U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–618 2014

THE FAA’S IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN 

THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

Small Business Committee Document Number 113–053 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BLAINE LUETKEMER, Missouri 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

KERRY BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

DONALD PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

GRACE MENG, New York 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANN McLANE KUSTER, New Hampshire 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Sam Graves ..................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez ............................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

John Uczekaj, President and CEO, Aspen Avionics, Albuquerque, NM, testifying on behalf of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association ............... 3 

Austin Heffernan, Owner and Manager, Royal Aircraft Services, Hagerstown, 

MD, testifying on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ......... 5 

Jamail Larkins, President and CEO, Ascension Air, Atlanta, GA, testifying 

on behalf of the National Business Aviation Association ................................. 7 

Kenneth J. Button, University Professor, George Mason University, School 

of Public Policy, Director, Center for Transportation, Policy, Operations 

and Logistics, Arlington, VA ............................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

John Uczekaj, President and CEO, Aspen Avionics, Albuquerque, NM, 

testifying on behalf of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association 26 

Austin Heffernan, Owner and Manager, Royal Aircraft Services, Hagerstown, MD, testifying on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ............................................................................................................ 31 

Jamail Larkins, President and CEO, Ascension Air, Atlanta, GA, testifying on behalf of the National Business Aviation Association ................ 38 

Kenneth J. Button, University Professor, George Mason University, 

School of Public Policy, Director, Center for Transportation, Policy, 

Operations and Logistics, Arlington, VA .................................................... 44 

Questions for the Record: 

None. 

Answers for the Record: 

None. 

Additional Material for the Record: 

None. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(1) 

THE FAA’S IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN 

THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Sam Graves [chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, Chabot, Luetkemeyer, Tipton, 

Hanna, Schweikert, Collins, Vela ́zquez, Schrader, and Payne. 

Chairman GRAVES. Today we are going to examine the general 

aviation industry, and in particular, just how the regulatory environment for small businesses in general aviation is inhibiting 

growth, and in some cases, threatening the solvency of small operations. General aviation is undoubtedly a small business issue. The 

Small Business Administration estimates that almost 95 percent of 

all businesses providing air transport services are small. 

The industry consists of about 223,000 aircraft in the U.S. carrying 166 million passengers to 5,000 public airports. Many of 

which have no scheduled commercial service. According to the National Air Transportation Association more than two-thirds of these 

25 million flight hours per year are for business purposes. 

In addition to the volume of its flights, the industry is a huge 

economic driver. If you take into account both operations and manufacturing, general aviation employs about 1.2 million people, and 

contributes approximately 150 billion dollars to the overall GDP. In 

2012 alone general aviation manufacturers generated 4.8 billion 

dollars in exports of domestically manufactured aircraft equipment. 

There is no question that the general aviation industry is a very 

significant part of the national economy. Despite the industry’s contribution to the economy, general aviation is facing some economic 

challenges. In recent years rising fuel costs, the decline in the number of pilots in the United States, coupled with the drop off in airline production has left the industry vulnerable. Given this, it is 

critical that the needs of small operators are understood by those 

who are regulating the industry. Unfortunately this is not the case. 

Many in the industry see the Federal Aviation Administration as 

out of touch, and the Agency’s inefficient nature and arbitrary decision making is a real problem for small operators. Whether it is 

delays in the aircraft certification process or it is the inability for 

the FAA to implement new technologies to enhance safety, or the 

inconsistencies and air-worthiness standards from region to region, 

small general aviation businesses are negatively affected. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

2 

We are fortunate enough today to have a group of small businesses in the general aviation industry. I look forward to learning 

first-hand how the FAA’s regulatory regime is affecting their operations. 

With that I would definitely like to thank our distinguished 

group of panelists for being here and coming in today. I will now 

turn to ranking member Vela ́zquez for her opening statement. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The U.S. economy 

is both vibrant and complex resulting in an ecosystem of businesses, suppliers, and consumers crisscrossing the nation. For 

small businessmen and women this may mean traveling at a moment’s notice sometimes to towns not served regularly by commercial airlines. As a result general aviation and the flexibility it provides plays a key role in our nation’s economy. In fact, general 

aviation directly generates more than 20 billion dollars annually, 

and has an overall economic impact of nearly 80 billion dollars, employing nearly half a million workers. This contribution will grow 

as the economy continues to recover. 

Essential to this sector’s success is ensuring the safety of its pilots, passengers, and those who live near airports. According to the 

National Transportation Safety Board there were 1,071 general 

aviation accidents in 2012 with 432 fatalities. Conversely, U.S. 

commercial airline operations were fatality-free. Pursuing policies 

that improve safety are necessary, but they must be data driven 

and examined so they do not create excessive burdens for the industry and the workers that they employ. 

With this goal in mind the FAA is undertaking several non-regulatory efforts to reduce general aviation accident fatalities by 10 

percent. This strategy emphasizes training and outreach while focusing resources on the highest risk activities of general aviation. 

During today’s hearing I am particularly interested in learning 

whether these airports are producing meaningful change within the 

industry. 

On the regulatory front several issues before the FAA could affect safety. This includes a petition by industry groups to exempt 

pilots from the third-class medical certificate. While it appears the 

safety data is available for the FAA to make a decision, they have 

not responded causing frustration to many of those in this room. 

In addition, aircraft certification remains a flashpoint for the 

Agency. Not unlike other areas of government, the FAA has reported that it has a backlog of more than 1,000 certificate applications which are required for repair stations, flight school, and charter operations. Of that backlog over 130 have been waiting for more 

than 3 years. At least one has been delayed for more than seven 

years. These delays prevent new businesses from opening, and existing enterprises from expanding. 

All of these issues have one thing in common, they are largely 

dependent on the FAA’s budget. For FY 2014 the FAA received 

12.4 billion dollars, 168 million less than the year before. Sequestration and budget politics have made aviation a ‘‘hot potato’’ lurching from crisis to crisis. 

In April of last year air traffic controller furloughs led to flight 

delays. Then in October 12,000 FAA employees were furloughed for 

16 days. So if you are wondering why the FAA has not gotten back 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

3 

to you or has a large backlog, I think we all know the answer. The 

truth is that budget cuts, sequestration and shut-downs affect all 

areas of government, and aviation is no exception. 

However with that said we must try to do what we can to ensure 

the general aviation industry remains strong in light of these current fiscal challenges. It plays an important role in the U.S. economy particularly for areas that lack other transportation infrastructure, and is poised to grow stronger over the next 20 years. 

Through its presence it not only creates jobs, but also serves as an 

economic anchor for many rural communities. I think the panel of 

witnesses for traveling here today, and I look forward to their testimony. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. With that we are going to open it up to our 

witnesses. We do have a series of votes that are scheduled between 

1:30 and 1:45, as it turns out, approximately five votes. I think we 

can get through our witnesses and then we will break and come 

back if that is all right with everybody. 

Our first witness is John Uczekaj who is the President and CEO 

of Aspen Avionics in Albuquerque, New Mexico. John has over 33 

years of experience in the avionics industry, and he started out as 

an engineer at Boeing before moving into management positions at 

Sperry and Honeywell. 

Immediately prior to joining Aspen John was the President and 

COO of NORDAM Group, an aviation parts manufacturer and 

maintenance company. In January of 2013, John was name Entrepreneur of the Year by the Living Legends of Aviation. He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in electrical and computer engineering from 

Morgan State University, and an MBA from City University in Seattle, Washington. 

He is testifying on behalf of the General Aviation Manufactures 

Association. Thanks for being here, Mr. Uczekaj. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN UCZEKAJ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ASPEN AVIONICS, INC.; AUSTIN HEFFERNAN, OWNER AND 

MANAGER, ROYAL AIRCRAFT SERVICES; JAMAIL LARKINS, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASCENSION AIRCRAFT, INC.; KENNETH J. BUTTON, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY OPERATIONS AND 

LOGISTICS 

STATEMENT OF JOHN UCZEKAJ 

Mr. UCZEKAJ. Chairman Graves and ranking member 

Vela ́zquez and distinguished members of the Committee, I really 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the impact of the FAA on small business. 

My name is John Uczekaj as Congressman Graves says. I am 

President and Chief Executive of Aspen Avionics in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. I also serve on the Board of Directors of the General 

Aviation Manufactures Association, and I am also Chair of the 

Flight Operations Policy Committee. I am really honored to give 

this testimony on their behalf as well today. I am also an instrument rated pilot and owner of an aircraft. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

4 

Aspen was founded in 2004 and was founded by two aviation enthusiasts from Albuquerque with the mission of designing and 

manufacturing low-cost avionics for primary flight displays and 

multi-function displays for the lower end of the industry. 

In 2008 we delivered our first product which was a primary 

flight display which was groundbreaking in the general aviation industry as it brought technologies that up to now had been really 

reserved for the higher-end of the aircraft business jets and air 

transport aircraft. 

Our products bring electronic displays to the cockpit. Three dimensional terrain awareness is a platform for NextGen, display of 

NextGen, and modification of NextGen data, and really provides a 

wide range of functionality. 

We have 47 employees, and our entrepreneurial spirit is really 

the key to our success. We have been able to do quite a bit in a 

very short period of time. We have now 6,000 aircraft installed 

throughout the world, 27 percent of our business is done international. 

But also the key to our success is really discipline and managing 

costs and delivering a return to our investors. Aspen is run by a 

group of venture capital investors who demand a return on their 

investment, and require us to be able to be accountable to everything that we do. 

So one of the biggest challenges we have in a small business is 

response times from the FAA. Each week we get delays that cause 

us to lose hundreds or thousands of dollars, and if you multiply 

that across the entire business of small aircraft or small aerospace 

businesses you can imagine how big an impact it is. 

There are two things that affect us. One is the sequencing process, and the other is the actual process of certification. Sequencing 

process is the FAA’s method of determining priorities. Often times 

the expectations around when we get through that process is very 

inconsistent. We have to plan buffers and plan in our financials the 

time it takes for us to get to the sequencing process. 

Once through the sequencing process we then get into the FAA 

certification process. In that process there are many inconsistencies 

between certification offices throughout the country. There are inconsistencies between programs. There are changes in personnel 

that further exacerbate the problem in that we have to make 

changes as we go along. 

Aspen, from our standpoint, we raise private capital to invest in 

new products. Those uncertainties that we have in the process create a lot of unnecessary cost that we must absorb, and it creates 

a lot of unnecessary time, which in fact has a big impact on bringing safety technologies for the industry. 

With that as Chairman Graves mentioned, in our world we do 

retrofit aircraft, and there are 157,000 aircraft that are facing a 

January 1, 2020 NextGen milestone. While that may seem like a 

long time away, but the reality of the matter is that we must convince 157,000 individual owners of aircraft to upgrade their aircraft 

and convince them that it makes sense to do that. The installation 

process alone is a long and arduous task. When the certification 

process of new products takes as long as it does it becomes a real 

problem for us. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

5 

From our standpoint there are a lot of processes to go. The ODA 

process and technology of that is a good thing. Organizational Design Authority is a big process, but it is not cost effective for small 

business. We do not have the ability to do that. From our standpoint we need things like the Small Airplane Revitalization Act recently signed by President Obama. That process provided ability to 

segment markets and allows us to bring costs down. We really 

pushed hard for the thoroughness of that. 

The next thing is the Next Generation GA Fund which has recently been launched by the FAA Reform and Modernization Act of 

2012. That allows funds for people to finance the putting of equipment on their aircraft, and we think that is a very, very important 

part of it. 

It is my opinion that the government should be doing everything 

to lift general aviation for the reasons that were discussed both by 

Congressman Graves and Congressman Vela ́zquez. It is a very important sector of our economy. I really thank you for the opportunity to talk about how our business interacts with regulators in 

the FAA. 

I want to be clear though in closing that we appreciate the work 

of the FAA, their dedication and attention. I also believe their opportunities to improve and reform their efforts to maximize their 

benefits and improve safety. I look forward to discussing this further, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you. Our next witness is Austin 

Heffernan, owner and manager of Royal Aircraft Services in Hagerstown, Maryland. Founded eight years ago, Royal Aircraft Services is an FAA certified repair station specializing in aircraft painting, restoration, structural repair, and general maintenance activities. 

Royal paints military aircraft through subcontracts with Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Sikorsky among others. 

His company is also prime aircraft painting contractor for NASA’s 

Langley Research Center. 

Mr. Heffernan is a United States Army veteran with meritorious 

service medal, and received his bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt 

University in Nashville, Tennessee. He is testifying on behalf of the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Welcome, Mr. Heffernan. 

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN HEFFERNAN 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. Thank you, Chairman Graves and members 

of the Committee. Thank you very much for having this hearing 

today and inviting me to present testimony. 

I am Austin Heffernan, the owner and general manager of Royal 

Aircraft Services. I am also a private pilot. Royal Aircraft Services 

is a highly regarded FAA certified repair station in Hagerstown, 

Maryland. Our staff of 14 employees provide structural repairs, 

painting, restoration, and maintenance for general aviation aircraft 

based throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. Today I am also representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I’ve been an 

AOP member since 2002. 

My testimony today covers the following key points. Number one, 

general aviation is a heavily regulated industry. Number two, genSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

6 

eral aviation cannot take advantage of the safety and operational 

benefits of new technology because regulations have not kept pace. 

Number three, FAA policies and internal structures are increasing 

the cost of general aviation flying without delivering added safety. 

General aviation directly supports thousands of small business 

from flight schools and line operations to repair shops like Royal 

Aircraft Services. Thousands more use general aviation to move 

people and products, reach new markets, and support their customers. In fact, an estimated 65 percent of all general aviation 

flights are made for business and public services. 

The FAA oversees all aspects of general aviation, and over time 

the Agency’s regulations have become increasingly complex and 

prescriptive. Today we often find that regulations intended to protect pilots and the public instead limit or slow the adoption of new 

safety technologies and practices. 

Quite often in my business we are unable to replace outdated 30- 

year-old technology in certificated aircraft. Even when better, less 

expensive technology is readily available to the owners of experimental aircraft. The primary reason is that the certification hurdles are so high that manufacturers cannot afford to seek the necessary FAA approvals. 

When a customer wants the benefits of a state of the art engine 

and fuel management system we often have to locate the unit in 

an area of the instrument panel that is out of the way or hard to 

reach, reducing its effectiveness. We must do this because we cannot legally replace the outdated, inaccurate, quote/unquote, primary instruments that were supplied with the aircraft decades ago. 

There are about 200,000 general aviation aircraft flying, and just 

over 1,000 new aircraft being produced each year. These numbers 

mean that the biggest safety pay-offs will come from upgrading 

older aircraft. Making it easier to upgrade aircraft will have another pay-off as well, creating well-paying jobs for those who design, manufacture, and install this equipment. 

The FAA’s approach to medical certification also negatively impacts small businesses like ours. We see many more pilots leaving 

general aviation then we see new pilots getting started. The restrictive medical bureaucracy within the FAA is one of the primary 

reasons. 

Almost two years ago AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association filed a petition with the FAA that would reduce the hassle 

and cost of the medical certification process. Despite almost 16,000 

overwhelmingly favorable comments on the petition, the FAA has 

not formally responded. 

This past December Chairman Graves and fellow AOPA member, 

Congressman Todd Rokita, both members of the House General 

Aviation Caucus, introduced the General Aviation Pilot Protection 

Act. The legislation goes a step beyond the AOPA EAA petition by 

allowing even more pilots and more types of aircraft to make noncommercial VFR flights without the need for an FAA medical certificate. 

Other areas of FAA oversight also impact small business. The 

current system requires the FAA to issue air agency certificates to 

many types of general aviation businesses including charter and on 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

7 

demand operations, some flight schools and training programs, and 

repair stations. 

The FAA has a backlog of more than 1,000 air agency certificate 

applications. A fact that is stopping small businesses like ours from 

opening or expanding. That is why I ask Congress to help small 

business owners like me by, number one, urging decision makers 

to consider changing the policies, guidance, and regulations in ways 

that will encourage and advance the use of modern technology in 

existing aircraft. Number two, urging decision makers to consider 

removing the internal issues that are preventing and delaying 

issuance of required FAA approvals. 

As a small business owner and pilot, I appreciate Congress’ recent passage of the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, directing the 

FAA to streamline aircraft certification. This will have a significant 

impact on deploying new and improved safety technologies to general aviation aircraft. I look forward to Congress taking action on 

the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act. 

Aviation is American. It started here, and we need to maintain 

our leadership in this area. We need to find ways to encourage and 

grow this amazing industry, and we appreciate your support. 

On behalf of the 14 employees of Royal Aircraft Services, and the 

nearly 400,000 members of AOPA, I thank you for your leadership 

in addressing the concerns of the general aviation industry so that 

it can continue to help small businesses nationwide grow and 

thrive. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present here today before 

this Committee. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you. Up next is Jamail Larkins. He 

is the President and CEO of Ascension Aircraft in Atlanta, Georgia. 

An entrepreneur and pilot since the age of 14, Mr. Larkins has 

been responsible for overseeing the rapid growth of Ascension’s private aircraft sales, leasing, financing, and management services 

since founding the company in 2004. 

He has been named the number one entrepreneur under the age 

of 30 by INC Magazine, was featured in Forbes Magazine as a 30 

under 30 energy and industry leader, and more recently has been 

named the emerging entrepreneur of the year by Black Enterprise 

Magazine. 

Mr. Larkins studied at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in 

Daytona Beach, Florida, and is testifying today on behalf of the National Business Aviation Association. Thanks for being here, Mr. 

Larkins. 

STATEMENT OF JAMAIL LARKINS 

Mr. LARKINS. Chairman Graves, ranking member Vela ́zquez, 

and the members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is 

Jamail Larkins and I am a businessman from Atlanta, Georgia. I 

am pleased to be here as a member of the National Business Aviation Association, and my company, Ascension Aircraft has been an 

NBA member since 2008. 

This is the first time I have ever testified before Congress, and 

it is a privilege to be here. In 2008 I founded Ascension Aircraft, 

and today I serve as the company CEO. Although my company is 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

8 

a regional leader in the sale of fractional-ownership shares of piston aircraft, the business employs just 19 people including myself. 

Over the years I have found that one of the most effective ways 

to sell business aircraft is to use business aircraft. With a business 

airplane I can seize opportunities as they arise. The airplane I use 

for business is a Cirrus SR22, like the model one I have here before 

me. 

The airplane enables me to meet face to face with potential clients, and that level of service and accountability helps me get a leg 

up on my competition and also build my company. Of course, many 

of my clients are also small business owners and entrepreneurs. 

They are often located in out of the way places, and like me, they 

recognize the benefits an airplane can provide. 

With a business airplane an entrepreneur can travel for meetings, multiple cities in a single day, return to headquarters that 

same evening, and be back in the office the next day. With an airplane, a business person can transport tools or products that may 

be too large to fit into an airliners overhead bin or too delicate to 

be checked into the airliner’s cargo hole. 

With a business airplane, an entrepreneur can efficiently manage 

work sites that are a distance from each other and often located 

in towns with little or no airline service. Simply put, business aviation is a big asset for small businesses. It is the tool that makes 

business models work. 

If there is anything that I would like you to take away from my 

testimony is this two-part premise. On the one hand, the United 

States not only has the world’s largest, safest, move averse, and 

most efficient aviation system, it is also the best system in the 

world for allowing small companies like mine to succeed. 

On the other hand, there are a number of ways the FAA could 

strengthen its relationship with the small business community so 

that the Agency’s policies are more workable and effective for the 

Agency and for businesses. 

When we think about the regulatory climate for business aviation today we know that, largely for safety reasons, stringent policy 

requirements are appropriately placed upon the industry. That 

means it is critically important that the Agency and the industry 

effectively collaborate. After all, when the FAA services go unmet 

or when the Agency implements onerous policies, business aviation 

suffers. 

Here are two examples to illustrate my point. First, we know 

that the FAA policies require that small aviation businesses, flight 

training centers, flight schools, and on demand charter operators 

be certified by the Agency before they can open. Unfortunately over 

the years the certification backlog has swelled, and today nearly 

1,000 businesses are waiting for an approval which could take up 

to two to three years. 

Small businesses like these are drivers of job creation, so we 

need to find ways for the FAA to streamline its approval processes 

for these companies. We want to work with the FAA to find those 

ways to do that. 

Now, I will point to an example of an instance when an effective 

collaboration has had a positive impact. It is on the operation’s side 

of the industry. As we know, many of the companies using aircraft 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

9 

are subject to a host of government requirements for installing 

equipment like that that are needed for reduced vertical separation 

minima of RVSM. 

Thanks to government industry collaboration, RVSM requirements were recently smoothed, even as important safety standards 

were protected. We would like to work with the FAA to find similar 

areas where authorization procedures can safely be made more 

workable for operators today. 

Equally important, we want to find areas where our relationship 

can be more effective and collaborative when it comes to future 

aviation planning. For example, as the FAA and industry stakeholders come together to debate the next reauthorization I would 

like to reiterate general aviation’s communities’ long-standing guiding principles for FAA reauthorization. 

First, when it comes to paying for use of the aviation system, the 

fuel tax works best for everyone in general aviation. As a small 

business owner, I know that we do not need any other funding 

mechanisms like user fees. We also do not need the giant federal 

bureaucracy required to collect them. 

Second, the general aviation community continues to believe that 

direct Congressional oversight of the FAA funding system is necessary. Third, a continued, strong Federal funding commitment is 

necessary to maintain the strength of our national air transportation system. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Vela ́zquez, I also 

appreciate the leadership that you provide, and the bipartisan support that the committee extends to the small businesses community. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my great 

pleasure to introduce to the Committee, Professor Kenneth Button. 

He is Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University where 

he is the Director of the Center for Transportation Policy Operations and Logistics. He has published or has in press some 80 

books, and over 400 academic papers in the field of transportation 

economics, aviation policy, and related subjects. 

Professor Button is the editor of numerous academic journals in 

the fields of aviation, aerospace policy, tourism, and transportation. 

Prior to coming to George Mason University in 1997 he served as 

a transportation expert for the OECD and taught at several universities throughout the world. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH BUTTON 

Mr. BUTTON. Thank you, ranking member Vela ́zquez. Thank 

you, Chairman Graves, and the Committee for inviting me to give 

some comments at this meeting. 

First of all, I want to emphasize the importance of general aviation for my own work. I did some studies in Virginia, and as the 

ranking member noted, it plays an important role in small communities for stimulating jobs, jobs directly and indirectly. So it is very, 

very important. 

I want to focus on a slightly different aspect of the question to 

the previous speakers. I am interested in the demand for general 

aviation services rather than supply. There was quite an insightful 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

10 

article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal discussing the shortage 

and pending shortage, perhaps, of commercial pilots. Where do 

commercial pilots come from? They come from, by and large, general aviation. 

There is going to be a projected demand for future pilots, according to Boeing, of half a million extra pilots worldwide by the year 

2032. In addition, a demand for something like nearly 600,000 

technicians. Many of which also start their careers through one 

way or another, general aviation. 

Most of this market is in China. China has no real general aviation market. It trains about 50 general aviation pilots a year. There 

is a huge market out there for the gentleman on my left to penetrate, to make money in the future. They need equipment. They 

have about 1,800 general aviation planes. They need personnel. 

To get into that market, not only is there a need for some trade 

restrictions to be changed, but also to insure that the U.S. provides 

the appropriate hardware and the appropriate personnel, the pilots 

go out into that market, the training of those pilots. 

Now, what is the FAA’s role in this? Well, my perception is that 

most markets work pretty well on their own. Well, there are some 

imperfections which do need dealing with through the intervention 

of government agencies like the FAA. Security is an obvious one in 

aviation, and that is not, I think, on the table today, but there is 

also safety. 

General aviation is an industry which is not perceived by the 

general public to be perhaps quite as safe as driving a car down 

the road. Although statistically you are much safer, I suspect, flying an aircraft then you are driving in a car down a road on Route 

66, particularly this morning. 

Now, how can the FAA get involved in actually changing this 

perception and altering it? First of all, they need to be responsive, 

and they have gradually been responsive to segmenting the market 

so that the regulations are appropriate for particular types of general aviation. It is not a homogenous sector at all. It ranges at the 

one end from small aircraft with sales, sale craft, at the other end 

we now have a huge debate about unmanned general aviation 

which I think will be very important from small businesses in the 

future on the manufacturing side, the operation side, and the usage 

side. That is clearly something that is being debated. 

We also have a situation where there is taxation which I will not 

go into. I have expressed my views on that in the past. But what 

the FAA needs to do is to reassure the public. It is doing, as I said, 

by segmenting markets, introducing new legislation or being part 

of new legislation. 

What we do find with the FAA is some of the data is suspect. 

They do not collect as much data as they need to. They have not 

got the resources to do that, one suspects, as was pointed out earlier. But without having data and appropriate ways of analyzing 

that data, it is very difficult to come to firm conclusions about how 

well policies are going to work, and indeed, which policies should 

be introduced in the first place. 

So I do think there is an issue with the FAA with data resources. 

They are improving, but it is still a voluntary scheme, by and 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

11 

large, by pilots who have to give information after they have made 

Flights. 

Secondly, about adoption approach issue. It does take time to get 

your licenses. It does take time to get certified. Perhaps dividing 

the industry up into rather more detailed segments will facilitate 

are much more rapid certification process because at the moment 

there seems to be very much an issue of going for a higher standard. It may well be you might need to move down. 

Again, the FAA has been involved in this, but it has taken a long 

time to do. I do have some sympathies for an Agency which is rather stretched for resources. I say that unusually for the FAA, I did 

once write an article describing is at a last bastion of Marxism, so 

I am not exactly favorably disposed upon it for some other activities. 

But certainly as far as this is concerned, there does seem to be 

action. Not as fast as one would like, probably not always in the 

direction the manufacturers would like, but progress is being made, 

and one would hope that this progress will continue in the future. 

Chairman GRAVES. With that we will start questions. I am 

going to go to Mr. Collins first and we will just see what happens 

with vote. We will play that by ear. Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. In full disclosure I am a pilot and so I have a 

bias. I’m not IFR, but VRF. Because of some life insurance issues 

currently I am not flying as I am not IFR. 

But, you know, I have noticed, and I want to talk about the 

third-class medical requirement every two years. Most of us are 

over 40 so every two years we have to get—and, you know, there 

are some fairly arbitrary things on blood pressure and various cardiovascular testing. 

I would like to, I guess, point out, you know, I am a boater. Boating you do not even need a license of any kind, let alone a medical 

certificate. So you are out in a boat and you have, you know, six 

or eight people in the boat, and whatever is going on you are not 

licensed. 

Driver’s license, I know in New York they are good for eight 

years and you need a vision test which is not much of a test. I am 

actually a Formula open-wheel race car licensed driver. No requirement whatsoever. So I can go around a track at whatever speed I 

want and no license. 

So here we are, general aviation Class 3 medical every two years, 

arbitrary requirements, and it is just, to me, government intrusion 

into somebody’s personal hobby. That, you know, we do not have, 

whether it is golf or tennis or race car driving. 

So I guess I would just like your opinion. I am a co-sponsor of 

the bill that would remove the requirement for a third-class medical for those who are strictly recreational, limited number of passengers, and speed and altitude, and the like. Whether you think, 

you know, such a exemption would, at all, put the public in jeopardy in any way. I feel like any time the government steps in it 

is probably just one more reason somebody may not take up a 

sport. 

Just your opinion on that, and your answer to the nay sayers 

who say, oh my god, everyone’s safety is going to be jeopardized if 

general aviation pilots are not taking a medical. Jump in. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

12 

Mr. UCZEKAJ. Okay. So I was a pilot myself and over 40 myself. 

I share your concerns quite a bit. It does seem almost to the point 

of being ludicrous when you compare them to the other safety critical type of things that you would do. I actually think this is a very 

important part of the future of aviation because we have a shrinking population, and for small businesses like Aspen and others we 

need pilots to fly and buy our products. More importantly, we need 

pilots to move up into the air transport category the day that it 

was there. 

All of us in aviation view that as one of the biggest problems facing us in terms of the pilot population. Putting more requirements 

in front of people to stop them from flying is a real problem. 

Also, more importantly, many people start flying later in their 

life. I started flying just recently, primarily because there are other 

requirements in your life, whether that be your family or otherwise, and at that time in your life when you can afford to fly is the 

not difficult time for you to do that. 

So I think you would find a widespread, almost 100 percent support of trying to work the third-class medical for pilots. 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. I think the third-class medical requirement is 

a definite detractor to business. As pilots age, and most of our general aviation pilots are getting up there now, this is just one more 

hurdle they have to face. It really doesn’t seem to create any additional safety. It seems ludicrous a person has to have a third-class 

medical to get in a 2,500 pound Cessna 172, but they do not have 

to have any requirements to get in a 45 foot Zephyr motorhome 

and take it down the interstate. It does not make any sense. 

We are seeing more and more pilots leave general aviation as 

they get older because they have medical problems. It may be just 

perceived problems too. Their friend had some problems, they can 

envision themselves having that type of problem later on. When 

they are in this point of life where they want to look at the cost 

of upgrading an engine or overhauling an engine or upgrading an 

interior, painting the aircraft. All these expenses or new avionics, 

how can you justify putting that much money into your hobby 

when an arbitrary decision at a third-class medical next year may 

take it all away from you. So why even do that? Go by a boat, you 

know? 

Mr. COLLINS. You don’t need a license. 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. Right. Yeah. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Larkins? 

Mr. LARKINS. Personally it is one of the issues that I do not 

have to immediately have to look forward to. But we actually have 

had some of our clients that are involved inside of our fractional 

program that have had to exit in the last couple years because of 

medical issues. So it is one of those things that I think if we could 

come up with a solution that would allow people to continue to fly 

without having to go through some of those onerous policies that 

are currently implemented would be helpful for the industry longterm. 

If you look at some of the other segments out there, ultra lights, 

LSA airplanes, people are being able to safely fly airplanes without 

having to go through that currently today. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. My time is expired, but real quick, 

Dr. Button. 

Mr. BUTTON. I tend to take a cautious view on this. I think 

safety has to do with public perception and not actuarial calculations. The data actually the FAA has on amounts of flying is rather 

Spartan and not particularly accurate, so making judgments about 

safety is difficult. 

As far as driving a motorhome or airplane is concerned, one involves two dimensional safety, one involves three dimensional safety. So I think we will have to be cautious. This is a perception issue 

of the public, and people are scared of planes dropping out of the 

sky on top of them. 

I would be perfectly happy for you to fly in the middle of the dessert on an aircraft with no one underneath, but I am worried about 

flying over open area. With the success of general aviation building 

up business around airports, airfields, that may be serious issue. 

Mr. COLLINS. My time is expired. Thank you, all. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Button, as 

NTSB’s data suggests, the majority of general aviation accidents 

are due to pilot error and loss of control. Both regulatory actions 

such as licensee requirements and non-regulatory initiatives such 

as increasing training and raising awareness can play a part. In 

your opinion, what is the proper mix of these regulatory and nonregulatory approaches? 

Mr. BUTTON. Thank you. It is clear that safety is a human factor, as they say in engineering, for many accidents. I think what 

is important is actually to ask the question what are the main 

causes of accidents. It is not just human failure. There are different 

classifications, different types of aircraft, and so on, and to pinpoint 

exactly where these issues are. 

The Safety Board is very good at doing this. It does a detailed 

analysis. One should act on that. But certainly one does get concerned when we look at situations where drug and alcohol abuse 

causing accidents. I, myself was buzzed when I was a professor in 

England by an RAF student who had a conflict with his girlfriend, 

went and got a pilot’s license, took an aircraft from the local airport, and buzzed the university. He took down some cables with his 

undercarriage. So the human factor is important. 

I am not sure you can handle the mental side. He was not an 

F-guy, I mean, they go through pretty rigorous training, but nevertheless the physical side is important. Have a heart attack in an 

airplane you are coming down. Have a heart attack in a Winnebago 

you drive to the side of the road. These is a difference. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. In your testimony you point out 

that general aviation uses about 16 percent of air traffic control 

services, but only contributes about 3 percent of the cost. Does this 

mean that the taxpayers and commercial airlines are subsidizing 

general aviation activities? 

Mr. BUTTON. My personal view is that probably the gap is not 

as wide as that because general aviation does not need some of 

these whistles and bells that goes with the navigation system. 

Nevertheless, I am a great believer in user charges. I think it is 

possible to isolate exactly what is used, not everything, but exactly 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

14 

for a large part of the cost, and those costs should be allocated appropriately. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Larkins, roughly two-thirds of 

air traffic control system carrying costs are financed through aviation excise taxes of some sort including ticket taxes, segment fees, 

international head taxes, and fuel taxes. 

If it is determined that additional funds are needed to continue 

to operate the air traffic control system and budget cuts makes it 

impossible to use additional tax payer’s dollar, how would you suggest the FAA raise these funds? 

Mr. LARKINS. Personally I would say that I do not think anyone 

on the general aviation side would have an issue with continuing 

to pay through the fuel tax. Even if that needed to be adjusted to 

be able to pay more. We think that that is probably the most efficient use of it. 

Before I had the opportunity to get my first license here inside 

the United States, I actually had the opportunity to get my student 

pilot license in Canada. There, there are user fees that are currently being collected for aviation activities there. 

Personally I can tell you from my own experience, going through 

Canada and having to pay for it there is not as efficient, is not as 

user friendly as what it is here inside the United States. 

So from my experience, over 2,000 hours of flight time in all sorts 

of different aircraft, and throughout a lot of parts of the world, I 

would definitely recommend that we continue to pay for our use of 

the system through fuel taxes versus any sort of user fees. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Dr. Button, would you care to comment on my 

question? How do you suggest—— 

Mr. BUTTON. I think user fees are important. The point about 

user fees are, they not just collected revenue which is an interest 

clearly to government a lot of the time, they actually effect behavior. 

At the moment, there are situations where we have—this is 

something no one has commented on, the increased number of 

hours to qualify for a commercial license gone up from 250 to 1500 

hours. It costs money to qualify as a commercial pilot. Basically to 

get your license you fly around in circles for two years, and then 

you get a license which is not very efficient. 

I think user fees may well be a better way of encouraging people 

to move in the industry. I think they may well be also tied, in particular ways, to the type of activity involved in those 1500 miles. 

Simply flying in circles does not seem to me to be a particularly 

effective way of increasing safety. Take-offs and landings seem a 

bit more dangerous to me. I don’t know. So I tie things together. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. I think what we will do is take a quick recess, and then we will come back and will continue with questions. 

We will get through this. I apologize for the inconvenience of the 

vote, but it is what it is. We will be in recess until we are done. 

[Recess] 

Chairman GRAVES. We can go ahead and get started and then 

we will wait on the other members to come back. Again, I apologize 

for the vote series which is always an issue in Congress. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

15 

I will start my questions with Dr. Button, which I always get 

frustrated when we make generalities to try to make a point, and, 

you know, talking about third-class medicals and heart attacks. 

When you have a heart attack in a Winnebago you just pull off to 

the side of the road, but when you do in a plane you come down 

on top. Which I can make the same generality the other way. You 

have a heart attack in a Winnebago, you are going to cross the line, 

you are going to kill somebody, but if you have it in a plane you 

just land it. 

It is very frustrating to me when we see that, particularly 

when—just to clarify for folks, on third-class medicals, you know, 

it is a two-year process. You are basically self-certifying anyway. 

Once you take that medical you have two years for it. You do not 

even have to mess with it. 

So I am very frustrated by that, but my question to you is, you 

know, when you were talking about a data-driven process with the 

FAA and we need more data to regulate, but then you turn right 

back around and said that safety should be a public perception 

process rather than data driven. Are you suggesting the FAA develop policy based on public perception? 

Mr. BUTTON. First of all, the comments about the Winnebago 

was also a data problem because the data, for example, the FAA 

has on flights by general aviation and so on is poor, so working off 

the probability of having an accident with someone having a heart 

attack in motor vehicles as opposed to an airplane is a tricky statistical one. 

No, I think the problem is that the—there are two things. First 

of all, I think policies are made on the basis of perception a lot of 

the time. I think that is because people perceive the benefits they 

enjoy from things, and there is an educational process required. 

That educational process is very difficult to achieve without adequate data. That was really my point. 

Policy should be data driven, but nevertheless, unless people are 

confident in the data they will perceive things, and if you are a policymaker, my view is that you essentially adopt policies which people perceive to be good. That is right through the whole policy 

agenda as far as I can tell. 

Chairman GRAVES. I take a much more objective position on 

policy. I think policy ought to be based on that data, and not based 

on emotional arguments which drive perception. In the case of 

aviation, that can be at its worse. Again, making generalities, like 

you make, when it comes to driving a point. 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, let me drive the point in a slightly different 

way. How many column inches in newspapers are devoted to a general aviation crash, and how many inches are devoted to a car 

crash? There have been studies done on this, and clearly rare incidents of, I don’t like to use the term to be honest, but it is probably 

the only one I can think of, spectacular events tend to attract public attention. 

Public attention does drive policy. I am not a politician, but certainly perception is important in the electoral process, and it is 

true in the policy process. 

I would like to have an objective-driven system to be blunt with 

you, but it is simply not the way it works. It is not the way the 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

16 

media works, and it is often not the way individual’s minds work 

either. People are scared of flying still. It is the safest way of moving around the world, but they are still scared. 

That is a problem. They don’t normally know the statistics. They 

just hear about serious accidents. 

Chairman GRAVES. That is unfortunate too. Just to use your example of column inches devoted to a car crash as opposed to the 

airplane crash, you are right. Because there are so many car crashes the sheer number and volume of the car accidents out there, of 

people getting killed by somebody else crossing the line. 

That is what is always a worry to me. You know, if I am driving 

down a two-lane road and I am going 60 miles an hour, and the 

person coming at me is going 60 miles an hour, that means we are 

closing at 120 miles an hour, and I hope like hell that he is going 

to say on his side of the road. I have to depend on somebody else, 

whereas in the air, I do not. 

It is very frustrating to me when we do use, again this emotional 

generalities, and then we talk about whether or not we should be 

basing public policy on perception. 

My next question is actually for Mr. Heffernan and Mr. Uczekaj, 

in fact, if anybody else wants to weigh-in, you are more than welcome to. We hear a lot of talk about the FAA and the backlog as 

a result of sequestration, budget cuts, whatever the case may be, 

which are fairly recent, to be quite honest with you. 

My question to you, you all have been in business for a long 

time. Was it the same way? Were there backlogs before? Were you 

having trouble getting responses out of the FAA or getting them to 

move in a timely manner prior to sequestration then after sequestration? 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. My opinion is no. We were not having any 

additional problems prior to or after. I think there has been just 

a tendency to kind of be stuck in the mud there in terms of getting 

things done. I have not seen that the budget cuts though have really done anything. 

Mr. UCZEKAJ. From our perspective there certainly is a difference. I mean, I have been certifying avionics for well over 30 

years now, and what I have seen evolve over time, and most recently in the last six to eight months since sequestration, government shut-downs, and things of that nature, is that the FAA rank 

and file do not—their application of procedures and processes 

seems to vary a lot more than it did before. For, I’m sure a plethora 

of reasons, from job security to, you know, the perception that they 

have to be as safe as possible because of the pressures that are on 

them. 

We see the lack of consistency between applications between individuals and the FAA has increased since the pressures on resources and such have occurred. So from our view, at least from a 

manufacturer’s standpoint, we think it is going in the wrong direction. We think there are a lot of things that can be done to improve 

that. 

Most notably is to simplify the process so that an individual, for 

whatever reason or whatever motivation, has the process and procedures supporting them, and they do not feel like there is any sitSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

17 

uation where they might be on a limb or something, and they may 

take the most conservative position as well. 

Certainly resources at the FAA are a very, very big deal. There 

is no question about it. It plays into the sequencing. It plays into 

the way they work. It plays into, you know, where they are. We see 

change in personnel much more than we ever did in the past. People are changing roles and therefore, we get different interpretations. 

We feel very strongly that that change has occurred, and we 

would like to work with ways to do that. There are many ways to 

do that ranging from more delegation to the DER system, that as 

an engineering representative which, you know, we have these people that are 35 year experience people that have been certifying 

things for a long time. It seems like delegation is less and less 

used. 

So these kinds of things, I think, need to be addressed. I think 

it is very critical for businesses that are small because if you really 

think about it, we have fewer products, and if one product gets 

held up the impact on a small business is disproportionate. A company can fail as a result of one product being held up. 

We encourage everybody to work with the different Small Aircraft Revitalization Act to make things more simple, use more delegation so that the pressure on resources that is current and very 

real could be alleviated. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are you all hearing from the agencies you 

have to deal with, whether it is certification or flight standards, I 

mean, is anybody getting laid off in the FAA? Are they being released as a result of budget cuts? Do we have the same number of 

people just doing less work or more work? Are we making work for 

them? Are they making work for themselves? 

Mr. UCZEKAJ. We have not seen any kind of reduction in workforce. We have seen some people leave the FAA on a natural nothing out of the usual. 

You know, my sense is that there is just not enough specific procedures and processes for them to be able to follow and therefore 

they interpret on their own. We have not seen any reduction in resources in terms of lay-offs. That is for sure. 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. Nor have we. 

Chairman GRAVES. That is what I assume. You know, we keep 

hearing about not being able to do what they did before, but they 

have the same folks. 

I have a quick question for Mr. Heffernan about FSDOs, and in 

your line of work, which is a little bit different, I was just curious, 

have you ever lost business because your local flight standard’s office was seen as too stringent or, you know, your customers as too 

stringent, and yet you hear of other FSDOs because there is so 

much various between them, other FSDOs, that are overlooking 

whatever it is that your particular FSDO is claiming as a problem? 

You see where I am going? 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. Yes, sir. I do. We have seen a great disparity 

between FSDOs. It is one of the things that really concerns us 

right now. We have had customers, one customer example, has a 

Cessna 190, very old airplane. He has been coming to us for annual 

inspections year after year. This year we told him, you know, you 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

18 

probably need to pack it up and take it out to Montana. If we have 

to do the annual inspection here on it, the guidelines have gotten 

so stringent on corrosion that we are going to be replacing every 

piece of hardware on your airplane if we do the annual here. So 

my advice is, unless you want to incur that kind of expense take 

it elsewhere. 

We have seen quite a bit of conversation on the D.C. Pilot’s 

website, some of the other pilot websites about people saying, you 

know, from now on they are going to be taking their airplanes to 

Pennsylvania or to another state for annual inspections because 

there is so much concentration right now on corrosion. The definition of what is and what is not acceptable corrosion. 

We all know unacceptable corrosion. If you get into an airplane 

and there is structural damage, there are rivets coming loose. 

Yeah, that is definitely taboo, but how much surface rust is inappropriate on a screw head or a bolt. You know, does to really weaken it? How do you know unless you do undestructive testing or destructive testing on the bolt? 

Things that were left up to NIA or to a repair station to, based 

on their 40, 50 years of experience doing maintenance on that 

make and model airplane, it was up to them to be able to make 

a judgment call as to whether they can pass it whether they can 

defer it to next year or whatever. 

Now that is not an opportunity. It is basically within our FSDO 

you replace it or you are in trouble. I just had a customer with a 

Grumman. It had a $12,000 dollar annual because we replaced 

every piece of hardware on there. A lot of was, I think pretty subjective, but that is the guidelines we are operating under. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you all for being here. I am a pilot, AOPA 

member for many years. I own an airport. I owned an airport, now 

I own a mortgage to an airport which incidentally is marginally 

better. 

My feelings about this business, and I am pretty familiar with 

it, is we have watched insurance go up, gas go up. We have 

watched licensing certification lessons go up to a point where if it 

is true, and I believe all of you have confirmed this, if we are going 

to have commercial pilots, we need a health GA business, right? 

Well, I submit to you that GA is really in big trouble because 

there is such a thing as critical mass. As a point where an industry 

is fundamentally dying rather than growing. I think that that is 

where GA has become. 

So I say to you, to the extent that the FAA’s inability to go 

through this process more efficiently, and I have bought airplanes, 

I have waited years for certifications, is really killing the business. 

That it is not just all of you collectively and how you suffer day in 

and day out. You are a part of an industry that is in big trouble. 

The hobby that I love, and I know Sam and other people, members 

here do, is in danger of evaporating because you just cannot sustain the infrastructure we need to sustain if there isn’t some 

amount of GA. 

So to the extent that things like additional gas taxes which, you 

know, everybody would prefer that over a user fee, particularly in 

this country where I can go into a dozen airports in a single day 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

19 

and go and come at my leisure. Whereas in Canada it is much 

more problematic. I have flown in both places. 

I normally do not make this kind of statement, but I feel strongly 

about it, and I feel badly for the circumstances because it is unique 

in this country. It is an asset that is unique in the world to us, and 

it is a freedom that we have, that people enjoy. I look forward to 

my little boy learning to fly. He already owns an airport that I am 

going to give him, you know, in spite of your 12,000 dollar annuals 

every year. 

I guess I would ask you a question about it. We could argue 

about user fees. I mean, you are an academic. I am a realist. I don’t 

mind paying more money, but I do not like user fees because they 

simply create as much of an expense as they pretend to collect 

money. In this country particularly, the airport I own, the idea of 

me having to be there to collect a fee to send to the FAA would 

be an utter and complete joke. It would not happen. I would have 

to leave a can at the end of the runway, you know, and some of 

you would have to drop five bucks in there. 

But do you think there is any truth in what I am saying? Do you 

think the whole industry is in trouble because of this? Cessna, you 

said there is 1,000 planes being made a year. Cessna just a few 

years ago was making 1,500, 1,600, you know, and you have seen 

consolidations with Beechcraft, and you have seen Columbia, and 

your plane, the Cirrus, right? 

It is not in good shape. By the FAA holding up the opportunity 

to move things more quickly, and frankly for us to be so litigious 

that everything we do has to be—if a third of the cost of an airplane is bound up in extraneous insurance costs, you know, that is 

crazy too. So I will just ask you to comment on my little talk. 

Thanks. 

Mr. BUTTON. I think the industry is in trouble. It has a big future though, as I said earlier, if it can think internationally and 

start selling its wares overseas, selling its pilot training skills, 

which is still does, to some extent in this country. There is a market. 

The law situation I think is much more of a problem, the litigation and so on is much more of a problem than the FAA rules. We 

talk about a few licenses being held up, but the number of court 

cases, the way the aircraft are operated and used, they are influenced. I was talking to some people while you were doing your 

democratic duties of voting. There are serious problems that are 

deterred from doing things. 

I think there is something else that one has to remember. I told 

the story earlier to someone. When my father was alive he used to 

talk about people and himself when he was young wanting to be 

a train driver. My generation in Britain, okay, we do not have too 

much general aviation, a lot of people want to become pilots. 

These days the younger generation want to play on computers, 

and it is exciting for them to play on computers. They are used to 

flying. The younger generation get inside of a regional jet, a small 

regional jet, they get bounced around a few times. They have got 

their kicks. 

So I think there is a cultural change which is taking place which 

is often missed by people actually involved in it. I am outside so 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

20 

I tend to look at it. But I do not think the industry is dead. I think 

it has a huge future if it can start thinking—I think it does think 

internationally by the way. I don’t want to—— 

Mr. HANNA. Well, Cessna is building in China right now, right? 

Mr. BUTTON. Exactly. But half the Chinese general aviation 

planes which is about 1,800 that are actually built in China do not 

work very well. They have very few pilots, very few training 

schools. They have huge taxes on imports. That is one reason 

Cessna is there. 

There is the Anglo-Chinese aviation operation. 

Mr. HANNA. When I got my license it cost me 1,000 bucks, 

right? 

Mr. BUTTON. Yeah. 

Mr. HANNA. I took 40 hours. 

Mr. BUTTON. Yeah. 

Mr. HANNA. I was lousy at it, but I got by. Today it is 5,000 

minimum, and does not begin to give you any of the steps you need 

to become what Sam is and others here. 

Mr. BUTTON. May I pose the question, not acquiring the license, 

how much insurance did you need in those days compared to now? 

Mr. HANNA. It is an incredible difference. My point is, and we 

apparently agree, that every step of this business has gotten more 

expensive, more difficult. Whether kids want to stare at their computers or not, we have fundamentally taken away the opportunity 

for young people to look at it as an affordable outlet for a pastime 

or a career. 

Mr. BUTTON. I highly agree. But also I think a career is the important thing mentioned at the end where we have pilots moving 

into commercial aviation. They are earning 20,000 a year. I don’t 

know. It is very low. 

There is some imperfection in the commercial aviation market 

which is discouraging people from moving into that area. It may be 

pay. It may be conditions. That needs to be examined though. 

Mr. HANNA. According to you it is not supply and demand 

though? And with all due respect, somehow there is a gap there. 

Mr. BUTTON. There is a gap. The market is not working perfectly. You start hearing stories of airlines now recruiting, regional 

airlines recruiting pilots who formerly they would not have recruited. They got some blemish on the record, and they simply in 

the past would have stood back. Now they recruit them. There is 

a shortage there. 

There is a market failure up the chain. This is what I am mainly 

interested in, the use of aviation and training, the sales overseas. 

There is something not working well. Certainly change is required. 

I think the trade agreements are important. I think the FAA 

needs—and I think it is moving in the right direction, it is the 

speed that is the problem, but I think things need to be done. 

It is your perception is because you are inside. I think if you 

stand back and look at the global market, the U.S. has got sort of 

the best planes in the world, the best training facilities in the 

world. There are huge developments in Asia. There are huge developments in South America. There is a huge opportunity out there 

which needs to be dealt with. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

21 

I think the main problem is with trade barriers as opposed to domestic barriers. But having said that, and I said it earlier, you 

have to have a strong domestic industry, a strong domestic sector—— 

Mr. HANNA. But if the creation is taking place here, and there 

are small manufacturers. I bought a few plans from a wonderful 

company, Jim Richmond, CubCrafters. You guys know him. He has 

been in business all his life. He loves it. I doubt if the guy is ever 

going to get rich, but he makes a marvelous, marvelous product. 

It took him five years to get a wing load changed to go from 

1,700 pounds to 2,000 pounds. I know because I waited for that. 

It is ridiculous. 

So those things are things that we can do on the margin. And 

I apologize for my time, Chairman. That we can do on the margin 

to change that dynamic and slow down what I think is an industry 

approaching critical mass, we should do it every opportunity. With 

that I will thank you for your indulgence. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Payne. Sorry, I did not see you over 

there. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all the panelists, 

thank you for your testimony. Today general aviation provides approximately 18,000 aviation related and dependent jobs in New 

Jersey, and contributes to at least 624 million to household incomes and an estimated 1.7 billion in annual economic benefits. So 

I certainly have an interest in preserving and protecting small 

business in this industry. 

However, as Dr. Button’s testimony mentioned, I believe our 

challenge is not only to consider the impact of regulation on small 

businesses, but also to consider the general public interest particularly in the area of safety. 

Your testimonies have been helpful today, and I am hopeful that 

we can balance support for the important work that you do with 

the safety of the people we represent. So I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on the Committee on striking a balance. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thanks Mr. Payne. A question for Mr. 

Larkins, and anyone else can answer too, but in your testimony 

you briefly touched on the sleep apnea issue which, you know, sent 

reverberations throughout the aviation community. We have basically got four segments of aviation out there. The GA community, 

we have corporate aviation, we have those folks that use aviation 

for their businesses and need to use it, but they may not necessarily be their business, we have hobbyists, and then we have the 

airlines out there too. 

My question to you is, when you have something that is just an 

out-of-nowhere ruling by the FAA, and we are talking about resources, talking about finite amount of resources to be able to use 

when it comes to regulating aviation, and you go through the medical process which we have talked about earlier, you cannot even 

ask an applicant about their heart attack history, but yet now they 

want to know about the circumference of your neck and how that 

relates to your body mass, and the size of your head and whether 

or not you have sleep apnea which I have not heard of anybody, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

22 

and this may go back to a data issue, but I do not know of anybody 

that has crashed because they fell asleep. 

But the truth of the matter is, how does that affect you and your 

business when it comes to potential clients when you have these 

things that just come out of nowhere and people do not know what 

to expect? 

Mr. LARKINS. It is an important issue and it touches on what 

we talked about earlier in the oral testimony that industry working 

with the FAA is extremely important. We look at RVSM certification as one example of that. That when the industry and the 

FAA meet together we can come up with the reasonable solutions 

that ensure safety, but at the same time allows the industry to continue to operate. 

When there are things that pop up out of nowhere, like the sleep 

apnea thing, and there is not enough opportunity for the industry 

to communicate on it initially that is when a lot of issues start to 

come up. 

Without the FAA getting the opportunity to talk to some of the 

pilots and the operators inside of the industry then I think that we 

see some of these issues of overreactions, in a lot of ways, that may 

happen. I am very proud to see some of the potential legislation 

that is coming out that will prevent the FAA from getting the opportunity to implement some of those things without more interaction and feedback from the industry right now. 

Chairman GRAVES. Anyone else? Uczekaj? 

Mr. UCZEKAJ. Clearly things that come out of the blue are 

probably the most damaging things to our industry. Whether they 

be the sleep apnea or regulation changes that have no basis of either fact or experience. That creates a very damaging environment 

for us to develop and create safety products. 

I want to refer back to Mr. Payne’s comments about safety. Aerospace is no different than any other industry that we are striving 

to develop products, and striving to put in processes and procedures for individuals to make flying more safe. Whether that be a 

sleep apnea issue or a health issue or a functional issue. 

But when the system itself does not allow for the proper due 

process, and once that due process is in a method to efficiently implement change, this is technically what you get. You get people 

and statements made out of the blue, and then we spend as an industry valuable dollars and time countering that when we should 

be spending time on doing the things—creating better safety products, better safety processes, so that we can improve both the reality and the perception of aviation. 

It is very frustrating as a pilot and as a manufacturer that so 

much time and effort was spend on that particular subject instead 

of other subjects of more relevance to safety. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Heffernan? 

Mr. HEFFERNAN. We have spoken here a bit about perception 

and perception driving things. I think this is one of the areas 

where perception is driving people out of the aviation market, out 

of general aviation. As they get older they see these things cropping up out of the blue, and they see their friends that lose their 

medicals for one reason or another, cannot get them back. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

23 

There are people that could probably get their medicals back, but 

they have lost the interest or the will to continue to pursue it. 

When they see things come out of the blue like this it reinforces 

their decision to get out of aviation and just go buy a boat or whatever. 

I think, you know, one of the things that has always bothered me 

about the medical is I don’t know any pilots that have gone 

through all the training and all the sacrifice, and everything it 

takes to become a pilot and to be certified, that want to be unsafe. 

People want to be safe. I think they will self-police themselves. 

I think the dollars will be much better spent doing training to 

help people assess if they are physically qualified to fly, if there are 

any warning signs they should be looking for. That would be a 

much better approach, spending the dollars on that aspect rather 

than trying to legislate some off the wall, out of the blue condition. 

It has always amazed me that you read all the list of drugs that 

would prevent you from flying. You look at things that people take 

for granted that—we all know people that are taking these, antidepressants. You can’t fly and take anti-depressants. Are people 

really going to tell the truth during their medical exam that they 

are actually taking those or are they going to make the decision to 

fly and not take them, so we have a lot of depressed pilots flying 

around. That is not safe either. 

I just think there is an avenue here for people to police themselves, and I think education is the way to do it. 

Mr. BUTTON. My only observation is looking at the data of what 

causes—some of the data on contributory factors. You do have 

drugs and alcohol being influential in a number of crashes. You do 

have intentional disregard being a factor. 

I take the point about self-policing. I think most people self-police 

when we drive or whatever we do. Most people are very, very sensible. 

My argument about perception is probably slightly different. I 

think people have got to perceive the system to be working, and at 

the moment we do not know whether it is working very well. When 

you present this sort of data to an individual where you do have 

drugs and alcohol involved in accidents, not a large number, but 

some accident, intentional disregard. I am not quite sure if that is, 

to be blunt, suicidal tendency, I am not sure. That is something 

which worries the general public. 

Now, I’m not sure, and I sent the questions out about the Winnebago versus the aircraft, the general aviation aircraft. I’d like to 

just know more information which does not seem to be available 

from the FAA. They do take decisions, as you rightly said, sir, and 

the panelists said, and just something appears. You just get something coming out from the FAA. 

I think that may be a flaw in the FAA in terms of its public relations or it may be a flaw in its data sources. I don’t know, but it 

is a problem. 

You can’t just suddenly have some arbitrary notion that someone 

may suddenly fall asleep. I mean, I find that rather strange. 

Chairman GRAVES. You mentioned alcohol and drug abuse in 

accidents and being a fair number. Do you have any suggestions 

on policing that? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

24 

Mr. BUTTON. Well, it could be the alcohol have a sort of 

Breathalyzer kit you have in a car. Basically you cannot start a car 

unless you breathe into a piece of technology that tells the technology not subject to alcohol. I am not sure that is too expensive 

either, actually. 

Drugs I do not know about. I am not sure what drugs are out. 

I am not an expert on drugs, but it does not seem to me to be too 

expensive, and for everyone’s benefit to actually breathe into a 

Breathalyzer on a plane and not be able to start it without being 

clean. 

Chairman GRAVES. Should we do that with cars, trucks, 

busses—— 

Mr. BUTTON. I think we should. 

Chairman GRAVES. Busses, boats? 

Mr. BUTTON. I certainly do, yes. 

Mr. HANNA. Chairman, do you mind if I ask a question? Since 

there is no one on the other side, so. I will tell you what my experience with pilots is, and I know hundreds of them. I owned an airport. I watched them. 

They are a unique group of people, very much focused on what 

they do, but if there is any group that I have ever seen that can 

adjust what they do individually to their skill level it is pilots. People who are not IFR current, they are the first ones to know, but 

they can still have a current capacity to do that. 

What is see is older people knowing they have, or whatever their 

situation is, they do not fly enough. Incidentally, average pilot flies 

about 19, 20 hours a year. It is not nearly enough. We should encourage them to fly more to make it safer, therefore make it cheaper, not more expensive. 

But what I see is people only fly in good weather. They only fly 

in the afternoon and in the morning. How about you, Sam, is that 

what your experience is? 

Chairman GRAVES. I think very much so. 

Mr. HANNA. People pretty much self-police. It is pretty easy to 

fall under the radar if you want to. You do not need to get your 

annual. You do not need to get a bi-annual. You do not even need 

insurance, frankly. 

I think the more punitive we become, this industry is becoming 

the victim of the death of a thousand cuts. Pick an area of it that 

is not punitive and yet in this country we are more free doing it 

than any place in the world. 

I just think we should encourage it and not be so inclined to tell 

people that they should not want to kill themselves because they 

already know that. Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. I want to thank all of you for participating 

today. I want to, again, apologize for the vote series, but the testimony has been very good. I think it is critical to the success of general aviation, to the entire industry, that the FAA does a much better job of working with stakeholders so they can better meet the 

needs of those that it regulates, and boost the industry rather than 

dragging it down. 

General aviation is a significant contributor to our economy, and, 

you know, I think the FAA has to keep up with the advances in 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

25 

the industry to allow it to continue as a very dynamic force in our 

economy. 

It is a very important issue to be, obviously, and I think it is an 

important issue to every community out there that depends on 

aviation, and that is just about every community out there, and so 

many businesses that depend on it. 

So with that I would ask unanimous consent that members have 

five legislative days to submit statements and supportive material 

for the record. Without objection that is so ordered, and with that 

the hearing is adjourned, and, again, I thank you all for coming. 

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

26 

A P P E N D I X 

Statement of 

John Uczekaj, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Aspen Avionics, Inc. 

On Behalf of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association 

Committee on Small Business 

U.S. House of Representatives 

FAA Impact on Small Businesses 

February 5, 2014 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

27 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez and distinguished 

members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

today to discuss the impact of the FAA on small businesses in the 

general aviation industry and want to thank you for your holding 

this important hearing. As a leader of a small business, I look forward to highlighting some examples of the impact specific FAA 

policies and internal organizational structures have on small aerospace businesses. 

My name is John Uczekaj and I am president and chief executive 

officer of Aspen Avionics located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, I 

also serve as a board member for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), with a leadership position within 

GAMA as chair of their Flight Operations Policy Committee and 

am honored to provide testimony to the Committee on their behalf 

as well today. Finally, as an instrument-rated pilot and aircraft 

owner, the opportunity to testify before this Committee is especially significant to me. 

In 2004, Aspen was founded by two aviation enthusiasts with a 

mission of designing and manufacturing the most advanced avionics technology and capability for general aviation cockpits at a 

price that was affordable to small aircraft owners. Aspen Avionics’ 

products increase a pilot’s situational awareness in the cockpit, 

support the implementation of NextGen technologies, and reduce 

pilot workload, making it easier and safer to fly in both visual and 

instrument conditions. 

In 2008, Aspen Avionics began delivering FAA certified, ground 

breaking technologies to the lower end of the certified general aviation industry. These products included simplified lower cost installation architectures, flat panel displays, three dimensional terrain 

awareness, battery backup, and NextGen capabilities. Prior to the 

entry of Aspen Avionics into the market these certified technologies 

were too expensive for a large portion of the general aviation fleet 

and were reserved for higher end aircraft including business jets 

and commercial air transport aircraft. Since that time over 6,000 

of our Aspen systems have been installed into general aviation aircraft worldwide, which is a testament to our company, our employees and our product’s capabilities. 

With just 47 employees, Aspen’s entrepreneurial spirit is key to 

its success. Also key is the discipline we must have in managing 

costs and delivering a return to our investors. The company is 

guided by a Board of Directors, whose investment in Aspen is made 

with the expectation of a profit in the future. In order to keep costs 

low for our customers we operate on tight margins. 

One of the biggest challenges we face as a small business is response times for FAA approvals. Each week, small aerospace businesses like Aspen are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars due 

to approval delays from the FAA. In recent years, when a small 

business begins the process of developing a certified product it 

must submit to a sequencing process by FAA of certification 

projects. The process in unpredictable and often results in increased product development times and costs as companies develop 

the product and wait for the FAA to apply resources. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

28 

Once through the sequencing process, companies must deal with 

a lack of clarity in expectations and inconsistency between certification offices in different regions and within individual offices at 

FAA. This is a major barrier to success and often survival. Various 

offices interpret guidelines differently. More importantly, even 

within a certification office, procedures followed on previous programs are implemented and interpreted differently on later programs. FAA has proposed changes to the sequencing process but 

the totality of the entire process and the threat of costly delay remains a real concern for our company and many others. 

Changes in personnel in the middle of a program further exacerbate our problem and are compounded by agency personnel adding 

or changing tasks at the end of a program with great impacts. 

Aspen specifically has been affected during a recent program where 

additional work levied late in one program resulted in unplanned, 

increased costs and a resulting loss of 13 high paying quality jobs 

(20% of our overall workforce) in October 2013. Imagine this outcome, multiplied by hundreds of small aerospace businesses who 

experience this on a regular basis. The money saved by instituting 

clear procedures, consistent training, and detailed certification 

guidelines to FAA personnel would boost productivity, grow the industry, and secure jobs. 

As a small business Aspen Avionics also has raised private capital for investment in new products. Our inability to accurately 

plan our tasks associated with certification is a major disadvantage 

for companies of all sizes, but particularly for small business like 

mine. We need to account for these inefficiencies in our costs projections, thereby lowering our potential returns and making it very 

difficult to draw the interest of financial investors. 

To be successful, businesses, and in particular small businesses, 

need to clearly understand the tasks and be able to expect the FAA 

to respond in a timely fashion. Certification plans provided early 

in the process need to be approved and followed without new requests being levied late in the programs. This will allow us to plan 

our tasks, execute them, and keep costs down, bringing safety critical products to the market on time and at affordable costs. 

Many companies like ours are developing new and innovative solutions to meet FAA NextGen mandates to equip over 157,000 aircraft facing a January 1, 2020 deadline. These aircraft operators 

will have a limited time to schedule and complete these avionics 

upgrades. While 2020 may seem like a long time from now, current 

delays in the certification process shortens that time period exponentially. In my opinion, accelerating the efficiency and response 

time for approvals is one of the top issues we must work together 

to solve. If not addressed soon, certification delays for NextGen avionics will become overwhelming and the significant investment in 

the ATC infrastructure could be compromised. With Congress, 

FAA, and the private sector working together, we can address 

NextGen equipage effectively and make the overall program a success. Urgent and real safety benefits can be delivered if we invest 

the resources and develop the approvals and guidelines to speed up 

the certification process. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

29 

One crucial way to address these issues, particularly for larger 

companies, is through the establishment of Organizational Design 

Authorities (ODA). The cost, however, of supporting an ODA for a 

small business can be prohibitive. Aspen does employ and contact 

with some of the most experienced Designated Engineering Representatives (DER) in the country for systems, flight test, software, 

and structures at great expense. Many of these individuals have 

over 35 years of experience. In addition, the senior members of our 

company have similar levels of experience in avionics development. 

We hire such capable individuals to ensure our products meet and 

exceed the requirements of the most stringent regulatory procedures. We have a vested financial interest to ensure our products 

are safe, reliable, robust and perform as promised. Our success depends on it. The success of our competitors depend upon it. 

Likewise, we also understand that the FAA is working under increased fiscal pressures. With limited resources it is even more critical that we leverage the expertise of companies like Aspen to improve safety, drive innovation, and improve certification efficiency. 

Delegation to companies like Aspen that have invested in experienced and industry-respected DER resources is a viable answer for 

our businesses and the FAA. We encourage the FAA to make more 

consistent use of this very valuable tool to ensure safety and the 

viability of innovative small businesses in aviation. 

I also propose we look at ways in which we can work together 

to grant some sort of airworthy certification authority for small 

businesses to help ‘‘cross the finish line’’ and speed up the certification process. People in small businesses like ours, and especially 

those that work in aerospace, have a passion for the industry and 

work in this business because they want to—not because they have 

to. To help alleviate the workload, aligning the division of responsibilities and the authority properly is essential to ensuring the vitality of aviation small businesses and the advancement, growth 

and safety of general aviation. 

Such creative thinking and collaboration is exemplified by the 

Small Airplane Revitalization Act which was signed into law by 

President Obama in late November. On a bipartisan basis, members of Congress came together and passed legislation which will 

improve safety, encourage innovation, and promote growth in aviation. A legislative focus on small businesses in aerospace could result in similar benefits. 

From an Aspen Avionics perspective, another wonderful example 

of this collaboration is the NextGen FA Fund. When Congress 

passed the FAA Reform and Modernization Act of 2012, they included Section 221 to incentivize GA equipage through use of a 

public private partnership (PPP), where 100% of funding for low interest loans are underwritten by private sector investors. The PPP, 

called the NextGen GA Fund, is ready to launch and we are optimistic about its impact on the industry. Just announced last week, 

Aspen Avionics is the first small business to support this important 

initiative. I only mention this as an example of the ways we can 

work on together to help small businesses in the aerospace industry to continue to contribute to an important part of the country’s 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

30 

economy. It is my opinion that this is what government should be 

doing to lift general aviation as an important economic sector. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about how my small 

business interacts with our regulator, the FAA. I want to be clear, 

we appreciate their work, dedication, and attention, but also believe there are opportunities to improve and reform their efforts to 

maximize benefits, improve safety, and allow small businesses like 

Aspen Avionics to flourish. I look forward to discussing this further 

and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

31 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 86618.004

Before the 

House 

Statement of 

Austin Heffernan 

Owner and General HU"'"l;;''' 

Aircraft Services 

Relm'(l,~erltil1ljj the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

5,2014 
32 

Chairman Graves and Members of the Committee: 

I am Austin Heffernan, Owner and General Manager, Royal Aircraft Services. 

Royal Aircraft Services is a highly regarded FAA Certified Repair 

Station located in Hagerstown Maryland. Our staff of 14 employees 

handles major structural repairs, aircraft painting, aircraft restoration and general maintenance for General Aviation aircraft owners 

based throughout the Mid-Atlantic United States. 

I’m also representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) of which I have been a member of since 2002. AOPA is a 

not-for-profit individual membership organization representing 

nearly 400,000 members. AOPA’s mission is to effectively represent 

the interests of its members as aircraft owners and pilots concerning the economy, safety, utility, and popularity of flight in general aviation (GA) aircraft. 

My testimony today will cover the following key points: 

1. General aviation is a heavily regulated industry; 

2. Rapidly changing technology offers new safety and operational benefits, but regulations have not kept pace with technological advancements, preventing general aviation from receiving these benefits; and 

3. FAA policies and internal structures are increasing the 

cost of participation in general aviation without providing commensurate safety benefits. 

General Aviation 

As pilots flying in the United States, we are fortunate to have 

access to the safest and most efficient air transportation system in 

the world. The aviation network of 5,200 public-use airports, complemented by the more than 13,000 privately owned landing facilities is a unique national resource. General aviation is a significant 

economic engine that contributes approximately $150 billion to the 

annual gross domestic product and approximately 1.2 million jobs 

in communities nationwide. Each year, 170 million passengers fly 

using personal aviation, the equivalent of one of the nation’s major 

airlines. 

General aviation is of special importance to small businesses and 

an estimated 65% of all general aviation flights are conducted for 

business and public services. Additionally, the Small Business Administration has estimated that approximately 94% of the firms 

that provide cargo and passenger air transportation services are 

considered small businesses, as are 90% of businesses involved in 

the development and manufacture of aircraft and parts. 

In addition to these businesses, general aviation activity directly 

supports thousands of small businesses from flight schools to repair 

shops to line operations. Thousands more small businesses of every 

type use general aviation to transport personnel, move products, 

extend their geographical reach, meet clients, provide support services, and manage distant operations. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

33 

FAA’s Regulatory Oversight 

General Aviation is Heavily Regulated 

The FAA oversees all aspects of general aviation, including recreational, private, business, and commercial flying. Pilot training, 

medical certification, aircraft certification and maintenance, operations in the National Airspace System, and many other aspects of 

utilizing aircraft and operating aviation businesses are regulated 

directly or indirectly by the FAA. These regulations have evolved 

over time into a complex and intertwined legal morass that often 

limits or slows the adoption of new safety enhancing technologies 

and practices. 

The FAA routinely finds its hands tied by existing regulations 

when it wants to encourage the adoption of newer technologies and 

practices that could enhance safety. In many instances, the regulations have evolved in a way that forces the FAA to go well beyond 

its role as regulator and become directly involved with the operational aspects of the industry. 

Impacts on the General Aviation Industry 

While the amount of regulation increases, the general aviation 

industry shows many indications of decline and stagnation. Since 

1991, the industry has seen a steady decline in the total number 

of pilots, with the greatest decrease in the number of private pilots—a loss of nearly 6,000 per year. These private pilots are the 

main market for many of the on-airport small businesses that 

make up the general aviation industry. Businesses providing flight 

training, aircraft rental and repair, engine overhauls, fuel, and 

other products and services are impacted by this decline. 

Regulations Prevent General Aviation from Benefitting 

from New Technology 

Current regulations, policies, and procedures make it difficult or 

impossible for general aviation to adopt and implement new techSBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 86618.001
34 

nology. The following examples are representative of the types of 

challenges facing general aviation operators who want to use new 

safety technologies. 

Technology in Flight Training - Use of Flight Simulation 

Pilots and flight training providers have benefited greatly from 

advancements in simulation technology. Simulators give pilots a realistic experience of a wide range of flight conditions in a way that 

is far safer, more efficient, and more cost-effective than attempting 

to provide equivalent training while airborne. 

While commercial and corporate aviation have had access to simulation for many years, affordable simulators have become available to most general aviation training providers only in the past 

decade or so. The FAA has been challenged to keep up with the advances in this area and has struggled to provide consistent, effective, and flexible oversight. 

In January, the FAA issued a new policy in an attempt to update 

and standardize its patchwork of existing guidance, letters of authorization, and advisory circulars. Rather than promoting the use 

of this proven technology, the new policy actually reduces the 

amount of time a simulator can be used in some types of flight 

training until regulatory changes can be made. Industry has asked 

the FAA to rescind the new policy statement, initiate expedited 

rulemaking to allow a higher number of simulator hours to be credited, and then reissue its current guidance and standards. 

Aircraft Certification Reform - Technology in New Aircraft 

Just last week, the FAA Administrator and his senior staff met 

with the leaders of the major general aviation associations to discuss safety and the need to bring new technology into general aviation. Today’s prescriptive and outdated rules inhibit innovation and 

are the major barrier to developing and producing safer aircraft. 

AOPA has long advocated streamlining the aircraft certification 

process and we are encouraged that a major FAA-industry effort is 

underway to reform the aircraft certification regulations (Part 23) 

so as to increase safety while decreasing cost. AOPA is actively engaged in this process. 

In November, these efforts get a boost when the Small Airplane 

Revitalization Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by 

the President. I’d like to thank Chairman Graves and Small Business Committee Members Hanna, Heulskamp, and Collins for cosponsoring this bill. 

Existing Aircraft Must Also Benefit from New Technology 

While streamlining certification for new aircraft is important, reform efforts must be expanded to ensure that owners of existing 

aircraft can make safety improvements. The current FAA regulatory structure makes putting new technology into older aircraft 

challenging at best and prohibitive at worst. This issue was at the 

center of the industry-led portion of last month’s safety discussions 

with the Administrator. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

35 

There are approximately 200,000 GA aircraft flying, and manufacturers produce just over 1,000 new aircraft each year. These 

numbers clearly indicate that the biggest safety payoffs will come 

from upgrading older airplanes. Making it easier to upgrade aircraft will have another payoff as well—creating well-paying jobs for 

those who design, manufacture, and install the new equipment. 

The Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee has 

provided recommendations for changes to other regulations, such 

as Parts 21 and 43, and existing policies and procedures to improve 

the ability to modify, maintain, and upgrade existing aircraft. Industry would like the opportunity to work with the FAA to 

prioritize these areas and help develop changes that can enable 

and encourage the addition of safety enhancements, equipment upgrades, and new operational equipment for existing aircraft. 

Moving Forward on One Safety Improvement 

The FAA has indicated that, after nearly three years of work, it 

will soon release a new policy that is intended to streamline the 

approval of angle of attack indicators for existing aircraft. The 

angle of attack indicator is an important safety technology that 

could help reduce the number of accidents caused by loss of control—the leading cause of GA accidents. To date, retrofit of this 

technology has been hampered by the cost and complexity of the 

equipment—factors driven in large part by FAA regulations. 

We look forward to reviewing the new policy and we’re hopeful 

that it will serve as a model for bringing other non-required safety 

enhancements into general aviation more quickly and efficiently. 

FAA policies and Internal Structures that are Increasing the 

Cost of Participation in the General Aviation Industry 

Medical Certification for Private and Recreational Transportation 

The FAA third-class medical certificate is primarily used by pilots who want to fly recreationally or for private transportation. 

The cost and regulatory process associated with obtaining and renewing the medical certificate, and the fear of being denied and 

sent through the bureaucratic hoops and extensive testing required 

to get it back, are contributing to the precipitous decline in number 

of private pilots. 

A petition, presented by AOPA and EAA (Experimental Aircraft 

Association), seeks to reduce the cost and hassle of the FAA medical certification process while maintaining and potentially increasing safety through education. The petition would expand the FAA’s 

existing driver’s license medical standard to more aircraft and operations than currently allowed. That standard, which allows pilots 

who also hold a valid driver’s license to certify their own fitness to 

fly, already exists for pilots flying under Sport Pilot rules and has 

been proven safe. The proposal would expand that privilege to pilots flying certain small piston-powered aircraft under specific conditions and would add a level of safety by requiring pilots to take 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

36 

recurring training on how to effectively determine their fitness to 

fly. 

AOPA and EAA conservatively estimated that giving pilots the 

option to use a driver’s license standard instead of a third-class 

medical for certain operations would save pilots $241 million over 

10 years while saving the government $11 million over the same 

period. Granting the petition wo9uld keep pilots flying and therefore supporting the small businesses at their local airports. 

More than 16,000 comments were filed on the petition, and they 

were overwhelmingly favorable, but almost two years after the petition was filed, the FAA has not provided a formal response. 

On December 11, 2013, Chairman Graves and fellow AOPA 

member Congressman Todd Rokita, both members of the House 

General Aviation Caucus, introduced the General Aviation Pilot 

Protection Act. The legislation goes a step beyond the AOPA-EAA 

petition. It would allow pilots to use the driver’s license medical 

standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 

6,000 pounds with no more than six seats. 

FAA Unable to Provide Approvals Required by Regulations 

The current regulatory system requires the FAA to issue approvals, in the form of Air Agency Certificates, to many areas of general 

aviation operations. In some cases, these approvals are required before businesses can begin operating. Air Agency Certificates are required for charter/on demand operations (Part 135), flight schools 

(Part 141), training centers (Part 142), and repair stations (Part 

145). In many of these areas of responsibility and in many parts 

of the country, FAA backlogs in issuing these certificates are significantly hindering the ability of small businesses to operate. 

At the October 30, 2013 Aviation Subcommittee hearing on Certification Reform, the assistant inspector general for aviation audits for the Department of Transportation reported that the FAA 

has a current backlog of 1,029 air agency certificate applications. 

Of that backlog, 138 applications have been awaiting approval for 

more than three years and one has been stalled since 2006. 

Industry is willing to work with the FAA to find a way to address these delays and to move forward with granting these approvals. It is troubling that the FAA implements these requirements by regulation but cannot provide the resources when operators are ready to demonstrate compliance. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we believe there are a number of steps the FAA 

can take to address the overregulation of general aviation while 

maintaining or increasing safety. Additionally, these changes will 

increase participation in general aviation, benefit small businesses, 

increase employment, and promote economic growth. 

1. Congress should continue to urge decision makers to consider changing the policies, guidance, and regulations in ways 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

37 

that will encourage and advance the use of modern technology 

in all aspects of aviation, especially the installation of technology in existing aircraft. 

2. Congress should urge decision makers to focus attention 

on resolving the internal issues that are preventing and delaying issuance of required FAA approvals, thereby preventing 

many small businesses from starting or expanding. 

3. We appreciate Congress’ recent passage of the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act directing the FAA to streamline aircraft certification. This will have a significant impact on deploying new and improved safety technologies to general aviation aircraft. We look forward to Congress taking action on the 

General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, which if passed, would 

reduce the regulatory burden and cost on general aviation and 

encourage people to fly. 

Aviation is American. It started here in this country and we need 

to maintain our leadership in this area. We need to find ways to 

encourage and grow this amazing industry and we appreciate your 

support. On behalf of the 14 employees of Royal Aircraft Services 

and the nearly 400,000 members of AOPA, thank you for your leadership in addressing the concerns of the general aviation industry 

so that it can continue to help small businesses nationwide grow 

and thrive. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

38 

STATEMENT OF 

JAMAIL LARKINS 

ASCENSION AIRCRAFT, INC. 

REPRESENTING THE 

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REGARDING 

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S 

IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE GENERAL 

AVIATION INDUSTRY 

FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

39 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez and members of 

the Committee, my name is Jamail Larkins, and I’m a businessman from Atlanta, Georgia. 

I’m pleased to be here as a proud member of the National Business Aviation Association. My company, Ascension Aircraft, has 

been a member with the association since 2008. 

While NBAA often appears before Congressional Committees to 

represent its Members, this is the first time I’ve testified before 

Congress. It’s a privilege to be here. 

Business Aviation: A Big Benefit for Small Businesses 

Across the U.S. 

In 2008, I founded Ascension Aircraft, and today I serve as the 

company’s CEO. Although my company is a regional leader in the 

sale of fractional-ownership shares of piston aircraft, the business 

employs just 19 people, including myself. 

Over the years, I have found that one of the most effective ways 

to sell business aircraft is to use business aircraft. With a business 

airplane, I can quickly seize opportunities as they arise. The airplane enables me to meet face-to-face with potential clients, providing a level of service and accountability that helps me get a leg 

up on my competition, and build my company. 

Of course, many of my clients are small business owners and entrepreneurs themselves. They are often located in out-of-the-way 

places, and like me, they recognize the many benefits an airplane 

can bring to their enterprises. 

With a business airplane, an entrepreneur can travel to multiple 

cities for meetings in a single day, return to headquarters that 

same evening, and be back in the office the next day. With an airplane, a businessperson can transport tools or products that may 

be too large to fit into an airliner’s overhead bin, or too delicate to 

be checked into an airliner’s cargo hold. With a business airplane, 

an entrepreneur can efficiently manage work sites that are distant 

from each other, and are often located in small towns with little 

or no airline service. 

Simply put, for many small business owners and entrepreneurs— 

people like me—the use of an airplane is vital to success. It is the 

tool that makes the business model work. 

Interestingly, you don’t often hear about companies like Ascension Aircraft when people talk about business aviation. Instead, 

people tend to focus on large Fortune 500 companies. But for every 

Fortune 500 company that relies on business aviation, there are 

eight or nine companies like mine—in fact, the business aviation 

community is made up mostly of small and mid-size enterprises. 

Every member of this Committee has small businesses like mine 

in their state. And the use of an airplane often enables those companies, and the jobs that come with them, to remain in communities that can sometimes be harder to reach than the metropolitan 

areas. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

40 

That’s a win not just for the companies using the airplanes, and 

their employees—it’s a win for the countless thousands of workers 

at community airports where business aircraft fly. It’s also a win 

for the many additional thousands of employees in the towns surrounding those airports, because their businesses often exist due to 

the activity at the local airfields. 

The reason you’ve asked me here today is not just to talk about 

the benefits of business aviation to small enterprises, but about 

how the work of the Federal Aviation Administration affects those 

of us with small businesses. 

If there is anything I’d like you to take from my testimony, it is 

this: The United States not only has the world’s largest, safest, 

most diverse and most efficient aviation system—it is also the best 

system in the world for allowing small companies like mine to optimize business aviation, so that we can succeed in today’s enormously competitive global economy. 

That said, while America’s aviation system is an enormous public 

benefit—one that should continue to be run by the government, 

with oversight from Congress—there are a number of ways the 

FAA could strengthen its relationship with the small business community, so that the policies and procedures involving the agency 

are more workable and effective, for the both the agency and the 

businesses that rely on an airplane. 

In fact, I would offer that because business aviation is more regulated than other industries, the relationship between the FAA and 

the small businesses utilizing aircraft must be a productive one— 

not just today, but also when we think about the aviation system 

of the future, and how small businesses like mine will operate in 

it. 

A Highly Regulated Community, A Need For FAA/Industry 

Collaboration 

When we think about the regulatory regime for business aviation 

today, we know that, largely for safety reasons, stringent policy requirements are appropriately placed upon the industry. 

The services needed to meet those requirements are largely provided by the FAA, which makes the agency critically important to 

the business aviation community. And when those services go 

unmet, or when onerous policies are implemented—sometimes 

without sufficient industry input—business aviation suffers, and its 

benefits to citizens, companies and communities, is jeopardized. 

Here are four examples to illustrate my point. 

Example 1: Government Shutdowns Take A Terrible Toll on Industry 

We know that the government shutdown last year led to the closure of the FAA’s U.S. Aircraft Registry. As a result, aircraft could 

not be purchased, sold, imported, exported, and in some cases, 

flown. 

I’m in the business of selling aircraft, so I have a first-hand understanding of the toll the registry shutdown had on companies in 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

41 

my line of work. These are mostly small businesses, often family 

owned, and comprised of just a few people. They’re located across 

the country, and when the government was shuttered, their business was stuck in an unending layover. 

Fortunately, after 17 days, the government shutdown concluded, 

and the registry was reopened. But, the effects of the shutdown 

were felt by many in the aircraft-transaction business for weeks 

following the shutdown. Government and industry would be well 

served by working together to ensure that if a shutdown were to 

occur again, the registry would remain open. 

Example 2: Aviation-Business Approval Backlog Has Hamstrung 

Job Creation 

We also know that FAA policies are central to the operation of 

small aviation businesses, such as training centers, flight schools 

and on-demand charter operators, which require approval from the 

FAA before conducting business. 

At the same time, as FAA resources are dwindling, the backlog 

of businesses attempting to gain certification and begin soliciting 

customers has swelled to nearly 1,000. Some businesses have been 

told that their wait for approval could take two to three years. 

We know that small businesses like these are the lead drivers of 

job creation and economic investment in the U.S., which means we 

need for the FAA to find ways to streamline its start-up approval 

processes. That way, the growing number of general aviation businesses facing these needless delays can be approved to get underway, creating jobs and investing in local communities. 

Example 3: Some Complicated Operating Requirements Need 

Streamlining 

On the operations side of the industry, we know that many companies use aircraft that are subject to a raft of often-complex government requirements, related not only to equipage with specific 

navigation, communication and surveillance capabilities, but also 

requirements for specific government approval for the operator to 

use that equipment onboard the aircraft. 

Among these requirements are rules for approval of aircraft operations using equipment allowing for Reduced Vertical Separation 

Minima (RVSM). Thanks to government/industry collaboration, 

RVSM-authorization requirements were recently smoothed, even as 

important safety standards were protected. There are many other, 

similar authorizations that could be streamlined as well, reducing 

the burden on businesses and government officials alike. 

Example 4: Alarming New Policies for Pilots Are Emerging, Absent Industry Input 

As an additional matter of concern for business aviation, I’ll 

point to a policy under consideration that members of this Committee are likely familiar with: the FAA’s controversial plan to 

begin subjecting pilots with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or 

greater to Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) screening prior to receiving a medical certification. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

42 

When this plan was introduced at the end of last year, NBAA, 

and its Member Companies—like mine—were alarmed. It seems 

that available data to confirm a link between OSA and flight safety 

is lacking, and that there is no clear indication that an additional 

screening requirement would improve aviation safety. 

Just as troubling, the vast majority of pilots weren’t provided an 

opportunity to learn of the FAA’s plans, or been given a mechanism 

for providing feedback on the proposal. As a businessperson who 

has been a certificated pilot since my teenage years, this is a troubling development. 

Mr. Chairman, the legislation which you and several of your 

Small Business Committee colleagues joined in co-sponsoring—H.R. 

3578—would require the FAA to consult with industry stakeholders 

through the established rulemaking process before issuing any 

final requirement for pilots to undergo OSA screening. 

It will also require the FAA to conduct a fully transparent, datadriven justification process for its proposal, which takes into account the full spectrum of costs, benefits and other important criteria before any OSA rule or regulation can take effect. 

The Senate has introduced similar legislation. On behalf of 

NBAA and its Member Companies, I want to thank you and other 

Congressional leaders for supporting these measures. 

So, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, as I said, it’s 

clear that the relationship between the FAA and the small businesses operating in the aviation system which the agency manages, 

is a critically important one. And, with the four examples I just 

mentioned, there are ways we can enhance that relationship today. 

We can make it a more collaborative, effective relationship. 

But equally important, we must ensure that, as we look to the 

future of the aviation system, government leaders understand what 

small business owners, and other stakeholders in general aviation, 

consider fundamental to America’s continued aviation leadership. 

An Imperative to Continue Strengthening A World-Leading Aviation System 

When it comes to preserving the nation’s leadership in the aviation arena, we know that much of the debate about how best to do 

that will take place in the context of the coming FAA reauthorization. 

While the current authorization does not expire for almost two 

years, discussion on the next one has appropriately begun. And, it’s 

with that in mind that I’ll note the industry’s long-standing, united 

view on some guiding principles for FAA reauthorization, and the 

related imperative of continued aviation system modernization. 

• First, when it comes to paying for use of the aviation system, the fuel tax works best for everyone in general aviation. 

I know that, in past reauthorization debates, user fees have 

been proposed from some corners as a replacement for the fuel 

tax. As a small business owner, I also know that we don’t need 

user fees—and the giant federal bureaucracy needed to collect 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

43 

them—when fuel taxes have long been an efficient, reliable 

and proven method of collecting revenue to support aviationsystem management and modernization. 

• Second, as I mentioned earlier, the general aviation community continues to believe that direct Congressional oversight 

of the FAA funding system is necessary to ensure the availability of stable, consistent funding levels for our national aviation system. Congressional oversight will also ensure that the 

specific needs of all aviation industry stakeholders are taken 

into account when it comes to aviation policymaking. 

• Third, a continued, strong, federal-funding commitment is 

necessary to maintain the strength of our national air transportation system. 

I know that there will be a robust debate in the coming months 

on this issue, and I very much appreciate this opportunity to share 

with this committee my views as a small business entrepreneur 

who depends on our national aviation system to conduct and expand my business. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Velazquez, I 

also appreciate the strong leadership you provide, and the bi-partisan support which this committee extends to the small business 

community. 

I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

44 

1K.J. Button, and S. Lall, ‘The economic of being an airline hub city’, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 75–106, 1999. 2K.J. Button, ‘The role of small airports in economic development’ Journal of Airport Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 125–136, 2010. 

The FAA’s Impact on Small Businesses in the General 

Aviation Industry 

Kenneth J. Button, PhD, AcSS, FCILT, FCIHT 

University Professor 

School of Public Policy 

George Mason University 

Evidence to the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Small 

Business 

Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building 

February 5, 2014 

The evidence considers the rationale for the Federal Aviation Administration intervening in markets for general aviation, and looks 

specifically at the public interest issues regarding safety, and the 

implications of policies to reduce accidents on the vitality of small 

businesses involved in general aviation. There is a focus on some 

elements of administrative costs of pursuing the social interest of 

increased safety. The evidence also offers some comments on recent 

and proposed legislation impacting on the way that the FAA handles regulations governing general aviation regulations and their 

reform. 

Introduction 

In the right context air transportation can provide a major economic stimulus to a region, city, or town. In a strict economic 

transportation sense it offers access to a larger market for local 

firms and can allow local residents to travel medium and long distances, albeit often not directly, for personal and business reasons. 

At a secondary level local airports, and the various aviation and 

non-aviation activities can provide local employment and generate 

income for the community. These benefits are clearly not true for 

all locations, there has, for example, to be a threshold of latent demand if any new airport is to be successful or an existing one expanded. 

These benefits hold at any scale of aggregation, from for example 

the gains for the high- and bio-technologies areas of the National 

Capital Region from having a major hub airport at Dulles 1, to the 

economic advantages enjoyed by many of the smaller communities 

of Virginia that have local airports 2. That airports, together with 

the air transportation associated with them, can, in an appropriate 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

45 

3For more comprehensive study of the various roles of general aviation in economic development, see U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, 

FAA, Washington DC, 2012. 

context, generate considerable economic gains for local residences 

and firms is a pretty consistent finding of academic and other studies. 

The roles of general aviation, and the businesses associated with 

it, are numerous and vary across airports and aviation activities. 

The general economic advantages for a community of having a general aviation facility are not only from the direct aviation effects 

associated with the use of the airport that range from air taxi and 

charter services, pilot training, and crop-spraying through the access business jets provide to be commercial world, but also from the 

income that comes from the maintenance of aircraft, fuel sales, and 

airport fees, and non-aviation sales that are often present at airports, such as parking and catering services. There are also wider, 

social benefits, often described as ‘‘public interest functions’’, that 

are associated with general aviation and with its role in supporting 

policing, medical emergency activities, fire fighting, and accessibility of small communities often being highlighted 3. In addition, 

the general aviation sector is responsible for large numbers of jobs 

in the manufacture of aircraft and associated hard and software. 

There is, however, an inherent danger in assessing these economic benefits because confusion may arise between correlations 

with causality. While general aviation can confer local economic 

benefits in terms of jobs and income, this causality in some cases 

may well run from the income levels and the interests of those living in an area to the development or enlargement of an aviation 

facility, rather than from the airport being the catalyst for local 

economic development. The few studies that have sought to separate out these causality effects, however, support the notion that 

by-and-large the general aviation facility is the driver, but these 

tend to use aggregate analysis and there may well be cases where 

causality is in the opposite direct. 

The challenge, and a major one that is confronted by the legal 

duties of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, is to ensure 

that these benefits from general aviation when they accrue, and 

which can be very diverse in their nature, are obtained without excessive social costs. In particular there are costs of safety that come 

into play. The challenge can be further broken down in administrative efficiency terms by considering the benefit and costs imposed 

by the actions of the FAA in pursuing its duties; i.e. could any safety objective be obtained at lower ‘‘cost’’ to the general aviation sector? 

The costs to general aviation of public interest interventions are 

diverse, and affect both the supply and demand side. They may involve direct costs to the manufacturers of hard or software in terms 

of standards and testing requirements, and periodical maintenance, 

and to airports in terms of the types of equipment needed to handle 

various forms and levels of traffic. These costs are in turn, and 

often in rather indirect ways, passed to the users of the hard- and 

software of the system. These users, essentially the pilots, also 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

46 

4General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2012, General Aviation Statistical, GAMA, 

Washington D.C., 2013. 5 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap, FAA, Washington, D.C. 2013. 

have to meet a variety of competence and health requirements, 

that can take both money and time to acquire, and often have to 

provide information on their activities, or at least are asked to do 

so. In addition, there are the costs of administering the system that 

is partly funded from taxation. 

The particular features of general aviation 

General aviation covers a wide range of activities. A standard 

definition is that it embraces all civil aviation operations other 

than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire. It thus range from gliders and 

cowered parachutes to corporate jet flights involving a professional 

pilot flying a business aircraft; about 11% of private flying is by 

business people on their way to meetings etc. It constitutes, in 

terms of aircraft and their movements, by far the largest component of civil aviation; there are around 19,000 airports, helipads, 

and seaplane bases of varying sizes serving general aviation in the 

U.S., and its territories; just over 2,900 handle the movements. 

These facilities vary considerably in terms of tower control, runway 

features and ground support facilities; although the FAA classifies 

them into four broad categorizations. There is nearly a quarter of 

a million general aviation aircraft; of which the bulk is piston or 

turboprop aircraft; and the average age of small planes is about 40 

years 4. 

An emerging aspect of general aviation involves the use of unmanned systems (often termed ‘‘drones’’); such aircraft are without 

an onboard human pilot being controlled either autonomously by 

computers in the vehicle or under the remote control of a pilot on 

the ground or in another vehicle. They take a variety of shapes, 

sizes, configurations, and characteristics and are being used in a 

small but growing number of civil applications, such as policing 

and firefighting, and nonmilitary security work, such as surveillance of pipelines. At present the use of drones is severely limited 

in the U.S., with the FAA developing a road map to allow their integration into the US airspace system.5We do not discuss the 

issues of the regulation of drones here, but their importance for 

small businesses, as suppliers of the hardware required, in operating drone services, and as customers for such services would 

seem to pose a variety of future regulatory challenges. 

A large part of general aviation involves private activities that 

are of limited interest to policy makers. They involve actions of individuals that do not impinge on the general public or any large 

part of it, and the transactions between the individuals and companies involved—airports, pilots, maintenance companies, fuel providers, aircraft owners, aircraft manufactuers—take place in fairly 

simple markets, and involve standard forms of transactions and 

contracts. Since there is ample evidence that such markets, although often not completely perfect because of such things as market power and incomplete knowledge on the part of those involved, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

47 

6 It was also the subject of a previous recent hearing, 112th Congress, 2nd Session. 

7 US Department of Transportation’s Inspector General Office, Use of the National Air Space 

System, CR–2008–028, Washington DC, 2008. 8Some discussion of the main security issues are found in; U.S. Government Accountability 

Office, General Aviation, Security Assessments at Selected Airports, GAO–11–298, Washington 

D.C., 2011. 

are the best way of allocating resources, there is little reason for 

any significant interventions by government. 

There is significant governmental intervention, however, in this 

market for other reasons. The three areas of public interest, setting 

aside generic matters involving such things as commercial contracts between the various providers of general aviation services 

and customers, being largely in the realms of finance, security, and 

safety. The first two of these are hardly touched upon here. 

• Financing the infrastructure of general aviation is important in term of its efficient use but raising money is largely 

outside of the remit of the FAA, which is the subject of the 

hearing 6. The FAA has spending responsibilities for many 

areas of spending and this does affect small businesses in general aviation. The evidence here, however, is general aviation 

uses approximately 16 percent of air traffic control services but 

contributes only 3 percent of the costs 7. Raising this money 

and whether the ratio of spending to revenue collection is socially efficient is an on-going debate. 

• Security is largely within the purview of the Transportation Security Administration rather than the FAA, although 

there are inevitable interfaces between them.8

That safety, our main focus is important is of little doubt, but 

equally it is unrealistic (if not impossible) to have 100% safety; it 

is simply too costly even if a viable definition of absolute safety 

could be devised. What public policy is de facto concerned with is 

developing what is often called ALARP; ‘‘as low as reasonably practical’’ level of risk of an accident. This entails balancing the risks 

of, in our case, an incident involving general aviation against the 

social benefits that general aviation confers. In terms of a pilot and 

aircraft owner, if there were no-one else involved then a private 

market, possibly involving the activities of insurers, would suffice 

to offer the appropriate ALARP level of risk; safety is the sole concern of the pilot and the aircraft owner and any incident has no 

implications for third parties. 

The public interest element comes in when there is collateral 

damage with costs inflicted on: 

• third-parties involved in general aviation, including pilots 

and their aircraft and those working at airfields; 

• when there are costs of remedial action, such as involved 

in search and rescue operations for a crashed plane, and 

• when individuals and ‘‘hardware’’ on the ground are affected. 

While some of these items, such as property damage from a 

crashed aircraft or the medical bills of injured people, can be directly expressed in monetary terms, there is also clear evidence 

that people do value in monetary terms their safety in broader 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

48 

9 Jones-Lee, M. and Looms, G. (2003) Valuation of Safety, in D.A. Hensher and K.J. Button 

(eds), Handbook of Transport and the Environment, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 451–462. 

terms, and place a value on reductions in the risk of being killed 

or injured in an accident 9. They also value a feeling of safety that 

can extend beyond fears of direct personal harm. 

From an economic perspective, the issue is one of whether the 

‘‘private’’ costs to the general aviation sector of safety regulations, 

and their implementation and enforcement, outweigh the benefits 

to third parties of the regulations. This involves not simply issues 

of objective measurement but also societal perceptions; as with security, it is often as much about what the public thinks the net 

benefits of general aviation are as about the actuarial calculations 

of the costs and be benefits. This boarder perspective essentially requires some form of benefit-cost assessment of the sector, and ipso 

facto of the policies of agencies such as the FAA. 

The safety situation 

The data show that over 90% of fatal aviation accidents in the 

U.S. involve general aviation, although the proportion of fatalities 

and injuries is far less because of the small vehicles involved. In 

terms of trends in the safety record of U.S. general aviation, Figure 

1 shows a substantial decline in accidents since the 1960s with 

some flattening out in the downward trend after the 1990s (Some 

caution should be taken when inspecting the table, in that the time 

intervals prior to 1990 are in five-year periods and in annual periods thereafter.) As a summary picture, the national Transportation 

Safety Board found that fatal accidents fell by 24% between 1999 

and 2011, and non-fatal accidents by 29%. 

To get a clearer picture of the risk associated with general aviation activities, accidents need to be set against the level of activity 

in the industry. A standard measure of this activity is flight hours, 

although other measures such as the number of flights may also 

form a legitimate basis for calculations; most accidents occur during take or landing. Figure 2 provides the details and again, although retaining the caveat about nature of the horizontal axis, a 

general downward trend is seen in all indicators of accidents, with 

some flattening out in recent years. The situation is somewhat better than in most other countries where general aviation plays a 

smaller role in the economy. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

49 

10 U.S. Government Accountability Office Aviation Safety; Enhanced Oversight and Improved 

Availability of Risk-based Data Could Further improve Safety, GAO–12–24, Washington, D.C., 

2013. 

A problem with this analysis, however, is that the data on fight 

hours for general aviation is poor, making genuine risk analysis, a 

core calculation for public policy making, difficult; similar data limitations seem to exist helicopter emergency medical services 10

While there have been improvements in data collection, this inevitably comes at a cost to those engaged in general aviation and, in 

particular, in terms of additional documentation requirements. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 86618.002
50 

11 U.S. Government Accountability Office, General Aviation Safety: Additional FAA Efforts 

could help Identify and Mitigate Safety Risks, GAO–13–36, Washington D.C., 2012. 

Further, in terms of data, to gain better insights into causes of accidents, the FAA has enhanced its collection and maintenance of 

data on each certified pilot’s recurrent training; the costs presumably being bourn as part of the certification fee. 

In absolute terms the number of fatal accidents is relatively 

small in the U.S. (as a reference point, there were 34,080 road 

deaths and 2,362,000 injuries in 2012), and, from a public policy 

perspective, the vast majority of those involved were not third parties. A similar picture emerges involving non-fatal incidents. The 

issue centers less on actuarial risk calculations, and more on the 

public perceptions of the risk of an individual being impacted by a 

general aviation aircraft falling from the skies; but it is this perceived risk that forms the basis for providing public policy. 

Although accidents can seldom be attributed to any single cause, 

or to a particular contributing factor, the overall pattern of causes 

and primary contributory factors to general aviation accidents have 

tended to remain fairly constant in recent years. It is clear that 

pilot error and loss of control are the main causes of accidents 

(NTSB data does suggest about 70% of fatal accidents, and 59% of 

non-fatal are due to pilot error, with pilots having less than 100 

hours in the accident aircraft being particularly prone to involvement), but the details of contributing factors vary considerably as 

seen in Figure 3. The long-standing problems of pilot errors has 

been attributed to a variety of factors, such as inadequate recurrent training and poor training in cockpit management and aeronautical decision making. 

In addition to the broad trends in accidents there are also micropatterns to the incidents that differ according to the segment of the 

sector into which they fit 11. Personal operations, for example have 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 86618.003
51 

12The FAA does have general guidelines for values to be put into its decisions making (e.g. 

see GRA, Incorporated Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions. A Guide, 

FAA, Washington DC, 2004) although this does not cover the costs imposed on the regulated 

of meeting such things as pilot certification. 13 US Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Certification Service, A Report from the Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation Rulemaking Committee to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Recommendation on the Assessment of the Certification and Approval 

Process, Washington DC, 2012. 

long dominated the accident statistics, and in terms of hardware, 

experimental, amateur-built aircraft contribute disproportionately 

(some 22% of accidents between 2009 and 2013 for only 5% of general aviation’s flight hours), whereas corporate operations, while 

accounting for about 14% of flight hours, are only responsible for 

about 1% of fatal accidents. The last statistics largely reflects the 

more advanced technologies employed by most aircraft engaged in 

corporate operations and greater pilot experience. In terms of time 

trends, these differences are important to appreciate; for example 

between 2008 and 2010, when the economy was in serious recession, personal flying hours fell by about 4%, whereas safer, corporate operations fell by 15% and hence raw accident figures may 

to some extent be reflecting changes in the composition of general 

aviation as much as changes in safety. 

Recent reforms to FAA oversight 

The Federal Aviation Administration is essentially concerned 

with the public interest aspect of general aviation. It has the responsibility for administering aircraft and pilot certification, conducting safety oversight of pilot training and general aviation operations, and taking enforcement actions against pilots and others 

who violate federal aviation requirements and safety standards. It 

manifestly is a regulatory body. 

Measuring the net effects of such regulations is, however, difficult. At one level there is the generic problem in assessing safety 

regulation of defining the counterfactual; just what would the accident situation be without the regulation. There is then the matter 

of assessing whether the actions pursued are the best given that 

interventions are justified to enhance social welfare. Finally, there 

are issues about whether the administrative costs of enforcing regulations are minimized; this is generally a contentious issue for 

those who have to conform with regulations because the costs of 

them are often focused, but the benefits extend across many parties. 

In the latter context, and in relations to general aviation regulation, there have been concerns expressed about the burden of regulations, including the time and money costs of conformity and administration. Much of the discussion, however, has tended to be focused on anecdotal evidence and the collective views of those in 

professional and trade associations, capturing the views of the 

third parties affected is less easy 12. 

The FAA has also itself responded to some of these concerns, 

pointing to streamlining certification processes that have been initiated since 2005 13. The challenges highlighted by the FAA in its 

responses include the problems posed by increases in the flow of 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

52 

14 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet—General Aviation, FAA, Washington, 

January 27, 2014. 15 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Safety: Certification and Approval Processes Are Generally Viewed as Working Well, but Better Evaluative Information Needed to Improve Efficiency, GAO–11–14, Washington, D.C., 2010; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Safety: Status of Recommendations to Improve FAA’s Certification and Approval 

Processes, GAO–14–142T, Washington D.C., 2013. 16 U.S. Government Accountability Office Aviation Safety FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety, 

but Challenges Remain in Key Areas, GAO–13–442T, Washington, D.C., 2013. 17 U.S. Government Accountability Office Aviation Safety FAA Efforts Have Improved Safety, 

but Challenges Remain in Key Areas, GAO–13–442T, Washington, D.C., 2013. 

new ‘‘aviation products’’; technologies, new rulemaking and fleetwide safety initiative, and the migration of technologies from large 

transport airplanes to general aviation aircraft, but there is an acceptance that increased efficiency is still possible. A clear problem 

is that of public accountability, regulatory agencies are naturally 

risk averse because any failure regarding any individual application can affects others seeking certifications. 

The Administration has also adopted a multiple faceted approach, largely based on changing the culture within general aviation, to improving the safety record of general aviation, with the 

stated goal of reducing the accident rate by 10% between 2009 and 

2018 14. A number of GAO reports suggest that progress is being 

made to improving the record of general aviation, although not 

without some criticism regarding the pace of change, and a number 

of remaining deficiencies in data collection 15. It is also unclear how 

such a general target can easily be translated across such a diverse 

range of activities and technologies as general aviation, and where 

the safety record is so variable. 

One issue is the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of various initiatives because of inadequate informational bases. While 

the traditional data offers some general guidance as to safety 

tends, and there are efforts being made by the FAA to improve 

data, the industry is fragmented geographically, in terms of the 

services offered, and the by the types of suppliers involved making 

more issue specific statistics important to evaluate other than generic reforms. 

Added to this, data collection of some types of information, such 

as on flight-hours (which have traditionally involved self-reporting) 

and on good indicators of a pilot’s experience (which are important 

in assessing both the wider costs and the benefits of general aviation) has not been completed, and is time-consuming for users of 

the system to contribute. (This, or a lack of appreciation of the importance of the information, may explain low response rates to surveys). The collection also impacts on the FAA budget with, presumably, costs being passed on through certification fees. The GAO, for 

example, has pointed explicitly to this issue.16 There is thus the 

age-old trade-off between data quality and the generalized costs of 

its collection; in this context it is important to up-date collection 

methods and what information is gathered as circumstances 

change. 

One such area regarding data collection and comparability that 

may reduce some burden on users of the general aviation, is that 

the FAA and NTSB seem to be improving cooperation 17. Combined 

data banks and data collection should offer provide some opportuniSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

53 

ties to reduce surveys and reporting requirements. There may also 

be opportunities to combine data banks with the TSA. 

In terms of policy initiatives to reduce burdens on the general 

aviation sector, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act into law in 

November 2013 initiating moves on the adoption of new certification regulations intended to increase safety and reduce the certification costs of new Part 23 general aviation airplanes. 

The law requires the FAA to creation of a new category covering 

aircraft parts and other products aimed at streamlining the certification process for light airplanes and related aviation products. 

This would allow for the swifter adoption of new aircraft designs 

and safety equipment as well as cut costs. In particular, it aims to 

reduce certification costs by half for general aviation aircraft that 

weigh less than 12,500 pounds with the FAA implementing recommendations of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee, composed of 

aviation authorities and industry representatives. Basically, these 

aircraft will not have to be designed and certified under the same 

regulatory requirements as heavier, more complex and higher performing aircraft. 

From the industrial and users perspective, this should cut production costs and certification costs; in particular, for practical reasons, components are currently certified at the level of their highest customer base making them costly for lower end aircraft. The 

regulations are also intended to reflect the lack of need for some 

equipment in the light general aviation market, and particularly in 

the experimental and light sports segment. 

The concerns, and at this point they are concerns, are that the 

change is unlikely to make a difference because the bureaucratic 

nature of the FAA is unlikely to give up its power quickly, or to 

make certification easy, and that the issue of modifications of used 

planes, to update them with new safety equipment, autopilot, etc. 

is left unaddressed. Given the number of older aircraft, the impact 

on users is likely to be limited in the short run, although the measure should help manufacturers. 

There is also the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act that has 

been under consideration, and is aimed at reducing bureaucracy relating to pilot activities. It would allow pilots to fly aircraft weighing less than 6,000 pounds, with six seats or less, flying under visual flight rules below 14,000 feet, and at speeds less than 250 

knots as long as they meet the medical standards involved in attaining that current state driver’s license, one argument being that 

a small plane is similar in size to an SUV and accidents due to 

‘‘driver impairment’’ should be treated on a similar basis. 

The aim is to reduce the hassle and cost of obtaining the Class 

III medical currently required. The evidence that large numbers of 

people are deterred from flying because of this requirement does 

not, however, seem strong. The more worrying aspect from a policy 

perspective is the two years or so that the FAA has taken to consider the matter. 

Conclusions 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

54 

That general aviation is important in a country as large, diverse 

and economically advanced as the U.S. seems difficult to question. 

That, by and large, the market has been effective in ensuring an 

efficient development of the sector, and allowing many of its benefits to be enjoyed also seems true. The challenge is that there is 

a public interest in general aviation that extends beyond those involved in the provision of the infrastructure and operational hardware, and those that make use of these. 

In particular, matters of safety extend beyond individual flights 

to accidents involving others either in the air or on the ground; in 

effect to third parties. There is also a public perception, in part 

brought about by rare, but highly visible accidents, that general 

aviation is unsafe. In response to the safety reality, together with 

heightened public perceptions, the sector has been the subject to a 

variety of regulations. This has resulted in a variety of additional 

costs being introduced into the sector. Any additional costs are an 

obvious impediment to the growth of a sector, and need to be monitored to ensure that at least commensurate public benefits result. 

That there is a need for some forms of regulation in the public 

interest seems reasonable, but it also needs to be focused on elements that generate the greatest safety risk otherwise there is a 

danger the development of the sector may be stymied by an over 

reaction by the public. In particular, given the number of accidents 

involving pilot errors of various types in smaller, older privately operated aircraft it seems efficient to focus attention on these rather 

than less accident-prone corporate operations. In sum, the degree 

and the ways that the FAA intervene in general aviation should be 

specific to particular issues so as to minimize the costs of its actions. 

Æ 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER