a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2005 AVIATION SAFETY

FAA Management 

Practices for Technical 

Training Mostly 

Effective; Further 

Actions Could 

Enhance Results

GAO-05-728
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-728.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or 

DillinghamG@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-728, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2005

AVIATION SAFETY

FAA Management Practices for Technical 

Training Mostly Effective; Further Actions 

Could Enhance Results 

For its technical training, FAA follows many of the effective management 

practices for training that GAO has advocated and is improving its efforts in 

others. (See below.) In planning, FAA has linked technical training efforts 

to its goal of safer air travel and has identified technical proficiencies needed 

to improve safety inspectors’ performance in meeting this goal. It plans to 

better relate training to job tasks and is in the early stages of developing an 

approach to set priorities for new courses and course revisions. 

FAA Mostly Follows Effective Management Practices for Its Technical Training 

Element Extent followed 

Practices in planning training efforts Mostly 

Practices in developing training curriculum and courses Mostly 

Practices in delivering training Partially 

Practices in evaluating training efforts Mostly 

Source: GAO. 

In developing technical courses, FAA has a structured process aimed at 

ensuring that courses meet performance objectives. It allows inspectors and 

others to identify the need for new training courses and to aid in developing 

courses. FAA is developing an initiative to systematically identify specific 

technical competencies and training requirements for inspectors. 

In delivering courses, FAA offers a wide array of technical courses from 

which inspectors can select to meet job needs. From GAO’s survey of FAA’s 

inspectors, we estimate that only about half think that they have the 

technical knowledge needed for their jobs. FAA officials told us that 

inspectors’ negative views stem from their wanting to acquire proficiencies 

that are not as crucial in a system safety environment. GAO also estimates 

that 28 percent of inspectors believe that they get the technical training that 

they request. However, FAA’s records show that FAA approves about 90 

percent of these requests, and inspectors are making good progress in 

receiving training. Over half of the inspectors have completed at least 75 

percent of technical training that FAA considers essential. 

In evaluating courses, FAA continuously assesses technical training through 

end-of-course evaluations and surveys of inspectors and supervisors. FAA is 

developing an approach to measure the impact of training on FAA’s mission 

goals, such as reducing accidents. This is a difficult task. 

Technical and Other Training Enables FAA to Inspect a Wide Variety of Aircraft 

One key way that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

makes air travel safer is to inspect 

the manufacture, operation, and 

maintenance of aircraft that fly in 

the United States. To better direct 

its resources, FAA is shifting from 

an inspection process that relied on 

spot-checks of compliance with 

regulations to one that evaluates 

operating procedures and analyzes 

inspection data to identify areas 

that pose the most risk to safety 

(called system safety). While FAA 

believes the new approach requires 

some technical knowledge of 

aircraft, Congress and GAO have 

long-standing concerns over 

whether FAA inspectors have 

enough technical knowledge to 

effectively identify risks. 

GAO reviewed the extent that FAA 

follows effective management 

practices in ensuring that 

inspectors receive up-to-date 

technical training. In addition, 

GAO is reporting on technical 

training that the aviation industry 

provides to FAA. 

What GAO Recommends

Within the context of an overall 

system safety approach, GAO 

recommends that FAA take several 

actions, including systematically 

assessing inspectors’ technical 

training needs. FAA officials 

generally agreed with the contents 

of this report and agreed to 

consider GAO’s recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 8

Strategic Planning Activities Generally Reflect Effective Practices 

and Focus on Reducing a Large Gap in System Safety 

Knowledge 14

FAA Follows Effective Management Practices in Developing 

Individual Courses but Recognizes the Need to Develop a Unified 

Curriculum 18

FAA Provides Extensive Support for Delivering Training; However, 

Many Inspectors Believe Improvements Could Help Them Do 

Their Jobs More Effectively 26

Although FAA Uses Several Approaches to Evaluate Technical 

Training Provided, Assessing Impact on Performance Remains to 

Be Done 43

Industry Provides Much of FAA’s Technical Training; Additional 

Safeguards Needed to Prevent Real or Appearances of Conflicts 

of Interest 49

Conclusions 57

Recommendations for Executive Action 59

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 60

Appendixes

Appendix I: Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Training 62

Appendix II: Additional Details on Training Data and Selected Inspector 

Survey Responses 65

Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 77

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82

Related GAO Products 83

FAA Safety Inspector Training 83

Human Capital 84

Related FAA Training 85

Tables Table 1: Types of Inspectors, Responsibilities, and Numbers, as of 

April 2005 9

Table 2: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management 

Practices in Planning for Training 15
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 3: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management 

Practices in Developing Courses 19

Table 4: Extent That FAA Follows Effective Management Practices 

in Delivering Technical Training 26

Table 5: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Technical 

Courses 39

Table 6: Average Number of Technical and Nontechnical Training 

Courses Taken, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 40

Table 7: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management 

Practices in Evaluating Its Training Program 44

Table 8: Number of Memoranda of Understanding and Fleets 

Enrolled as Part of the Aircrew Designated Examiner 

Program and Agreements with Training Centers 52

Table 9: Numbers of Inspectors Trained under Aircrew Designated 

Examiner Program and Agreements with Training Centers, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 53

Table 10: Percent of Essential Courses That Are Technical in

Nature 66

Table 11: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Courses 66

Table 12: Average Number of Technical Training Courses Taken 

Outside of Requirements, Fiscal Years 2002 through 

2004 67

Table 13: Inspectors’ Views on Extent to Which They Currently Have 

Enough Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs 67

Table 14: Inspectors’ Views on Extent to Which Requested Technical 

Training Is Approved 68

Table 15: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Availability of Courses 

Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested 

Technical Training 69

Table 16: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Availability of Funds Helped 

or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical 

Training 70

Table 17: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Management’s 

Determination of Need Helped or Hindered Their Ability to 

Take Requested Technical Training 71

Table 18: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Inspection Workload Helped 

or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical 

Training 72

Table 19: Inspectors’ Views on the Degree to Which Technical 

Training Is Delivered in a Timely Manner 73
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 20: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent That They Receive 

Technical Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight 

Activities 74

Table 21: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as 

Reported by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 75

Table 22: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical 

Training Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work 

Location 76

Table 23: Experts Consulted for Our Work 78

Figures Figure 1: FAA’s Safety Inspections Cover a Wide Range of

Activities 11

Figure 2: FAA Safety Inspector Training Roles and 

Responsibilities 13

Figure 3: FAA’s Structured Approach for Course Development 22

Figure 4: FAA Inspectors Receiving Training in a Classroom 

Setting 24

Figure 5: Inspectors Responding that to a Great or Very Great 

Extent They Currently Have Enough Technical 

Knowledge to Do Their Jobs 31

Figure 6: Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is 

Approved 36

Figure 7: Inspectors’ Views on Factors Hindering Their Ability to 

Take Requested Technical Training 38

Figure 8: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical 

Training Is Delivered in a Timely Manner 41

Figure 9: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which They Received 

Technical Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight 

Activities 42

Figure 10: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as 

Reported by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 50

Figure 11: Number of Weeks Inspectors Reported Spending on 

Travel for Technical Training within the Past 12

Months 63

Figure 12: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical 

Training Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work 

Location 64
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Abbreviations

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

ATOS Air Transportation Oversight System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 7, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Co-Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

U.S. Senate

The Honorable Don Young, Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

FAA’s overarching goal for technical training is to improve aviation safety. 

One key way that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes air 

travel safe for the public and the movement of goods is to inspect the 

manufacture, operation, and maintenance of aircraft that fly in the United 

States. To do so, about 3,700 FAA inspectors perform hundreds of 

thousands of inspections annually.1

 Carrying out these inspections has 

become more challenging with the rapid growth in the number and type of 

aircraft in use and their increasing technical sophistication. 

Concerns about the quality of inspections heightened after the 

investigation of the 1996 crash of ValuJet flight 592 revealed deficiencies in 

FAA’s inspection system. In response, FAA began to make fundamental 

changes in its approach to inspections. Traditionally, FAA aviation safety 

inspectors relied on their expertise to conduct inspections that spotchecked manufacturing processes, aircraft operations, and aircraft 

maintenance for compliance with regulations. FAA is transitioning to a 

risk-based system safety approach to inspections that requires inspectors 

to apply data analysis and auditing skills to identify, analyze, assess, and

1

In addition, FAA delegates about 90 percent of its safety inspection activities to about 

13,600 private persons and organizations, known as designees. The designees augment 

FAA’s inspection workforce by allowing inspectors to concentrate on what FAA considers to 

be the most critical safety areas. For example, while designees conduct routine functions, 

such as approvals of aircraft technologies that the agency and designees have had 

previously experience with, FAA inspectors focus on new and complex aircraft designs or 

design changes. For an assessment of the designee programs, see GAO, Aviation Safety: 

FAA Needs to Strengthen the Management of Its Designee Programs, GAO-05-40

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2004).
Page 2 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

control the potential hazards and risks of flying and to prevent accidents.2

While we have endorsed FAA’s move toward a system safety approach to 

inspections, congressional oversight committees and we have had longstanding concerns over whether FAA inspectors have sufficient knowledge 

of increasingly complex aircraft, aircraft parts, and systems to effectively 

identify safety risks. 

The Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, enacted in 

December 2003, requires that we report on FAA’s actions to ensure that 

inspectors receive up-to-date training on the latest technologies. We call 

this technical training, although this use of the term “technical” differs 

somewhat from FAA’s use of the term.3

 Consistent with the act, this report 

focuses on the extent to which FAA follows effective management 

practices for (1) planning, (2) developing, and (3) delivering up-to-date 

technical training, and (4) ensuring that technical training for inspectors 

contributes to improved performance and results. It also discusses the 

degree to which the aviation industry provides technical training to FAA 

safety inspectors and discusses the safeguards in place to help preclude the 

appearance of or an actual conflict of interest when inspectors receive 

certain kinds of training from a regulated entity. Finally, as required by the 

act, the report provides information on the amount of travel required of 

inspectors in receiving technical training. (See app. I.) 

2

System safety is a multidisciplinary, integrated, and comprehensive regulatory approach 

using engineering and management principles, criteria, and techniques to identify and 

mitigate high-risk areas. When FAA uses it in the oversight of airlines, the system safety 

approach covers every aspect of an airline’s operations, from the design of the hardware to 

the culture and attitudes of the airline’s personnel. The approach calls for a systematic 

review of an airline’s policies and procedures to ensure that they incorporate such basic 

safety principles as clear lines of responsibility and written documentation. According to 

FAA, the approach allows it to concentrate and target inspector resources where there is the 

greatest safety risk. The success of a system safety approach to regulation depends on 

comprehensive safety data, sophisticated analysis tools, and a workforce well trained in risk 

assessment, auditing, systems thinking, and communications.

3

In addition to training involving aviation technologies (such as use of new materials in 

aircraft and aircraft electronic systems), FAA includes in its definition of technical training, 

topics such as inspector job skills, risk analysis, data analysis and training in software 

packages, such as spreadsheets. Our use of the term “technical” is limited to aviation 

technologies.
Page 3 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

This report focuses on how FAA ensures that its inspectors possess the 

technical proficiency they need to do their jobs through following effective 

management practices and whether inspectors are receiving the technical 

training that FAA has determined is essential for its inspectors.4 We did not 

attempt to assess the technical proficiency that FAA’s workforce requires 

(and will require in the near future) and compare it with the proficiency 

that currently exists. Because of the diversity and size of the inspector 

workforce and the wide variety of aircraft technologies that FAA is 

responsible for overseeing, this type of assessment would have been a 

massive undertaking and would be more properly done by FAA. We also did 

not attempt to compare the technical training received by inspectors with 

the tasks and activities that inspectors perform. FAA’s inspector activity 

database contains tens of thousands of task and activity records, and the 

manner in which these records are stored did not allow us to electronically 

sort and analyze the data. However, to provide some insight into these two 

issues, we did discuss these issues with FAA officials and surveyed FAA’s 

inspectors on their views, as described below.

To assess whether FAA follows effective management practices regarding 

technical training, we compared FAA’s management of its inspector 

technical training efforts with effective management practices outlined in 

our 2004 guide for assessing strategic training activities in the federal 

government and determined the extent to which FAA followed the relevant 

elements of this guidance.5 In addition, we analyzed FAA documents 

pertaining to planning, developing, delivering, and evaluating inspector 

training and discussed these activities with FAA officials involved in 

inspector training and the management of inspection programs at FAA 

headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the FAA Training Academy in 

Oklahoma City. To examine the training provided, including technical 

training, we analyzed FAA data on training courses taken by inspectors 

from 2002 through 2004 and FAA’s evaluation of technical training courses 

during that period. We discussed technical training with safety inspectors 

4

We considered all training that FAA classifies as either mandatory, position essential, or 

continuing development as essential training. Mandatory is training that is required for all

newly hired inspectors and previous experience may not be substituted for this training. 

Position essential is training or a skill that is required based on an inspector’s current 

position (e.g., training required for maintenance inspectors). To determine which courses 

were technical, we reviewed the description for each course taken from 2002 through 2004 

and determined whether it was primarily technical in nature, within our use of the term. 

5

GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts 

in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).
Page 4 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

and their supervisors at 7 of FAA’s approximately 130 field locations. The 

locations were chosen to represent the range of FAA inspection 

responsibilities. We also conducted a self-administered electronic survey 

posted on the World Wide Web to a stratified random sample of FAA safety 

inspectors to obtain their views about their technical proficiency and the 

technical training they receive. We received useable responses from 79 

percent of the inspectors surveyed. This report does not contain all the 

results from the survey. The survey and a complete tabulation of the overall 

results (excluding results by type of inspector, which are too voluminous to 

present) can be viewed at GAO-05-704SP. Finally, we obtained further 

perspective on FAA’s training curriculum through semistructured 

interviews with 16 experts from the aviation industry and the field of 

aviation education who were selected on the basis of having extensive 

background and knowledge of the technical areas covered by FAA 

inspections. As part of our review, we assessed internal controls and the 

reliability of FAA’s data on the amounts and types of training received that 

are pertinent to this effort. We determined that the data elements were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from March 

2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. (See app. III for additional information on our scope 

and methodology.)

Results in Brief FAA has made training an integral part of its safety inspection system, 

which in recent years has emphasized risk analysis techniques over 

individual inspector technical knowledge of aircraft, aircraft parts, and 

systems. FAA has generally followed several effective management 

practices for planning, developing, delivering, and assessing the impact of 

its technical training for its aviation safety inspectors, although some 

practices have yet to be fully implemented. Regarding planning for 

technical training, for example, FAA’s training efforts for the most part 

follow effective management practices and are intended to support its 

goals for improving aviation safety, and they largely focus on effectively 

implementing a system safety approach to inspections. According to FAA, 

it has identified gaps in several of the competencies required to conduct 

system safety inspection, including risk assessment, data analysis, auditing, 

and systems thinking, and the agency is currently working to address these 

gaps. In FAA’s view—although it recognizes the importance of inspectors 

staying up to date with changes in aviation technology—the competencies 

needed for system safety inspections are the most critical for inspectors, 

and the gaps in these competencies are much larger than gaps in technical 

skills and competencies relating to the production, operation, and 
Page 5 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

maintenance of aircraft. In addition, FAA Office of Aviation Safety officials 

said that inspectors do not need a substantial amount of technical training 

because inspectors are hired with a high degree of technical knowledge of 

aircraft and aircraft systems, and they can sufficiently keep abreast of 

many of the changes in aviation technology through FAA and industry 

training courses and on-the-job training. Nevertheless, FAA plans to 

identify specific technical competencies and training requirements as part 

of a process intended to better relate training to the job tasks of each 

inspector specialty.6

FAA also for the most part follows effective management practices for 

developing its inspector technical training curriculum. For example, FAA 

integrates the development of courses with overall strategies to improve 

performance and to meet emerging demands. In this regard, FAA develops 

courses that support changes in inspection procedures resulting from 

regulatory changes or agency initiatives, such as the implementation of the 

system safety approach to inspections. FAA will also consider developing 

training courses that are requested by inspectors and managers. FAA also 

works to match the training delivery approach with the nature of the 

material presented to best meet inspector and agency needs—such as 

delivery at a central location in FAA’s Training Academy in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma; in multiple locations closer to field offices; or through 

computer-based instruction. While following many effective practices in 

this area, FAA has not systematically identified the technical skills and 

competencies each type of inspector needs to effectively perform 

inspections. As a result, technical courses are developed on an ad hoc basis 

rather than as part of an overall curriculum for each inspector specialty. 

FAA has recognized this problem and is developing an initiative that will 

systematically assess whether the complete array of training for each 

inspector specialty meets performance requirements.

In delivering technical courses, FAA has followed effective management 

practices to differing degrees. For example, FAA has established clear 

accountability for ensuring that inspectors have access to technical 

training, developed a way for inspectors to choose courses that meet job 

needs and further professional development, and offers a wide array of 

6

FAA inspectors specialize in conducting inspections of various aspects of the aviation 

system, such as aircraft and parts manufacturing, aircraft operations, aircraft airworthiness, 

and cabin safety. See the background section of this report for more information on 

inspector specialization.
Page 6 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

technical and other courses. However, inspectors are for the most part 

dissatisfied with the technical training they receive. From an analysis of the 

survey, we estimate that only about half of FAA’s inspectors think that they 

have the technical knowledge needed to do their jobs,7

 only about one-third 

are satisfied with the technical training they have recently received, and 

less than half believe that they get to take the technical training that they 

request. However, our analysis of FAA training data indicates that FAA has 

approved about 90 percent of the technical courses requested by 

inspectors, and inspectors in general are making good progress in 

completing the technical training essential for their positions (77 percent of 

the inspectors have completed at least half of their essential courses, and 

46 percent have completed at least 80 percent of their essential courses). In 

addition, according to the survey, we estimate that only 23 percent of FAA’s 

inspectors think that they receive technical training in time to do their 

current job. FAA’s records do not allow us to assess the timeliness of 

training. FAA officials told us that inspectors’ negative views on their 

technical knowledge and the training they received stem from their not 

accepting FAA’s move to a system safety approach. That is, the inspectors 

are concerned about acquiring individual technical proficiency that is not 

as crucial in a system safety/risk management environment. Given that it 

has not completed assessing whether training for each inspector specialty 

meets performance requirements, FAA is not in a position to make 

definitive conclusions concerning the adequacy of inspector technical 

training.

FAA for the most part follows several effective management practices in 

evaluating individual technical training courses. For example, it 

continuously assesses technical training through participant end-of-course 

evaluations and surveys of inspectors and supervisors that focus on the 

application of skills and knowledge to the job. FAA also requires that each 

7

Because of the statistical survey techniques we employed in surveying FAA’s inspectors, we 

are 95 percent confident that the results we present are within 4.6 percentage points of the 

results that we would have obtained if we had surveyed all 3,000 front-line inspectors. That 

is, we are 95 percent confident that had we surveyed all inspectors, between 48 and 57 

percent of them would have told us that, to a great or very great extent, they have the 

technical knowledge to do their jobs. All percentage estimates from the survey have a 

margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.

Throughout the survey we used a 5-point scale (very great, great, moderate, some, and no 

extent). For the most part, we report on the degree to which inspectors expressed their 

views to a very great or great extent because we believe that “a moderate extent” does not 

represent a strong positive or negative view and does not represent a level of performance 

to which a high-performing organization should aspire. 
Page 7 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

training course receive a systematic evaluation every 3 years to determine 

if the course is up to date and relevant to inspectors’ jobs, although training 

officials noted that many courses have yet to undergo such an evaluation. 

However, FAA has taken limited action to evaluate the overall impact of its 

technical training on inspector performance in achieving mission goals, 

such as reducing accidents. Although FAA surveys its employees on their 

attitudes regarding many aspects of their employment, including the extent 

to which they were able to apply agency training to their jobs and perform 

their jobs effectively, it is not able to isolate inspectors’ responses from 

those of its other employees. Moreover, the survey does not ask employees 

to differentiate between the types of training they receive, such as 

technical and nontechnical training. Experts on training in government 

agencies emphasize the importance of using an approach to evaluating 

training that goes beyond individual course evaluations and includes such 

indicators as the amount of learning that occurs from training programs 

and their organizational impact. However, training experts acknowledge 

that isolating performance improvements resulting from training programs 

is difficult for any organization. 

FAA has increasingly relied on the aviation industry to provide technical 

training in fiscal years 2002 through 2004. In fiscal year 2004 (latest data 

available), industry delivered nearly half of FAA’s technical training. 

Although FAA pays for most of the technical training that industry 

provides, from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 about, 17 percent of industryprovided technical training was supplied to FAA in exchange for an in-kind 

service, such as delegating authority to conduct inspections, (called quid 

pro quo arrangements) with some apparently limited additional training 

supplied at no cost to the agency. To a large degree, FAA has established 

safeguards to help preclude actual or appearances of a conflict of interest, 

such as executing agreements with aviation industry training providers it 

regulates outlining the conditions under which it will accept training for inkind service or at no cost. However, FAA has not included provisions 

covering its enforcement and oversight authority in all agreements with 

aviation industry training providers. In addition, two regional officials said 

that their regions accept free training on a limited basis outside the formal 

agreements with the training providers; one of these officials identified 57 

instances over the past 5 years in which inspectors received free training 

from aircraft manufacturers or operators. Because these opportunities 

generally arise at the local office level, whether such an offer is reviewed 

by legal counsel is dependent on the office manager, the manager’s 

understanding of the FAA policy, and a judgment about whether a specific 
Page 8 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

training opportunity raises any concern that should be reviewed by legal 

counsel. 

Although FAA has followed effective management practices in many areas 

in providing technical training to its safety inspectors, we are making 

several recommendations aimed at, among other things, improving FAA’s 

identification of gaps in inspectors’ technical knowledge that relate to their 

jobs, better aligning the timeliness of training to when inspectors need the 

training to do their jobs, gaining inspectors’ acceptance for changes made 

or planned to their training, and ensuring that the acceptance of training 

from aviation industry providers does not limit FAA’s enforcement 

authority or pose a real or potential conflict of interest. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Transportation 

generally agreed with the information that we presented and agreed to 

consider our recommendations. However, the department expressed the 

view that we should have considered, as positive responses, the views of 

inspectors who responded to survey questions as “moderate extent,” along 

with those who responded to a “great extent” or “very great extent.” The 

extent scale that we used in our survey represents a unidirectional scale. 

As such, it is possible to interpret any point along that scale, other than “no 

extent,” as positive, depending upon how a question is worded. Generally, 

we presented information in the report with both “very great extent” and 

“great extent” combined to represent the clearly most positive responses. 

Background Ensuring the safety of the nation’s aviation system is the shared 

responsibility of FAA and the aviation industry. Aircraft manufacturers are 

responsible for building safe aircraft. Aircraft operators are responsible for 

the safe maintenance and operation of aircraft. FAA is responsible for, 

among other things, certifying that the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft 

parts meets FAA standards, encouraging the development of new aviation 

technologies, and conducting periodic inspections to ensure continued 

compliance with safety regulations. Within FAA, the Office of Aviation 

Safety (1) directs and manages aviation safety through inspection (called 

surveillance by FAA) and oversight programs; (2) creates and amends 

standards and policies; and (3) certifies that aircraft, manufacturers, 

maintenance services, and individuals who operate aircraft meet FAA 

safety standards before they carry out their activities (called certification).

FAA’s 3,700 inspectors are located in more than 130 offices throughout the 

world. About 3,000 of these are front-line inspectors. These inspectors 
Page 9 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

specialize in conducting inspections of various aspects of the aviation 

system, such as aircraft and parts manufacturing, aircraft operation, 

aircraft airworthiness, and cabin safety. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Types of Inspectors, Responsibilities, and Numbers, as of April 2005 

Source: GAO summary of FAA information.

Inspector type Areas of responsibility Number

Air carrier operations Responsible for evaluating airmen (pilots, aviators, or aviation technicians) for initial 

and continuing qualifications, airmen training programs, equipment, and facilities, 

and aircraft operations for adequacy of facilities, equipment, and procedures to 

ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Air carrier inspectors are responsible for 

evaluating pilots, dispatchers, air carriers, and similar operators. 

908

Air carrier maintenance Focuses on evaluating mechanics and repair stations for initial and continuing 

certification and mechanic training programs. Examines the overall aircraft 

maintenance program, including the development of maintenance manuals and the 

procedures for repairing aircraft and their components. Inspects aircraft and related 

equipment for airworthiness. Air carrier inspectors evaluate maintenance programs 

of air carriers and similar operators.

831

General aviation operations Duties are similar to air carrier operations inspectors, with the exception that 

general aviation operations inspectors are responsible for evaluating pilots, flight 

instructors, air taxis, and similar operators. 

636

General aviation maintenance Duties are similar to air carrier maintenance inspectors, with the exception that 

general aviation maintenance inspectors evaluate maintenance programs of air 

taxis and similar operators. 

571

Air carrier avionics Responsible for inspecting aircraft electronics and related systems for 

airworthiness, evaluates avionics technicians, repair stations, and technician 

training programs. Air carrier inspectors conduct surveillance and oversight of air 

carriers and similar operators.

341

Aircraft certification Administers and enforces safety regulations and standards for the production 

and/or modification of aircraft. Evaluates and oversees the plants that build or 

assemble aircraft. Inspects prototype or modified aircraft, aircraft parts, and 

avionics for conformity with design specifications and safety standards. Issues 

certificates for all civil aircraft.

187

General aviation avionics Duties are similar to air carrier avionics inspectors, with the exception that general 

aviation avionics inspectors conduct surveillance and oversight of air taxis, travel 

clubs, and similar operators.

180

Cabin safety Serves as a resource and technical authority on cabin safety requirements, such as 

verifying that emergency equipment is onboard the aircraft, as they relate to 

activities affecting civil aviation.

60

Total 3,714
Page 10 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Some inspectors, such as operations and airworthiness inspectors, further 

specialize according to the type of aircraft and aircraft operators they 

oversee. Other inspectors, such as general aviation inspectors, are 

responsible for inspecting a wide range of aircraft, such as those used for 

agriculture, air taxi service, industry, and pleasure. (See fig. 1.) In addition, 

they inspect flight instructors. Some air carrier inspectors are assigned to 

one of the 16 carriers that are currently subject to the Air Transportation 

Oversight System (ATOS) program, which is intended to identify safety 

problems through risk analysis;8

 while other air carrier inspectors are 

responsible for overseeing the operations of several smaller carriers in a 

geographic area. 

8

The goal of ATOS is to identify safety trends in order to spot and correct problems at their 

root cause before an accident occurs. This program allows FAA inspectors to now look at an 

airline as a whole, to see how the many elements of its operations—from aircraft to pilots to 

maintenance facilities to flight dispatch to cabin safety—interact to meet federal standards. 

The program will ultimately encompass all of the approximately 120 American airlines that 

operate in the United States, at any given time.
Page 11 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 1: FAA’s Safety Inspections Cover a Wide Range of Activities 

Note: As a workforce, FAA inspectors conduct a wide variety of inspections, including ensuring that 

pilots are qualified to operate air carrier and general aviation aircraft and inspecting air carrier and 

general aviation aircraft for safety.

FAA requires that candidates for safety inspector positions have extensive 

technical qualifications and experience, which is usually gained during 

careers in the aviation industry. For example, prospective manufacturing 

inspectors need experience in and knowledge of industrial technologies. 

Similarly, operations inspectors need pilot licenses to fly specific makes 

and models of aircraft; maintenance inspectors need to have certifications 

to repair the aircraft’s airframe and power plant; cabin safety inspectors 

Source: FAA.
Page 12 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

need extensive experience in aircraft cabin safety procedures; and avionics 

inspectors need extensive experience in servicing an aircraft’s avionics 

system, which includes radar and other electrical systems.

To supplement the skills inspectors bring with them from their previous 

careers in the aviation industry, FAA provides inspectors with extensive 

training in federal aviation regulations; inspection and investigative 

techniques; and technical skills, such as flight training required for 

operations inspectors. The services within FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety 

that are responsible for conducting inspections of aircraft operators and 

aircraft repair stations9

 (Flight Standards) and manufacturers (Aircraft 

Certification) have each established training units that develop curricula 

and specific courses for inspectors. Most of the regulatory, inspection, and 

investigative courses are taught by FAA instructors at the FAA Training 

Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Much of the technical training 

(training that enhances skills concerning the production, maintenance, and 

operation of aircraft, aircraft parts, airworthiness, and systems) is 

contracted out to vendors, such as flight schools. (App. I provides 

information on the amount of inspector training provided by FAA and 

vendors.) FAA is also making increased use of nonclassroom training 

delivery methods, such as computer-based instruction, Web-based training, 

interactive video training, and correspondence courses. Inspectors also 

receive extensive on-the-job training, particularly when they are first hired. 

FAA has spent an average of $43 million per year on inspector training 

activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and plans to spend $41 

million in fiscal year 2005.

The Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification training divisions have 

training priorities, which are set by the Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety. Determining training needs is based on the inspectors’ job. 

Acquiring training is a shared responsibility between inspectors and their 

supervisors. (See fig. 2.) Each year inspectors and their supervisors meet to 

decide which training inspectors will request in the coming year. The 

inspectors are expected to choose training that will fulfill their mandatory 

training requirements in areas such as basic aircraft accident investigation, 

air carrier airworthiness, aviation safety inspector job functions, and data 

analysis and related skills needed to perform system safety inspections. 

Inspectors can also request training that they believe will further their 

9

A repair station is an FAA-certified maintenance facility that is authorized to perform 

maintenance or alterations on U.S.-registered aircraft.
Page 13 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

professional development. FAA’s directorate, regional, and headquarters 

offices then compile and fund the training requests. Headquarters training 

officials coordinate with the FAA academy and other training vendors to 

deliver the training. Inspectors provide feedback to headquarters and 

academy officials through surveys and course evaluations. 

Figure 2: FAA Safety Inspector Training Roles and Responsibilities

FAA’s transition to the ATOS system safety concept represents a major 

change in the way the agency operates as it shifts the oversight emphasis 

from the traditional methods of inspection to identifying and assessing 

risks to safety. Under the traditional or compliance approach, inspectors 

rely upon random inspection activities, such as observing aircraft parked at 

departure gates. When applying the system safety approach inspectors 

develop comprehensive surveillance plans for each air carrier. Developing 

the plans requires using existing safety data, risk indicators and the 

inspector’s knowledge of the operations to determine the priority and 

frequency of inspection activities. The resulting comprehensive 

surveillance plan includes a series of inspection tasks to determine 

whether an airline has systems in place to ensure safety and a second series 

of inspections to verify that the airline is actually using those systems. 

FAA has taken steps to introduce concepts used in ATOS into its traditional 

oversight process for the air carriers not in the ATOS program. In 

November 1999, FAA instructed its inspectors to begin adjusting planned 

inspections for new air carriers, on the basis of evaluation of areas of

Source: GAO presentation of FAA information.

Training requirements 

are identified by office 

managers.

Courses are identified 

by inspectors and 

supervisors and 

approved by office 

managers.

FAA compiles training 

requests at 

directorate, region, 

and headquarters 

levels and funds 

training at 

headquarters level.

Inspectors provide 

feedback to FAA 

headquarters and 

academy officials 

through surveys.

Training is assessed 

by FAA academy and 

headquarters policy 

and training divisions.

FAA academy and 

vendors deliver training.
Page 14 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

potential safety risks.10 In 2002, inspectors were instructed to perform 

safety risk evaluations of all other non-ATOS carriers using ATOS risk 

assessment principles as part of their inspections. However, the 

inspections of the non-ATOS carriers are still based on a determination of 

whether air carriers are complying with regulations rather than whether air 

carriers’ systems are operating effectively.11 According to FAA, in the 

transition to the system safety concept, safety inspectors are learning new 

skills, such as data analysis, risk assessment, computer operations, 

auditing, systems thinking, and interpersonal skills. Inspectors will 

continue to need technical expertise in avionics, cabin safety, operations, 

maintenance, and aircraft production and design, and may need training in 

composites, basic accident investigation, and nondestructive inspections 

courses. FAA has concluded that it will take a significant training effort to 

develop and maintain both the system safety approach as well as the 

technical competencies.

Strategic Planning 

Activities Generally 

Reflect Effective 

Practices and Focus on 

Reducing a Large Gap 

in System Safety 

Knowledge 

FAA’s strategic planning acknowledges the central importance of aviation 

safety inspectors and defines their role as mission critical. In its planning 

activities for training, FAA has, for the most part, followed effective 

management practices by developing strategic approaches to training that 

have established broad training priorities for inspectors, among other 

things. (See table 2.) 

10Air carriers are considered new entrants (or new air carriers) for their first 5 years of 

operation. 

11We will issue a report on FAA’s oversight of non-ATOS carriers later this year. 
Page 15 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 2: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in Planning for Training

Source: GAO.

Establishing training goals and performance measures that further 

overall agency goals. One of the goals of the inspector training program 

is to provide the training required to support inspectors in the FAA 

transition to a system safety approach for meeting its goal of increased 

safety. Both Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have developed 

training initiatives to support this training goal. Flight Standards also has 

eight training initiatives focused on improving aviation safety in general, 

each of which has related performance measurements or targets along with 

strategies, time lines, and resource estimates.12 In addition, to support the 

FAA safety goal, the Office of Aviation Safety, which contains both the 

Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification services, measures what the 

services have done to prepare their workforce to operate in a system safety 

environment. This measurement includes information on how the services 

have developed and delivered training, redesigned existing courses, and 

validated inspector competencies. 

Effective management practice Extent followed

Ensures training goals and related performance measures and targets are consistent with overall 

mission and goals

Fully 

Ensures human capital professionals work in partnership with agency leadership in addressing 

agency priorities, including training, in strategic and annual performance planning processes

Fully 

Determines skills and competencies its workforce needs to achieve current and emerging agency

goals and identifies gaps—including those training strategies can help address 

Mostly

Identifies appropriate level of investment for training and prioritizes funding so that the most 

important training needs are addressed first

Partially 

Ensures agency strategic and tactical changes are promptly incorporated into training efforts Fully

12In addition, Flight Standards has recently moved forward with a curriculum 

transformation strategy that will fundamentally change how its training program is 

managed. Acknowledging that its training activities tend to be fragmented, sometimes 

working at cross purposes, and sometimes leaving major gaps, Flight Standards’ 

transformation strategy calls for a transition from the current course management structure 

to one that is curriculum based. The new structure will integrate individual training courses 

into a logical curriculum for each type of inspector that incorporates the specialty needs of 

inspectors. Flight Standards believes this new approach will cover inspectors’ technical 

training needs, including their training on current technologies. Under this transformation 

strategy, training curriculum oversight teams will be formed for each inspector specialty to 

ensure that those inspectors receive the appropriate technical training.
Page 16 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Human capital professionals partnering with agency leadership. In 

June 2003 Flight Standards established a human capital council which 

brings senior managers together with training officials to oversee all human 

capital efforts to, among other things, establish priorities that will both 

maintain existing inspector technical competencies as well as new and 

emerging system safety competencies. In Aircraft Certification, the 

manager responsible for training programs is involved in the service’s 

annual planning process and also participates in weekly meetings of senior 

level managers. The training manager keeps the training development staff 

informed of new or changing priorities that could affect the training 

program.

Determining gaps in workforce skills and competencies. Both Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification conducted human capital analysis for 

their aviation safety inspectors that revealed significant gaps in their 

needed competencies and skills as FAA continues its implementation of a 

more risk assessment-based system approach to safety oversight. In Flight 

Standards the analysis involved a team of FAA senior managers and FAA 

subject-matter experts.13 The team reviewed the existing competency 

requirements for inspectors and then determined which competencies 

should be modified or added over the next 5 years. The list of competencies 

compiled was then reviewed by another group of subject-matter experts, 

primarily program managers, who estimated the relative importance of the 

competencies (existing and new) in the next 5 years as well as the gaps 

between the current workforce’s actual and needed level for each 

competency. The largest critical competency gaps for the inspectors in 

Flight Standards included (1) risk assessment, (2) data analysis, (3) 

systems thinking, and (4) designee and industry oversight.14 Technical 

proficiency training was the only competency that Flight Standards did not 

identify as having a critical competency gap, and the list of competencies 

for Flight Standards field inspectors issued in February 2005 does not 

include technical proficiency. FAA Office of Aviation Safety officials said 

that inspectors do not need a substantial amount of technical training 

courses because inspectors are hired with a high degree of technical 

knowledge of aircraft and aircraft systems, and they can sufficiently keep 

abreast of many of the changes in aviation technology through FAA and 

13We did not attempt to assess how Flight Standards conducted its analysis because it could 

not locate documentation associated with it. 

14Flight Standards officials said that the office is validating the inspector competencies.
Page 17 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

industry training courses and on-the-job training. Flight Standards officials 

said that the list of competencies contains items that cut across all 

inspection specialties and that it will be the role of individual curriculum 

oversight teams to identify the technical skills and competencies for each 

inspector specialty. Flight Standards officials said they will establish these 

teams as part of an effort to develop specific curriculums for each 

inspector specialty (see the following section on developing training 

activities). 

Aircraft Certification subject-matter experts who manage inspectors 

identified four similar critical competency gaps for the implementation of 

system safety for its manufacturing inspectors. The gaps included (1) 

business and management, (2) data analysis/risk assessment, (3) system 

thinking skills, and (4) designee oversight. Aircraft Certification officials 

noted that these are skills that its inspectors need to perform their primary 

inspection function, which is ensuring that manufacturers meet design 

specifications for aircraft parts and components. Inspectors do this by 

inspecting the processes and quality assurance systems involved in aircraft 

and parts manufacturing. 

Prioritizing funding for training activities. Currently in Flight 

Standards, requests for course development projects come from the 

operational policy divisions to the training division. The training division 

then works closely with these individual policy divisions (such as the Air 

Transportation Division or the Aircraft Maintenance Division) to develop or 

revise the courses they request. However, the existing process does not 

explicitly consider which course development projects are most critical. 

During fiscal year 2005, Flight Standards plans to develop an approach that 

will consider the organizational factors necessary to prioritize requests for 

new courses and revision of current courses, including exploring ways to 

engage senior management. According to FAA officials, a curriculum 

oversight steering committee will provide strategic direction and 

prioritization for the service’s training needs. Aircraft Certification already 

employs a process that prioritizes training activities on the basis of three 

factors: impact on aviation safety, inspector job functions, and the needs of 

the customer. Training division officials meet each year to establish 

training priorities and to determine the resources needed to meet these 

priorities. According to these officials, they are guided by FAA strategic 

plans and direction they receive from operational program managers.

Promptly incorporating strategic and tactical changes into training 

and development. Flight Standards has recognized the need to quickly 
Page 18 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

deploy its training in order to reduce the time lag between the identification 

of training needs and its delivery as inspector performance requirements 

change. Currently Flight Standards has quarterly and semiannual training 

program reviews between the training division, the Flight Standards 

organizations which sponsor the training, and the FAA academy to discuss 

the sponsoring organizations’ training needs. It is also the responsibility of 

staff who oversee individual courses, known as course mentors, to ensure 

courses reflect changes in FAA policies and procedures or new 

developments in aviation technologies. In Aircraft Certification an 

executive-level mentor is selected from its management team for each 

course and is responsible for managing the development of new courses 

and the updating of existing courses to respond to changes in FAA policies 

and priorities. We did not attempt to assess the extent to which FAA 

incorporates strategic and tactical changes into its inspector training 

curriculum.

FAA Follows Effective 

Management Practices 

in Developing 

Individual Courses but 

Recognizes the Need to 

Develop a Unified 

Curriculum

FAA has for the most part followed effective management practices for 

developing individual safety inspector courses. (See table 3.) These 

practices, such as establishing guidelines that call for the formation of 

course development teams for each new course and that require each team 

to follow a series of progressive course development steps, are aimed at 

enhancing course quality and ensuring that the content of the course meets 

the intended course goals and performance objectives. However, FAA has 

not systematically identified technical training needs because it develops 

courses on a course-by-course basis rather than as part of an overall 

curriculum framework.
Page 19 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 3: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in Developing Courses

Source: GAO.

a

This management practice is not specifically identified in our assessment guide. However, a 

management approach that assesses training needs holistically rather than on a course-by-course 

basis can provide for a more systematic assessment of whether and how training will help meet 

organizational needs.

FAA Follows Many Effective 

Management Practices for 

Developing Technical 

Courses

FAA follows many effective management practices for developing technical 

training courses for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification safety 

inspectors. 

Ensuring new courses meet emerging demands and improve 

performance. At the very beginning of any new course development 

effort, Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification validate the need for new 

aviation safety inspector training by discussing (1) the facts that indicate 

the need for training, (2) the desired outcome of the training in terms of 

performance, and (3) the target audience of inspectors who will receive the 

training. Before any substantial course development activities occur, Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification training guidelines require that a task 

analysis be conducted. The purpose of the task analysis is to identify 

essential tasks, knowledge, and skills needed for effective safety inspector 

job performance. FAA then uses this task analysis as the basis for 

determining the scope, content, and sequencing of training topics for each 

new course. 

Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have also created different ways 

for field and headquarters personnel to request the development of new 

aviation safety inspector training courses when a new training need has 

emerged. Field personnel who see a need for safety inspectors to perform a 

new task or acquire new knowledge can submit training development 

requests. In addition, officials in Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification 

can propose new training courses for inspectors when regulatory changes 

Effective management practice Extent followed

New courses developed to meet emerging demands and improve performance Fully

Course development teams enable stakeholders to provide input Fully

Guidelines provide progressive course development steps with ongoing evaluation at each step Fully 

Merits of different course delivery methods are considered Fully 

Criteria used for decisions regarding outside training providers Fully 

Analysis of training needs and course development linked to overall curriculum approacha Partially 
Page 20 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

occur or when new FAA initiatives, such as the system safety approach for 

aviation safety inspectors, create a need for additional inspector 

knowledge and skills. Those proposing new courses must describe how the 

proposed course will contribute to FAA’s mission, explain the inspector 

knowledge and skills that will be acquired by taking the course, define the 

target audience for the proposed course, and describe the impact on the 

inspector workforce if the course is not developed. 

Enabling qualified personnel to participate as stakeholders. When 

Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification begin to develop a new course, a 

training development team is formed and different policy, technical, and 

training personnel participate in team activities throughout new course 

development. As a result, each member of the course development team 

has different skills and unique perspectives that he or she can contribute to 

course development. Each course development team has a course mentor 

whose role is to work with other team members through all course 

development stages to ensure that the content of the course meets the 

intended course goals and performance objectives. In addition, Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification also encourage course development 

teams to have subject-matter experts. According to FAA, these subjectmatter experts, who can be FAA employees or even outside consultants, 

can improve the quality and accuracy of the new course because they have 

specific knowledge and experience in one or more course topics. For 

example, Flight Standards is now developing a new course for the 

advanced avionics “glass cockpit” displays that are increasingly being used 

by air carrier and general aviation operators. (See sidebar.) The expertise 

and knowledge of the course development team for the new advanced 

avionics glass cockpit display course were significantly enhanced by 

subject-matter experts who were assigned to the team and had experience 

approving aircraft equipped with these advanced avionics displays. 

Besides the course mentor and subject-matter experts, other key team 

members on course development teams include instructional systems 

designers who provide expertise in training design and course developers 

who write the actual lesson plans for the new course. 

Experts outside of FAA can also provide input on course development in 

many technical subjects. For example, FAA established a partnership with 

universities and affiliated industry associations and businesses throughout 

the country to form Centers of Excellence, which conduct aviation 

research in a number of areas including advanced materials, aircraft 

emissions, and airworthiness. The General Aviation Center of Excellence, 

Source: Cessna Aircraft Company, used by permission.

Glass cockpit displays provide pilots with aircraft, 

navigation, and flight information in large easy-toread displays. Older instrumentation consisted of 

numerous individual instruments for airspeed, 

attitude, altitude, heading, and various engine and 

navigation readings that can make information 

difficult to read. Glass cockpit displays have large 

display screens that show flight, engine, and 

navigation information on a few easy-to-read 

screens. These large glass cockpit screens allow 

the pilot to select and display flight information 

when needed. For example, at various times the 

pilot can display flight progress, weather, a diagram 

of destination airport runways, or an approach 

procedure for landing.

Glass Cockpit Displays
Page 21 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

formed in 2001, has conducted research on aircraft seat-restraint systems, 

increasing aircraft landing safety, and aircraft de-icing. In addition to their 

technical expertise, many universities and private sector companies in the 

aviation industry have substantial experience conducting aviation training 

and education programs. For example, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University, which is the lead university for the General Aviation Center of 

Excellence, has been in the aviation training industry since 1926; and in 

addition to pilot and maintenance training, it offers more than 30 degree 

programs, including programs in engineering, aviation management, and 

aviation safety science. FAA already contracts with Embry-Riddle for some 

inspector flight training and recently expanded the number of training 

locations with another General Aviation Center of Excellence program. 

Airlines also have substantial experience offering pilot, crew, and 

maintenance training. FAA receives input from training providers like 

Embry-Riddle on course development as part of contracted training 

courses. FAA officials who work with Centers of Excellence said that there 

could be more opportunities for the agency to utilize the technical and 

aviation training expertise of the Centers of Excellence in developing its 

inspector training program.

Using a structured approach for course development. Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification both use a structured course 

development approach that calls for progressive course development steps 

and ongoing evaluation of the training at each step. This approach provides 

course development teams with a description of activities that should 

occur at each step, which helps to ensure that lesson plans, course 

materials, and course delivery methods enable the student to meet course 

objectives and increase job performance. (See fig. 3.)
Page 22 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 3: FAA’s Structured Approach for Course Development

Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have also built quality controls 

into their course development guidelines by requiring evaluation at each of 

these course development steps. Generally, after each stage in the course 

development process described in figure 3, the course development team 

reviews the work that occurred up to that point. For example, once the 

course developer has created lesson plans and any course materials, all 

members of the course development team review and make suggestions for 

revising them. Both Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification evaluate 

and test newly developed training in the final stages of course 

development. For example, Flight Standards conducts an operational 

tryout to see how effective the course is, with actual course instructors 

teaching the new course lesson plans and team members acting as 

observers. New FAA courses are tested again in the final prototype stage 

when instructors, with observers, teach the course in front of students 

from the course’s planned target audience. These students provide 

feedback on each lesson in the course in such areas as clarity of objectives, 

appropriateness of the level of instruction, and the usefulness of training 

materials. These quality checks are aimed at ensuring that lesson plans 

flow smoothly and support the course objectives.

Considering different approaches for presenting courses. Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification generally make decisions on the 

delivery approach or method to use for aviation safety inspector courses in 

Task analysis

Determine tasks, 

knowledge, and skills that 

the course will cover

Course design

Arrange learning 

objectives and course 

topics in logical order. 

Determine best teaching 

method for each topic

Develop course materials

Write lesson plans, student 

guides, and exercises for 

each learning objective

Teach prototype/final 

approval

Course is taught with 

observers to students 

from target audience and 

final changes are made

Operational tryout

Course is taught by 

instructors with team 

members observing

Walk-through

Team reads through course 

materials to ensure 

consistent flow of topics 

and content that meets 

learning objectives

Source: GAO presentation of FAA information.
Page 23 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

the initial stages of course development. For example, the course 

development team will consider factors such as the complexity of the 

topic, how soon the course is needed, and how many students will need the 

training. In the case of training a large number of inspectors on a relatively 

simple topic or a quick refresher course, a short self-paced computer-based 

or Web-based training course might be selected. Because the course 

development process can take months to complete, self-paced training can 

also be used when the knowledge or information needs to be conveyed 

quickly to a large number of students. 

However, when a course requires interaction and hands-on learning and it 

covers a lengthy or complex topic, the course development team could 

decide that a classroom format followed by practical exercises is the most 

suitable delivery method. (See fig. 4.) For example, in developing the glass 

cockpit course discussed above, the course development team considered 

several factors, including the complexity and the rapid growth of the 

technology and the fact that relatively few students have had a chance to 

become familiar with glass cockpit systems. The course development team 

then decided to use a combination of classroom and practical exercises as 

the primary delivery methods. Under this course format, students 

participate in classroom lecture and discussion sessions for the 

introductory lesson on glass cockpit technology. The students then have 

practical exercises on flight simulators with glass cockpit displays to 

integrate and reinforce the knowledge gained in the classroom. 
Page 24 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 4: FAA Inspectors Receiving Training in a Classroom Setting

Note: When covering a technical or complex subject FAA will often use a classroom format that allows 

for group interaction and practical exercises. 

Using criteria for decisions on outside training providers. Flight 

Standards and Aircraft Certification have developed and apply criteria for 

deciding whether to use outside training providers for their new aviation 

safety inspector courses. For example, one criterion is whether FAA or an 

outside training provider has more technical expertise. Generally, FAA will 

use its own instructors to teach many of the introductory courses that 

inspectors receive when they first join FAA. This is because many of these 

courses provide the new safety inspector with a familiarization of inspector 

responsibilities and job functions and a description of aviation regulations, 

and FAA is usually the most appropriate training provider to cover these 

topics. However, in a given aviation technology area, some private sector 

companies that concentrate in a technology will have more expertise than 

FAA. For example, because an outside training provider has more 

specialized technical knowledge in composite materials,15 Flight Standards 

15Composite materials are materials that when combined are stronger than the individual 

materials by themselves. The benefits of using composite materials in aviation include light 

weight, durability, and corrosion resistance.

Source: FAA.
Page 25 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

contracts with this provider to deliver composites and composites repair 

training.

FAA Plans to More 

Systematically Identify 

Technical Training Needs in 

Developing Its Inspector 

Training Curriculum

As discussed above, FAA’s course development activities follow many 

effective management practices for developing individual courses, but it 

has not yet systematically identified its inspectors’ overall training needs to 

ensure that the curriculum addresses the unique training needs of each 

type of inspector. However, FAA is developing a specific training 

curriculum for each type of inspector. 

Flight Standards recognizes that it manages courses as individual 

components and that it needs to develop courses and address training 

needs for each of its inspector specialties as part of an overall curriculum. 

In addition, our survey indicates that only 27 percent of inspectors said that 

the current set of FAA recommended training courses for each inspector 

type captures the training needed to do their jobs to a great or very great 

extent.16 Flight Standards recognizes that for curriculum transformation to 

work effectively, a strategy for curriculum management, as opposed to 

course management, needs to be clearly articulated. In response, Flight 

Standards is developing a new performance-based training initiative with 

the goal of systematically assessing the complete array of training to ensure 

it meets the performance requirements of the many specialties, disciplines, 

and positions in Flight Standard’s ranks. In an effort to implement a more 

curriculum-based approach that addresses different inspector training 

needs, the curriculum transformation plan recommends creating 

curriculum oversight teams for each type of inspector made up of 

representative inspectors from the field and from headquarters. Rather 

than the current approach, in which course development teams focus on 

individual courses, these curriculum oversight teams would be responsible 

for the overall curriculum for each type of inspector, including defining 

training requirements and ensuring that curriculum and course content are 

current and consistent with Flight Standards policy and practices in the 

field. The Flight Standards steering committee is responsible for chartering 

these curriculum oversight teams and approving the curriculum they 

develop for each inspector type. Flight Standards estimates that it will 

complete implementation of its curriculum transformation plan in 2008. If 

effectively implemented, we believe that these approaches would allow 

16The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 23 to 32 percent.
Page 26 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Flight Standards to develop a more systematic method for identifying 

training needs and provide a curriculum that is more relevant to different 

types of inspectors and their needs.

While Flight Standards is in the first stages of implementing its new 

curriculum-based approach to training, Aircraft Certification has recently 

taken steps to revise existing courses and develop new courses within an 

overall curriculum approach. For example, it formed a curriculum study 

team and completed a proposed curriculum for its manufacturing aviation 

safety inspectors and has revised inspector courses and other aspects of 

training according to its new curriculum plan. Aircraft Certification has 

only one type of aviation safety inspector; Flight Standards has avionics, 

maintenance, and operations inspectors for both general aviation and air 

carriers as well as other inspectors, such as cabin safety inspectors. 

Because Aircraft Certification has only one type of safety inspector, a 

permanent curriculum study team may not be absolutely necessary.

FAA Provides 

Extensive Support for 

Delivering Training; 

However, Many 

Inspectors Believe 

Improvements Could 

Help Them Do Their 

Jobs More Effectively

FAA recognizes that effective delivery of quality inspector training is 

crucial to the success of the agency’s mission to obtain industry 

compliance with safety standards and promote the continuing safety of air 

travel. FAA has generally followed effective management practices for 

training deployment to help ensure effective delivery of training, but 

improvements could be made. (See table 4.) Experts from the aviation and 

academic communities whom we consulted generally agreed that, for the 

most part, the courses FAA offers meet current and emerging technical 

needs. However, many inspectors question whether the training they 

receive is sufficient to provide them with the technical knowledge needed 

to perform their jobs. 

Table 4: Extent That FAA Follows Effective Management Practices in Delivering Technical Training

Source: GAO.

Effective management practice Extent followed

Clearly delineates accountability for achieving agency training goals Fully

Uses a suitable and timely process for selecting inspectors for technical training given inspectors’ 

current duties and existing skills

Partially 

Fosters an environment that is conducive to learning Fully 

Takes steps to encourage employee buy-in to goals and priorities of technical training Partially 
Page 27 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA Generally Follows 

Several Effective 

Management Practices for 

Delivering Technical 

Training

FAA generally follows several of the effective management practices that 

are important for delivering technical training. 

Clearly delineating accountability for ensuring access to technical 

training. According to FAA officials, FAA program and training officials 

have developed a list of mandatory and recommended courses for each 

inspector position. These training lists contain some technical courses but 

focus mainly on courses involving the fundamentals of the inspection 

process (such as courses covering inspection of automation systems, 

compliance and enforcement procedures, and system safety concepts) and 

job tasks for each safety inspector specialty. FAA inspection program 

managers note that the recommended course lists are not more 

prescriptive for technical training because the need for technical training 

depends on the specific types of aircraft and equipment with which 

inspectors work. Thus, decisions on technical training needs are mainly the 

responsibility of the individual inspectors and their immediate supervisors, 

in accordance with FAA guidance that provides decision-tree criteria for 

approving training requests. After inspectors and their supervisors agree on 

inspectors’ technical training requests, regional, headquarters, and 

academy training executives determine which courses will be taught. From 

there, FAA training divisions work with the FAA academy to implement the 

training by developing course schedules and inspector quota allocations.

Using a suitable process for selecting inspectors for technical 

training. FAA’s automated training request process provides inspectors 

with the opportunity to plan for, request, and be selected for the technical 

training necessary for their positions. The Flight Standards and Aircraft 

Certification lists of technical and other courses essential for each 

inspector position, as well as other courses that are available to further 

inspectors’ professional development, are available for review and 

planning by the inspectors and their supervisors.17 The training system 

contains information on all the training courses previously completed by 

the inspectors and outlines their progress toward meeting training 

requirements. With the supervisor’s guidance and approval, each year 

inspectors request training courses reflecting training needs related to the 

inspector’s position, office inspection activity, and succession planning. 

However, both FAA and its inspectors recognize the need for more timely 

17About 34 percent of all essential courses are technical and range from 0 percent for Air 

Certification inspectors to 50 percent for air carrier avionics inspectors. See table 10 in 

appendix II for additional results. 
Page 28 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

selection of inspectors for technical training, another aspect of technical 

training. This topic is discussed later in this report.

Fostering an environment conducive to learning. FAA has provided 

many of the elements necessary to promote inspectors’ learning of 

technical material, including allowing them time away from work to 

receive classroom or computer-based training. FAA also has invested in 

technologies such as computer-based and interactive-video training that 

help meet the demand for technical and other training. Similarly, FAA has 

moved some training closer to the inspector duty locations to facilitate and 

encourage training attendance and has begun experimenting with bringing 

training to the duty locations when appropriate. FAA’s on-the-job training 

program also gives inspectors hands-on experience with the aircraft and 

components for which they are responsible. In addition, FAA streamlined 

the process for acquiring training opportunities that arise on short notice, 

such as when inspectors are assigned a new aircraft type to inspect. Finally, 

FAA’s training management system allows inspectors to schedule available 

technical training courses tailored to their individual needs.

Acting to obtain inspector buy-in for training goals and priorities.

While believing that its inspectors have sufficient technical knowledge to 

perform inspections, FAA has recognized the need to facilitate 

communication between inspectors and management in order to gain 

inspector buy-in for a training program emphasizing system safety over 

technical courses. Currently, FAA primarily depends on its local office 

managers (the inspectors’ supervisors) to communicate training goals and 

priorities to the inspectors, mostly during the annual training planning 

process. According to FAA training officials, this information is also 

disseminated to inspectors in strategic training plans and other guidance 

on training. FAA officials further note that inspectors have opportunities to 

communicate their views on training in course evaluations and employee 

surveys. 

Nevertheless, FAA recognizes the need to increase communication 

between inspectors and management with respect to the training program. 

Flight Standards recognizes that without inspector buy-in the safety 

inspectors will not be able to effectively execute system safety oversight 

and thus this buy-in is recognized as critical to Flight Standards success. 

FAA is concerned that inspectors have not fully bought into the system 

safety approach to inspections. In an attempt to gain support for and 

understanding of the system safety approach and the ways in which 

inspectors will be affected by the change, Flight Standards plans to host 
Page 29 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

focus groups with management and inspectors, conduct individual 

interviews with all Flight Standards employees, and create an outreach and 

communication team to foster better understanding between FAA 

management and the inspectors. Similarly, Aircraft Certification has 

planned a number of steps to increase communication between 

management and the inspector workforce, including facilitated focus 

groups, individual interviews, and more effective employee feedback 

mechanisms. These actions may well be needed because, as discussed in 

the following section, inspectors are generally dissatisfied with the 

technical training that they receive.

Inspectors Are Generally 

Dissatisfied with the 

Technical Training That 

They Receive

Although FAA has followed or is taking steps to follow many of the 

effective management practices in planning, developing, and delivering 

technical training, inspectors expressed widespread dissatisfaction with 

this training. Inspector dissatisfaction covered three areas: (1) having 

insufficient technical knowledge to do their jobs, (2) not being able to take 

training they say they needed, and (3) not receiving training in time to do 

their jobs. 

One possible explanation for this seeming contradiction is that, although 

FAA generally employs sound approaches for putting its technical training 

in place, its actual delivery falls short—the latter being the view of the bulk 

of its inspector workforce. We were not able to assess this possible 

explanation because, as discussed at the beginning of this report, we had 

no practical way to assess the amount of training necessary for inspector 

proficiency or the timeliness of the training provided. Another possible 

explanation is that the technical training that FAA provides meets the 

current and future needs of the agency to a large degree and its inspectors 

have unrealistic expectations about technical training. This is the view of 

FAA, and its reasons are discussed later in this section.
Page 30 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Having Sufficient Technical 

Knowledge and Training

On the basis of our survey, we estimate that only about half of FAA 

inspectors believe, to a great or very great extent, that their technical 

knowledge is sufficient to enable them to do their jobs properly.18 (See fig. 

5.) This belief varies somewhat among inspector specialties. Some 

inspectors—such as those who specialize in cabin safety and aircraft 

certification—told us that, to a great or very great extent (78 percent and 68 

percent, respectively), they have enough technical knowledge to do their 

jobs.19 On the other hand, only a third of air carrier avionics inspectors told 

us that they currently have sufficient technical knowledge to do their 

jobs.20

18The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 48 to 57 percent. 

19The 95 percent confidence interval for the cabin safety inspector responses is from 62 to 94 

percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the aircraft certification inspector responses 

is from 51 to 85 percent.

20The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 22 to 48 percent. The survey 

also asked inspectors about their knowledge of the automated systems used in their jobs, 

such as ATOS or the Performance Tracking and Reporting Subsystem, because these are 

important tools for the system safety approach to inspections. We estimate that about 46 

percent of inspectors believe, to a great or very great extent, that they have enough 

knowledge of automated systems to do their jobs. The 95 percent confidence interval for 

this estimate is from 42 to 51 percent.
Page 31 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 5: Inspectors Responding that to a Great or Very Great Extent They Currently 

Have Enough Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs

Note: See table 13 in appendix II for additional results.

One reason for the disparity of views concerning technical knowledge 

among inspectors of different specialties could be their perceived need for 

specialized knowledge. For example, cabin safety inspectors noted that 

much of their knowledge of the cabin environment comes from previous 

experience with airlines and through on the job experience. Similarly, 

according to FAA, Aircraft Certification inspectors bring with them a high 

degree of technical knowledge, gained in previous careers in the aviation 

industry; and typically these inspectors need less technical training than 

other types of inspectors. Our analysis of training received confirms that 

aircraft certification and cabin safety inspectors receive less technical 

training than other inspector specialties. Additionally, as shown above, they 

are the most satisfied of all inspector specialties that they have the 

technical knowledge needed to do their jobs. Alternatively, avionics 

inspectors—who were the least satisfied that they have received enough 

technical training to do their jobs—indicated that they believe they require 

specialized knowledge of the avionics systems they inspect. Inspector 

training data shows that these inspectors receive the most technical 

training of all inspector specialties. (This topic is discussed in more detail 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Air carrier 

avionics

Aircraft 

certification

Cabin 

safety

All 

inspectors

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Type of inspector
Page 32 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

later in the report. See table 6.) However, from our survey, they believe that 

they need more.

Our survey also indicates that most inspectors believe that the technical 

training they have recently received has not greatly contributed to their 

ability to perform inspections.21 Specifically, we estimate that about 35 

percent of the inspectors believe that the technical training that they 

received in the last 2 years helped them do their current jobs to a great or 

very great extent.22 The results ranged from a high of 39 percent for air 

carrier operations inspectors to a low of 23 percent for general aviation 

avionics inspectors.23 The higher percentage for operations inspectors 

could be attributed to the fact that they are required to take flight training 

on an annual basis, whereas other inspector specialties such as avionics, 

maintenance, and cabin safety do not have similar requirements for annual 

training. In comments included with their surveys, inspectors expressed 

opinions on whether they have sufficient training to do their jobs. Of the 

240 inspectors who took the time to write narrative responses about the 

sufficiency of training, 31 offered positive comments, 105 were strongly 

negative, and another 119 had weaker negative comments. In addition, 37

21FAA notes that its course evaluations support that 78 percent of its employees report that 

training has improved their job performance. However, its survey results are not 

comparable to ours. First, FAA’s results represent responses to evaluations for all courses, 

both technical and nontechnical. In addition, it represents inspectors who responded that 

FAA training greatly improved, improved, and somewhat improved their job performance. 

In analyzing the results of our survey, we did not include the third category, as it does not 

represent a strong endorsement for the results of FAA training.

22The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 30 to 39 percent. FAA officials 

stressed that training occurs over the span of a career and cautioned that asking inspectors’ 

views about 2 years experience would present a distorted view. According to our analysis, 

FAA inspectors have been with the agency an average of 9.3 years, according to our survey 

inspectors have been in their current position an average of 5.3 years. We recognize FAA’s 

concern. However, it is not reasonable to expect inspectors to recall their views on training 

received over a large time span, as doing so could lead to unreliable results. In addition, 

since this report focuses on FAA’s current actions to ensure up-to-date technical training, we 

believe it is more useful to measure inspectors’ views about the training that they are 

receiving or have recently received. 

23The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 29 to 49 percent and from 

6 to 39 percent, respectively. 
Page 33 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

inspectors indicated they found themselves inspecting aircraft or 

components they had not been trained on.24

Our survey also indicates that inspectors believe that most of the technical 

knowledge they possess was gained in their previous careers in the aviation 

industry. For inspectors who said that to a great or very great extent they 

have sufficient technical knowledge to do their jobs, we estimate that 80 

percent also noted that the knowledge and skills they brought to FAA from 

their previous careers contributed, to a great or very great extent, to this 

technical knowledge.25 We estimated that lower percentages of inspectors 

from this group rated technical training from FAA instructors (25 percent) 

and aviation industry sources (41 percent) as contributing, to a great or 

very great extent, to the technical knowledge needed to perform their 

jobs.26 Our analysis of survey responses indicates that the amount of time 

since inspectors left their careers in the aviation industry was not a factor 

in inspectors’ views about their job-related technical knowledge. Newer 

inspectors were no more likely than longer-tenured inspectors to say that 

to a great or very great extent they have enough technical knowledge of the 

aircraft, systems, or operations they inspect to do their jobs. 

FAA officials indicated to us that inspectors will always believe they need 

more training. In addition, FAA officials further stated that inspectors need 

to have only enough technical knowledge of aircraft, systems, and 

components to be effective inspectors: they need to know enough to ask 

the right questions, recognize potential problems, and be able to 

understand issues that arise. Full proficiency with the aircraft and 

components is not necessary. However, FAA officials indicated that 

inspectors believe that full or near full proficiency is necessary. An FAA 

official attributed inspectors’ views about the perceived insufficiency of 

technical training to many of them not fully accepting the agency’s 

transformation to a system safety approach to inspections with its 

emphasis on risk analysis over technical knowledge. The traditional 

inspection system relied to a great extent on an individual inspector’s 

24Our survey provided the opportunity for inspectors to relate anything they wanted us to 

know about technical training. Some inspectors submitted both positive and negative 

comments. 

25The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 76 to 84 percent.

26The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 21 to 29 percent and 36 to 45 

percent, respectively.
Page 34 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

technical expertise to identify safety problems with operations or aircraft 

systems. Although the system safety approach requires inspectors to have 

an understanding of aircraft and aircraft systems, it is more important for 

them to have the skills to analyze data to identify vulnerabilities in aircraft 

operators’ and manufacturers’ systems for ensuring safety. FAA officials 

believe that as inspectors gain experience with system safety, they will 

better understand the more limited role technical knowledge plays in this 

inspection approach. 

Most of the inspector training experts we consulted on the inspector 

technical training curriculum generally agreed with FAA’s position. Seven 

of the 10 experts we contacted told us that the technical courses that FAA 

offers sufficiently covered existing and emerging technical areas.27 In 

particular, they noted that the flight training for operations inspectors was 

adequate for performing flight checks. However, two experts were 

concerned that there was not enough training in advanced aviation 

technologies for maintenance and avionics inspectors. These experts 

thought that maintenance and avionics inspectors should have periodic 

refresher training that would allow them to become more familiar with 

changes in the aircraft and systems they deal with during inspections. The 

experts did not comment on whether individual inspectors receive all the 

technical training necessary for their positions since this would have 

required an extensive, detailed review of training records.

Most representatives from airlines we contacted were at least moderately 

satisfied that FAA inspectors have sufficient technical knowledge and 

training.28 On the basis of their experience with FAA inspectors, 19 of the 23 

airline representatives we consulted said that to a great extent (7 

responses) or moderate extent (12 responses) FAA inspectors had the 

technical knowledge to fulfill inspection responsibilities. Regarding 

training, 16 of the 23 thought that to a very great extent (1 response) or 

moderate extent (15 responses) FAA inspectors have the technical training 

to fulfill these responsibilities. 

27See appendix III for a list of these experts. Experts commented in the area of their 

expertise.

28We contacted representatives from the airlines that belong to the Air Transport 

Association and the Regional Airline Association to obtain their perspectives on FAA 

inspector technical training.
Page 35 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Being Able to Take Requested 

Training

Also reflecting the disparity in views between inspectors and FAA 

management concerning technical training, many inspectors indicate that 

they are not greatly encouraged to take technical training and that to a 

large extent they do not get all the technical training they request. However, 

inspectors’ views are not supported either by FAA training request data or 

from progress made in taking training courses deemed essential by FAA.29

On the basis of our survey, we estimate that less than half (43 percent) of 

inspectors think their supervisors encourage them to request the technical 

training needed to do their current jobs.30 We also estimate that about 28 

percent of FAA’s inspectors believe, to a great extent or very great extent, 

that they receive the technical training that they request.31 (See fig. 6.) If we 

include responses citing receiving requested training to a moderate extent, 

we then estimate that about 49 percent of inspectors overall believe that 

they receive the training they request at least to a moderate extent.32

29See footnote 4 for how we defined essential training.

30The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 38 to 48 percent.

31The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 23 to 32 percent.

32The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 45 to 54 percent.
Page 36 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 6: Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is Approved

Note: See table 14 in appendix II for additional results. 

Our survey also indicates that inspectors with longer tenures at FAA have 

more difficulty getting technical training they request than inspectors who 

have recently been hired. According to the survey, of those inspectors with 

10 or more years with FAA, we estimate that 55 percent said that requested 

technical training was approved to some or no extent as compared to an 

estimated 35 percent of inspectors who had been with FAA 3 years or less.33

This may be due in part to newer inspectors’ technical training 

opportunities tending to be essential courses, requests likely to be 

approved. In contrast, inspectors with more experience request courses 

outside of FAA requirements, requests more likely to be denied. As 

discussed earlier, FAA records did not allow us to assess the merits of the 

inspectors’ views.

33The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 47 to 64 percent and 27 to 43 

percent, respectively.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

To some

or no extent

To a

moderate

extent

To a great

 or very

great extent

Percent

Inspectors' views

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Percent

FAA training data

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Page 37 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA’s data on the extent to which requested courses were taken do not 

support the inspectors’ contention that they do not receive requested 

training. According to Flight Standards data, for fiscal years 2003 through 

2005, on average FAA approved about 90 percent of requested technical 

training and has approved a similar percentage for upcoming fiscal year 

2006. (See fig. 6.) FAA officials note that these data do not include late 

course cancellations that occur after the training schedule for the year is 

set. Though we were unable to obtain similar data from Aircraft 

Certification data on course cancellations or denials, these courses 

occasionally get cancelled or changed. In fiscal year 2005, one course was 

cancelled by Aircraft Certification. Officials told us that if a training course 

essential for an inspector to perform their job is cancelled, the inspector 

will be placed in the next available course. Aircraft Certification inspectors 

represent about 5 percent of the inspector workforce (excluding 

supervisors, managers, and others in the aviation safety inspector job 

series who do not perform front-line inspections). 

According to FAA, the agency tries to accommodate inspectors’ requests 

for technical training to the extent possible. However, an inspector’s 

request for technical training may be denied because (1) the inspector’s 

need for the course was not adequately justified based on the inspector’s 

current position, (2) the inspector had already completed a similar course, 

or (3) insufficient funding was available. Officials also said that, 

infrequently, a technical course requested by an inspector may be cancelled 

due to low enrollment or because its content is outdated. According to the 

officials, when a requested course is cancelled, inspectors can request it 

the next time it is offered, and in the meantime they can choose a 

replacement course from the list of courses for their position. Inspectors’ 

views on why they did not get training that they requested corresponded 

somewhat with the reasons that FAA cited. We estimate that about 54 

percent of the inspectors believe that lack of funds hindered or greatly 

hindered their ability to get requested technical training.34 (See fig. 7.) 

Inspectors cited other reasons somewhat less frequently: about 36 percent 

cited availability of courses, 28 percent cited impact on their workload, and 

27 percent cited management’s determination about the need for them to 

attend the course as hindering or greatly hindering their ability to receive

34The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 50 to 59 percent.
Page 38 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

the training they requested.35 Because it was impractical to investigate the 

reasons why thousands of training requests were granted or denied, we 

were not able to reconcile inspectors’ views with FAA data. 

Figure 7: Inspectors’ Views on Factors Hindering Their Ability to Take Requested 

Technical Training

Note: See tables 15 through 18 in appendix II for additional results. 

In addition to receiving most of the technical training they request, our 

analysis of inspectors’ training records indicates that most are making good 

progress in taking the technical training FAA considers essential for their 

jobs. Our analysis of FAA training data36 indicates that over half of the 

inspectors have completed at least 75 percent of their essential technical

35The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 32 to 41 percent, 23 to 32 

percent, and 23 to 31 percent, respectively.

36We analyzed the training records for FAA’s approximately 3,000 front-line inspectors only. 

The analysis did not include supervisors, managers, and others in the aviation safety 

inspector job series who do not perform front-line inspections.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Management

input

Impact on

workload

Availability

of courses

Availability

of funds

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Page 39 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

training courses for their positions.37 (See table 5.) In addition, more than 

three-quarters have finished at least half of these essential technical 

courses. However, only 20 percent of air carrier avionics inspectors have 

completed 75 percent of their technical courses. Avionics inspectors have 

the most technical training requirements, due to the complexity of the 

aircraft components they inspect.

Table 5: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Technical Courses

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Note: N/A = nonapplicable.

a

Aircraft certification inspectors have no essential technical courses according to the definition of 

technical training used in this report. Aircraft Certification considers all training related to the inspection 

process as technical training.

There are several reasons that may explain why inspectors have not 

completed most or all of their essential training—technical and other. First, 

a significant portion of the inspector workforce is relatively new to the 

agency and would thus not be expected to have completed the essential 

training. In fact, FAA data show that 28 percent of the inspectors have been 

employed by FAA for less than 5 years. Second, inspectors change 

37About 81 percent of the inspectors have completed at least half of their essential courses, 

both technical and nontechnical. (See table 11 in app. II.) In addition to the essential 

courses, most inspectors were also able to take other technical training courses that they, 

their supervisors, and FAA management have determined are related to their jobs. 

Inspectors averaged 1.7 technical courses outside of their list of essential courses over the 

past 3 fiscal years. (See table 12 in app. II.)

Type of inspector

Percent of inspectors

completing at least 75

percent of technical

courses

Percent of inspectors

completing at least 50

percent of technical

courses

Air carrier avionics 20 69

Air carrier maintenance 46 82

Air carrier operations 36 74

Cabin safety 59 85

General aviation avionics 52 78

General aviation maintenance 53 84

General aviation operations 69 88

Aircraft certificationa N/A N/A

All inspectors 46 80
Page 40 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

specialties, which can affect their training requirements. Third, FAA allows 

inspectors to substitute prior experience for some essential technical 

training courses, and such substitutions are not always reflected in 

inspector training records. Finally, because the lists of essential training 

courses have been developed only within the past few years, some 

inspectors may not have had time to complete new essential courses. FAA 

officials emphasized that, especially in Flight Standards, training is carried 

out over the course of an inspector’s career rather than occurring primarily 

at the beginning of the career. According to Aircraft Certification officials, 

although their service’s inspectors receive training over the course of their 

careers, they receive the majority of their training within the first year on 

the job. This early training emphasizes the skills needed to perform 

inspections.

Overall, according to our analysis, inspectors have taken an average of 3.4 

technical training courses from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, or about 

one per year. (See table 6.) Avionics and maintenance inspectors have 

taken more technical training on average. Generally, these avionics and 

maintenance inspectors require more technical training than other 

inspector specialties because they often inspect several different models of 

aircraft.

Table 6: Average Number of Technical and Nontechnical Training Courses Taken, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Receiving Training in a Timely 

Manner

With the rapid development of aircraft and aircraft components, especially 

aircraft avionics, a training delivery mechanism that is responsive to these 

Type of inspector

Technical

courses

Nontechnical

courses

Air carrier avionics 4.8 9.6

Air carrier maintenance 3.9 9.6

Air carrier operations 2.6 9.7

Cabin safety 1.2 8.5

General aviation avionics 4.0 8.8

General aviation maintenance 4.0 9.9

General aviation operations 3.1 9.6

Aircraft certification 1.2 5.4

All inspectors 3.4 9.4
Page 41 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

changes is critical. For the most part, FAA inspectors are dissatisfied with 

receiving the technical training they need in time to do their jobs. We 

estimate that only 20 percent of inspectors believe to a great or very great 

extent that they have received technical training in time to do their jobs.38

(See fig. 8.) No more than one-third of any type of inspector thought that 

technical training was timely to a great or very great extent, and none of the 

general aviation avionics inspectors who responded to our survey thought 

that this was so.39 Avionics are the most rapidly changing technological 

components of aircraft, which could account for this result. As discussed at 

the beginning of this report, FAA’s records did not allow us to assess the 

extent to which inspectors received training before they conducted 

inspection activities related to that training. 

Figure 8: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training Is Delivered in 

a Timely Manner

Note: See table 19 in appendix II for additional details. 

38The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 16 to 24 percent. 

39The maximum value for the upper end of the 95 percent confidence interval for all other 

inspectors is 49 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for general aviation avionics 

inspectors is between 0 and 13 percent.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

To some

or no extent

To a

moderate

extent

To a great

or very

great extent

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Page 42 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Similarly, we estimate that only about 23 percent of all inspectors indicated 

that they always or frequently received technical training on the equipment 

they were to inspect prior to scheduled inspection activities.40 (See fig. 9.) 

No more than 35 percent of inspectors in any specialty responded this way.

In comments supplied with their surveys, many inspectors expressed the 

view that FAA is slow to react to changes in industry technology and slow 

to develop courses in response to the changes.

Figure 9: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which They Received Technical 

Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight Activities

Note: Approximately 4 percent of inspectors responded that they had no basis to judge or did not 

know. See table 20 in appendix II for additional details. 

40The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 19 to 26 percent. Inspector 

dissatisfaction with the timeliness of training delivery is not limited to technical training. 

Inspectors also expressed concern about the timeliness of automation training. According 

to our survey, about 29 percent of inspectors indicated, to a great or very great extent, that 

this type of training was received in time to do their current job. The 95 percent confidence 

interval for this estimate is from 24 to 33 percent.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rarely or

never

Always or Occasionally

frequently

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Page 43 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA has recognized the need to provide training on a timelier basis and has 

taken some actions that have yet to be fully implemented. One of the goals 

of Flight Standards is to establish a way to ensure that training is current 

and well designed, can be tailored to the needs of the individual employees, 

and is administered in a fast and flexible way in response to changing 

needs. Flight Standards plans to improve training delivery by taking 

advantage of new delivery mechanisms, increasing utilization of vendors 

where appropriate, and streamlining training programming and scheduling 

to reduce the lag time between the identification of training needs and the 

delivery of training. In addition, Flight Standards recently instituted a 

process to continuously monitor courses and to update their content when 

changes in FAA policy or aviation technology warrant doing so. Ensuring 

that course content is up to date and that courses are available when 

needed is an important aspect of delivering timely training. In fiscal year 

2005,41 Flight Standards developed 5 new courses, revised 16 existing 

courses, and completed 13 course evaluations.42 Similarly, Aircraft 

Certification officials indicated that they have been evolving toward a more 

integrated approach to training delivery, mixing classroom training with 

Web-based technologies, on-the-job training and adding additional job aids, 

in part, for providing more timely training. These officials also noted that 

Aircraft Certification has a long history of providing just-in-time training 

when new work processes or job-related information needs to be 

disseminated to inspectors quickly. 

Although FAA Uses 

Several Approaches to 

Evaluate Technical 

Training Provided, 

Assessing Impact on 

Performance Remains 

to Be Done

For the most part, FAA has followed—or has begun to implement—

effective management practices in evaluating its efforts to provide 

technical training to inspectors and ensuring that this training leads to 

improved performance and results. (See table 7.) For example, it 

continuously assesses technical training through participant end-of-course 

evaluations and surveys of inspectors and supervisors that focus on the 

application of skills and knowledge to the job. While FAA’s evaluation 

efforts provide information about these areas, these assessments have not 

measured the impact of training on FAA’s mission goals, such as reducing 

accidents. Isolating improvements in mission performance that are a result 

of training programs is difficult for any agency.

41As of June 2005.

42Flight Standards estimates that in addition it will develop 7 new courses, revise 9 existing 

courses, and complete 9 course evaluations by the end of fiscal year 2005.
Page 44 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 7: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in Evaluating Its Training Program

Source: GAO.

FAA Mostly Follows Several 

Effective Practices for 

Evaluating Technical 

Training 

FAA has taken several actions to evaluate the effectiveness of its technical 

training efforts. Collectively, the actions generally cover the effective 

management practices cited in table 7 by continuously and systematically

evaluating the technical courses FAA provides for inspectors. In 

performing these evaluations, FAA has focused primarily on obtaining 

inspectors’ and, to some extent, their supervisors’ views on individual 

courses. FAA requires that participant evaluations be distributed after each 

training course for inspectors. The evaluations ask participants to rate the 

extent to which the course and course material (e.g., workbooks, slides, 

labs, and tests) met objectives as well as the extent to which the instructor 

provided assistance. According to FAA, participants return the evaluations 

95 percent of the time. FAA also sends surveys to inspectors and their 

supervisors 90 to 180 days after course completion to obtain their 

perspectives on whether the course was needed and the extent to which 

the inspector is applying new skills and knowledge to the job. FAA reports 

that since the inception of post-course surveys, the return rate from 

inspectors and supervisors has ranged from 49 to 50 percent. The postcourse survey results from the six most highly attended technical courses 

in the last 2 years reflected generally positive responses. These findings 

suggest that survey respondents generally think that the individual 

technical courses they received helped them in their jobs. Results from 

both the participant course evaluations and post-course surveys are 

automated and are available to training officials. In addition, according to 

Flight Standards training officials, they assess all complaints concerning a 

Effective management practice Extent followed

Systematically plans for and evaluates the effectiveness of training and development efforts Mostly

Uses the appropriate analytical approaches to assess its training and development programs Mostly

Uses appropriate performance data (including qualitative and quantitative measures) to assess the results 

achieved through training and development efforts

Partially 

Incorporates evaluation feedback into the planning, design, and implementation of its training and 

development efforts

Fully

Incorporates different perspectives (including those of line managers and staff, customers, and experts 

in areas such as financial, information, and human capital management) in assessing the impact of 

training on performance

Mostly

Assesses the benefits achieved through training and development programs Partially
Page 45 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

course and discuss the issues identified with the Flight Standards office 

that sponsors the course.

According to FAA, it is the responsibility of the mentor for each training 

course to use the information from the participant evaluations and postcourse surveys as well as other tools to determine if courses are meeting 

their objectives and enhancing inspectors’ ability to do their jobs. In 

February 2005, Flight Standards established a policy that its course 

mentors evaluate each course for which they are responsible at least every 

3 years using a standardized approach. According to the policy, course 

mentors should review the results of participant evaluations and postcourse surveys as well as personally sit in the course to determine if a 

course is still current and is meeting objectives. Flight Standards has a 

performance plan initiative to track the completion of planned course 

evaluations. Flight Standards began training mentors on these and other 

mentor responsibilities and procedures in April 2005, and some course 

mentors have already begun thorough evaluations of their courses. Prior to 

this date, Flight Standards officials said that participant evaluations and 

post-course surveys were used by its Quality Assurance Branch in its 

annual course reviews and were routinely reviewed by FAA academy 

course managers and their supervisors to update or improve courses. 

However, because Flight Standards had not assigned specific individuals to 

be responsible for a particular course, some requests for updates were not 

tracked. According to Flight Standards officials, with the implementation 

of the course mentor program, each course will now have a point of 

contact for all course improvements and updates. 

Aircraft Certification is implementing a new approach for evaluating 

courses that officials believe will provide course mentors and other 

training officials more comprehensive information on technical courses 

sponsored by each office. The approach is based on the work of Dr. Robert 

O. Brinkerhoff, in particular his Success Case Method and High Impact 

Learning approach.43 This approach helps to increase and demonstrate 

organizational results from learning. With the Success Case Method, postcourse surveys are used to gauge the extent of reported application of 

learning and are then validated through personal interviews with selected 

43Robert O. Brinkerhoff and Anne M. Apking, High Impact Learning: Strategies for 

Leveraging Business Results from Training, (Cambridge: Perseus, 2001) and Robert O. 

Brinkerhoff, The Success Case Method, (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 

2003).
Page 46 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

course participants. Using such interviews, Aircraft Certification seeks to 

determine whether and how much training was actually transferred to the 

job and if there was an impact on the organization as a result of the 

training. The High Impact Learning methodology allows for up-front 

evaluation prior to development or revision of courses to ensure that the 

objectives of the proposed training will lead to organizational impact 

through “impact mapping” of course objectives to organizational goals. 

Results of Success Case Method learning evaluations will be available to 

the course mentor, course managers at FAA’s Training Academy, and 

program officials at FAA headquarters. Aircraft Certification began 

implementing the evaluation tool in spring 2005 and has thus far prototyped 

it with one course and plans to have it applied to all its technical courses 

within 2 years.

FAA has also surveyed employees for their views on training in general, and 

one of these surveys will lead to revisions to the overall inspector 

curriculum, according to FAA. Every 2 years, FAA surveys all of its 

employees about many aspects of their employment, including the training 

they receive. This employee attitude survey asked employees about the 

extent to which they received the training they needed to effectively 

perform their jobs and whether or not they have been able to apply that 

training. However, the survey does not ask employees to differentiate 

between the types of training they receive, such as that relating to 

inspection processes or technical skills. In addition, although FAA isolates 

responses according to employee’s work location—such as headquarters 

and Flight Standards and Air Certification field offices—it does not ask 

respondents their position, so inspectors’ responses cannot be identified. 

As a result, although the survey can be useful for FAA’s workforce as a 

whole, it is not as useful for isolating safety inspectors’ attitudes about 

their technical training.

In order to obtain information on inspector training in particular, in August 

2004, Flight Standards conducted a separate survey of 51 field inspectors 

and 8 field and 3 headquarters inspection program managers that revealed 

inspector dissatisfaction about several aspects of training. Because of its 

limited nature, Flight Standards recognizes that the survey does not 

necessarily represent the views of the entire inspector workforce. Of the 51 

field inspectors who agreed or strongly agreed with certain statements—

the only large group surveyed—21 percent indicated they received the 

training they needed, 10 percent said training is current and technically up 

to date, and less than 20 percent indicated training supports current or
Page 47 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

future job requirements in Flight Standards.44 Flight Standards officials 

expressed concern about inspectors’ negative views toward the training 

they receive. Officials said that as part of their plans for a curriculum for 

inspectors, they will identify and implement measures necessary to 

monitor course satisfaction and content currency, and the data they gather 

from monitoring the course will provide the basis for continuous course 

improvement. According to Aircraft Certification officials, their office has 

not undertaken any similar surveys to field inspectors. 

FAA officials said that they also encourage inspectors to submit 

suggestions for revising existing courses or adding new courses to provide 

training in the technical skills not covered in the current curriculum. 

According to Flight Standards training program officials, inspector 

suggestions for new courses are placed in a pool of potential new courses, 

which are reviewed by program staff on the basis of need and the 

availability of funds. Suggestions for course revisions are now reviewed by 

course mentors as part of the course evaluation process.45

Although FAA has a process for inspectors to make recommendations 

regarding technical courses, our survey indicated that many inspectors are 

either not aware of or do not take advantage of this process. According to 

our survey, we estimate that 55 percent of the inspectors believe they have 

had an opportunity to recommend new courses for their position to some 

or no extent.46 In addition, 49 percent thought they had an opportunity to 

recommend new content in existing courses for their position to some or 

no extent.47

44We do not present the results of the 8 field and 3 headquarters managers because of the 

small numbers, and some did not answer all questions. 

45According to data provided by Flight Standards, there have been over 60 requests for 

revised, updated, or new courses to be developed since 2000, with more than 33 of them 

submitted since 2003 (plus a possible 11 more that were undated requests). Of all that have 

been submitted, 23 were technical.

46The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 50 to 60 percent. 

47The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 44 to 54 percent. 
Page 48 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA Lacks Comprehensive 

Data on How Technical 

Training Contributes to 

Improved Performance and 

Results

The analytical approach FAA employed for evaluating technical training 

programs emphasized individual course evaluations and employee surveys 

that collect useful, but limited, information on the effectiveness of 

technical training courses. According to experts on training in government, 

agencies should adopt a balanced, multilevel approach to evaluating their 

training and development efforts. One commonly accepted model is the 

Kirkpatrick model, which consists of five levels of assessment.48 The first 

level measures the training participants’ reaction to, and satisfaction with, 

the training program or planned actions to use new or enhanced 

competencies. The second level measures the extent to which learning has 

occurred because of the training effort. The third level measures the 

application of this learning to the work environment through changes in 

behavior that trainees exhibit on the job because of the training or 

development program. The fourth level measures the impact of the training 

program on the agency’s program or organizational results. Finally, the fifth 

level—often referred to as return on investment—compares the benefits 

(quantified in dollars) with the costs of the training and development 

program. 

As discussed earlier, the course evaluations and surveys FAA uses to 

evaluate its technical and other training programs for inspectors cover, to 

some extent, the first three levels of assessment. Aircraft Certification has 

taken the first steps in evaluating the impact of training on organizational 

results (the fourth level) by linking course objectives to organizational 

goals, and Flight Standards is in the initial stages of implementing a process 

to assess the return on investment from the courses in its training program.

Experts acknowledge that isolating performance improvements resulting 

from training programs and the cost-effectiveness of these programs is 

difficult for any organization. Federal agencies, such as FAA, have to 

consider the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of conducting these in-depth 

evaluations, along with budgetary and staffing circumstances that may 

limit the agencies’ ability to complete such evaluations. The challenge of 

performing evaluations of the impact and cost-effectiveness of its training 

efforts is great for FAA. Along with undertaking these evaluations, FAA 

48Donald L. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco: 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1994). Kirkpatrick conceived a commonly recognized fourlevel model for evaluating training and development efforts. The fourth level is sometimes 

split into two levels, with the fifth level representing a comparison of costs and benefits 

quantified in dollars. The fifth level, return on investment, is attributed to Jack Phillips and 

is taught in education and training seminars linking the two methodologies.
Page 49 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

must also determine how its ongoing shift to a system safety approach to 

inspections is affecting its organizational goals of reducing accidents and 

increasing the overall safety of flying. 

Industry Provides 

Much of FAA’s 

Technical Training; 

Additional Safeguards 

Needed to Prevent Real 

or Appearances of 

Conflicts of Interest

Over the past 3 years, the aviation industry has provided about 40 percent 

of the technical training for FAA’s safety inspectors. To a limited degree, 

inspectors have received training from the aviation industry in exchange 

for in-kind services or at no cost to FAA. Although FAA has taken steps to 

address concerns over possible real or apparent conflicts of interest 

resulting from receiving this training, it has not consistently applied these 

policies. 

FAA Contracts with the 

Aviation Industry for Much 

of the Technical Training 

Provided to Inspectors

FAA provides technical training to its inspectors either through the FAA 

Academy (with courses taught in Oklahoma City or at FAA regional 

locations) or through contracts with the outside training providers, 

including some in the aviation industry that FAA regulates under FAA’s gift 

authority. Technical training provided by the aviation industry includes

• pilot training;

• aircraft maintenance training; 

• training covering inspection technologies and procedures; and

• training on aircraft systems, structures, and components. 

FAA has increasingly relied on industry to provide technical training to its 

inspectors over the past 3 fiscal years. In fiscal year 2004 (latest data 

available), industry delivered nearly half of FAA’s technical training. (See 

fig. 10.) Industry-provided training occurs most frequently for air carrier 

and general aviation operations inspectors because it is often more 

economical to have flight training provided by an outside vendor than for 

FAA to maintain or lease its own aircraft for this purpose.
Page 50 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 10: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as Reported by FAA, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Note: Numbers reported as a percent of total FAA- and industry-provided training for each type of 

inspector. See table 21 in appendix II for additional details. Because aircraft certification inspectors 

receive limited technical training, the percent of this training provided by industry can vary widely from 

year to year. 

Under Limited 

Circumstances, FAA 

Receives Training in 

Exchange for In-Kind 

Services 

In addition to paying industry to provide technical training for inspectors, 

FAA employs two arrangements by which inspectors obtain training from 

the aviation industry in exchange for in-kind services. In return for 

receiving training from the aviation industry, FAA delegates certain 

regulatory authority to qualified employees of the entity being overseen

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aircraft

certification

General

aviation

Air

carrier

All

inspectors

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Type of inspector

2002

2003

2004
Page 51 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

(called quid pro quo arrangements).49 Both programs apply to Flight 

Standards operations inspectors called aircrew program managers and 

training center program managers. FAA’s Aircraft Certification service does 

not have any equivalent arrangements by which inspectors receive training 

in exchange for in-kind services. 

Under the aircrew designated examiner program, there is an arrangement 

between FAA and major passenger-carrying airlines, cargo-only carriers, 

and regional airlines by which FAA delegates, under the supervision of FAA 

inspectors, certain pilot certification authority and responsibility to pilots 

of the airline.50 In exchange, FAA inspectors receive training in the airlinespecific programs and procedures in airline-specific aircraft or simulators 

at no cost to the agency. Airlines benefit from the increased flexibility of 

being able to certify their own pilots and not having to arrange and 

schedule certification by an FAA inspector. FAA also benefits from this 

flexibility because delegating the certification activities increases its 

capacity for and efficiency of its oversight and management activities. In 

addition, because the training received is airline-specific, it further 

enhances the inspectors’ knowledge of the specific aspects of the airlines’ 

operations that they are responsible for overseeing. The aircrew designated 

examiner program originated in 1982 as an agreement between a single 

airline and FAA, stemming from FAA’s inability to meet industry’s 

increasing demand for certification specialists. Each agreement between 

FAA and the airline is governed by a memorandum of understanding that 

outlines the reasons for establishing the specific aircrew designated 

examiner agreement, lists the aircraft types involved, and contains an 

overview of how the program requirements will be met by both parties. 

This arrangement was approved by the FAA ethics officer and was 

reviewed by the Department of Transportation Inspector General.

49In addition, FAA receives a very limited amount of training for free from aircraft 

manufacturers during the development and deployment of a new or reconfigured aircraft 

type. FAA inspectors and representatives from the aircraft manufacturer certify each other 

initially by flying in the new aircraft. During these initial flights, the FAA inspector works 

closely with a manufacturer’s test pilot to learn to operate the aircraft while also identifying 

requirements for special training or operation of the aircraft that will be necessary to certify 

future pilots. In addition, the criteria for pilot certification on the unique characteristics of 

the aircraft are identified during this process. As this is accomplished, the FAA inspector 

also learns to fly the aircraft at no cost to FAA. These instances account for less than 10 

training sessions per year for FAA inspectors, according to FAA. 

50These qualified pilots become designated check airmen who are then permitted to conduct 

flight checks or instruction in an airplane for the purpose of certifying other air carrier pilots 

to ensure they are properly trained and able to fly the aircraft.
Page 52 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA does not keep central records of training received through these 

arrangements, and it was not practical for us to gather the data from over 

100 FAA field locations. Therefore, we asked FAA’s nine regional office 

officials to contact their respective flight standards district offices and 

certificate management offices to compile these data. Some data was 

provided to us with incomplete information, sometimes without names or 

specific dates. Because of the many remote locations that gathered this 

information for us, it was not practical for us to independently verify the 

completeness or accuracy of these data. 

Overall, FAA regional office-supplied data indicate that FAA has 

memoranda of understanding with 61 airlines and 42 training centers under 

the two programs, encompassing about 300 fleets in total. (See table 8.) 

Table 8: Number of Memoranda of Understanding and Fleets Enrolled as Part of the 

Aircrew Designated Examiner Program and Agreements with Training Centers

Source: GAO analysis of FAA supplied data.

Note: This information may not be complete and was not independently verified. (See text.) 

For the aircrew designated examiner program, FAA regional officials 

indicated that the agency has memoranda of understanding with 61 of the 

134 airlines, and these agreements cover 141 aircraft fleets. More than 175 

training activities took place per year, on average, from fiscal years 2002 

through 2004, representing nearly 30 percent of all technical training 

received by air carrier operations inspectors. (See table 9.)

Number of memoranda

of understanding Number of fleets

Aircrew designated examiner 

program 61 141

Training centers 42 162

Total 103 303
Page 53 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 9: Numbers of Inspectors Trained under Aircrew Designated Examiner 

Program and Agreements with Training Centers, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Source: GAO analysis of FAA supplied data.

Note: This information may not be complete and was not independently verified. (See text.)

Similar to the aircrew designated examiner program, FAA’s Flight 

Standards office also employs memoranda of understanding with private, 

FAA-certified training centers that provide training, testing, and pilot 

certification services to commercial and private pilots throughout the 

United States. Under these agreements, certain training center employees 

may be certified by FAA to serve as designees provided they meet FAA 

requirements. On behalf of FAA, these training center designees certify 

commercial and private pilots as qualified to operate an aircraft. FAA 

assigns one or more inspectors to each training center. The inspector is 

responsible for FAA regulatory management and oversight of the training 

center through periodic inspections of training center equipment, training 

courses, course materials, and instructors. As part of the agreement 

granting designee authority to the employee of the training center, the FAA 

inspector receives aircraft-specific training from the training center at no 

cost to the agency. This training benefits FAA by increasing inspector 

knowledge and familiarization with the actual equipment being inspected, 

thereby providing more effective oversight of the training center. In 

addition, FAA does not have to utilize inspectors to certify the individual 

pilots. The training center benefits from having its own employees 

authorized to certify the pilots attending training at the center, rather than 

having to schedule and wait for FAA inspectors to accomplish the 

certifications. 

According to FAA regional officials, FAA has agreements with 42 of the 

approximately 50 training centers across the United States that include 162 

aircraft simulator fleets. From the data FAA regional offices supplied, we 

determined that an average of 59 instances of training per year occurred 

2002 2003 2004

Average

per year

Aircrew designated examiners

Number of inspectors trained 111 114 155 127

Number of training activities 155 170 200 175

Training centers

Number of inspectors trained 43 45 59 49

Number of training activities 51 52 73 59
Page 54 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

under these arrangements from fiscal years 2002 through 2004. (See tables 

8 and 9.) 

In total, the technical training provided by industry sources in exchange for 

in-kind services through these two sets of arrangements accounts for 

approximately 17 percent of all industry-provided training and 

approximately 7 percent of all technical training provided to inspectors. 

The memoranda of understanding described above were formalized, in 

part, to eliminate actual or appearances of a conflict of interest. The U.S. 

Government Standards of Ethical Conduct precludes federal employees 

from accepting gifts, including training, from those whom they regulate. An 

exception includes anything that is paid for or secured by the government 

under contract. FAA considers the granting of check airmen authority to 

designated examiners to be payment in-kind for the training received by 

FAA inspectors. The purpose of the memoranda of understanding for the 

two arrangements discussed above is to outline the nature of the payment 

in-kind that FAA will provide to eliminate the appearance that FAA is 

receiving a service for free. The memoranda of understanding address the 

conflict-of-interest issue by explicitly outlining the duties and 

responsibilities of both FAA and the operator employees who are party to 

the agreement, and they also outline the specific nature of the in-kind 

exchange. 

For the aircrew designated examiner program, a sample memorandum of 

understanding was written into FAA guidance in 1989. In 1997, a 

Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General report 

expressed concerns that the aircrew designated examiner program might 

entail a conflict of interest by precluding FAA from enforcing its safety 

regulations.51 As a result, FAA altered the memoranda of understanding by 

eliminating any language that could be construed as limiting FAA’s 

oversight authority and by specifically adding language to the contrary. 

Unlike the memoranda of understanding for the aircrew designated 

examiner program, the memoranda of understanding between FAA and 

training centers do not contain a provision stating that FAA will take 

enforcement action against any individual who violates any regulation. 

51U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Free Industry Flight 

Training of Inspectors: Federal Aviation Administration, AV-1998-042 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 9, 1997). 
Page 55 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

When we brought this to their attention, FAA officials indicated that the 

absence of this enforcement language in the training center memoranda of 

understanding was most likely the result of a simple oversight. As a result 

of our inquiry, FAA officials told us that they are revising their guidance to 

incorporate this enforcement language for future arrangements under a 

memorandum of understanding. Although this action will address any 

concerns about future arrangements, it does not make enforcement 

authority explicit under existing arrangements. 

Some Inspectors Receive 

Free Training without 

Getting Approval from FAA 

Legal Counsel

Some safety inspectors have received training opportunities from aircraft 

manufacturers or operators that they regulate at no cost to FAA and 

without providing an in-kind service in exchange. FAA requires that any 

such free training opportunities be reviewed by FAA legal counsel, at the 

regional or headquarters level, to determine propriety of accepting the 

training. However, some Flight Standards inspectors have received free 

training for which FAA gave them training credit in the absence of prior 

approval from legal counsel. According to Aircraft Certification officials, its 

inspectors do not receive training credit for free training offered by aircraft 

manufacturers, although both Aircraft Certification and Flight Standards 

inspectors often audit classes, at no charge to FAA, without receiving 

credit.

As mentioned above, U.S. Government Standards of Ethical Conduct 

generally preclude federal employees from accepting gifts, including 

training, from those they regulate. FAA generally does not accept offers of 

gifts unless there is some recognized need, or if acceptance will result in 

cost savings or other benefits in carrying out its work. FAA is allowed, 

however, to receive free training from the aviation industry in limited 

circumstances as a gift under the FAA Administrator’s gift acceptance 

authority. Under this authority, the FAA Administrator can accept any gift 

of services in carrying out aviation duties and powers. FAA’s Chief Counsel 

concluded in 1988 that FAA may accept free training if the session is 

necessary for the employee to perform his or her responsibilities, with 

respect to the provider’s projects, and the information cannot be obtained 

from another source. Before inspectors can receive free training, they must 

obtain approval from FAA legal counsel, either at the regional or national 

level. 

Because FAA does not keep central records of free training received, and 

gathering this data was not practical, we asked FAA’s nine regional offices 

to request and compile this information for us. In response, two of the nine 
Page 56 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

regions indicated that they accept free training on a limited basis. One 

region cited 57 instances, over the past 4 years, of training accepted and 

credited to inspectors’ personnel records that was provided free of charge. 

We were able to independently verify only 12 of these instances because 

some of the data lacked specific dates, some lacked inspector names, and 

some of the training was presented as completed but with no specific 

information at all. For the second region, although it could not identify 

specific records of such training, an official indicated that perhaps five 

instances of free training were accepted over the past 3 years. 

FAA’s policy regarding acceptance of free training is not well known or 

uniformly applied by its regional offices. Though some regions indicated 

that the acceptance of free training of any type is not allowed under any 

circumstances, other regions were unsure how the policy for acceptance of 

this type of training is applied. Regarding the two regions that told us they 

had accepted free training, an official from the first region indicated that 

sometimes the regional legal counsel’s office was asked to comment on the 

propriety of the training and sometimes not. In cases where legal counsel 

determined the training was improper, according to the official, the training 

was not accepted. An official from the second region indicated that free 

training opportunities were taken advantage of when normal FAA channels 

for obtaining the same training were often slow or difficult; therefore, 

accepting this training became necessary if inspectors were to receive it at 

all. Similar to the official from the first region where free training is 

routinely accepted, this official indicated that legal counsel was sometimes 

contacted for an opinion on the propriety of accepting a specific instance 

of training, and sometimes not. Because these opportunities generally arise 

at the local office level, whether such an offer is reviewed by legal counsel 

is dependent on the office manager, the manager’s understanding of the 

FAA policy, and a judgment about whether a specific training opportunity 

raises any concern that should be reviewed by legal counsel. 
Page 57 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Both the government standards of ethical conduct and FAA policy address 

the propriety of accepting gifts and free training, but FAA has not clearly 

communicated this policy and the processes for accepting free training to 

its regional offices. None of the regions we contacted were able to cite any 

specific, relevant policy guidance governing this issue. Several of the FAA 

officials we interviewed cited “verbal policy” from FAA headquarters and a 

general, long-standing understanding that acceptance of such training is 

not allowed. Other regional officials indicated that although acceptance of 

free training is generally to be avoided due to conflict-of-interest 

considerations, they would treat each occurrence separately and likely 

consult with the regional legal counsel for an opinion on the propriety of 

accepting free training. In fact, one region supplied us with an opinion from 

the regional legal counsel, stating that as a general rule, FAA has long held 

that the agency must pay for its own training. The document goes on to say 

that it is permissible to accept such an opportunity to audit the class but 

warns that an inspector is not to consider it formal training. Many regional 

and headquarters officials we spoke with indicated that it is common 

practice for FAA inspectors to audit training in this manner, for 

informational purposes and not for formal FAA training credit. On the basis 

of our survey, about 37 percent of inspectors indicated that, in the past 2 

years, they have attended or inspected a technical training course offered 

by an airline or manufacturer for which they did not receive credit.52

FAA headquarters officials agreed that the FAA order governing the 

acceptance of gifts and the government’s standards of ethical conduct 

address the broad issue of gift acceptance. However, our work indicates 

that these policies may not be clearly and uniformly understood by the FAA 

regional offices. 

Conclusions In providing training to its inspectors, FAA follows many of the effective 

management practices we have outlined in our guide for assessing training 

and development efforts in the federal government. In doing so, FAA has 

put in place thoughtful, structured processes for linking training to 

strategic goals, identifying and developing courses to improve individual 

and agency performance, actively encouraging and supporting technical 

training, ensuring that inspectors have opportunities to receive this 

technical training, and obtaining inspectors’ and their supervisors’ views on 

52The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 33 to 42 percent.
Page 58 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

the extent to which technical training affects job performance. FAA also 

recognizes the need for improvements, including (1) systematically 

assessing inspectors’ needs for technical and other training, (2) better 

timing of technical training so that inspectors receive it when it is needed 

to perform their jobs, and (3) better linking the training provided to 

achieving agency goals of improving aviation safety. FAA has begun to act 

in these areas, and we believe that, if effectively implemented, the actions 

should improve the delivery of training and ultimately help lead to fewer 

aviation accidents, fatalities, and injuries. Therefore, it is important for FAA 

to follow through with its efforts. 

FAA’s plans for inspector training are premised on the assumption that 

inspectors currently have enough technical proficiency overall and that 

future training efforts should be geared toward closing gaps in 

proficiencies that the agency has determined inspectors require for system 

safety inspections, such as risk assessment and data analysis. However, 

FAA has not convinced inspectors of the merits of its approach nor has it 

systematically identified inspectors’ training needs for conducting system 

safety inspections. Inspectors instead believe that they are not receiving all 

the training they need to stay current with rapidly changing aviation 

technologies. Many inspectors spoke out strongly on this issue—it is 

clearly a hot-button topic for them. Therefore, it is essential that as FAA 

continues to implement a system safety inspection process, it works 

closely with inspectors to demonstrate the benefits of the system safety 

approach, how inspectors’ technical and other training needs will be met, 

and how aviation safety will benefit from a system safety approach. 

Finally, FAA has recognized that the manufacturers and operators of 

aircraft and aircraft systems can be the best source of much of the 

technical training for its inspectors. While FAA pays for most of the training 

its inspectors receive from aviation sources, some of this training is 

provided at no cost or in exchange for in-kind services. However, because 

FAA keeps only scattered records on the extent to which such training 

occurs, we cannot tell how widespread it is or whether FAA legal counsel 

reviewed each training activity for propriety. FAA has not communicated 

its policy on the acceptance of training without charge; and, as a result, 

some FAA regions have accepted training that has not been approved and 

could pose conflict-of-interest issues—or the appearance of such a 

conflict—for the agency. 
Page 59 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We are making five recommendations, three involving technical training 

and two involving industry provided training. Regarding technical training, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to complete the following two actions that are either 

planned or are in early stages of development or implementation:

• To ensure that inspector technical training needs are identified and met 

in a timely manner, the Administrator should systematically assess 

inspectors’ technical training needs, increase inspector involvement in 

the decision-making process for assessing the need for courses, 

including the need for more training for maintenance and avionics 

inspectors to familiarize them with recent changes in aviation 

technology, and ensure the technical curriculum meets those needs. The 

Administrator should also take the actions needed, including developing 

guidelines for inspectors, supervisors, and training managers, to ensure 

that technical training is requested and delivered closer to the time it is 

needed to help inspectors perform their jobs. 

• With a view toward maximizing the contributions of training to 

furthering FAA’s safety mission, FAA’s training organizations should 

determine the feasibility of developing measures of the impact of 

inspector training, including technical training, on achieving 

organizational goals. 

Third, to gain better acceptance from the inspector workforce for changes 

being made and planned for the inspector training curriculum, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to increase the focus of its training efforts on how system 

safety/risk management will improve inspections and aviation safety.

Fourth, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to ensure that all existing and future memoranda of 

understanding pertaining to training received in exchange for in-kind 

services contain language stating that the agreement does not preclude 

FAA from fulfilling its oversight and enforcement role.

Finally, to preclude situations where the provision of free training by the 

aviation industry may create a conflict of interest or result in the 

appearance of such a conflict, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to review its policies on the 

acceptance of free training accepted from the aviation industry to ensure 
Page 60 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

they are understood by inspectors, supervisors, managers, and regional 

counsel; implement a process for monitoring field office compliance with 

these policies; and follow up on any noncompliance.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation and 

received comments from FAA officials, including its Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety. FAA generally agreed with the report’s 

findings and agreed to consider our recommendations. The FAA 

representatives appreciated the report’s positive recognition of its efforts 

to provide safety inspectors with the technical training they need to 

effectively accomplish their mission. 

FAA officials suggested that we modify how we grouped our presentation 

of findings from our survey of inspectors. Specifically, they maintained that 

our analysis of results should have included “moderate extent” along with 

“very great” and “great extent” as a positive response because the 

inspectors would have viewed a “moderate extent” response as a positive 

response. Thus, in FAA’s view, combining the “moderate extent” responses 

with “great extent” and “very great extent” responses would more 

accurately reflect the respondents’ intent. The extent scale that we used in 

our survey represents a unidirectional scale. As such, it is possible to 

interpret any point along that scale, other than “no extent,” as positive, 

depending upon how a question is worded. Generally, we presented 

information in the report with both “very great extent” and “great extent” 

combined to represent the clearly most positive responses. The 

combination of “very great extent” and “great extent” responses was 

intended to give FAA a clearer understanding of inspectors’ perceptions 

and guidance as to where the application of its efforts is likely to have the 

greatest effect. Although this approach served our purposes best, there are 

naturally multiple ways in which one might combine response categories. 

As such, we have provided detailed results showing responses for each 

question by each response category in appendix II and the e-supplement to 

this report. 

The officials also noted that we defined technical training for the purpose 

of this report differently from what FAA considers to be technical training 

for inspectors. While these officials appreciated the recognition of the 

differences in the two definitions in our report, they said that the different 

definitions account for some disparity between what FAA considers the 

percentage of training achieved and that shown in the draft report. For 

example, the department considers the use of computer automation tools 
Page 61 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

as a critical element of an inspector’s ability to provide effective and 

efficient safety oversight. Because the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act required that we focus on training in the latest aviation 

technologies—which we termed technical training—we did not include 

courses such as the use of computer tools in our assessment. Nevertheless, 

our draft and final reports acknowledge the importance of other training 

provided to inspectors, particularly training in skills relating to system 

safety and risk assessment. 

The department also provided several clarifying comments and technical 

corrections, which we have incorporated in this report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and 

subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation safety issues; the 

Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA; and the Director, 

Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. This report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix IV.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 62 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Appendix I

Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Apendxies

Training ApendxiI

The Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act required that we 

report on the amount of travel required of Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) inspectors in receiving training. To attempt to accomplish this 

requirement, we asked FAA to provide us with information on the number 

of times each inspector was in travel status for training, the location of the 

training, and the duration of the trips. FAA was not able to readily provide 

this information, citing limitations of its databases that track inspector 

travel. FAA told us that it is able to access and review individual inspector 

travel records, but its information systems are not set up to compile and 

analyze travel data for inspectors’ travel for training, as a whole. In part, 

this information is not readily available because the data are stored in 

multiple databases, and the information is recorded differently, depending 

on how the training is arranged and budgeted. Further, FAA officials told us 

that (1) these data would be extremely time consuming to collect and 

compile and (2) a manual search for location of training would be 

necessary in some cases. On the basis of our inquiries, we concluded that it 

was not unreasonable for FAA to lack an easily accessible, comprehensive 

set of travel data.

Thus to obtain information on inspectors’ travel for training we used our 

survey of aviation safety inspectors (conducted in late 2004). We asked 

inspectors to tell us how many weeks they were on travel status for 

technical training in the past 12 months. On the basis of our survey, we 

estimate that inspectors spend an average of about 3.1 weeks per year on 

travel status for technical training.1

 (See fig. 11.) We found that an 

estimated 54 percent of inspectors were on travel status for 1 to 3 weeks, 

and 27 percent spent 4 weeks or more on travel for technical training.2

About 19 percent of inspectors spent no time on travel status for technical 

training in the past year.3

 

1

The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 2.7 to 3.5 weeks. 

2

The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 50 to 59 percent and 22 to 

31 percent, respectively. 

3

The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 15 to 23 percent. 
Appendix I

Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical 

Training

Page 63 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Figure 11: Number of Weeks Inspectors Reported Spending on Travel for Technical 

Training within the Past 12 Months 

On average, Flight Standards inspectors spent more time on travel for 

technical training than did Aircraft Certification inspectors, according to 

our analysis of survey responses. Flight Standards inspectors spent an 

average of approximately 3.2 weeks over the past year, and Aircraft 

Certification inspectors were on travel for training for approximately 2 

weeks.4

The Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act contained a 

“Sense of the House” that stated that, if possible, FAA inspectors should be 

allowed to take training at the location most convenient for the inspector. 

As part of our survey, we asked the inspectors the extent to which there are 

opportunities for FAA to offer or contract for technical training closer to 

the inspectors’ work location. According to our survey, we estimate that 

approximately 13 percent of inspectors indicated, to a great or very great

4

The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 2.8 to 3.6 weeks and 1.0 to 

3.0 weeks, respectively. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

10 or

more

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Number of weeks
Appendix I

Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical 

Training

Page 64 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

extent, that such opportunities existed.5 (See fig. 12.) However, more than 

one-third of inspectors indicated they did not know if such training 

opportunities existed.6

 We did not attempt to verify inspectors’ views on 

opportunities for nearby technical training.

Figure 12: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training 

Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work Location

Note: See table 22 in appendix II for additional details. 

5

The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 9 to 16 percent.

6

The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 32 to 41 percent. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Don't

know

To some or

no extent

To a

moderate

extent

To a great

or very

great extent

Percent

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Page 65 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses ApendxiI

Tables 10 through 22 provide additional inspector training data as well as 

additional detail on inspectors’ views on FAA technical training, as 

discussed earlier in this report. The survey results, exclusive of inspector 

specialty breakouts, can be found at GAO-05-704SP. 

The stratified random sample of FAA inspectors was designed to have an 

overall margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points at a 95 percent 

level of confidence. Due to nonresponse, the actual overall margin of error 

is plus or minus 4.6 percentage points. The individual types of FAA 

inspectors represent strata in the sample. The precision for results within 

each stratum is less than the overall precision for population level 

estimates. Estimates for each individual type of safety inspector (stratum 

level) have margins of error greater than 4.6 percentage points. Estimates 

are more accurate for strata that have a larger number of responding 

inspectors than for those with fewer inspectors in them.

For tables in this appendix that provide results of our survey of safety 

inspectors, we present both the estimated percentage of those responding 

in a certain way to each question and the confidence interval associated 

with that estimate. For example, in table 13, we report on the percentage of 

general aviation inspectors who responded to a great extent that they have 

enough technical knowledge to do their job as 39 (31 – 46). This means that 

we estimate that 39 percent of all general aviation inspectors believe this to 

a great extent. Had we surveyed the population of all general aviation 

inspectors, we are 95 percent confident that the percentage point 

responding “to a great extent” for this survey question would lie between 31 

and 46 percentage points. The confidence interval reflects the sampling 

error that corresponds to the estimate of 39 percent. The tables associated 

with our survey in this appendix provide the number of respondents within 

each row. In some cases, the numbers are small because FAA has relatively 

few of these types of inspectors. See appendix III for more information on 

how we conducted our survey.
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 66 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 10: Percent of Essential Courses That Are Technical in Nature 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Table 11: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Courses 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Note: See text for a discussion of why inspectors may not have completed essential courses.

Type of inspector

Number of

essential

technical courses

Number of

essential

courses overall

Percent of

essential courses

that are technical

Air carrier avionics 14 28 50

Air carrier maintenance 8 22 36

Air carrier operations 1 10 10

Cabin safety 3 12 25

General aviation avionics 12 26 46

General aviation 

maintenance 8 23 35

General aviation 

operations 2 13 15

Aircraft certification 0 7 0

All inspectors 48 141 34

Type of inspector

Percent of inspectors

completing at least 75

percent of essential

courses

Percent of inspectors

completing at least 50

percent of essential

courses

Air carrier avionics 13 81

Air carrier maintenance 25 83

Air carrier operations 30 79

Cabin safety 73 88

General aviation avionics 30 81

General aviation maintenance 36 86

General aviation operations 47 88

Aircraft certification 9 94

All inspectors 30 84
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 67 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 12: Average Number of Technical Training Courses Taken Outside of 

Requirements, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Table 13: Inspectors’ Views on Extent to Which They Currently Have Enough Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “To what 

extent do you currently have enough technical knowledge about the aircraft, systems, or operations 

you inspect to do your present job?” For more detail about the estimates and the corresponding 

confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. 

Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 5 for visual 

illustration.

Type of inspector

Average number of

technical courses

Air carrier avionics 1.5

Air carrier maintenance 1.7

Air carrier operations 2.3

Cabin safety 0.2

General aviation avionics 1.4

General aviation maintenance 1.8

General aviation operations 2.6

Aircraft certification 1.2

All inspectors 1.7

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size Very great Great Moderate Some None

Air carrier 231 13 (9-18) 40 (34-46) 33 (27-39) 12 (9-17) 1 (0-4)

Air carrier avionics 46 7 (2-17) 28 (17-42) 37 (24-52) 28 (17-42) 0 (0-6)

Air carrier maintenance 88 8 (3-15) 44 (35-54) 35 (26-45) 9 (4-17) 3 (1-9)

Air carrier operations 79 20 (13-30) 41 (31-51) 30 (21-40) 9 (4-16) 0 (0-4)

Cabin safety 18 28 (11-50) 51 (30-71) 11 (2-31) 11 (2-31) 0 (0-15)

General aviation 132 10 (6-16) 39 (31-46) 36 (29-44) 15 (10-22) 0 (0-2)

General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 45 (25-67) 36 (18-58) 18 (6-39) 0 (0-13)

General aviation maintenance 56 13 (6-23) 41 (29-53) 36 (24-49) 11 (4-21) 0 (0-5)

General aviation operations 54 11 (4-22) 33 (22-47) 37 (25-49) 19 (10-31) 0 (0-5)

Aircraft certification 25 20 (7-39) 48 (29-67) 28 (13-48) 4 (0-19) 0 (0-11)

All inspectors 388 12 (9-16) 40 (35-45) 34 (29-38) 13 (10-16) 1 (0-2)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 68 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 14: Inspectors’ Views on Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is Approved

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “To what 

extent have the technical training courses you requested been approved?” For more detail about the 

estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at 

the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to 

rounding. See figure 6 for visual illustration.

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size Very great Great Moderate Some None Don’t know

Air carrier 231 8 (5-12) 23 (18-28) 24 (19-30) 28 (22-33) 13 (9-18) 4 (2-7)

Air carrier avionics 46 4 (1-14) 22 (12-35) 24 (13-38) 37 (24-51) 9 (3-19) 4 (1-14)

Air carrier maintenance 88 3 (1-9) 24 (16-33) 27 (19-37) 28 (20-38) 11 (6-19) 6 (2-12)

Air carrier operations 80 14 (7-23) 21 (13-31) 21 (13-31) 24 (15-34) 17 (10-27) 2 (0-8)

Cabin safety 17 12 (2-33) 34 (17-54) 24 (8-47) 18 (6-40) 6 (0-25) 5 (0-22)

General aviation 132 5 (2-9) 19 (13-26) 17 (12-24) 30 (22-37) 24 (17-31) 6 (3-11)

General aviation avionics 22 5 (0-22) 5 (0-22) 18 (6-39) 36 (18-58) 27 (11-49) 9 (1-28)

General aviation maintenance 56 7 (2-17) 18 (9-30) 20 (11-32) 29 (18-41) 20 (11-32) 7 (2-17)

General aviation operations 54 2 (0-9) 26 (15-39) 15 (7-26) 28 (17-41) 26 (15-39) 4 (1-12)

Aircraft certification 25 4 (0-19) 16 (5-35) 28 (13-48) 16 (5-35) 28 (13-48) 8 (1-24)

All inspectors 388 6 (4-9) 21 (17-25) 22 (18-26) 28 (24-32) 18 (14-21) 5 (3-8)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 69 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 15: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Availability of Courses Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested 

Technical Training 

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “Have 

the following factors helped or hindered your ability to take the technical training you requested to do 

your current job? Factor: Availability of courses.” For more detail about the estimates and the 

corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of 

this appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 

7 for visual illustration. 

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size

Greatly

helped Helped

Neither

helped nor

hindered Hindered

Greatly

hindered

No basis

to judge Don’t know

Air carrier 231 4 (2-7) 24 (18-29) 27 (22-33) 30 (24-36) 8 (5-12) 5 (3-8) 2 (1-4)

Air carrier avionics 46 4 (1-14) 22 (11-35) 28 (17-42) 35 (22-49) 9 (3-20) 0 (0-6) 2 (0-10)

Air carrier maintenance 88 3 (1-9) 27 (19-37) 20 (13-30) 34 (25-43) 9 (4-17) 2 (0-7) 3 (1-9)

Air carrier operations 79 4 (1-10) 22 (13-32) 34 (24-44) 25 (17-36) 6 (2-14) 9 (4-17) 0 (0-4)

Cabin safety 18 6 (0-24) 16 (5-36) 28 (11-50) 12 (2-31) 17 (5-38) 22 (8-43) 0 (0-15)

General aviation 131 3 (1-7) 18 (12-26) 34 (27-42) 25 (18-32) 9 (5-15) 8 (4-14) 2 (0-5)

General aviation avionics 21 0 (0-13) 10 (1-29) 33 (15-56) 29 (12-51) 14 (3-35) 14 (3-35) 0 (0-13)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 4 (1-12) 23 (13-36) 38 (26-49) 21 (12-34) 7 (2-17) 5 (1-14) 2 (0-9)

General aviation 

operations 54 4 (1-12) 17 (8-29) 31 (20-45) 28 (17-41) 9 (3-20) 9 (3-20) 2 (0-9)

Aircraft certification 25 8 (1-24) 20 (7-39) 36 (19-56) 4 (0-19) 20 (7-39) 12 (3-30) 0 (0-11)

All inspectors 387 4 (2-6) 22 (18-25) 30 (26-35) 27 (23-31) 9 (7-12) 7 (5-9) 2 (1-3)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 70 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 16: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Availability of Funds Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical 

Training 

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “Have 

the following factors helped or hindered your ability to take the technical training you requested to do 

your current job? Factor: Availability of funds.” For more detail about the estimates and the 

corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in appendix), please see the text at the beginning of this 

appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 7 

for visual illustration. 

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size

Greatly

helped Helped

Neither

helped nor

hindered Hindered

Greatly

hindered

No basis

to judge Don’t know

Air carrier 229 4 (2-8) 10 (6-14) 21 (16-26) 28 (22-33) 24 (18-29) 7 (4-11) 7 (4-10)

Air carrier avionics 46 9 (3-20) 6 (2-16) 15 (7-28) 39 (26-54) 17 (8-30) 0 (0-6) 13 (5-25)

Air carrier maintenance 87 3 (1-9) 16 (9-25) 22 (14-31) 24 (16-34) 22 (14-31) 6 (2-12) 7 (3-14)

Air carrier operations 78 4 (1-11) 5 (2-12) 23 (15-33) 26 (17-36) 28 (19-39) 10 (5-19) 4 (1-10)

Cabin safety 18 0 (0-15) 6 (0-24) 17 (5-38) 33 (15-56) 28 (12-51) 16 (5-36) 0 (0-15)

General aviation 131 3 (1-7) 8 (4-13) 16 (11-23) 30 (22-37) 29 (22-36) 10 (6-16) 5 (2-9)

General aviation 

avionics 22 0 (0-13) 9 (1-28) 18 (6-39) 18 (6-39) 36 (18-58) 14 (3-34) 5 (0-22)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 2 (0-9) 11 (4-21) 13 (6-23) 32 (21-45) 30 (19-43) 5 (1-14) 7 (2-17)

General aviation 

operations 53 6 (1-15) 4 (1-12) 19 (10-31) 32 (21-46) 25 (14-37) 13 (6-25) 2 (0-9)

Aircraft certification 25 12 (3-30) 4 (0-19) 8 (1-24) 28 (13-48) 28 (13-48) 12 (3-30) 8 (1-24)

All inspectors 385 4 (3-7) 9 (6-12) 18 (15-22) 29 (24-33) 26 (22-30) 8 (6-11) 6 (4-9)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 71 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 17: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Management’s Determination of Need Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take 

Requested Technical Training

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “Have 

the following factors helped or hindered your ability to take the technical training you requested to do 

your current job? Factor: Management’s determination of your need for the course.” For more detail 

about the estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see 

the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent 

due to rounding. See figure 7 for visual illustration. 

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size

Greatly

helped Helped

Neither

helped nor

hindered Hindered

Greatly

hindered

No basis

to judge Don’t know

Air carrier 230 7 (4-11) 29 (23-34) 33 (27-39) 15 (11-20) 7 (4-11) 6 (4-10) 3 (1-6)

Air carrier avionics 46 4 (1-14) 37 (25-51) 30 (19-44) 15 (7-28) 6 (2-16) 2 (0-11) 4 (1-14)

Air carrier maintenance 88 7 (3-14) 28 (20-38) 38 (28-47) 15 (8-23) 7 (3-14) 3 (1-9) 2 (0-7)

Air carrier operations 79 8 (3-15) 25 (17-36) 31 (21-40) 15 (8-24) 8 (3-15) 10 (5-19) 4 (1-10)

Cabin safety 17 6 (0-25) 28 (14-46) 18 (6-40) 25 (10-46) 6 (0-25) 17 (5-38) 0 (0-16)

General aviation 132 6 (3-11) 23 (17-31) 28 (21-35) 19 (13-26) 13 (8-19) 8 (4-14) 2 (1-6)

General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 27 (11-49) 14 (3-34) 23 (8-44) 18 (6-39) 14 (3-34) 5 (0-22)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 9 (3-19) 23 (13-36) 34 (22-47) 16 (8-28) 13 (6-23) 4 (1-12) 2 (0-9)

General aviation 

operations 54 6 (1-15) 22 (13-35) 28 (17-41) 20 (11-33) 11 (4-22) 11 (4-22) 2 (0-9)

Aircraft certification 25 4 (0-19) 20 (7-39) 20 (7-39) 28 (13-48) 12 (3-30) 16 (5-35) 0 (0-11)

All inspectors 387 6 (4-9) 26 (22-30) 30 (26-35) 17 (14-21) 9 (7-13) 8 (5-10) 3 (1-5)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 72 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 18: Inspectors’ Views on Whether Inspection Workload Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical 

Training

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “Have 

the following factors helped or hindered your ability to take the technical training you requested to do 

your current job? Factor: The impact on your workload of the time commitment required for the 

training.” For more detail about the estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in 

appendix), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages will not 

add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 7 for visual representation.

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size

Greatly

helped Helped

Neither

helped nor

hindered Hindered

Greatly

hindered

No basis to

judge Don’t know

Air carrier 231 1 (0-4) 5 (3-9) 58 (52-64) 21 (16-25) 7 (4-11) 6 (4-10) 2 (1-4)

Air carrier avionics 46 0 (0-6) 9 (3-20) 63 (48-76) 15 (7-28) 9 (3-20) 2 (0-10) 2 (0-10)

Air carrier maintenance 88 2 (0-7) 7 (3-13) 65 (55-74) 15 (9-23) 5 (1-11) 6 (2-12) 1 (0-6)

Air carrier operations 79 1 (0-6) 3 (0-9) 48 (38-59) 29 (20-40) 9 (4-17) 7 (3-15) 2 (0-8)

Cabin safety 18 0 (0-15) 0 (0-15) 62 (39-81) 17 (5-38) 0 (0-15) 22 (8-43) 0 (0-15)

General aviation 132 2 (0-5) 6 (3-11) 55 (47-63) 18 (13-25) 11 (6-17) 8 (4-13) 1 (0-4)

General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 5 (0-22) 59 (37-78) 5 (0-22) 23 (8-44) 9 (1-28) 0 (0-13)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 0 (0-5) 13 (6-23) 57 (45-69) 14 (7-25) 7 (2-17) 7 (2-17) 2 (0-9)

General aviation 

operations 54 4 (1-12) 0 (0-5) 52 (39-64) 28 (17-41) 9 (3-20) 7 (2-17) 0 (0-5)

Aircraft certification 25 4 (0-19) 0 (0-11) 56 (36-74) 8 (1-24) 12 (3-30) 20 (7-39) 0 (0-11)

All inspectors 388 2 (1-3) 5 (3-8) 57 (52-62) 19 (15-23) 8 (6-12) 7 (5-10) 1 (0-3)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 73 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 19: Inspectors’ Views on the Degree to Which Technical Training Is Delivered in a Timely Manner

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “During 

your FAA career, to what extent have you received technical training in a timely manner – meaning 

receiving training in time to do your current job?” For more detail about the estimates and the 

corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of 

this appendix. The number of inspectors responding “do not know” was 2 percent or less. These 

results are not presented. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

See figure 8 for visual representation.

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size Very great Great Moderate Some None

Air carrier 229 1 (0-4) 20 (15-25) 27 (21-32) 38 (32-44) 14 (10-18)

Air carrier avionics 46 0 (0-6) 15 (7-28) 15 (7-28) 56 (43-70) 13 (5-24)

Air carrier maintenance 87 0 (0-3) 17 (10-26) 37 (27-46) 28 (19-38) 18 (11-28)

Air carrier operations 78 4 (1-10) 27 (18-38) 20 (13-30) 40 (30-50) 9 (4-17)

Cabin safety 18 0 (0-15) 6 (0-24) 44 (24-66) 34 (16-56) 16 (5-36)

General aviation 132 2 (1-6) 13 (8-19) 22 (16-29) 51 (43-59) 12 (7-18)

General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 0 (0-13) 27 (11-49) 55 (33-75) 18 (6-39)

General aviation maintenance 56 2 (0-9) 16 (8-28) 21 (12-34) 46 (34-59) 14 (7-25)

General aviation operations 54 4 (1-12) 15 (7-26) 20 (11-33) 54 (41-66) 7 (2-17)

Aircraft certification 25 8 (1-24) 24 (10-44) 28 (13-48) 32 (16-52) 8 (1-24)

All inspectors 386 2 (1-4) 18 (14-21) 25 (21-29) 42 (37-47) 13 (10-16)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 74 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 20: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent That They Receive Technical Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight Activities

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to the following question, “In 

thinking about the timing of when you received technical training during your FAA career, how often did 

the following situations apply? Situation: Technical and/or equipment training was received prior to 

scheduled oversight/surveillance activities.” For more detail about the estimates and the corresponding 

confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. 

Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 9 for visual 

representation.

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never No basis

Air carrier 231 4 (2-8) 18 (14-23) 31 (26-37) 29 (23-34) 14 (10-19) 3 (1-6)

Air carrier avionics 46 0 (0-6) 7 (2-17) 26 (15-40) 61 (46-74) 7 (2-17) 0 (0-6)

Air carrier maintenance 88 6 (2-12) 11 (6-19) 35 (26-45) 22 (14-31) 24 (16-33) 2 (0-7)

Air carrier operations 79 5 (2-12) 29 (20-40) 29 (20-40) 23 (14-33) 9 (4-17) 5 (2-12)

Cabin safety 18 5 (0-21) 28 (12-51) 40 (21-61) 11 (2-31) 11 (2-31) 5 (0-21)

General aviation 132 2 (1-6) 19 (13-26) 27 (20-35) 33 (26-41) 11 (7-17) 7 (3-12)

General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 5 (0-22) 18 (6-39) 36 (18-58) 23 (8-44) 18 (6-39)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 4 (1-12) 20 (11-32) 27 (16-39) 32 (21-45) 14 (7-25) 4 (1-12)

General aviation operations 54 2 (0-9) 24 (14-37) 31 (20-45) 33 (22-47) 4 (1-12) 6 (1-15)

Aircraft certification 25 4 (0-19) 28 (13-48) 32 (16-52) 20 (7-39) 16 (5-35) 0 (0-11)

All inspectors 388 4 (2-6) 19 (15-23) 30 (26-34) 30 (26-34) 13 (10-17) 4 (3-7)
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 75 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 21: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as Reported by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Note: See figure 10 for visual representation

a

As a percent of total FAA- and industry-provided training for each type of inspector. 

. 

2002 2003 2004

Type of inspector Number Percenta Number Percenta Number Percenta

Air carrier

Air carrier avionics 181 30 193 42 218 53

Air carrier maintenance 475 39 313 38 323 53

Air carrier operations 282 54 341 57 332 55

Cabin safety 9 39 7 23 6 33

Subtotal 947 40 854 45 879 54

General aviation

General aviation avionics 77 24 65 33 59 33

General aviation maintenance 240 30 160 28 148 33

General aviation operations 167 41 248 56 222 40

Subtotal 484 32 473 39 429 37

Aircraft certification 28 34 27 41 3 8

Total 1,459 37 1,354 42 1,311 46
Appendix II

Additional Details on Training Data and 

Selected Inspector Survey Responses

Page 76 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Table 22: Inspectors’ Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work Location

Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.

Note: The data in this table represents the responses from inspectors to the following question, “To 

what extent are there opportunities for FAA to offer or contract for technical training, such as 

recurrency training, closer to your work location that is currently held at a central location far from your 

work location?” For more detail about the estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals 

(numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row 

percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 12 for visual representation.

Percent (confidence interval)

Type of inspector

Unweighted

sample size Very great Great Moderate Some None Don’t know

Air carrier 231 4 (2-7) 11 (7-15) 5 (3-9) 13 (9-18) 30 (24-35) 38 (32-44)

Air carrier avionics 46 2 (0-10) 9 (3-20) 2 (0-11) 24 (13-37) 26 (15-40) 37 (24-52)

Air carrier maintenance 87 3 (1-9) 7 (3-14) 8 (4-15) 10 (5-18) 26 (18-36) 45 (35-54)

Air carrier operations 80 5 (2-12) 16 (9-25) 4 (1-10) 11 (6-20) 34 (24-44) 30 (20-39)

Cabin safety 18 0 (0-15) 6 (0-24) 0 (0-15) 6 (0-24) 37 (22-54) 51 (32-70)

General aviation 132 2 (1-6) 9 (5-15) 10 (6-16) 18 (12-24) 26 (19-33) 35 (28-43)

General aviation avionics 22 5 (0-22) 0 (0-13) 14 (3-34) 5 (0-22) 23 (8-44) 55 (33-75)

General aviation 

maintenance 56 2 (0-9) 7 (2-17) 11 (4-21) 11 (4-21) 27 (16-39) 43 (31-55)

General aviation operations 54 2 (0-9) 15 (7-26) 7 (2-17) 30 (19-43) 26 (15-39) 20 (11-33)

Aircraft certification 25 4 (0-19) 0 (0-11) 12 (3-30) 20 (7-39) 28 (13-48) 36 (19-56)

All inspectors 388 3 (2-5) 10 (7-13) 7 (5-10) 15 (12-18) 28 (24-32) 37 (32-41)
Page 77 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Appendix III

Scope and Methodology ApendxiI

To assess the extent to which FAA followed effective management 

practices in planning for, developing, and delivering up-to-date technical 

training, and ensuring that the technical training for inspectors contributes 

to improved performance and results, we identified key elements for 

assessing effective training and development efforts in the federal 

government using our recent guide on this subject.1

 We identified the 

elements of this guidance that were most relevant to the training activities 

at FAA for aviation safety inspectors and then determined the extent to 

which FAA followed these practices. In determining the extent to which 

FAA followed a practice, we used the following scale: “fully” indicated that 

in our judgment all or virtually all aspects of the practice were followed; 

“mostly” indicated that more than half were followed; “partially” indicated 

that less than half were followed; and “not followed” indicated that few or 

no aspects of the practice were followed. For each element, we obtained 

information from FAA on its plans and activities and compared this 

information with the published criteria. We discussed this information with 

FAA training and program officials to gain their perspectives. In addition to 

gaining an understanding of these plans, and activities generally, we 

applied the elements in our training guidance to two emerging technologies 

(glass cockpits and composite materials) and determined how training 

needs in these areas were incorporated into training courses for FAA 

inspectors. 

We supplemented these activities in several ways to gain additional 

perspectives of inspector technical training needs and FAA’s efforts to meet 

these needs. First, we collected materials from and interviewed FAA 

managers, supervisors, and inspectors at 7 of approximately 130 locations 

across the United States where FAA inspections take place. These efforts 

illuminated a mix of FAA inspector responsibilities for air carrier and 

general aviation operations and maintenance, new aircraft certifications, 

and oversight of manufacturing facilities. Second, we discussed technical 

training needs and FAA’s actions with senior management of the 

Professional Airways System Specialists, the collective bargaining unit for 

air safety inspectors. Third, we sought the advice of two sets of experts, 

one to provide advice on the overall design of our study and a second to 

help us assess FAA’s technical training curriculum and the extent to which 

FAA ensures that safety inspectors receive needed technical training. (See 

table 23.) We selected these experts on the basis of their knowledge of FAA 

safety inspectors and aviation technologies. We also sought the views of 23 

1

GAO-04-546G.
Appendix III

Scope and Methodology

Page 78 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

member airlines of the Air Transport Association and the Regional Airline 

Association on the technical training of inspectors. Fourth, we visited the 

FAA Training Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, to learn more about 

how courses are delivered to inspectors. Fifth, we reviewed National 

Transportation Safety Board recommendations concerning FAA safety 

inspector technical training. Lastly, we reviewed our studies and those of 

the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General concerning 

inspector training and human capital issues. (See the Related Products 

section of this report for a list of our products.)

Table 23: Experts Consulted for Our Work

Source: GAO.

To determine the type and amount of technical and other training that FAA 

inspectors receive, we obtained course descriptions from FAA and data 

from the Flight Standards training management system database and 

spreadsheets from Aircraft Certification for fiscal years 2002 through 2004. 

Design experts Curriculum experts

Mr. Gary Kiteley, Executive Director, Council on Aviation 

Accreditation

Mr. Brian Finnegan, President, Professional Aviation Maintenance 

Association

Mr. Kent Lovelace, Chairman and Professor, Department of 

Aviation, University of North Dakota

Mr. David Lotterer, Vice President of Technical Services, Regional 

Airline Association

Dr. Thomas Q. Carney, Professor and Department Head, 

Department of Aviation Technology, Purdue University

Mr. Basil Barimo, Vice President, Operations and Safety and Mr. 

Mont J. Smith, Director, Safety; Air Transport Association of 

America

Mr. Anthony J. Broderick, Independent Aviation Safety Consultant Mr. David Wright, Director of Training, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, Air Safety Foundation

 Mr. Theodore Beneigh, Professor, Aeronautical Science; Mr. 

Charles Westbrooks, Assistant Professor, Aeronautical Science; 

Mr. Fred Mirgle, Director, Aviation and Avionics Training; Mr. Neill 

Fulbright, Associate Program Coordinator, Avionics Line 

Maintenance; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Mr. Walter Desrosier, Vice President, Engineering and 

Maintenance; Mr. Jens Hennig, Manager, Operations; Mr. Gregory 

Bowles, Manager, Engineering and Maintenance; General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association

Dr. Michael Romanowski, Vice President, Civil Aviation and Mr. 

Ronald R. Baker, Jr., Manager, Civil Aviation Programs; Aerospace 

Industries Association

Ms. Sarah MacLeod, Executive Director and Mr. Paul Hawthorne, 

Vice President, Operations; Aeronautical Repair Station 

Association
Appendix III

Scope and Methodology

Page 79 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

FAA officials indicated their belief that a study of inspector technical 

training should encompass training records over the whole of the 

inspectors’ careers. However, because the Vision 100 – Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act asked us to study up-to-date training on the latest 

technologies, we analyzed only the most recent 3 fiscal years of data. The 

data that we obtained included (1) essential and recommended courses by 

type of inspector; (2) training completed by each inspector; and (3) 

inspector specialty, location, and date of employment. We then calculated 

the amount of inspector training completed by course category and by type 

of inspector. In addition, we used the training records and course 

requirements to determine the extent to which inspectors have completed 

essential FAA courses. 

To assess the reliability of the training data, we (1) interviewed 

knowledgeable agency officials about the data, (2) performed electronic 

testing of relevant data fields for obvious errors in accuracy and 

completeness, and (3) collected and reviewed documentation from data 

system managers about the data and the systems that produced them. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report.

To gather information about inspectors’ perspectives on the technical 

training available to them, we conducted a Web-based survey of a 

representative sample of FAA safety inspectors. The survey asked a 

combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and close-ended 

responses. We drew a stratified random probability sample of 496 

inspectors from the population of 2,989 aviation safety inspectors across 

the United States.2

 We stratified the population into 12 groups on the basis 

of the type of work the inspector performed. Each sample element was 

subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the 

members of the population.

Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selection, 

our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have 

drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we 

express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as 

2

Our population included only those inspectors who actively participate in inspection 

activities as part of their regular job duties. It did not include managers, supervisors, or 

inspectors detailed to headquarters or regional offices. FAA employs a total of 

approximately 3,700 safety inspectors. 
Appendix III

Scope and Methodology

Page 80 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4.6 percentage points). 

This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 

percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent 

confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include 

the true values in the study population. The percentage estimates for all 

survey respondents have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage 

points. However, the percentage estimates for the subgroups are larger 

with a range of margin of error of plus or minus between 9.7 and 20.0 

percentage points. Survey estimates presented as comparisons between 

groups are statistically significant when the 95 percent confidence intervals 

do not overlap.

The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic 

questionnaires accessible on the Internet through a secure Web browser. 

We sent e-mail notifications to 496 inspectors, beginning on December 4, 

2004. We then sent each potential respondent a unique password and 

username to ensure that only members of the target population could 

participate in the survey. The initial version of the questionnaire that was 

posted on December 4, 2004, did not include three questions. A revised 

version was posted on December 14, 2004, before most respondents had 

answered the questionnaire. Because approximately one-quarter of the 

respondents did not answer these three new questions (questions 9, 20, and 

25d), these results are not included in the report. To encourage 

respondents to complete the questionnaire, we sent a subsequent e-mail 

message to further prompt each nonrespondent approximately 2 weeks 

after the initial e-mail message. We sent nonrespondents two more notices 

and closed the survey on February 4, 2005. Of the 496 inspectors whom we 

surveyed, we received 392 useable responses (79 percent). 

In addition to these sampling errors, the practical difficulties in conducting 

surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors, commonly 

referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, questions may be 

misinterpreted, or the respondents’ answers may differ from those of the 

inspectors who did not respond. We took steps to reduce these errors. 

Finally, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with 

safety inspectors at local FAA offices in Baltimore, Los Angeles, and 

Seattle. During the pretests we asked the inspectors questions to determine 

whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were 

precise, (3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the respondents, 

and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and 

format of the final questionnaire on the basis of the pretest results. 
Appendix III

Scope and Methodology

Page 81 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

To determine the amount of training FAA receives from the aviation 

industry, we analyzed the training records of all FAA safety inspectors. We 

obtained FAA’s course numbering and categorization system and used it to 

determine whether individual courses were provided by FAA or by the 

aviation industry. We computed the total number of technical courses 

attended by FAA inspectors from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and 

identified those provided by the aviation industry. We discussed our results 

with FAA training officials. See the discussion above for our actions to 

assess the completeness and reliability of these data.

To determine the amount of training safety inspectors received from 

industry either (1) in return for in-kind services or (2) for free, we reviewed 

training records and interviewed FAA headquarters officials and regional 

officials about FAA policies for accepting these types of training. We also 

asked about procedures used when such training is requested, including 

steps taken to ensure that any real or apparent conflict-of-interest issues 

are addressed. FAA does not keep separate records of these two types of 

training, and these data cannot easily be identified from the central training 

data files. Therefore, we instead interviewed officials at FAA’s nine regional 

officials and requested these training data from them. Subsequently, we 

used the safety inspector training records to validate some of these data. 

We relied on FAA’s nine regional office officials to contact over 100 Flight 

Standards and Air Certification offices to collect these data for fiscal years 

2002 through 2004. Some regions indicated that their offices did not keep 

full records. Other regions provided us with incomplete data records, 

sometimes without names or specific dates. Because of the large number of 

offices from which the data were gathered, it was not practical for us to 

independently verify the completeness or accuracy of these data. As a 

result, we cannot be sure that the information FAA supplied includes all 

industry-provided training received for the 3 fiscal years. 
Page 82 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, James Ratzenberger, Assistant 

Director; Carl Barden; Nancy Boardman; Brad Dubbs; Alice Feldesman; 

Jim Geibel; Kim Gianopoulos; David Hooper; Michael Krafve; Ed Laughlin; 

Donna Leiss; Jean McSween; Minette Richardson; and Sandra Sokol made 

key contributions to this report.
Page 83 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Related GAO Products

FAA Safety Inspector 

Training

National Aerospace System: Reauthorizing FAA Provides Opportunities 

and Options to Address Challenges. GAO-03-473T. Washington, D.C.: 

February 12, 2003.

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Transportation. GAO-03-108. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003.

Aviation Safety: FAA’s New Inspection System Offers Promise, but 

Problems Need to Be Addressed. GAO/RCED-99-183. Washington, D.C.: 

June 28, 1999.

Aviation Safety: Weaknesses in Inspection and Enforcement Limit FAA 

in Identifying and Responding to Risks. GAO/RCED-98-6. Washington, 

D.C.: February 27, 1998.

Aviation Safety: FAA Oversight of Repair Stations Needs Improvement. 

GAO/RCED-98-21. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 1997. 

Aviation Safety: Targeting and Training of FAA’s Safety Inspector 

Workforce. GAO/T-RCED-96-26. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1996.

FAA Technical Training. GAO/RCED-94-296R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 26, 1994.

FAA Budget: Important Challenges Affecting Aviation Safety, Capacity, 

and Efficiency. GAO/T-RCED-93-33. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 1993.

FAA Budget: Key Issues Need to Be Addressed. GAO/T-RCED-92-51. 

Washington, D.C.: April 6, 1992.

Aviation Safety: Commuter Airline Safety Would Be Enhanced with 

Better FAA Oversight. GAO/T-RCED-92-40. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 

1992.

Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to More Aggressively Manage Its Inspection 

Program. GAO/T-RCED-92-25. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 1992.

Aviation Safety: Problems Persist in FAA’s Inspection Program. 

GAO/RCED-92-14. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 1991.
Related GAO Products

Page 84 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

Serious Shortcomings in FAA’s Training Program Must Be Remedied. 

GAO/T-RCED-90-91. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 1990.

Serious Shortcomings in FAA’s Training Program Must Be Remedied. 

GAO/T-RCED-90-86. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 1990.

Staffing, Training, and Funding Issues for FAA’s Major Work Forces. 

GAO/T-RCED-90-42. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 1990. 

Aviation Training: FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors Are Not Receiving 

Needed Training. GAO/RCED-89-168. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 

1989.

FAA Training: Continued Improvements Needed in FAA’s Controller Field 

Training Program. GAO/RCED-89-83. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 1989.

FAA Staffing: Recruitment, Hiring, and Initial Training of SafetyRelated Personnel. GAO/RCED-88-189. Washington, D.C.: September 2, 

1988. 

Aviation Safety: Measuring How Safely Individual Airlines Operate. 

GAO/RCED-88-61. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 1988.

Aviation Safety: Needed Improvements in FAA’s Airline Inspection 

Program Are Underway. GAO/RCED-87-62. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 

1987.

FAA Work Force Issues. GAO/T-RCED-87-25. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 

1987.

Human Capital Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 

Development Efforts in the Federal Government. GAO-04-546G. 

Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2004.

Human Capital: Selected Agencies Experiences and Lessons Learned in 

Designing Training and Developing Programs. GAO-04-291. Washington, 

D.C.: January 30, 2004.

Human Capital Management: FAA’s Reform Effort Requires a More 

Strategic Approach. GAO-03-156. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2003.
Related GAO Products

Page 85 GAO-05-728 FAA Safety Inspector Training

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. 

Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002. 

Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders. 

GAO/OCG-00-14G. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2000. 

Human Capital: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Training at 

Selected Agencies. GAO/T-GGD-00-131. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2000.

Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private Sector 

Organizations. GAO/GGD-00-28. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2000.

Related FAA Training Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges for Transforming into a 

High-Performing Organization. GAO-04-770T. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 

2004.

Aviation Safety: Data Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis 

System. GAO/AIMD-95-27. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 1995.

Aircraft Certification: New FAA Approach Needed to Meet Challenges of 

Advanced Technology. GAO/RCED-93-155. Washington, D.C.: September 

16, 1993.

Aviation Safety: Progress on FAA Safety Indicators Program Slow and 

Challenges Remain. GAO/IMTEC-92-57. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 1992.

Aviation Safety: FAA’s Safety Inspection Management System Lacks 

Adequate Oversight. GAO/RCED-90-36. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 

1989.

(540089)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548