New regional aircraft would need to be built with redundant cockpit voice and flight data recorders (CVR/FDR), one of which could be ejected before impact, if legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress becomes law.

Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) has proposed the Safe Aviation and Flight Enhancement Act (H.R. 2632) to expedite data recovery and provide accident investigators with more reliable information retrieval.

The legislation would require two combination CVR/FDR systems in all commercial aircraft. As introduced, the bill would apply to jet aircraft with 10 or more seats, or greater than 12,500 pounds maximum takeoff weight, and propeller aircraft with 20 or more seats or greater than 19,000 pounds takeoff weight. By these definitions, cargo aircraft would be included, but the legislation also makes specific references to "commercial passenger aircraft."

The legislation, which has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, proposes to have the U.S. government pay for the equipment, offers a business opportunity to the half-dozen manufacturers of FDR systems.

The bill estimates the costs to the U.S. government at $12 million to $15 million in the first year, for non-recurring engineering and certification for 12 aircraft types, and $32 million in the second year, for one fixed CVR/FDR and one deployable CVR/FDR, for 500 aircraft types.

"The cost [to the manufacturers] would be tremendous -- unbelievable," a source who works for an aircraft manufacturer told CRAN. "You've got to redesign, you've got to engineer, you've got to install, you've got to retrofit."

If the law applies to new deliveries, it would require a retrofit on the entire fleet, he said. If it applies to airplanes that have yet to be designed, "there aren't any," he said. "It's not like they're coming out and everybody's got new models all the time. They're very few and far between, and if that's the case, then you just engineer it into it. It just adds to the cost."

Alexis Allen, an official with the Aerospace Industries Association, told CRAN: "In terms of applying this [new law] to the commercial fleet, we would want to see a cost-benefit analysis to see exactly how it would work out."

Passage of the SAFE Act, as it is called, is problematic this year, with lawmakers expected to continue grappling with federal spending bills when they return from their August recess. But the legislation sets the stage for possible passage in the future.

The bill reflects a growing congressional concern about the need for improved flight recorders in order to reconstruct the causes of accidents and to provide a more detailed picture of potential terrorist attacks on airliners. The deployable recorders would likely be installed in the tail of the aircraft in a protected housing and ejected moments before impact.

Such recorders have been used successfully on military aircraft for years. Located flush on the tailfin, the spring-loaded data box with its satellite-linked locator beacon would pop off the aircraft on impact and fall safely beyond the crash site. At sea, the deployable recorder would float on the water.

The bipartisan support for the bill reflects impatience with the slow progress among federal regulators, where recommendations for upgraded CVR/FDRs have gone unimplemented for years. Congress has a history of intervening with safety and security issues when there is perceived gridlock in the Executive Branch. For example, Congress required traffic alert collision avoidance systems (TCAS) for cargo airliners when the Federal Aviation Administration mandated TCAS only for passenger airliners. Congress also overrode administration objections to arming pilots with handguns. A similar wellspring of support could push passage of the SAFE Act sooner rather than later, because it links the needs of aviation safety to the "wartime" demands of homeland security.

Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said the SAFE Act features "three R's" of "redundancy, reliability, and resources," specifically:

• Redundancy: The act calls for two pairs of cockpit voice and flight data recorder installations, one pair aft in the airplane, and one pair forward. The forward installation would minimize the potential for lost data from wires being separated further aft. The aft location maximizes survivability of the non-deployable recorders;
• Reliability: The act calls for battery backup in case of loss of aircraft electrical power. The call for a two-hour recording capability is another aspect of reliability, assuring that important data will not be "taped over" on more limited 30-minute looped recorders; and
• Resources: As in the case of federal funding for reinforced cockpit doors, the act provides similar federal dollars for upgraded recorders.

The SAFE Act has a limited agenda. It calls for implementing the deployable recorders only on new aircraft ordered on or after Jan. 1, 2005. Recommendations by the NTSB, however, could involve a massive retrofit program. While it could cost more than $60,000 to equip aircraft with the dual/deployable recorder technology, the promise of government funding should help appease concerns from manufacturers and airlines.

However, foreign manufacturers and airlines would not be eligible for such support, which was the case for the reinforced cockpit door program. It is evident from the wording of the legislation that they would be required to meet its recorder provisions. The main builders of regional jets -- Bombardier [Toronto: BBDa.TO] and Embraer [NYSE: ERJ] -- both are located outside of the United States.

>>Contact: Rep. Duncan's office, 202-225-5435; Alexis Allen, Aerospace Industries Association, 703-358-1075.<<