United Kingdom: Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 575 – The Policing of Aerodromes (Belfast International Airport) Order 2010

March 9, 2010 at 9:38 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The United Kingdom’s Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 575: The Policing of Aerodromes (Belfast International Airport) Order 2010 was made on 2 March 2010, laid before Parliament on 8 March 2010, and comes into force on 1 April 2010. According to the Explanatory Memorandum the purpose of the act is:

The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amends Part 3 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 to impose requirements on “relevant aerodromes” in relation to police services agreements. The purpose of this Order (“the Exemption Order”) is to exempt Belfast International Airport from being a “relevant aerodrome” so that the provisions in Part 3 (as amended) in relation to police services agreements will not apply to the Airport. This has the effect of preserving the current policing arrangements at Belfast International Airport.

Northrop halts pursuit of tanker contract

March 9, 2010 at 6:48 am | Posted in Aviation Law, Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a comment

by  Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

Source: Washington Post

By Dana Hedgpeth

Washington Post Staff Writer

Defense giant Northrop Grumman said Monday that it is pulling out of the $40 billion competition to build aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force, a move that defense analysts and procurement specialists say leaves its rival Boeing as the likely winner.

Northrop’s decision marked the latest twist in the nearly decade-long fight over one of the Pentagon’s biggest and most controversial contracts and raised questions about the impact of procurement reforms proposed by the Obama administration.

In announcing its withdrawal, Northrop said that the government’s requirements did not recognize the value of the larger refueling platform it had proposed and instead favored Boeing’s proposal to build a smaller tanker using a prototype of its 767 aircraft.

Wes Bush, chief executive of Los Angeles-based Northrop, said that under those conditions, it no longer made financial sense to stay in the competition.

“We have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources,” he said. “Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said in a statement that the Pentagon was “disappointed” that Northrop had pulled out of the competition, noting that it “competed well on both price” and other factors. “We strongly believe that the current competition is structured fairly and that both companies could compete effectively,” Lynn said.

The government has been trying for years to award a contract to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of planes used for refueling military aircraft midflight, but the effort to build 179 new tankers has been marred by controversy.

Northrop had partnered with Airbus, which is owned by Paris-based European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EADS), to compete against Chicago-based Boeing. In 2004, Boeing lost the deal to build the tanker after an ethics scandal. In 2008, Northrop won the contract, but Boeing fought back and had the award nullified.

The Pentagon started another attempt to rebid the deal last September, but the Northrop team threatened in December that it would walk away unless the Air Force changed its proposal. Northrop said the Air Force’s requirements favored Boeing’s smaller 767 plane, instead of its larger Airbus A330.

Bush said Monday the company would not protest the contract, in effect handing a win to Boeing. Bush said that although Northrop thinks it had grounds to successfully protest the contract proposal, it would have led to another lengthy delay.

“America’s servicemen and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers,” he said. “Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.”

Northrop executives and defense industry analysts have questioned how profitable the tanker contract would be, given the Pentagon’s push for setting a fixed price for the contract before design and testing of the aircraft are completed. More…

Library: A Round-up of Reading

March 8, 2010 at 1:53 pm | Posted in Library | Leave a comment

Articles
Taylor Dinerman, Space policy versus space politics: lessons for the future, The Space Review

Xiaoming Zhang & Col. Sean D. McClung,The Art of Military Discovery: Chinese Air and Space Power Implications for the USAF 36, Strategic Studies Quarterly, v. 4, no. 1, p. 36 (2010)

Reports
Aviation Safety: Preliminary Information on Aircraft Icing and Winter Operations, by Gerald L. Dillingham, director, physical infrastructure issues, before the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. GAO-10-441T, February 24.

CRS – Aviation and Climate Change

Periodicals
High Frontier Journal (v. 6/2)

Sat Magazine (March 2010)

Books
Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University, Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (Bern, 15 May 2009)

Blogs
2011 NASA Budget Proposal – The Launch Pad

NASA Chief Bolden reorganizes his space agency – The Write Stuff

FAA Commercial Space Transportation conf. presentations – RLV and Space Transport News

Senator Hutchison’s wish list for human spaceflight – Hyperbola

Bolden denies violating FY2010 directives – Lunar Networks

Today’s Space Policy Feedback – NASA Watch

Virginia Tax Measure for Space Not in Budget – Spaceports

Drones as Strategic Airpower and the Counter-Raiding Light Cavalry? – Volokh Conspiracy

Pushing Ahead: India, Iran, South Africa – Space Issues

Will START Talks Go MAD – DoD Buzz

A plane way to get the NASA plan through Congress – RLV and Space Transport News

Predators over Pakistan … – Opinio Juris

Court limits airline’s liability to passenger under Montreal Convention for injury caused by fellow passenger – NV Flyer

Suing the Foreign Air Carrier in the United States – Aviation Law Monitor

What does THAT bill mean for NASA? – Hyperbola

NASA responds to $300 million COTS question – Hyperbola

Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV – NASA Spaceflight

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Commends New Mexico for Passage of Key Liability Legislation – Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Commercial Remote Sensing Policy Could See Changes Soon, Says NOAA’s Glackin – Space Policy Online

Congressional Hearings on Location Privacy – Spatial Law and Policy

S. 3068: A bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Space Flight Activities, and for other purposes

March 8, 2010 at 10:59 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

S. 3068: A bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Space Flight Activities, and for other purposes was introduced on March 3, 2010 by Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX). The text is not yet available.

H.R. 4714: National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2010

March 8, 2010 at 10:54 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H.R. 4714: National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2010 was introduced on March 2, 2010 by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN8):

HR 4714 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4714

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2010

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. MICA, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. PETRI, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. CUMMINGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2010’.

(b) Table of Contents-

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Amendments to title 49, United States Code.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

Sec. 4. General organization.

Sec. 5. Administrative.

Sec. 6. Recordings, transcripts, and investigations.

Sec. 7. Training.

Sec. 8. Reports and studies.

Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 10. Accident investigation authority.

Sec. 11. Maritime casualty investigations.

Sec. 12. Inspections and autopsies.

Sec. 13. Discovery and use of cockpit and surface vehicle recordings and transcripts.

Sec. 14. Family assistance.

Sec. 15. Coast Guard notification.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1101 is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 1101. Definitions

‘(a) Accident Defined- In this chapter, the term ‘accident’–

‘(1) means an event associated with the operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or pipeline, which results in damage to or destruction of the vehicle, aircraft or pipeline, or which results in the death of or serious injury to any person, regardless of whether the initiating event is accidental or otherwise; and

‘(2) may include an incident that does not involve destruction or damage of a vehicle, aircraft, or pipeline, but affects transportation safety, as the Board prescribes by regulation.

‘(b) Applicability of Definitions in Other Laws- The definitions contained in section 2101(17a) of title 46 and section 40102(a) of this title apply to this chapter.’.

SEC. 4. GENERAL ORGANIZATION.

The last sentence of section 1111(d) is amended by striking ‘absent’ and inserting ‘unavailable’.

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE.

(a) Additional Powers-

(1) AUTHORITY OF BOARD TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS WITH NONPROFIT ENTITIES- Section 1113(b)(1)(H) is amended by inserting ‘and other agreements’ after ‘contracts’.

(2) AUTHORITY OF BOARD TO ENTER INTO AND PERFORM CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, LEASES, OR OTHER TRANSACTIONS- Section 1113(b)(1) is amended–

(A) by striking paragraph (1)(I) and inserting the following:

‘(I) negotiate, enter into, and perform contracts, agreements, leases, or other transactions with individuals, private entities, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government, State and local governments, and governments of foreign countries on such terms and conditions as the Chairman of the Board considers appropriate to carry out the functions of the Board and require that such entities provide appropriate consideration for the reasonable costs of any facilities, goods, services, or training provided by the Board.’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘(3) The Authority of the Board to enter into leases shall be limited to the provision of special use space related to an accident investigation, or for general use space, at an average annual rental cost of not more than $300,000 for any individual property.’.

(3) AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES- Section 1113(b)(2) is amended to read as follows:

‘(2) AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the head of a Federal department, agency, or instrumentality may transfer to or receive from the Board, with or without reimbursement, supplies, personnel, services, and equipment (other than administrative supplies and equipment).’.

(b) Criteria on Public Hearings-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1113 is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(i) Public Hearings-

‘(1) DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA- The Board shall establish by regulation criteria to be used by the Board in determining, for each accident investigation and safety study undertaken by the Board, whether or not the Board will hold a public hearing on the investigation or study.

‘(2) FACTORS- In developing the criteria, the Board shall give priority consideration to the following factors:

‘(A) Whether the accident has caused significant loss of life.

‘(B) Whether the accident has caused significant property damage.

‘(C) Whether the accident may involve a national transportation safety issue.

‘(D) Whether a public hearing may provide needed information to the Board.

‘(E) Whether a public hearing may offer an opportunity to educate the public on a safety issue.

‘(F) Whether a public hearing may increase both the transparency of the Board’s investigative process and public confidence that such process is comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased.

‘(G) Whether a public hearing is likely to significantly delay the conclusion of an investigation and whether the possible adverse effects of the delay on safety outweigh the benefits of a public hearing.’.

(2) ANNUAL REPORT- Section 1117 is amended–

(A) by striking ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (5);

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting ‘; and’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(7) an analysis of the Board’s implementation of the criteria established pursuant to section 1113(i) during the prior calendar year, including an explanation of any instance in which the Board did not hold a public hearing for an investigation of an accident that has caused significant loss of life or property damage or that may involve a national transportation safety issue.’.

SEC. 6. RECORDINGS, TRANSCRIPTS, AND INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Vessel Recordings and Transcripts- Section 1114 is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘and (f)’ and inserting ‘(e), and (g)’;

(2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ‘or vessel’;

(3) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and

(4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:

‘(e) Vessel Recordings and Transcripts-

‘(1) CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS- The Board may not disclose publicly any part of a vessel’s voice or video recorder recording or transcript of oral communications by or among the crew, pilots, or docking masters of a vessel, vessel traffic services, or other vessels, or between the vessel’s crew and company communication centers, related to an accident investigated by the Board. However, the Board shall make public any part of a transcript or any written depiction of visual information that the Board decides is relevant to the accident–

‘(A) if the Board holds a public hearing on the accident, at the time of the hearing; or

‘(B) if the Board does not hold a public hearing, at the time a majority of the other factual reports on the accident are placed in the public docket.

‘(2) REFERENCES TO INFORMATION IN MAKING SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS- This subsection does not prevent the Board from referring at any time to voice or video recorder information in making safety recommendations.’.

(b) Party Representatives to NTSB Investigations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1114 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(h) Party Representatives to NTSB Investigations-

‘(1) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- A party representative to an accident investigation of the Board is prohibited from disclosing, orally or in written form, investigative information, as defined by the Board, to anyone who is not an employee of the Board or who is not a party representative to such investigation, except–

‘(A) as provided in paragraph (2); or

‘(B) at the conclusion of the fact finding stage of an investigation, which the investigator-in-charge shall announce by formal posting of a notice in the publicly available investigation docket.

‘(2) EXCEPTION- If the investigator-in-charge determines that a disclosure of information related to an accident investigation is necessary to prevent additional accidents, to address a perceived safety deficiency, or to assist in the conduct of the investigation, the investigator-in-charge may at any time authorize in writing a party representative to disclose such information under conditions approved by the investigator-in-charge. Such conditions shall ensure that, until the posting of a formal notice described in paragraph (1)(B), or until the information disclosed pursuant to this paragraph becomes publicly available by any other means, neither the entity represented by the party representative nor any other person may use such information in preparation for the prosecution of any claim or defense in litigation in connection with the accident being investigated or to make or deny any insurance claim in connection with such accident.

‘(3) COMPLIANCE- The Board shall require any individual who is a party representative to an investigation of the Board to sign a party agreement that includes language informing the individual of the prohibition in paragraph (1).

‘(4) REPRESENTATIVES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES- Paragraph (3) shall not apply to an individual who is a representative of the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or any other Federal department, agency, or instrumentality participating in the investigation and deemed by the Board to be performing a law enforcement or similar function.

‘(5) PARTY REPRESENTATIVE DEFINED- In this subsection, the term ‘party representative’ means an individual representing a party to an investigation pursuant to section 831.11 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection.’.

(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Section 1151 is amended–

(A) in the section heading by striking ‘Aviation enforcement’ and inserting ‘Enforcement’; and

(B) by inserting ‘1114(h),’ before ‘1132,’ in each of subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c).

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The analysis for chapter 11 is amended by striking the item relating to section 1151 and inserting the following:

‘1151. Enforcement.’.

(c) GAO Study of Party Process-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the use of party representatives in investigations conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board.

(2) CONTENTS- In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall examine, at a minimum–

(A) whether the composition of the party representatives should be broadened to include on-going representatives from other entities that could provide independent, technically qualified representatives to a Board investigation;

(B) whether the participation of party representatives in a Board investigation results in any unfair advantages for the entities represented by the party representatives while the Board is conducting the investigation;

(C) whether the use of party representatives leads to bias in the outcome of a Board investigation; and

(D) whether Board investigations would be compromised in any way absent the participation and expertise of party representatives.

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under this subsection, including any recommendations for improvements in the Board’s use of the party representative process.

SEC. 7. TRAINING.

Section 1115(d) is amended–

(1) by inserting ‘theory and techniques and on transportation safety methods to advance Board safety recommendations’ before the period at the end of the first sentence;

(2) by inserting ‘or who influence the course of transportation safety through support or adoption of Board safety recommendations’ before the period at the end of the second sentence; and

(3) by inserting ‘under section 1118(c)(2)’ before the period at the end of the third sentence.

SEC. 8. REPORTS AND STUDIES.

(a) Studies and Investigations- Section 1116(b) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘carry out’ and inserting ‘conduct’; and

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

‘(3) prescribe requirements for persons reporting accidents, as defined in section 1101(a), that may be investigated by the Board under this chapter;’.

(b) Evaluation and Audit- Section 1138(a) is amended by striking ‘conducted at least annually, but may be’.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General- Section 1118(a) is amended to read as follows:

‘(a) In General- There is authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of this chapter–

‘(1) $117,368,000 for fiscal year 2011;

‘(2) $120,258,000 for fiscal year 2012;

‘(3) $122,187,000 for fiscal year 2013; and

‘(4) $124,158,000 for fiscal year 2014.

Such sums shall remain available until expended.’.

(b) Fees, Refunds, Reimbursements, and Advances- Section 1118(c) is amended–

(1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the following: ‘Fees, Refunds, Reimbursements, and Advances’;

(2) in paragraph (1)–

(A) by striking ‘and reimbursements’ and inserting ‘reimbursements, and advances’; and

(B) by striking ‘services’ and inserting ‘activities, services, and facilities’;

(3) in paragraph (2)–

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ‘or reimbursement’ and inserting ‘reimbursement, or advance’; and

(B) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ‘activities’ and all that follows before the semicolon and inserting ‘activities, services, or facilities for which the fee, refund, reimbursement, or advance is associated’;

(4) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);

(5) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

‘(3) ANNUAL RECORD OF COLLECTIONS- The Board shall maintain an annual record of collections received under paragraph (2).’; and

(6) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this subsection) by inserting ‘or advance’ after ‘fee’.

SEC. 10. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AUTHORITY.

(a) In General- Section 1131(a)(1) is amended–

(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ‘cause or probable cause’ and inserting ‘causes or probable causes’;

(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ‘a fatality or substantial property damage’ and inserting ‘a fatality (other than a fatality involving a trespasser) or substantial property damage’;

(3) in subparagraph (E) by striking ‘and’ at the end;

(4) in subparagraph (F) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:

‘(G) an accident in response to an international request and delegation under appropriate international conventions, coordinated through the Department of State and accepted by the Board; and

‘(H) each accident involving a commercial space launch vehicle.’.

(b) Authorities of Other Agencies- The second sentence of section 1131(a)(3) is amended by inserting ‘or relevant to’ after ‘developed about’.

(c) Accidents Not Involving Government Misfeasance or Nonfeasance- Section 1131(c) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(3) AUTHORITY OF BOARD REPRESENTATIVE- In the case of a delegation of authority under paragraph (1), the Secretary, or a person designated by the Secretary, shall have the authority of the Board, on display of appropriate credentials and written notice of inspection authority, to enter property where the aircraft accident has occurred or wreckage from the accident is located and to gather evidence in support of a Board investigation, in accordance with rules the Board may prescribe.’.

(d) Incident Investigations- Section 1131 is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(f) Incident Investigations-

‘(1) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING- Not later than 90 days after the issuance of final regulations under section 1101(a)(2), the Chairman of the Board shall seek to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Transportation and the head of each modal administration of the Department of Transportation that sets forth–

‘(A) an understanding of the conditions under which the Board will conduct an incident investigation that involves the applicable mode of transportation; and

‘(B) the roles and responsibilities of the parties to the memorandum when the Board is conducting an incident investigation.

‘(2) UPDATES AND RENEWALS- Each memorandum of understanding required under paragraph (1) shall be updated and renewed not less than once every 5 years, unless parties to the memorandum agree that updating the memorandum is unnecessary.

‘(3) BOARD AUTHORITY- Nothing in this paragraph negates the authority of the Board to investigate an incident.

‘(4) INCIDENT DEFINED- In this subsection, the term ‘incident’ means an incident described in regulations issued under section 1101(a)(2).’.

SEC. 11. MARITIME CASUALTY INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) In General- Chapter 11 is amended by inserting after section 1132 the following:

‘Sec. 1132a. Maritime casualty investigations

‘(a) Delegation of Authority to Coast Guard-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- In an investigation of a major marine casualty under section 1131(a)(1)(E), the Board, with the consent of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, may delegate to the Commandant of the Coast Guard full authority to obtain the facts of the casualty. In the case of such a delegation, the Commandant, acting through the Commandant’s on-scene representative, shall have the full authority of the Board.

‘(2) REQUIRED TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, AND QUALIFICATIONS- The Board may not make a delegation under paragraph (1) unless the Board determines that the Commandant’s on-scene representatives have sufficient training, experience, and qualifications in investigation, marine casualty reconstruction, evidence collection and preservation, human factors, and documentation to act in accordance with the best investigation practices of Federal and non-Federal entities.

‘(b) Notification and Reporting- The Board and the Secretary shall jointly prescribe regulations governing the notification and reporting of marine casualties to the Board.

‘(c) Participation of Commandant in Marine Investigations- The Board shall provide for the participation of the Commandant of the Coast Guard in an investigation by the Board of a major marine casualty under section 1131(a)(1)(E) if such participation is necessary to carry out the duties and powers of the Commandant, except that the Commandant may not participate in establishing the probable cause of the marine casualty (other than as provided section 1131(b)).’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 11 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1132 the following:

‘Sec. 1132a. Maritime casualty investigations.’.

SEC. 12. INSPECTIONS AND AUTOPSIES.

Section 1134(a) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1)–

(1) by striking ‘officer or employee’ and inserting ‘officer, employee, or Federal designee’; and

(2) by inserting ‘in the conduct of any accident investigation or study’ after ‘National Transportation Safety Board’.

SEC. 13. DISCOVERY AND USE OF COCKPIT AND SURFACE VEHICLE RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS.

Section 1154(a)(1)(A) is amended by striking ‘; and’ and inserting ‘; or’.

SEC. 14. FAMILY ASSISTANCE.

(a) Family Assistance in Commercial Aviation Accidents- Section 41113(b)(7) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘, and that at least 60 days before the planned destruction of any unclaimed possession of a passenger a reasonable attempt will be made to notify the family of the passenger’.

(b) Family Assistance in Commercial Aviation Accidents Involving Foreign Carriers- Section 41313(c)(7) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘, and that at least 60 days before the planned destruction of any unclaimed possession of a passenger a reasonable attempt will be made to notify the family of the passenger’.

SEC. 15. COAST GUARD NOTIFICATION.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue regulations to provide the Board prompt notification through the Coast Guard of all marine accidents of potential investigative interest to the Board.

U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Satellite Demand “Not Sufficient” For Stable Workforce

March 5, 2010 at 9:18 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

Source: SpacePolicyOnline.com

Written by Laura M. Delgado

As part of a panel discussion devoted to the health of the global aerospace industrial base, Fred Doyle, Vice President of Ball Aerospace, told the International Commercial Remote Sensing Symposium (ICRSS) Thursday that companies have to “balance labor demands” in order to avoid workforce gaps and that current demand for commercial remote sensing satellites is “not sufficient to maintain [a] stable workforce.”

Doyle showed a graph illustrating the labor demand during the multi-year process of design, integration, and testing required to build one of their commercial remote sensing satellites, such as Worldview 1 or Worldview 2.  Noticeable in the chart was a marked reduction in demand during project transition, one that Doyle said could be as long as four years for designers.  Ball Aerospace has managed to retain workers by assigning them to other programs, but Doyle said the company recognizes that workforce sustainability is an issue.

Explaining that a “stable industrial base requires a mix of commercial and government orders,” he nevertheless cautioned that long-troubled government programs like the Space Based Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) and the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) become major obstacles because they “suck up” the government’s discretionary funds that might otherwise go to new programs.  When money is diverted towards these big, long-term projects, there is little likelihood that the government will fund new, smaller, startup programs, he said.

Doyle expressed hope in a brighter future.  Emerging market changes include the Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget proposal that envisions more earth observation satellites, promised revision of International Trade in Arms Regulation (ITAR) restrictions, and a recognition of commercial imagery as an element of the U.S. government’s national imagery architecture.  “Government decisions will continue to drive the commercial viability of the industry,” he concluded, since commercial demand “does not support a stand-alone industrial base.”

Speaking more broadly about the worldwide earth observation satellite market, Dr. Reinold Lutz, Managing Director of Astrium, a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), said that there is stable, growing activity in Europe. Astrium estimates worldwide demand for commercial and dual-use Earth observation satellites will double in the next decade, from 50 to more than 100.  He added that Astrium’s workforce actually grew 9% in 2008 and 4% in 2009. However, much of this activity is focused on government programs such as the €12 billion German High Tech Initiative.  Additionally, approximately 75% of Astrium’s business is for the European Space Agency.

Disasters Charter: Potential collapse of a tailing pit dam, Ukraine

March 4, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The Disasters Charter Has been activated for a Potential collapse of a tailing pit dam, Ukraine:

Potential collapse of a tailing pit dam, Ukraine

Type of Event: Other
Location of Event: Ivano-Frankisvk region, Ukraine
Date of Charter Activation: 25/02/2010
Charter Requestor: UNITAR/UNOSAT on behalf of UNEP/OCHA
Project Management: UNITAR/UNOSAT

Description of the Event
The territory of the town of Kalush and villages of Kropyvnyk and Sivka-Kalusha in Kalush district of Ivano-Frankisvk region were declared an “ecological catastrophe zone” for a period of 90 days by Presidential decree.

New Mexico: Space Flight Informed Consent Act

March 4, 2010 at 2:37 pm | Posted in Space Law | 1 Comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

On February 27, 2010 New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed into law New Mexico’s SB 9: Space Flight Informed Consent Act:

AN ACT
RELATING TO TORT CLAIMS; PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM TORT
LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES ENGAGING IN SPACE FLIGHT
ACTIVITIES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. SHORT TITLE.–This act may be cited as the “Space Flight Informed Consent Act”.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS.–As used in the Space Flight Informed Consent Act:
A. “participant” means a space flight participant as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 70102;
B. “space flight activities” means launch services or reentry services as those terms are defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 70102; and
C. “space flight entity” means a public or private entity holding a United States federal aviation administration launch, reentry, operator or launch site license for space flight activities.
Section 3. CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR SPACE FLIGHT ENTITIES.–
A. Except as provided in Subsection B of this section, a space flight entity is not liable for injury to or death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of space flight activities so long as the warning contained in Section 4 of the Space Flight Informed Consent Act is distributed and signed as required. Except as provided in Subsection B of this section, a participant or participant’s representative may not maintain an action against or recover from a space flight entity for the loss, damage or death of the participant resulting exclusively from any of the inherent risks of space flight activities.
B. Subsection A of this section does not prevent or limit the liability of a space flight entity if the space flight entity:
(1) commits an act or omission that constitutes gross negligence or willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant and that act or omission proximately causes injury, damage or death to the participant;
(2) has actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of a dangerous condition on the land or in the facilities or equipment used in the space flight activities and the danger proximately causes injury, damage or death to the participant; or
(3) intentionally injures the participant.
C. The limitation on legal liability provided to a space flight entity by the Space Flight Informed Consent Act is in addition to any other limitation of legal liability otherwise provided by law.
Section 4. WARNING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUIRED.–
A. A space flight entity providing space flight activities to a participant, whether the activities occur on or off the site of a facility capable of launching a suborbital flight, shall have each participant sign a warning statement. The warning statement shall contain, at a minimum, the following statement:
“WARNING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I understand and acknowledge that under New Mexico law, there is no liability for injury to or death sustained by a participant in a space flight activity provided by a space flight entity if the injury or death results from the inherent risks of the space flight activity. Injuries caused by the inherent risks of space flight activities may include, among others, death, bodily injury, emotional injury or property damage. I assume all risk of participating in this space flight activity.”.
B. Failure to provide the warning statement requirements in this section to a participant shall prevent a space flight entity from invoking the immunity provided by this section with regard to that participant.
Section 5. DELAYED REPEAL.–The Space Flight Informed Consent Act is repealed effective July 1, 2018.

S. 3048: A bill to improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by air carriers of information collected through cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, to prohibit tampering with such devices, and for other purposes

March 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

S. 3048: A bill to improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by air carriers of information collected through cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, to prohibit tampering with such devices, and for other purposes was introduced on February 26, 2010 by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):

S 3048 IS

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3048

To improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by air carriers of information collected through cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, to prohibit tampering with such devices, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 26, 2010

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To improve air safety by authorizing the limited use by air carriers of information collected through cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, to prohibit tampering with such devices, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Pilot Professionalism Assurance Act’.

SEC. 2. USE OF FLIGHT INFORMATION.

(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any provision in a private contract, air carriers may use information obtained from a cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder–

(1) to discipline or discharge a pilot or flight engineer for actions that endanger the safety or well being of passengers;

(2) to defend itself in any discipline or discharge grievance proceeding;

(3) to evaluate or monitor the judgment or performance of an individual pilot or crew member;

(4) to justify or require a pilot’s submission to a proficiency check or line check; or

(5) for any other purpose relating to improving the safety or well being of passengers.

(b) Confidentiality- Each air carrier that has obtained information pursuant to subsection (a) shall keep such information confidential and may only disclose such information to the extent required in an administrative or judicial proceeding.

SEC. 3. TAMPERING WITH COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER OR FLIGHT DATA RECORDER PROHIBITED.

(a) In General- No person may tamper with, disable, or destroy any cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder installed on a commercial aircraft.

(b) Penalties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates the prohibition described in subsection (a) may be fined up to $2,000 and imprisoned for not more than 5 years.

(2) COMMERCIAL PILOT- If a commercial pilot violates the prohibition described in subsection (a)–

(A) the air carrier employing such pilot shall immediately terminate such employment; and

(B) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall immediately revoke the airman certificate issued to the pilot under section 44703 of title 49, United States Code.

U.S. – China Student Space Law Symposium: China and Non-weaponization of Outer Space

March 3, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Posted in Blogcast, Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The final presentation of the day was gieven by Mr. Bochao Yang, Harbin Institute of Technology School of Law, and titled China and Non-weaponization of Outer Space.

He began by noting that the space treaties do not ban weaponization of outer space completely. He then disambiguated militarization from weaponization by stating that militarization deals with the military purpose of space assets whereas weaponization deals with the development and use of weapons systems. He did note that the international community did not share a clear definition of space weaponization. He stated that weaponization is a new potential threat to the space environment.

He stated that the obstacle to to the prevention of weaponization was a legal loophole. He said that the Outer Space Treaty was only a framework, and that it does not completely ban weapons in space. Also he noted that new space law development has been stagnant in COPUOS and in the Conference on Disarmament as well.

He stated that since 1985 China has been instrumental in opposing the weaponization of outer space through its work in the UN General Assembly as well as in the Conference on Disarmament. He said that China’s viewpoint is that space should be for the benefit of all mankind, and it opposes weaponization, while supporting the development of legal instrument via CD. He noted the submission of the draft PPWT treaty submitted by Russia and China in the 2008 session of the CD. He also said that China’s Space Activity White Papers consistently support the peaceful uses of outer space. He asserted that China supports international cooperation and sustainable development of space exploration.

He next addres the FY-1C shoot down. He said that China informed all affected States of the action, and that this did not necessarily undermine China’s position.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.