safety, and accident rates have improved considerably over the past two decades. However, the increasing complexity of automated flight systems has sometimes caused confusion and uncertainty, contributing to improper pilot actions during critical phases of flight and in some cases leading pilots to unintentionally place an aircraft in an unsafe condition. Besides designing these systems in a manner that minimizes pilot errors and the consequences of those errors, aircraft designers and operators face challenges regarding maintaining piloting skills for flight crews to be able to take over and manually fly the aircraft safely if critical systems fail. They also face challenges regarding documentation and pilot training effectiveness in building accurate mental models of how these complex systems operate. The primary goals of ongoing efforts to address these challenges are to enhance pilot situation awareness when using automation and reduce the likelihood of mode errors and confusion, while at the same time not overburdening pilots with intricate systems knowledge beyond what is necessary.\nIn the ongoing investigations of two Boeing 737 Max crashes, Lion Air flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, concerns have been raised about the design of an automated feature called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and its reliance on a single angle-of-attack sensor even though the aircraft is equipped with two such sensors. These concerns led to the worldwide grounding of all Boeing 737 Max aircraft until the MCAS safety concerns can be resolved, significantly impacting both U.S. and foreign airlines that operate the aircraft. These recent aviation accidents have prompted reviews of the manner in which modern transport category aircraft are certified by FAA and its foreign counterparts, and in particular, the roles of regulators and manufacturers in the certification process. \nThe challenges of certifying increasingly complex aircraft are largely being met by delegating more of FAA\u2019s certification functions to aircraft designers and manufacturers. This raises potential conflicts between safety and quality assurance on the one hand and competitive pressures to market and deliver aircraft on the other. Under Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), FAA can designate companies to carry out delegated certification functions on its behalf. Congress has supported the ODA framework and in recent FAA reauthorization legislation (P.L. 115-254) directed FAA to establish performance objectives and metrics for aircraft certification that both streamline the certification process and increase transparency and accountability for both FAA and the aviation industry. However, the Boeing 737 Max grounding has prompted reviews of the certification process to identify potential gaps in oversight. Foreign authorities have also put pressure on FAA to review its certification delegation practices, although similar approaches are used in Europe. The inquiries have led to broader discussions about aircraft certification practices and also about global training, qualification, and currency standards for airline pilots.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45939", "sha1": "d63566cabebd2c1828ffdd9eb36a2c11bc5d7408", "filename": "files/20191003_R45939_d63566cabebd2c1828ffdd9eb36a2c11bc5d7408.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45939_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191003_R45939_images_37b20869a7a42975fa80370cec599d55bc9850b6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45939_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191003_R45939_images_935774ffd86debf05f67bd118f66f84169cc5d22.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45939_files&id=/2.png": "files/20191003_R45939_images_81b14bce626904b98bc5be9a032ab15008b6e48f.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45939", "sha1": "6765d75d1e7ad16986dffe2ad018f48a6777a230", "filename": "files/20191003_R45939_6765d75d1e7ad16986dffe2ad018f48a6777a230.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Transportation Policy" ] }