Closing the Gap in Cargo Safety
By Corey Caldwell, Contributing Writer
Long after most airport operations wind down for the day, the professional pilots who transport cargo are preparing for a night of flying. These pilots have the identical training requirements and often fly the same type of aircraft that carry passengers around the world; yet instead of delivering people to their destinations, they’re ensuring that more than 50 million metric tons of cargo arrive safely to all corners of the globe in all kinds of weather and operating conditions.
Cargo pilots have the same type rating and flying experience as their passenger airline counterparts. However, unlike their colleagues, all-cargo pilots are subject to fewer crucial safety regulations.
“All-cargo flying is some of the most challenging aviating that a pilot can do. We carry all kinds of loads halfway around the world, from the frozen north to the deserts of Africa and everywhere in between, with hazardous materials on board, and normally in the dead of night when most others are asleep,” said Capt. Joe DePete (FedEx Express), ALPA’s first vice president and national safety coordinator.
One of the principles ALPA was founded on, and its guiding motto, is “Schedule with Safety,” regardless if a pilot transports passengers or cargo. Unfortunately, despite the Association’s tireless efforts, a disparity in safety exists between passenger and cargo operations.
Government regulators often use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “value” of safety improvements. This archaic process measures lives lost in previous accidents to estimate the number of lives that could be saved in the prevention of future accidents. Thus, cargo operations piloted by flightcrew members transporting goods are not regarded in that same manner as passenger operations piloted by flightcrew members carrying hundreds of passengers—which does not result in one level of safety.
Because an accident is an accident regardless of an aircraft’s payload and the number of lives lost, this cost-benefit analysis process must be changed so that airline safety levels reach the FAA’s targeted safety goals. Until this occurs, air cargo operations will continue to operate under different regulations and safeguards than passenger operations—which have greater protections against the potential for lithium battery fires, operate under science-based flight- and duty-time rules, and have access to on-airport aircraft rescue and firefighting services.
Lithium batteries
There have been some important recent regulatory and operational developments regarding the safe air transport of lithium batteries. After extensive discussions by government regulators and industry stakeholders on the hazards of lithium batteries and the need for significant changes in the way that they’re transported, efforts are finally under way to develop packaging standards to contain the harmful effects of batteries that go into thermal runaway. As this issue goes to press, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Dangerous Goods Panel is convening to evaluate a variety of issues pertaining to the air transport of lithium batteries.
Science-based flight- and duty-time rules
Because of an outdated cost-benefit analysis, in 2014 the FAA created two different levels of safety within FAR Part 121 operations by excluding cargo operations from the new science-based rules contained in the final version of FAR Part 117. Updating the outdated flight- and duty-time rules and minimum rest requirements that apply to cargo operations has been one of ALPA’s top priorities.
Meanwhile in Canada, Transport Canada announced this summer equally long-overdue recommendations to implement a timeline for new flight- and duty-time regulations for all airline pilots. To ensure that all pilots are included in these new rules, Transport Canada is giving some airline operators until 2021, or perhaps longer, to implement the regulations.
ALPA has been working with Canadian regulators on establishing a single, timely implementation process for all Canadian carriers while also advocating that the U.S. government develop and adopt a new cost-benefit analysis that creates one level of safety for both cargo and passenger operations.
On-airport aircraft rescue and firefighting services
Approximately 90 percent of all airline accidents occur on or within one mile of an airport, which makes both passenger and cargo airliners a potential threat to people and the infrastructure in the surrounding areas. The additional threat posed by a cargo aircraft accident in these areas comes from the toxic footprint potentially created if large quantities of hazardous materials are carried on board.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting services are provided for passenger-carrying airplanes involved in accidents and incidents that occur on airport property, but they are not required for all-cargo operations. ALPA has long pushed for aircraft rescue and firefighting services capability at all airports during cargo operations and strongly advocates that fire services training be required to include cargo airliners for on- and off-airport fire departments. In addition, requiring onboard, active fire-suppression systems in all cargo compartments would help reduce the threat of uncontained fire activity.
ALPA will continue to advocate that cargo airline operations are afforded the same regulations and safeguards as passenger operations so that one level of safety applies to both cargo- and passenger-carrying pilots.
