CUTE EEE

APPENDIX A

TO: Members of he Asaton Commuity

'n order asnure nanny stety and to provide you wih imorove svat te Feces
‘Auton Adrunstauon (FAA) secing «oat unon'tanding athe workin tlaonene

tha ato salty Inger foinerancs
ond to you Ta tceompian ne gol, we ke Provan Ine oraned
‘ston rtleg"P4A Survey of Ur Nwcices ape

‘You are ona os catty sli saat of FAA unre within Ie sian industry. Sins ony
LEE Seal mtr tone wien tren tory mp a you cp
‘ted retort toe qunmonnare You opens mil be combined wi one fra to,

‘he erougis td fhe ofa snrs wun Jour avon ae

hg eer nun tact ovr ae agri bana omic
‘soto ni aah an neo th nyo

m6, ba
‘rift bonded space atu en rhe qenntonnn ha any Comet You Manean 8

‘We n00dt0 begin analy of he sepa pow, and axe rat you compote
arpa sere an ays ows Wen ale as bmn rare
‘rae tadabntvha ou

| rou aopracata your parteipaion and sure you he your evlaaons wil be gen cra

BratBZ pe

F RESRCREES WTAE READ AUR RERBER E
IMPORTANT Thal YOu READ AnD GoM Wf Te UL OHM

eet eu hangs otc ane mae ne he wen

ae arty nm ee FAA Dantes nan nts and et

SES, ae setae

UNH URRAUAER EAU RO OUAOOUOUEROOEORIOOSURUEORERURURURURRNORON ED

DonaisD Engen :
= FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS =
== GENERAL SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS :
1 seretcagan crn cnsan ngs bore making you tar se ugh yu ay bee =
= SESE een bas ma :
= Pacem yauy ain oe rsrnar impute auido ade on he a tne apes 4
See reste cree nw ion ey os denigrate a our ALON NE TON =

OO NOETLULEEEE EOE

Bieteemenen

rtectnee

Somer Seeteme
ge Ee

19

EURUADMROAUUUUAR ORAM UUORARUAOUROTOROH UROL RIEUSO MORON ER OR



TABLE 11.-RANGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES (PERCENTS) TO EACH ITEM AND
NUMBER OF USERS (N) RESPONDING FOR DISTRICT OFFICES WITHIN EACH REGION

ITEM _AAL-FSDO

ACE-FSDO AEA-GADO AEA-FSDO AGL-GADO AGL-FSDO

1 88.9-100.0 96.0-100.0 96.3-100.0 97.9-100.0 96.6-100.0 97.1-100.0
2 66.7- 83.8 80.6- 91.9 64.3- 96.3 87.0- 94.3 7H.1- 89.3 80.0~ 92.9
3 29-2= 87.5 53.3- 71.4 55.9- 88.9 55.8- 79.2 43.2- 74.1 46.2- 53.3
4% 55.6- 80.0 76.3- 81.8 66.7- 88.6 73.1- 86.4 75.9- 89.3 70.2- 86.7
5 55.6- 75.7 51.3- 75.7 46.9- 79.2 43.4- 68.2 41.5- 78.6 34.0- 66.7
6 88.9-100.0 97.4-100.0 85.7-100.0 90.9- 98.0 85.7- 96.4 78.6- 95.6
7 87.0-100.0 96.4-100.0 84.8-100.0 80.0- 94.0 82.5-100.0 78.6- 93.8
& 52.0- 83.8 60.0- 88.6 69.6- 91.2 77.6 85.7 65.7- 84.0 58.1- 84.6
9 68.0- 88.9 89.2- 96.7 68.2- 96.3 85.4- 95.0 74.3- 93.9 78.6- 96.7
10 50.0- 88.9 83.3- 88.6 57.1- 88.9 74.0- 80.0 58.3- 84.0 57.1- 80.8
11 36.0- 88.9 63.3- 87.9 71.4-100.0 69.0- 80.0 65.7- 87.5 53.3- 83.3
12 89.2-100.0 89.5- 96.9 86.2- 96.9 84.0- 85.8 82.4- 98.1 84.6- 93.5
13° 66.7- 86.5 77.- 90.6 79.2- 96.3 79.5- 84.2 80.7~ 86.5 78.6-100.0
14 -91.9-100.0 94.7-100.0 87.5-100.0 90.2-100.0 80.6- 96.3 71.4- 95.6
15 55.6- 72.0 75.7- 90.6 70.8~ 90.3 71.4 81.8 70.6- 84.9 71.4- 83.3
16 64.0- 88.9 83.3- 93.5 82.4- 92.6 7H4.5- 80.0 74.3- 88.7 66.7- 84.6
17 8B.0- 89.2 81.1- 91.7 75.0- 96.3 78.N- 90.9 75.9- 96.4 62.2= 91.7
18 37.5- 4N.N  38.5- 57.1 35.M- 55.6 40.N- 52.2 25.0- 46.4 36.7- 64.3
19 48.0- 66.7 53.8- 75.0 26.7~ 74.2 55.8- 65.9 A4.H- 69.0 56.3- 69.2
20 65.0- 78.6 85.7- 90.6 69.8- 91.7 68.2- 83.3 64.6- 88.0 69.2- 93.3
21 72.0- 77.8 84.6- 93.1 81.3- 93.3 72.7- 81.8 74.3- 85.7 71.4-100.0
N= 9 - 37 32 - 50 15 - 48 22 - 53 27 - 58 13 - 79
ITEM _ANE-FSDO ANM-FSDO ASO-FSDO ASW-FSDO AWP-FSDO

1 100.0 98.0-100.0 97.7-100.0 95.3-100.0 94.2-100.0

2 75.0- 87.2 70.7- 89.1 33.3- 92.2 73.7- 95.8 69.2- 91.2

3 50.0- 71.4 53.4- 66.7 50.0- 67.4 53.8- 69.4 42.9- 90.0

4 68.2- 78.3 70.2- 76.1 66.7- 83.7 61.5- 92.6 46.2- 95.5

5 31.8- 50.0 43.5- 86.2 38.1-100.0 51.0- 78.6 22.2- 93.8

6 19-2= 90.9 90.9- 96.6 33.3- 98.0 87.0-100.0 82.4-100.0

T 65.2- 86.8 80.9- 87.3 33.3- 94.6 83.3- 97.8 70.6-100.0

8 58.3- 68.2 60.3- 80.4 33.3- 88.0 56.5- 86.8 33.3- 86.7

9 72.T- 80.0 74.5- 88.9 66.7- 94.8 80.6- 95.7 50.0-100.0

10 45.8- 65.8 63.8- 77.8 33.3- 88.0 63.2- 87.3 28.6- 87.5

11 75.0- 86.4 71.8- 82.2 66.7- 91.9 75.0- 86.4 57.1-100.0

12 719.2- 92.3 77.8- 91.4 82.4-100.0 75.0- 97.2 80.0-100.0

13 70.8~ 84.2 73.7- 89.6 33.3- 96.0 65.2- 94.9 50.0-100.0

14 83.3-100.0 62.8- 98.0 66.7- 97.8 81.6- 98.4% 88.2-100.0

15 65.2- 76.9 67.2- 83.3 88.1 56.4- 92.3 22.2 90.0

16 66.7- 76.9 70.7- 83.3 88.1 62.5- 87.5 33.3- 95.0

17 58.3- 86.8 75.9- 87.9 88.9 7H.0- 95.0 33.3- 93.8

18 16.7= 46.2 39.1- 56.3 55.3 37.5+ 60.9 10.0- 71.4

19 41.7= 61.5 63.8- 67.4 70.9 35.0- 65.6 42.9- 81.3

20 13.7- 84.4 68.4- 73.8 50.0- 93.8 67.5- 85.7 51.9-100.0

21 T2.7- 83.3 71.1- 87.5 66.7- 90.2 62.5- 93.8 33.3- 95.0

N= 22 - 39 46 - 58 3 - 113 24 - 99 7 - 52

|



APPENDIX C.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPOWES FOR ALASKAN AMD NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION
FSDOS FOR EACH ITEM IN THE SURVEY

FSD0

TO WHAT EXTENT: A

We

au

WORTHWEST MOUNTAIN

A

re you familiar with the FAA regulations that 100.0
apply to your aviation functions?

are you faailiar with the PAA published policies 72.0
and interpretations regarding those regulations
that apply to your aviation functions?

do those regulations polici ang interpretations 29.2
sive you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you do?

are you aware of the duties and responsibilities 80.0
of airworthiness inspectors?

are you visited during the year by airworthiness: 72.0
inspectors assigned to you or your facility?

do airworthiness inapectora, assigned to you or 100.0
your facility, appear to imow the PAA regulations?

60 airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 87.0
your facility, appear to know the FAA published

policies and interpretations supporting the

regulations?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 52.0
your facility, interpret the regulations in «
consistent way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 68.0
your facility interpret the regulations accurately?

do airworthiness inapectora, assigned to you or 50.0
your facility explain the regulations and your
options clearly?

are differences of opinion between you and 36.0
airworthiness inspectors (regarding

Anterpretations of regulations) resolved in

mutually acceptable ways?

do airworthiness inapectors, assigned to you or AT
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 83.3
your facility, appear to be technically competent
An the conduct of their duties?

are airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 92.0
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 12.0
your facility, appear to understand your
‘organization and its needs?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 64.0
your facility, provide clear and accurate anevera
te your questions?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 88.0
your facility, provide answers in a timely manner?

do you rely on airvorthiness inspectors for 37.5
counseling in technical areas?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 48.0
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by 65.0
Airvorthiness inspectors in safety seminars and

other public mectings?

are you satisfied with tbe performance of 72.0
airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or

your facility?

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: We = 25

23

55.6

55.6

100.0

71.8

100.0

66.7

100.0

55.6

66.7

17.8

17.8

1066

5.7

15.7

97-3

97

83.8

86.5

78.8

78.8

89.2

86.5

9109

73.0

86.5

93.2

64.9

78.6

15.7

7

100.0

89.1

58.7

5.6

79.5

ot

82.6

16.1

18.3

39.1

67.8

73.8

Tay

46

100.0

78.9

66.7

60.3

63.6

9

72.7

9168

61.0

10.2

19.3

87.9

4n8

67.2

73.3

19.3

a
98.3

10.7

53.8

69.0

TH

63.8

Te

73.7

82.8

67.2

10.7

Te.

58

2
98.0

87.2

16.1

83.3

83.3

84.8

56.3

64.6

72.1

ag



TO WHAT EXTENT:

9.

10.

12.

5.

au

TABLE 2.-OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF USERS SELECTING EACH OF THE RESPONSE ALTERNATIVES BY 1TEM
IW THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

aul

Hot at

\ Limited

Hod
orate

Conaid-
arable

Don't
Know

are you familiar with the FAA regulations that 0.1
‘apply to your aviation functions?

are you familiar with the FAA published polics
and interpretations regarding those regulations
‘that apply to your aviation functions?

2.0

do those regulations policies, and interpretations 4.0
give you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you do?

are you aware of the duti
of airworthiness inspectors?

and responsibilities 19

are you visited during the year by airworthin
inspectors assigned to you or your facility?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 0.8
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 0.5
your facility, appear to know the FAA published

policies and interpretations supporting the

regulations?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 4S
your facility, interpret the regulations in a
consistent way?

60 airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 0.8
your facility, interpret the regulations accurately?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 5.5
your facility, explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

are éifferences of opinion between you and ag
Airworthiness inspectors (regarding interpretations

of a regulation) resolved in mutually acceptable

ways?

do airvorthineas inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, conduct their duties in « thorough
way?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 2.3

your facility, appear to be technically cospetent
in the conduct of their duties?

are airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or wt
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 48
your facility, appear to understand your
organization and its needs?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 2.8
your facility, provide clear and accurate anavers
to your questions?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 3.0
your facility, provide answers in a tisely manner?

do you rely on airworthiness inepectore for 16.7
counseling in technical are:

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 7.0
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by AS
airworthiness inspectors in safety seainars and
other public meetings?

are tisfied with the performance of 367
airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

wT

13.4

33.4

35.7

5.2

1768

W3

18.5

15.8

cay

12.9

15.7

16.6

2

30.7

13.9

12.9

16.7

3.2

19.5

Wg

20.5

a7

36.7

33.8

15.2

42.8

39.6

40.8

315

33.0

41.6

33.7

36.3

33.5

25.4

1.0

WT2

18.8

24.5

23.8

18.9

21.0

10.3

15.6

23.1

0.0

OM

2.2

0.7

0.6

366

49

5.6

aS

2.1

2.3



APPENDIX B.-REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

GENERAL INFORMATION - 5.5% (NO.= 112 COMMENTS)

1. "We rely on manufacturer for most technical questions."

2. “For a perlod of time that ended 5 years ago | would have
answered 14 and 21 quite differently.”

3. “We are operating Part 91 and therefore not In contact with the
GADO as much as when we were a Part 135 Certificate Holder.”

FAVORABLE COMMENTS - 24.2% (NO.= 491 COMMENTS)
A. GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS - 18.1%
1. "There exists a good working relationship between the governing
GADO office and our operation.”
2. "They are most helpful and are an asset to me."
3. "They do a fine job."

B. PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP - 4.3%

1. ". . . has provided leadership with fairness in dealing with the
aviation community."

2. “We wish to express a specific recommendation for .. ."

3. ", . . Is a valuable person in your organization, If they were
all like him, it would be great.”

C. AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB - 1.7%

1. "Il have never worked with a better agency."
2. “Best appreciate FAA when compared to your foreign counterparts
who are unresponsive autocrats."

NON-FAVORABLE COMMENTS - 70.3% (NO.= 1426)
A. INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) - 13.1%

1. “l feel all regions are not treated equally. Some FAA Inspectors
require everything letter perfect, while others accept less."

2. "Each person has his own opinion about the same subject."

3. “It seems that everytime we get a new Inspector he wants
procedures done differently - It would be nice if they ail
wanted thelr procedures the same - IT WOULD SAVE TIME AND
MONEY.”

B. NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) - 10.6%
1. "Need more Inspectors."
2. "1 feel! in our area at least, that both maintenance and safety

functions are limited by man power."
3. "Not enough Inspectors assigned to enforce regulations."

20


APPENDIX F.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES FOR SOUTHERN REGION
'FSDOS FOR EACH ITEM IN THE SURVEY

S00
D

TO WHAT EXTENT? F é m7

1. are you familiar with the FAA regulations that 97.7 98.6 98.7 100.0 98.4 100.0 100.0
apply to your aviation functions?

2. are you fapiliar with the FAA published policie: 33.3 86.0 85.5 92.2 87.2 82.7 82,0 78.9
and interpretations regarding those regulations
‘that apply to your aviation functions?

3. do those regulations policies, and interpretations 50.0 67.1 62.7 61.0 67-4 53.5 65-4 6141
sive you flexibility in making deciatons about the
ml work you do?

4, are you aware of the duties and responsibilities 66.7 83.7 81.2 75.3 80.9 73.8 76.8 77.8
of airworthiness inspectors?

$. are you visited during the year by airworthiness 100.0 60.5 51.5 WB.7 52.2 61.2 38.1 W764
Anspectora assigned to you or your facility?

6. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33.3 97-6 92.6 97-3 93-2 98.0 96.1 88.9
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?

7. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33.3 86.5 86,6 94.6 90.7 92.9 88.5 83.3
your facility, appear to know the FAA published

policies and interpretations supporting the

regulations?

8. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33.3 76.2 86.8 81,1 75.0 88.0 78.3 72.2
your facility, interpret the regulations in a
consistent way?

9. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 90.5 92.4 90.4 86.0 94.8 84.3 68.9
your facility interpret the regulations accurately?

10. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33-3 81,0 79.4 85.1 63.0 88.0 69.2 77.8
your facility explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

11, are differences of opinion between you and 66.7 91.9 80.3 79.5 79.5 82.3 70.5 72-2
airworthiness inspectors (regarding
interpretations of regulations) resolved in
mutually acceptable ways?

12. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 100.0 95.2 89.4 94.5 88.4 9l.1 69.3 82.4
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

13. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33.3 88.1 69.6 89.2 84.4 96.0 85.2 B42
your facility, appear to be technically competent
in the conduct of their duties?

14. are airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 95.2 95.7 93-2 97.8 96.1 9.5 94.7
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

15. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33-3 88,1 83.3. 81.7 BN.4 85,1 85.2 68.
your facility, appear to understand your
organization and its needs?

16. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 88.1 82.6 79.7 78.3 87.0 78.0 84.2
your facility, provide clear and accurate answers
to your questions?

17. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 78.6 83.8 80.8 83.0 68.9 65.2 83.3
your facility, provide answers in a timely manner?

18. do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 33.3 UBB 50.0 45.3 25.5 55.3 89.1 36.8
counseling in technical areas?

19. do you rely oo airworthiness inspectors for 33.3 65.1 60.9 65.3 4B.7 70.9 61.6 68.4
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by 50.0 80,0 80.0 81.4 80.6 82.4 79.0 93.8
airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and
other public meetings?

21, are you satisfied with the performance of 66.7 67.8 84.1 69.3 83.0 90.2 86.2 78.9
airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: W:

26



APPENDIX B.-REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS (CONTINUED)

1. REGULATIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO READ/INTERPRET - 5.4%

1. “"FAR‘s governing flight operations and pliot certification are
very confusing and worthless In many cases."

2. “The problem of Interpretations of regulations Is always

present."

3. "FAA regulations have long been known to be ambiguous, verbose,
over-complicated. Stop trying to hide behind your lawyers and
write documents that can be read! ly understood by all people in
the aviation community."

J. AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE - 2.0%

1. "The industry is vastly over-regulated."

2. “Local Inspectors are good men, but somewhat intimidated by FAA
regulations and directives published by a bureaucracy that Is more
Intent on being legally correct than they are on addressing
problems in practical terms."

K. GENERAL NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS - 3.9%
1. “There should be no double dipping."

2. “The FAA has been Insensitive by reassigning their N numbers to
other alrcraft.”

22



determine how Improvements can be effected. Comparisons can be made of
high vs. low rated facilities to determine what features of the
facilities/Inspectors/procedures produce the differences.

3. Results from this survey suggest that substantive Improvements In
varied forms of communication by AWI‘s will positively Impact user
satisfaction. These areas for continued efforts and/or Improvement would
Include:

~Providing clear and accurate responses to quest lions

~Conducting duties thoroughly

-Gaining an understanding of the needs of the users’ organizations
(and communicating that understanding)

~Becoming Involved in safety seminars and other public meetings

~Being courteous

~Working at maintaining consistency

4. Efforts should be devoted to Increasing user awareness of the duties
and responsibilities of AWis.

5. Consistent with the goals of Project Safe, there is a need to improve
standardization of interpretations of regulations, both within and between
offices/regions. A mechanism to process unique problems and communicate
Interpretations to other offices should be Included.

6. User comments and user responses to the Item on the frequency of AWI
visits suggested some need for additional AW! manpower. This finding
supports current efforts (including Project Safe) to Increase AW! staffing
and, thereby, increase the frequency of visits to users.

7. An increase In AWl-user contact, in and of Itself, will not
necessarily lead to more satisfied users. As this study and others
demonstrate, It Is the quality of the Interaction that Is significant.

8. Although users were generally satisfied with the technical skilis of
AWIs, there were Indications In the user's comments of some perceived need
to upgrade the overall knowledge, skill, and abilities of AW!‘s. Training
curricuta and training schedules should address these Issues and should
Incorporate Instructional methods related to the communication needs noted
above. An effective continuing education program for AWis to upgrade and
maintain thelr technical and communication skills should be developed.

9. User expectations play an important role in determining overal|
satisfaction. Nearly all users, regardiess of the extent of their tota!
aviation experience, report moderate or greater familiarity with FAA
regulations. That user perceived levei of thelr own expertise Is likely
to affect discussions and interactions with AWIs concerning
interpretations of regulations. AWIs need to be aware of how these user
perceptions may influence and shape user responses to interpretations.

17



Item 21, where Factor 1 was first to enter the equation, followed by
Factor 3 and Factor 2.) The Item regression analysis (Table 7) Indicated
that the three items which best predicted the overall satisfaction rating
were: clear answers by AWls to user questions (016), AWI thoroughness
(Q12), and AWI understanding of the needs of the user (Q15). Three more
Items which added to the predictablity of overall satisfaction ratings
were items dealing with AWI participation in safety seminars and pubtic
meetings (Q20), courteousness (Q14), and consistency of Interpretations
(Q8).

TABLE 7.-STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF SURVEY {TEMS
AND TIME IN AVIATION WITH OVERALL SATISFACTION (Q21)

STEP ITEM MULTIPLE r or SQUARED rSQ CHANGE BETA
1 Q16 + 75672 . 57262 - 57262 «175909
2 Q12 - 80756 65215 -07953 - 198192
3 Q15 -83235 -69281 -04066 + 198247
4 Q20 -84876 -72040 .02760 - 176278
5 Qi4 .85722 + 73482 -01442 - 162140
6 as - 86390 + 74633 -01151 - 158042

Comments ky Users. Percentages of comments written by the users, as coded
Into varlous categories by region, are presented in Tabie 8. Examples of
the general comments within each of the categories are Included in
Appendix 8. Of the user respondents, 42.3% provided one or more written
comments. Of these comments, 5.5% fell In a general Information category
("The above responses concern the FAA and our manufactur ing/repair
functions. We also deal with the modification branch."). Nearly one
fourth (24.1%) of the comments were favorable and could be accounted for
by three categories. Most favorable comments praised the performance of
the loca! office and/or Inspectors In general (e.g., "All experience with
the locat people Is positive. They are friendly, helpful, and know thelr
Jobs.") The next largest category included comments about a particular
Inspector who was cited for having a good working relationship with the
respondent ("...I1s very knowledgeable of aviation technical and mechanica!
problems. He has been very helpful, as well as courteous."). In the
final favorable category, the agency was cited for doing a good Job ("The
FAA is by far the most efficient and professional of all government
agencies | have worked with, and | have worked with a great many.").

Negative statements comprised 70.3% of all comments. Almost half of these
alleged Inconsistency and lack of knowledge/sk1lIs/training/manpower. The
single category with the fargest number of unfavorable commments (13.1%)
was concerned with the lack of consistency of inspectors both within and
between offices ("No set rules or regulations. Decision Is left to each
Inspector to interpret the regulations in his region. No two regions seem
to apply the same rules.")}. The next highest percentage (10.6%) referred
to limited manpower and an apparent need for more inspectors (“FAA seems
to be understaffed, their visits are few and far between."). A_ third
major category of negative comments (also 10.6%) Involved the
training/knowledge/skills of Inspectors ("Most Inspectors avold discussing



yo war Exrexr:

1, are you faaiiiar with the PAA regulations that
apply to your aviation functions?

2. are you familiar with the PAA published poltcte
and interpretations regarding thoes regulations
‘that apply te your aviation fimotions?

3+ do those regulations policies, and interpretations
ive you Flexibility in making Gectatonn about the
work you do?

4% are you weave of te dutien und respenatbiiitien
Of airworthiness nppeot

fare you visited during the year by airwarthines
Anspectora assigned to you or your facility?

6. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your fuotlity, appear to koov the PAR regulations?

1. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
‘Your facility, appear to know the PAL publisbed
Policies and interpretaticas supporting the

Rone?

do airworthiness inapectors, assigned to
Jour fhoility, interpret the Peguiations fn a”
‘constetent wy?

9. do atrwortninens tore, assigned te you or
your facility interpret the regulations eocurately?

10, do airworthiness inapectors, aanigasd to you or

interpretations
witually acceptable mays?

12, do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
own fwetlAty, comfoct thetr duties In « thorough

13. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
oor, factlity, appear to be vesaniealiy
‘the conduct of their duties?

‘re airvorthiness inapeotors to you or
Jour tusiiity, soureacus in the conmust oF thelr
duties?

inspectors, assigned to you or
to understand your

‘Grganisation and its needa?

16. do airworthiness inapectors, assigned to you or
your facility, provide olesr and accurate answers
te your questions?

V1. do airworthiness inspectors, asuigned to you or
your facility, provide annvers in a tiaely sanner?

18. do you rely on airworthiness inspeotors for
counseling in technical areas?

you rely on airvorthiness inspectors for
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satiefied with participation by
worthiness inapectors in safety eeuinars and
other public meetings?

21, are you satiefied with the performace of
airworthiness inspectors, assigned te you or
your feoility?

‘TOTAL HONORE OF ESPORDERTS: He

80.8
60.8 76.5
0.8 67.6
me 6
9h 100.0
93.9 90.6
M1 10.6
97 9043
A 616
69.2 81.8
9.0 90.9
Os 912
98.0 98d
Tk 616
16.9 198
62.0 ONT
RT Be
M6.

9 51.9

ar)

22.2

ors

015

85.7

ont

a

me

1.6

16.5

10.6

rey

cy

29

oh

08.2

16.5

a3

16.5

t28

16.5

mt

16.5

aes

3B

100.0

0

383

333

29.7

65

100.0

100.0

2.6

28.9

es.7

19.3

9.3

our

58.6

100.0

95.2

100.0

ms

5.0

69.5

a

69

6.2

os

os

on.

16.9

92.3

6.2

ford

385

69.2

60.0

100.0

90.0

13.3

100.0

ans

100.0

100.0

ors

ars

50

100.0

69.2

1

85.0

mT

100.0

85.0

100.0

20.0

0.0

10.0

95.0

mR

10.0

Ra

95.5

Rt

90.9

85.1

66.7

2

66.7

16.2

06.8

13



In categorizing the various aspects of the performance of AWIs, user !
responses were considered satisfactory If 80% or more of the respondents

selected one of the positive alternatives. items for which less than 80%

of the respondents selected the positive alternatives identify performance !
areas that could be targeted for Improvement. This cutoff Is compatible
with other research concerning consumer satisfaction with services. In
those studies, average or better levels of satisfaction for higher ranking
professlonai/technical occupations were reported by 70-91% of the
respondents. Of course, the relationship between AWIs and aviation users
is different from most other “consumer relations", since AWIs perform a
relatively unique regulatory function with implications not Involved in |
most studies of consumer satisfaction. Table 4 provides a summary of the :
AWL performance areas above and below the positive eriterion.

TABLE 4.-AREAS OF AW! PERFORMANCE ABOVE AND BELOW THE
POSITIVE CRITERION (SURVEY ITEMS 5 THROUGH 21)

ABOVE 80% POSITIVE |
knowledgeable concerning FAA regulations (94.2%)
courteous In the conduct of thelr duties (94.2%)
knowledgeable of FAA published policies and
interpretations supporting the regulations (90%)
thorough In the conduct of their duties (89.7%)
able to interpret the regulations accurately (86.9%)
technically competent (85.1%)
overall satisfaction with AWI performance (83.1%)
able to answer questions In a timely manner (82.5%)
able to provide clear and accurate answers to questions (80.2%)

eoo°o

eo0o00°0

BELOW 80% POSITIVE

© the understanding by AWis of the user’s organization
and its needs (78.8%)

© the resolution of AWi-user differences of opinion in
mututally acceptable ways (78.1%)

© participation by AWls In safety seminars and other
public meetings (78.0%)

o the consistency of AWIs In Interpretations of
regulations (76.6%)

o the extent to which AWis explain regulations and
options clearly (75.3%)

© the extent to which users were visited by AWls dur ing
the year (56.8%)

o user reliance on AWIs for counseling In regulatory \
(60.3%) or technica! (45%) areas

For analytic purposes, four major sets of statistical treatments were
performed. One of these was a factor analysis based on each response to
each item (the final Item, Q21 on overall satisfaction, was omitted since
it represented a criterion Item). Results of that analysis (Table 5)
ylelded 3 factors by a principal components method with varimax rotation.
The first factor (survey items 6 through 17 plus Item 20) might be labeled

6

Ne


‘TO WHAT EXTENT:

mw

15.

16.

We

2

TABLE 3.

IRCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES NATIONALLY AND BY PAA REGION

FROM EACH ITEM IN THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

SATIONAL
OVERALL “RAL

are you femiliar with the PAA regulations that 98.1
pply to your aviation functions? -

re you familiar with the PAA published policies 84.6
and interpretations regarding those regulations
that apply to your aviation functions?

do those regulations policies, and interpretations 61.7
give you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you 40?

are you aware of the duties and responsibilities 17.9
of airworthiness inspectors?

are you visited during the year by airworthiness 56.8
Anapectors assigned to you or your facility?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or = 94.2
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?

do sirvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you cr 90.0
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the

regulations?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 76.6
your facility, interpret the regulations in a
‘consistent way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 86.9
your facility, interpret the regulations accurately?

do airvorthiness inapectors, assigned to you or 75.3
your facility, explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

are differences of opinion between you and 78.1
Airvorthiness inspectors (regarding interpretations

of regulations) resolved in mutually acceptable

ways?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 89.7
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 85.1
your facility, appear to be technically coapetent
in the conduct of their duties?

are airworthiness inapectors, assigned to you or 94.2

your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
‘duties?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 78.8
your facility, appear to understand your
Organization and its needs?

do airvorthiness inspectors, sssigned to you or «80.2
your facility, provide clear and accurate ansvers
to your questions?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 82.5
your facility, provide answers in a timely manner?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 45.0
counseling in technical areas?

do you rely on airvorthiness inspectors for 60.3
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by 18.0
airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and
other public meetings?

re you satisfied with the performance of 83.1
airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

FAA REGION

ae a So
98.9 97.6 99.2 98.1 98.5 98.4 98.6 98.1 97.6
77.2 06.2 88.6 82.8 83.2 62.2 85.0 86,2 Bh.4
56.5 61.9 65.9 55.6 68.2 57.8 62.7 63.2 65.8
76.1 16.1 8163 77-4 7566 THX 78,0 78.8 80.3
66.3 59.4 58.6 53.2 48.2 SBM 51.6 62.6 59.9
95.7 97-0 94.0 92.8 91.0 941 95.6 95.2 9K.3,
89.8 96.1 90.68 88.9 84.0 86.1 90.2 93.6 89.4
69.6 82.6 19.7 75.5 735 7165 811 76.3 7203
78.9 91-2 87-7 67.1 80.3 82.0 90.2 88.5 86.6
69.2 84.6 76.6 69-6 77.9 16.5 73.8
67.0 78.8 79.8 76.9 80.5 76.3 79.3 80.7 78.6
91-2 93.2 89.8 88.3 69.0 85.8 92.0 90.7 89.8
80.2 86.9 86.4 84.3 81.2 81.8 88.0 65.3 84.5
S24 97.1 95-6 93-2 91.9 90.6 95.8 93.5 95.9
67.8 83.8 80.2 78.0 76.9 76.0 63.1 79.7 TH?
75.0 05.8 83.6 78.2 17.2 77.3 82.6 60.1 78.0
87.0 86.4 84.4 80.3 80.0 79.8 84.7 88.7 76.4
MY.6 50-2 46.8 41.9 37.2 86.0 87.2 87.6 80.0
59-8 64.2 60.6 57.7 56.2 65.5 63.3 58.1 58.7
70.1 8.3 76.7 77-2 81.0 72.9 81.3 78.9 73.5
73.9 89.0 86.1 81.1 80.3 17.7 86.8 88.0 60.8


REFERENCES

1. Allen Corporation of America. Project Safe: A Blueprint for Flight
Standards (Vol. 1 and 11), OPM Contract No.: OPM 41-83/WO 41-182, 1985
Washington, D.C.

2. Andreasen AR and Best A. Consumers Comp lain--Does Business Respond?,
Harvard Business Review, 55:98-101, 1977.

3. Day RL and Bodur M. A Comprehensive Study of Satisfaction with
Consumer Services and Intangibles. In R. L. Day (Ed.), Consumer
Satisfaction. Dissatisfaction. and Complaining Behavior. Division of
Business Research, Indiana University, 1977, pp. 64-74.

4. Kansas Bankers Assoclation. Results from the 1985 Regulatory
Examination Survey of Kansas banks. 1986 Topeka, KS.

5. Nebraska Bankers Association. Results from the 1985 Regulatory
Examination Survey of Nebraska banks. 1986 Lincoln, NB.

6. Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc. 1984 General Purpose Taxpayer
Opinion Survey. 1984 WashIngton, D.C.

18


Ql
2
Q3
or
Os
06
Q7
8
Cr)
o10
ll
012
13
ols
Q1s
Qlé
Ql7
018
19
920
2.

regarding: the consistency of AWI Interpretations (Q8), resolutions of
AWl-user differences (Q11), clarity of explanations by AWI‘’s about
regulations and user options (Q10), and AW! participation in safety
seminars and public meetings (020). The four remaining items were
considerably lower, 45-62% positive (see Table 4). This grouping included
all Items (Q5, 18, 19) in factor 3 of the factor analysis (l.e. frequency
of contacts with AWIs by visits and consultations) plus (Q3) the perceived
flexibility of regutations and policies for decisions by users.

TABLE 6.-ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS FOR THE FAA SURVEY
OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

Ql 02 O3 Of Q5 06 Q7 QB a9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Q14 QIS Q16 Ql7 Q18 O19 Q20 Q2l
AD
17.34
-34 430.280
:17) 18.08.27) =
.15) 6220.18 6250.23 em
120.28 .250 627) 623.79
07 1.24 .29° 23.19 63) 69 -——
.10 .23) -.26 623) 20 «66 «670.79
LLL .26) 628 «627-22 60.65.70 «70
.12 1.21.26 .21 618 «42 44 52 52 54
-11 .20 18 625.32) 659.59 61263. 61.51 ——
JL .20 .23. 123.24 64.65 66 69-65 -50  .69
wll .15) 622.20 18.47) 49-53 S455 «52 55.59 -—
.10 .20 .28 124 «621 512.55 60 61 65 «56 59 64.65 -—
.09 20 .26 .24 123.60 .65 .69 .70 73.57 65.72 .61 174 ~~
.07. 17.20.21 22-49-5357 5B 59 51.60 59 56.62.71 -——
.08 .18 .20 .23 .26 .34 .36 .39 138 .43 .30 43 48.34 6430 460 390
(09.15.14 22.26.36 634 135-35 433238 37364 420.37 590
108.17 .18 .19 .20 .42 .42 45 4604837 50.49 44 460 52 48 638 37
109.20 .24 125 .27 .60 .63 .68 .69 .68 159.69 «672-667-674 676 67 148 44 60

*All correlations are significant at the .01 level or better

User . The final survey item, assessing user
satisfaction with AW! performance, ylelded an 83.1% overall positive
response (see Table 3). The item Intercorrelations (Table 6) and the
regression analysis (Table 7) provide some useful Information regarding
the determinants of this rating and areas where improvements are likely to
Increase the rating. For example, the Items (Q1-4) comprising Factor 2
(User Knowledge) had little relationship to the satisfaction rating;
Factor 3 (Contacts with AWIs-Q5, 18, 19) had more, but, clearly, Factor 1,
the actual performance of AWI's, had the strongest relationship. (This
was supported by the second regression analysis of the factor scores on



APPENDIX D.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES FOR WEW EWGLAND AMD CENTRAL REGION

FSDOS FOR EACH ITEM IN THE FAA SURVEY

FSDO

WEW_EWGLAND,

‘TO WHAT EXTENT:

J. are you familiar with the FAA regulations that
‘apply to your aviation functions?

2. are you familiar with the FAA published policies ‘75.0 87.2 77.3
and interpretations regarding those regulations
that apply to your aviation functions?

3. do those regulations policies, and interpretations 50.0 66.7 71.4
give you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you do?

&. are you aware of the duties ang responsibilities 78.3 13.7 68.2
of airvorthiness inspectora?

5. are you visited during the year by airworthiness 50.0 83.6 31.8
Anspectors assigned to you or your facility?

6. do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 19.2 89.7 90.9
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?

1. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 65.2 86.8 77.3
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the
regulations?

8. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 58.3 67.6 68.2
your facility, interpret the regulations in =
consistent way?

9. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 72.7 80.0 T2.7
your facility interpret the regulations sccuratelyt

10. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 45.6 65.8 59.1
your facility explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

Ww

re differences of opinion between you and 15.0 19:5 06.8
Airworthiness inspectors (regarding

Anterpretations of regulations) resolved in

mutually acceptable ways?

12. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 19.2 92.3 90.9
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

13. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 70.8 84.2 72.7
your facility, appear to be technically competent
in the conduct of their duties?

14. are airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to youor = 83.3. 92.3 100.0
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

15. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 5.2 16.9 12.7
your facility, appear to understand your
‘Organization and ita needs?

16. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 76.9 68.2
your facility, provide clear and accurate answers
to your questions?

17. do airworthiness inapectors, assigned to you or 58.3 64.2 B68
your facility, provide answera in a timely manner?

18, do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 16.7 46.2 18-2
counseling in technical areas?

19. do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for A1.7 61.5 50.0
counseling in regulatory areas?

20. are you satisfied with participation by 73.9 88.4 73.7
airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and
other public meetings?

21, are you satisfied with the performance of 83.3 76.9 72.7
airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: N= 9 24 390

24

100.0

89.7

16.3

51.3

611

B11

89.5

94.7

84.6

39

18.4

15.7

100.0

62.4

93-9

88.6

87.9

94.3,

88.6

85.7

51.8

15.0

91.2

37

59.4

87.5

96.7

84.

78.1

90.6

100.0

90.9

$1.6

87.9

33

96.0

82.0

nes

TT.

69.8

88.6

3

719-2

91.7

97-9

83.0

83.3

97

57.1

89.7

917

100.0

53.3

78.1

59.8

100.0

96.8

83.3

63.3

93-3

100.0

93.5

87.1

53-7

93.1


Technical Report Documentation Page

T. Report No.

NOT/ FAA-AM-87- 4

4. Title and Subtitte

2. Government Accession No, Z. Recipient's Catalog No

5. Report Date

1986 SURVEY OF AVIATION BUSINESS OPERATORS: MARCH 1987
THEIR VIEWS OF FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS ~ Performing Orgenizotion Code

Performing Organization Report No,

~ Avmbor's) David J. Schroeder, William E. Collins,
Carolyn S, Dollar and Charles W. Schaffer, dr

9. Performing Organizotion Name ond Address. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Geant No.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

13. Type of Report ond Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond Address.
Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14.
Washington, D.C. 20591

15. Supplementary Notes

Sponsoring Agency Code

Work was performed under task AM-C-86/87-PSY-102

16. Abstroct

A natlonwide survey of 8,854 aviatlon business operators (users) was conducted to
assess their perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the performance of the agency’s
avioni¢c and maintenance airworthiness Inspectors (AWIs). Results are based on
returns recelved from 45% of the overall sample. User ratings on 21 Items were
analyzed and comparisons were made for each FAA region, type of aviation business
activity, and FAA district office within each region. A criterion based on other
research concerning consumer satisfaction with services was used to Identify positive
aspects of AWI performance and areas of performance In need of improvement. Overal|
satisfaction with AW! performance was fully acceptable and within the range of levels
reported in the Ilterature for higher ranking professional/technica! services. Users
felt very positively about AWI knowledge of FAA regulations and policies, AW!
courtesy, and thelr thoroughness. Areas that could be targeted for improvement
Included: the consistency and clarity of the technical interpretations, the
frequency of visits, and reliance on AW!s for counseling In either regulatory or
technical areas. Written comments provided by respondents were placed In general
Information (5.5%), favorable (24.1%), and unfavorable (70.1%) categorles. Comments
that Indicated shortcomings focused on the same areas that received low item ratings.
These analyses will provide FAA management with an opportunity to pinpoint high- and
tow-rated facilities and determine what features of the
facllities/Inspectors/procedures differentiate the less from the more successful.
Corrective action ptans based on the data can then be devised and Implemented.

17. Key Words 18, Distribution Statement
. . Document is available to the public
Airworthiness Inspector through the National Technical
Job performance Information Service, Springfield,
Survey assessment Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22, Price
Unclassified Unclassified 29

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized



TABLE 9.-PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES NATIONALLY AND BY AVIATION ACTIVITY
FOR EACH ITEM IN THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

AVIATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY

WATIONAL PART
TO WHAT EXTENT: OVERALL _91
1, are you familiar with the FAA reguletions that, 98.1 98.3
epply to your aviation functiona?
"e you familiar with the PAA published policies 88,6 72.4
and interpretations regarding those regulations
iat apply to your aviation functions?
3. do those regulations policies, and interpretations 61.7 66.1
Bive you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you do?
4, are you aware of the duties and responsibilities 77.9 57.9
of airworthiness inspectors?
ted during the year by airworthiness 56.8 12.3
signed to you or your facility?
6, do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or = 9.2, 86.3
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?
7, 40 airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or «90.0 89.6
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the
regulations?
8. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or «76.6 13.8
your facility, interpret the regulations in a
‘consistent way?
9, do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or «86.9 95.0
your facility, interpret the regulations accurately?
10. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or = 75.3 69.4
your facility, explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?
V1. are differences of opinion between you and air- = 78.1 77.8
worthiness inspectors (regarding interpretations
of regulations) resolved in mutually acceptable
ways?
12. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or «89.7 82.9
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?
13. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or = 85.1 89.8
your facility, appear to be technically competent
in the conduct of their duties?
are airvorthiness inepectors, assigned to you or = 94.2 94.5

your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

15. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to understand your
organization and its needs?

16. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or «80.2
your facility, provide clear and accurate enswers
to your questions?

‘7. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 82.5
your facility, provide answers in a timely manner?

18. do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 45.0
counseling in technical areas?

19, do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 60.3
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by 78.0
Airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and
other public meetings?

21. are you satisfied with the performance of 63.1
Airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

81.8

88.9

PART

124

98.2

87.3

10.6

89.1

17.8

88.9

85.2

67.3

B11

67.3

78.2

90.9

76.8

94.5

81.8

T2467

TAS

Pree)

66.7

78.9

PART
ma

9949

82.8

Sa

cir)

68.4

94.0

88.5

70.1

4.1

10.6

12.9

84.5

92.3

TH

16.3

17.8

48.2

60.9

78.1

78.2

"This breakdown 19 a combination of Parts 125, 127, and 133 certificate holders,

approved aviation technicians schools.

ll

PART
cir

100.0

86.5

615

5.8

67.2

93.9

89.1

73-1

815

TH

76.6

85.1

80.3

86.8

TH.6

1.6

82.1

55.2

64.2

82.5

82.1

6h

83.6

68.8

97d

93-0

83.8

94.0

87.0

9767

86.6

86.9

43.7

NS

89.5

65.7

61.2

76.1

88.5

73.2

80.9

87.5

19.9

95.7

15.6

81.4

84.9

a8

ceat

61.8

78.3

60.9

93.3

88.1

85.4

94.9

81.0

83.7

90.5

86.4

93.3

81.

19.5

TH.

18.3

certificated parachute

69.1

78.5

82.2

91

80.2

40.3

Ste

79.3

85.4

68.8

84.2

42.7

92.6

90.2

86.2

16.8

87.2

85.1

18.7

78.9

87.4

aie

5uT

Te

85.48

lofts, and

58.3

83.8

55.6

97.2

82.8

TH.

86.1

15.7

82.9

88.9

86.1

94.6

82.9

86.5

83.8

40.5

15.7

72.7

86.1



anything technical about aircraft or equipment, as most have no recent
hands-on experience or training on the subjects."). No other single
category of comments comprised as much as 8% of the total responses.

In general, the comments tended to provide some personallzed support for
ratings made below the satisfactory cutoff score for the frequency of
Inspection visits (Q5), consistency of interpretations of regulations
(Q8), clarity of explanations (Q10), and resolutions of differences of
opinion (Q11). The comments may also suggest some reasons why Inspectors
are not more frequently relied on by users for counseling in technical
(Q18) and regulatory (Q19) areas.

TABLE 8,-SUMMARY TABLE OF COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS NATIONALLY AND BY FAA REGION
TO THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

NATIONAL FAA REGIONS
OVERALL AAL ACE ABA AGL ANE = ANM ASO ASW ANP.
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 3618 «92, 2kT) 93619-1337 312, 856 SBN 372
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 1529-4299 205 269 59141 264213 168
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 42.30 45.7 40.1 41,6 43.5 43.1 45.2 47.5 36.5 45.2
TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPARATE COMMENTS CODED 2029 «57 «120 «279 «362, BOs 197,350 273-218
COMMENTS CATEGORY
FAVORABLE PERCENTAGE OF COMMENTS
GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS 18.1 1765 21.7 22.6 16.3 21,3 12-7 18.3 20.9 14.7
PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP 4.30 8.8 4.2 5.7 3.0 2.5 5.6 3.7 4B U6
AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 2.5 2.0 3.1 161 1.8
NON-PAVORABLE
TOO MANY INSPECTORS 0.2 0.0 0.8 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.9
NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) 10.6 5.3 6.7 16.5 11.9 12.5 6.7 10.0 8.1 12.8
LIMITED AVAILABILITY (LACK OF MANPOWER NOT CITED) 35 3.5 4.2 2.5 3:0 5.0 4.1 2.9 5.1 3.7
INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) 13.1 10.5 17-5 100 1M.1 20.0 13.7 18.3 11.4 11,9
INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING 10.6 10.5 8.3 10-0 11.0 5.0 15.7 7.1 12.5 10.6
ATTITUDES OF INSPECTORS (AUTHORITARIAN, UNHELPFUL) 1.2 8.8 9.2 4.7 7.7 5.0 94 Teh 27 723
AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE 2.0 7.0 0.8 0.7 1.9 2.5 2.5 161 2.6 2.3
AGENCY POLICIES/PROCEDURES MAKE WORK DIFFICULT 7.6 1.8 8.3 6.5 8.0 10.0 9.6 8.3 8.4 5.5
AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN'T ENFORCE REGULATIONS 6.0 15.8 2.5 5.0 7.7 8.8 5.1 5.1 3:7 6.9
REGULATIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO READ/INTERPRET 5.4 8.8 4.2 6.1 3.9 2.5 Ht 7.1 5.9 5.0
GENERAL NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS 3.9 0.0 3:3 4.3 4.1 1.30 41 34 2.9 69
GENERAL INFORMATION 5.5 1.8 7.5 3.9 6.6 1.3 5.1 8.0 5.1 5.0

Results by Regions. One way of further analyzing the data is to examine
differences among regions (see Table 3). The varlability of positive
responses to a given Item ranged from 1.6% (Q1 -user knowledge of
reguiations) to 18.1% (Q5 -frequency of AWI visits). Overall, across
regions 14 Items had a range of positive scores greater than 10% and six
Items ranged from 6.0-9.4%. An examination of Table 3 Indicates that,
overall, the Central Region (ACE) had the most positive responses,
followed by a clustering of the Eastern (AEA), Southern (ASO), and
Southwest (ASW) Regions. The lowest positive scores for a number of items
were shared by the two smallest regions- Alaska (AAL) and New England
(ANE) and by the Northwest Mountain reglon (ANM) .

10


TABLE 5.-FACTOR LOADINGS FOR RESPONSES TO THE FAA
SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

QUESTION FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3
Qi 0.754
Q2 0.811
a3 0.494
Qa4 0.658
Qs 0.503
a6 0.750
Q7 0.785
as 0.829
ag 0.841
Q10 0.799
Qt 0.651
at2 0.741
at3 0.800
a4 0.695
Q15 0.751
Q16 0.833
Q17 0.722
ais 0.763
Qi9 0.753
a20 0.617

ONLY LOADINGS ABOVE .400 ARE REPORTED

as “AWI Performance", the second (Items 1 through 4), as “User Knowledge",
and the third (items 5, 18, and 19), as “Contacts with AWis". A second
analysis ylelded the Intercorrelation of each questionnaire Item with
every other item (Table 6). And, finally, two multiple regression
analyses were computed with overali user satisfaction (Q21) as the
criterion variable. For the first regression analysis, each survey item
and time In aviation served as the Independent variables (Table 7), while
In the second, the factor scores from the factor analysis were used (not
shown).

Overall User Ratings. Applying the above-mentioned criteria, 90% or more
of all responses were positive for user’s own knowledge of regulations
(Q1), AW! knowledge both of regulations (Q6) and supportive policies (Q7),
and courteous behavior by AWIis (Q14). Six other Items, including overall
satisfaction (Q21-83.1%) ylelded positive responses from 80-89% of users
(see Table 3). These positive responses Inciuded user familiarity with
published policies and interpretations of regulations, and satisfaction
with AW! performance In the areas of thoroughness, technica! competence,
accurate interpretations of regulations, and, to lesser extents, clarity
and timeliness of responses to questions posed by users (see Table 4).

Areas below the “satisfactory” cut off (i.e. those with less than 80%
positive responses) Included the perceived tack of user awareness of AW!
duties (Q4), and (perhaps retated) the lack of AW! awareness of user needs
(Q15), along with Items associated with user-perceived shortcomings


APPENDIX B.—-REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS (CONTINUED)

C. INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING — 10.6%

1. “Professional ablilty - poor, knowledge - very shaliow."
2. “They often do not know what should be done about major issues."
3. “Lack mechanical knowledge and skills."

D. ATTITUDES OF INSPECTORS (AUTHORITARIAN, UNHELPFUL) - 7.2%

1. “If | ran my business the way the Inspectors do | would not have
a business."

2. "Too often the Inspectors seem to be more interested in
demonstrating their power and contro! over us peasants than in
being of real service In resolving the problems of the aviation
community. First priority seems to be to show that they are in
charge."

3. "I have had very curt Inspectors at times for no apparent
reason...can be very Intimidating.”

E. LIMITED AVAILABILITY (LACK OF MANPOWER NOT CITED) - 3.5%

1. “Have never been visited by an AWI."
2. “Need more contact with general aviation."

F. TOO MANY INSPECTORS ~ 0.2%

1. "The FSDO Is overstaffed and personne! are overpaid for the amount
of work they do, It Is twice as big as It needs to be."

G. AGENCY POLICIES/PROCEDURES MAKE WORK DIFFICULT - 7.6%

1. “Expedite U.S. certification procedures on Previously U. Ss.
registered aircraft.

2. “The entire regulatory system needs overhaul if general aviation is
to survive."

3. “The major drawback is the repeated submission of requests that the
FAA knows the answer to, but they make you discover it.

H. AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN‘T ENFORCE REGULATIONS — 6.0%

1. "It is my opinion that the FAA should keep a tighter rein on ALL
alrcraft malntenances."

2. "FAA takes little or limited stand in enforcing section 1305A,
1349A, and in policing sponsor’s assurances under section 2210."

3. “Don’t enforce consistently, one operator is leaned on heavily while
another is unsupervised."

21



APPENDIX G.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES BY OMEAT LAKES NEQION
GADOS AND FSDOS FOR RACH ITEM IN THE SURVEY

TO WHAT EXTENT:

w,

16.

19.

20.

a

are you familiar vith the PAA regulations that
pply to your aviation functions?

ere you familiar with the FAA published polio!
and interpretations regarding those regulations
that apply to your aviation functions?

do those reguiationa policies, and interpretations
Give you flexibility in making decisions about the
werk you do?

are you aware of the duties and responsibilities
of airworthiness inspectors?

‘are you visited during the year by airworthiness
Anspectors assigned to you or your facility?

do airvorthines
your facility,

Anspectors, assigned to you or
ppear to know the PAA regulations?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the
regulations?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
Your facility, interpret the regulations in a
‘consiatent way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility interpret the regulations accurately?

do airworthiness inspectors, enaigned to you or
your facility explain the regvistions and your
‘options clearly?

are differences of opinion between you and
airvorthiness inspectors (regarding
interpretations of regulations) resolved in
wutually acceptable ways?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

do airworthiness inspectors, asaigned to you or
your facility, appear to be technically competent
in the conduct of their duties?

are airvorthiness inapectora, assigned to you or
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
Your facility, appear to understant your
‘organisation and its needs?

do airworthiness inapeotors, assigned to you or
your faoitity, provide clear and accurate answers
to your questions?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
Your facility, provide anowers in a tinely emner?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for
‘counseling in technical areas?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for
Counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by

airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and

other public seetings?

are yoo satisfied with the perforsence of
ness inspectors, assigned to you or

Your factiity?

‘TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: fs

‘GAO _AND_FSDO
e i) E Laaevy cc ob eer
98.3 100.0 97.3 96.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 97-1 100.0 100.0 100.0
BN.2 TH. 63.8 79.3 08.9 89.3 80.9 88.2 60.0 92.9
63.2 53.7 83.2 60.3 74.1 53.6 M62 52.2 51.6 53.3 52.0 50.0
02.5 75.9 81.1 81.0 88.9 89.3 76.9 70.2 72.7 86.7 72.7 T1L8
39.6 N15 83.2 50.0 51.9 76.6 61.5 34.0 $8.8 66.7 64.9 64.3,
96.2 92.6 85.7 89.7 96.0 96.4 92.3 95.6 93.9 86.7 94.9 78.6
96.0 90.2 82.9 82.5 91.7 100.0 92.3 78.6 93.8 86.7 89.2 78.6
82.0 78.8 65.7 75.9 BN.0 78.6 84.6 58,1 80.0 66.7 80.8 76.9
93.9 90.0 74.3 85.7 87.5 85.7 84.6 85.8 96.7 78.6 92.1
83.3 TH.1 58.3 79.3 6N.0 67.9 76.9 77-3 77-8 66.7 57.1
81.5 TH.5 65.7 73.7 87.5 85.2 61.5 78.0 63.3 53-3
98.1 82.7 82.4 89.5 88.0 89.3 92.3 86.4 93.5 85.7 91.1 BMG
86.5 82.7 62.9 80.7 84.6 62.1 100.0 88.6 64.8 80.0 83.5 78.6
94.3 96.3 80.6 94.7 96.2 92.9 92.3 95.6 93.9 93.3 94.9 71.8
ON.9 1262 7066 81.0 8H. THK 83.3 81.0 78.5 73.3 82.30 71.8
88.7 7768 TH.3 79-3 88.5 82.1 B46 75.6 81.8 66.7 78.5 71.8
159 19.6 17.1 79.3 92.3 96.8 91.7 62.2 80.6 80,0 86.1 71.8
37-9 33.3 25.0 B1.N 37.0 N64 53.8 42.2 36.7 16.8 64.3
69.0 55.6 55.6 50.0 AWN 64,3 69.2 56.5 56.3 66.7 61.5 64.9
18-7 64.6 70,1 86.8 75.0 88.0 83.3 75.7 69.2 93.3 78.3. 71.8
82.1 84.9 78.3 81.0 84S 85.7 100.0 75.6 73-3 05.9 71.8
Ce a ey
27



TABLE 1.—CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS TO THE FAA
SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

REGION NUMBER PERCENT MAJOR FUNCTION NUMBER PERCENT
AAL 92 2.5 PART 91 OPERATOR 58 1.6
ACE 247 6.8 PART 121 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 55 1.5
AEA 493 13.6 PART 125 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 16 0.4
AGL 619 17.1 PART 127 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1 0.0
ANE 137 3.8 PART 133 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 14 0.4
ANM 312 8.6 PART 135 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1069 29.5
ASO 556 15.4 PART 137 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 67 1.9
ASW 584 16.1 CERTIFICATED REPAIR STATION 698 19.3
AWP 372 10.3 CERTIFICATED PARACHUTE LOFT 1 0.0
MISSING 206 8.7 APPROVED AVIATION TECHS SCHOOL 6 0.2
INSPECTION AUTHORIZED MECHANIC 281 7.8
CERTIFICATED REPAIRMAN 46 1.3
CERTIFICATED MECHANIC 314 8.7
FAA PARACHUTE RIGGER ) 0.0
FAA DESIGNATED PERSON 96 2.7
MISSING 897 24.8
OFFICE TIME IN AVIATION
TYPE
5 YEARS OR LESS 191 5.3
ACDO 21 6 6 TO 10 YEARS 507 14.0
Fsbo 2457 67.9 11 TO 20 YEARS 1153 31.9
GADO 919 25.4 21 YEARS OR MORE 1416 39.1
MISSING 221 6.1 MISSING 351 9.7

Analyses of Responses. Percentages of respondents selecting each of the
six response aiternatives, including the “do not know" category, were
calculated and are provided in Table 2. The proportion of respondents
selecting “do not know" ranged from OX for the item (Q1) concerning
respondents’ famillarity with FAA regulations that apply to their aviation
functions to 15.9% for the item (Q20) concerning respondent satisfaction
with participation by AWIs In safety seminars and other public meetings.
On the remaining questions, 7% or less selected the "do not know" response
alternative. For statistical comparisons, the "do not know” responses
were considered as missing values.

Responses to the first two rating alternatives ("not at all" and "to a
limited extent") were combined to produce a non-positive response category
and responses for the last three rating alternatives ("to a moderate
extent", “to a considerable extent", and “to a great extent") were
combIned to produce a positive response category. The percentages of
users who selected one of the three alternatives comprising the positive
response category for each Item are shown in Table 3 for each region and
for the nation overall.


ratings on overall satisfaction (88.9-90.9%). Part 135 Certificate
Holders had the smallest percentage of positive responses for several
items and the fowest overal! satisfaction level (78.2%). it Is noteworthy
that the greatest variability across the aviation activity categories
occurred for the item concerning visits during the year by AWIS (Q5).
That Item ylelded a fow score of 12.3% positive responses for Part 91
Operators and a high score of 77.8% positive for Part 121 Certificate
Holders. The differences In percentages across these groupings reflects,
to some degree, the emphasis that the agency places on Inspections In each
of the areas.

A categorization of the users’ comments by their primary aviation activity
areas is presented in Tabie 10. Part 121 users and users in the combined
group made proportionately fewer overall favorable comments (14.6% and
12.0% respectively), than did users In any of the other groups. CERT STAT
users had the highest percentage of favorable comments (30.9%). Compared
to other user groups, Part 91 respondents made only a smail percentage of
negative comments; most of their comments (51.7%) fell in the general
information category. Part 121 users and users In the combined group had
the highest percentage of non-favorable comments concerning the need for
more Inspectors (17.6% and 20.0% respectively). Part 121 respondents and
Certificated Repairmen had the highest percentage of comments concerning
the tack of knowledge, skills, ability, and training of inspectors (20.6%
and 17.4%, respectively).

Results by Facilities. Of perhaps most value In Improving some aspects of
the services of AWIs Is to focus on the facility ratings made by the
users. The varlablity of ratings, by Item, is considerable among
faciiitles (see Table 11). For example, on overall satisfaction with AWIs
(Q21), the range of positive scores among facilities within a region Is
small for AAL (5.8%) and very large (61.7%) for AWP. By focusing on
user-percelved deficiencies at selected facilities, considerable
Improvement in service to users may be feasible. A full report of results
from each facility appears In Appendices C through |.

DISCUSSION

The level of satisfaction with AWIs expressed by the aviation business
respondents of this survey is comparable to that obtained In studles of
other selected professional areas. For example, Day and Bodur (1977),
found the following levels of user satisfaction with public, professional
and personal services: veterinarians (91%), income. tax preparation
services (88.3%), optometrists and opthalmologists (86.2%), scheduled
major alrline services (84.9%), dentists and dental technicians (84.8%),
alr commuter and air charter services (83.1%), medical doctors and nurses
In offices or homes (81.3%), lawyers (79.2%), psychologists/marr iage
counselors (78.1%), medical doctors and nurses In hospitals (75.9%), the
local telephone company (76.5%), and the U.S. postal service (69.2%).
Lower levels of satisfaction were noted for such services as computer
dating, nursing and rest homes, architects and home designers, and home
security agencles/private detectives, among others. Andreasen and Best
(1977), In their survey of dissatisfaction among purchasers of goods and
services, provide a quote from the manager of the Consumer Research

14



perceptions of the performance of AWIs, but some regions and some aviation
business areas generate more positive responses than others. For example,
AWIs In the Central (ACE), Southern (ASO), Eastern (AEA), and Southwest
(ASW) regions are clearly perceived more satisfactorily than are those In
the other regions. AWis in the Alaska (AAL), New England (ANE), and
Northwest Mountain (ANM) reglons recelved the lowest proportions of
positive ratings. Analyses by the user's primary aviation activity showed
the most positive responses for AWIis who worked with Certificated Repair
Stations. Some of the lowest positive responses on selected items
regarding the performance of AWis were from Part 135 Certificate Holders,
who tied with Certificated Repairman (CERT REPR) for reporting the lowest
positive rating for overall user satisfaction.

A finer focus Is available through analysis by AW! facilities. This slice
of the data gives more Information on relative strengths and weaknesses
and provides opportunities to (1) pinpoint locations where policies and
procedures appear to be working either least effectively or most
effectively and (11) compare managerial procedures and conditions which
differentiate the less successful from the more successful servicing
facilities as Indicated by the users.

These results tend to support other Information gathered as a part of
Project Safe. The Allen Corporation, in a_ study of FAA Inspectors
(1985), reported the concerns Inspectors have about a lack of
standardization which affects their consistency in the Interpretation of
regulations. This consistency Issue was an area In the survey that users
rated below the satisfactory cutoff score, and user comments (13.1%) noted
the Inconsistency of Interpretations both within offices and between
offices. A second area Identified In Project Safe as one of concern to
Inspectors was that of “Incomplete and outdated handbooks and other
guidance material, as well as confusing and obsolete Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARS).” While users responding to the survey were highly
satisfied with AWI's knowledge of FAA reguiations, publications, and
policies, the single Item that best predicted overall user satisfaction
was concerned with clear and accurate answers from AWIs to user questions
(Q16). Conceivably, Inadequate guidance material and confusing FARs could
contribute to user dissatisfaction In this regard. Related Items that can
be considered In a "needs to Improve" category include consistent
Interpretations (Q8) and mutually acceptable resolutions of AWI/user
differences of opinion in Interpreting regulations (Q11).

CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS

1. The overall satisfaction level (83.1%) reported by users of AWI
services Is fully acceptable. it is within the range of levels reported
In the literature for higher ranking professional/technical services,
about In the middle of ratings recently reported for consumer satisfaction
with work of FDIC bank examiners (by participating banks), and above
overall ratings given the IRS (by taxpayers).

2. There are variations in user perceptions of AWI‘s between regions,

between groupings of users by thelr primary aviation business activity,
and by FAA facility. These differences should be closely examined to

16


March 1986), or incompleteness of thelr response, or an indication that
the respondent felt that the questionnaire was not appropriate for his/her
business. The overall response rate was 45%, but this Is probably an
underestimate of the actual user response rate, since it is known that not
all persons on the final matling list were qualified reciplents of the
quest lonnalre.

Comments made by the respondents were reviewed, and a numerical! system was
developed to code each comment for subsequent analysis. During scanning
and Initlal analysis of the results, It was noted that there were frequent
Instances where respondents had failed to provide coded responses to some
of the demographic questions, or where the responses were Inconsistent
with written Information provided. This problem generally occurred when
respondents had Identified an ACDO, GADO, or FSDO that was no longer in
existence. In Instances where the respondent provided written Information
concerning location of the facility, an up-to-date code was used, based on
the current list of existing flight standards district offices and numbers
provided by the regions. Missing codes or inconsistencies were reconciled
In 1,030 cases. Also, comments from a number of respondents who Indicated
that their major aviation activity was "Part 91 Operator" led to creation
of an additional demographic breakdown which had not been included in the
original questionnaire. Thus, modification of the data base was required
to Include missing Information from the respondents, to correct
Inconsistent data, and to categorize responses from Part 91 Operators.

RESULTS

Users. Characteristics of the responding sample are provided
In Table 1. The regional proportions of returned questionnaires tended to
reflect the number of alrcraft repair stations and the amount of related
aviation activity in the varlous FAA regions. Thus, the FAA's Great Lakes
(AGL), Southwest (ASW), Southern (ASO), and Eastern (AEA) regions each
produced 13-17% of the responses while New England (ANE) and Alaskan (AAL)
had the lowest percentages (3.8% and 2.5%, respectively). Percentages of
respondents from the other reglons were intermediate. Most of the
respondents (67.9%) Indicated that the Inspector assigned to thelr
operation was from a Filght Standards District Office (FSDO). Although
respondents were requested to Indicate the major aviation activity on
which they based thelr ratings, 897 (24.8%) failed to provide that
designation. The largest percentage of the respondents who did indicate
thelr major aviation activity were Part 135 Certificate Holders (29.5%)
and a sizeable percentage (19.3%) was Involved with Certificated Repair
Stations. No other category reached as high as 9% and several categories,
(Part 125, Part 127, and Part 133 Certificate Holders, Certified Parachute
Lofts, Approved Aviation Technical Schools, and FAA Parachute Riggers)
each comprised less than 1% of the responses. Most of the respondents
(71.0%) had been in some aspect of the aviation business for 11 or more
years, 14.0% had been active for 6-10 years and only 5.3% Indicated that
they had been In the business for 5 years or less (data for 9.7% were
missing). Information concerning characteristics of the respondents was
used to make comparisons between regions, types of servicing office, and
various user aviation activities.



APPENDIX E.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES FOR SOUTHWEST REGION
FSDOS FOR EACH ITEM IN THE SURVEY

TO WHAT EXTENT:

7

20,

ay

are you familiar with the FAA regulations that
apply to your aviation functions?

‘are you familiar with the PAA published poliot.
and interpretations regarding those regulations
that apply to your aviation functions?

do those regulations policies, and interpretations

Give you flexibility in making decisiona about the
work you do?

are you aware of the duties and responsibilities
of airworthiness inspectors?

are you visited during the year by airworthiness
Anspectora assigned to you or your facility?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to know the PAA regulations?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the
Pegulations?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, interpret the regulations in a
consistent way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility interpret the regulations accurately?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

are differences of opinion between you and
airworthiness inspectors (regarding
interpretations of regulations) resolved in
mutually acceptable ways?

do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to your or
your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough
way?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to be technically competent
in the conduct of their duties?

are airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their
duties?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, appear to understand your
‘organization and its needs?

do ‘airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, provide clear ang accurate answers
to your questions?

do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility, provide answers in a timely manner?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for
counseling in technical areas?

do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for
counseling in regulatory areas?

are you satisfied with participation by
airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars an¢
other public meetings?

are you satisfied with the performance of
airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: N=

F500
ry ¥ D E FE €
100.0 98-0 98.0 95.3 95.8 997.5 100.0 100.0
85.7 90.2 79.8 90.6 95.8 973.7 87.5 9247
63.0 68.0 69.8 62.3 50.2 53.8 65.8 68.5
92.6 7H.0 80.8 = 82.8 79.2 61.5 85.0 76.8
78.6 51.0 54.1578 54.2 7205 57.5 61.8
100.0 95.9 97.9 96.8 7 94.7 88.7
92-0 85.1 97.8 = 967 90.9 83.3 97-3 90.2
80.0 71.8 83.9 75.4 56.5 67.6 «86.8 7341
95-7 84.0 90.3918 = 81.8 = 80.6 9.7 8B.
80.8 74.0 7.0873 69.6 = 63.2 82.5 7549
75.0 75-0 83.9 86.4 75.0 75.7 = BN2 77.
96-4 82.0 91.6 95.0 75.0 81.6 97.2 BBL
81.5 86.6 98.9 65.2 73.7 9h 83.0
96.2 86.0 95.9 98. 87.5 81.6 97.5 90.7
76-9 71H 86.0833 66.7 56-8 92,3 81d
M14 76.0 8367 BUY 62.5 16438705 1946
18.6 14.0 85.7 85.9 75.0 78.9 95.0 83.3
39-3 46.9 40.8 = 60.9 WS.837.5 45.0 50,9
N2-9 5.2 55.1 65.6 56.5 35,0 65.0 61.5,
85.7 85.0 67-5 83.6 71.8 TN Bt 81,
78.6 76.0 86.7 93.8 62.5 66.7 92.3 85.2
28 5 99 64 24 a0 40 35
25



1986 SURVEY OF AVIATION BUSINESS OPERATORS:
THEIR VIEWS OF FAA AIRWORTHINESS !NSPECTORS

Within the past two decades, the development and utillzation of consumer
surveys to assess customer/consumer/client satisfaction with products and
services have Increased significantly. Information from these surveys has
assisted management in modifying, Improving, or developing products and
services. During 1985, the FAA Administrator, Admiral Donald Engen,
requested that information be gathered concerning the perceptions by
aviation business operators (users) of the quality and performance of
avionics and maintenance airworthiness safety Inspectors (AW!s) throughout
the entire agency. As a result, a questionnalre entitled "FAA Survey of
Users: Alrworthiness Inspectors," was developed to assess aspects of the
working relationship between FAA AWIs and those business operators within
the aviation Industry.

PROCEDURE

The Office of Airworthiness and the Civil Aeromedical institute (CAMI)
Jointly developed the survey Instrument, which consisted of 21 items. Of
the Items, four refer to aspects of the user’s awareness of, and
familiarity with, agency regulations, policies, and the duties and
responsibilities of AWI‘s, as well as the extent to which the current
regulations permit flexibility in decislon-making. The remaining Items
assess user perceptions of aspects of their Interactions with AW!Is,
Including AWE avallabitity, competence, conduct of duties, and
communication, to mention a few. In a short demographic section of the
survey, respondents were requested to Identify: (1) the FAA region within
which they are located; (2) the location and type of FAA District Office
with which they have contact; (3) the aviation activity that Is most
representative of thelr current work; and (4) their length of time in’ the
aviation bustness. Space was provided for the respondent to write the
complete location of his/her servicing office. For the 21 questlonnalre
items, users -were asked to Indicate the degree to which they agreed with
each statement by selecting one of six available alternatives ("not at
all", "to a limited extent", "to a moderate extent", “to a considerable
extent", “to a great extent", or "do not know". Space for written
comments was provided at the end of the questionnaire. A copy of the
booklet Is included in Appendix A.

The Sample. The survey sample was developed from mailing Ilsts of members
provided by several aviation organizations. Although an Indeterminate
number of Individuals named on those lists was probably not a _ proper
target for the survey, each of the 8,854 | |lsted persons was sent a copy of
the questlonnalre and a franked return envelope in December 1985. A
follow-up letter prompting participants to return the questionnaire was
malied approximately 15 days following the Initial distribution of the
survey. After eliminating 171 questionnalres that were returned as
undeliverable, the adjusted number of assumably dellvered forms was 8,683.

Returns. Returns were received from 3,913 anonymous users. of this
group, 295 were not included In the analysis due to the lateness (after


APPENDIX U.-

OADO AMD FSDO

‘TO WAT EXTENT: cE SR eee eee Sage see see | = 2 x t

1. are you familiar ith the PAA regulations that 100.0 100.0 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
apply to your aviation functions?

2. are you familiar with the PAA published policies 67.5 85.6 96.3 89.6 91,8
and interpretations regarding those regulations
thet apply to your aviation functions?

3. do those regulations policies, and interpretations 65.2 61.8 08.9 10.8 55.9 61.9 58.8 56.3 60.0 55.8
Sive you flexibility in making decisions about the
work you do?

12.7 1962

‘A. are you aware of the duties and responsibilities 75.0 68.6
of sirvorthiness inspectors?

87.5 82.9 81.8 88.2 81.3 66.7 73.4 86H 19.2

re you visited during the year by sirvorthiness 79-2 60.0 70.4 64.6 57.1 ST.t 67.6 46.9 60,0 NBR 68.2 5241
Anapectors assigned to you or your facility?

6. 60 airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 07.5 97.1 100.0 91.7 94.3 100.0 94.1 96.7 85.7 98.0 90.9 95.6
your facility, appear to know the FAA regulations?

7. do airworthiness inapectors, assigned to you or 81-0 90.9 100.0 $1.3 93 97.6 88.8 89.7 85.7 98.0 80.0
your facility, appear to know the FAA published
policies and interpretations supporting the
Fegulatioos?

8, do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 69.6 91.2 88.9 77.1 THN 80.5 75.8 62.8 76.9 77.6 85.7
your facility, interpret the regulations in «
‘consistent way?

9. do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 68.2 90.3 96.3 05.8 93-9 67.5 91.2 88.9 8N.6 85.8 95.0 81.5.
your facility interpret the regulations aocurately?

10. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 75.0 02.8 08.9 70-8 7.1 TH.4 B28 73.3 57.1
your facility explain the regulations and your
‘options clearly?

W.0 76.2 80.0

‘11, are differences of opinion between you and 19.2
Airworthiness inspectors (regarding
Anterpretations of regulations) resolved in
wutually acceptable ways?

100.0 00.9 85.7 71.8 83.9 15.9 78.6 70.2 80.0 69.0

12. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 87-0 96.9 92.3 91.5 88.6 92.7 98.1 86.2 92.9 5.4
your Faoility, oooduct their duties in « thorough
way?

13, do airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 81.5 08.2 96.3 79.2 88.6 92.7 88.2 90.0 92.9 90.0 BA.2 79.5

Your fociLity, appear to be technically cospetent
conduct of their duties?

1A. are airworthiness inspectors, assigned to youor 87.5 93-9 100.0 97.9 97.1 97.6 98.1 96-8 92.9
your facility, courteous in the conduct of their

1.2 100.0 95-5,

duties?

15. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 70.8 85.3 81.5 85.4 76.5 81.0 12.7 90-3 78.6 4.0 71.4 81.8
your facility, appear to understand your
‘Organisation and its needs?

16. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 83.3 08.2 92.6 83.0 82.9 88.1 82.4 90.3 86.7 78.5 76.2 80.0

your fectlity, provide clear and accurate ansvers
to your questions?

17, do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 75.0 93.9 96.3 79.2 85.7 @8.1 05.3 TIN 80.0 78.4 90.9 68.8
your facility, provide answers in « timely manner?

18, do you rely 0a ainvorthiness inspectors for wT 80.0 51.6 53.3 95.5 52.2
counseling in technical areas?

19. do you rely oo airworthiness inspectors for 58.3 ST.1 THT 62.5 57.1 50.0 70.6 TZ 26.7 5508 63.6 65.9.
‘counseling in reguletory aress?

20, are you satisfied with participation by 75.0 O48 81.5 69.8 BN 76.5 83.9 17-8 91-T 5
eirworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and
other public meetings?

21, are you satiefied with the performance of 83.3 90.9 92.6 81.39 91-8 90.5 91.2 90.3 9363 78.8 12.7 81.8
Airvorthiness inspectors, assigned to you or
your facility?

‘TOTAL MUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: Mx 2435027 B35 STS, 3322

28



Generally low scores across regions for given Items suggest areas where an
agency-wide effort or emphasis probably would be required to bring about
significant Improvement. On the other hand, high positive scores
tabulated for any given Item In one or more regions suggest that
Improvement, to at least those levels, Is attainable for any region.

Results by Avlation Activity. Another way of analytically evaluating the
same overall data is to examine differences as they relate to specific
user activities (see Table 9). Differences In the percentages of positive
responses among aviation activity groups were larger than those noted for
regions, ranging from 3.1% (Q1 -user knowledge of regulations) to 65.5%
(Q5 -frequency of visits). Overall, across types of activity groupings,
only one Item (Q1) had a percentage range under 10%, 16 items varied from
10-19%, 3 Items varled from 20-39%. An examination of Table 9 Indicates
that the Certificated Repair Station (CERT STAT) respondents had more
Items with positive responses than any of the other activity groupings.
Some of the lowest positive scores for items were from Part 91 Operators.
Part 121 Certificate Holders presented an interesting response pattern.
Next to CERT STAT respondents, they exhibited the highest positive scores
on several items; however, they also followed Part 91 Operators In the
number of Items for which they had the least positive scores. These three
groups (CERT STAT, Part 91, and Part 121), also had the highest positive

TABLE 10.-SUMMARY TABLE OF COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AVIATION BUSINESS
ACTIVITY TO THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS

AVIATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY

PART PART PART PART CERT INSP CERT CERT DESG
91 121 135 137 STAT MECH REPR MECH PERS OTHERS*

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 58 55 1069 «67 «698-281 46314 96 BT.
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 52 26 «5112s 309s tad IT 115 HO 16
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 89.7 47.3 47.8 31.3 44.3 HM. 37.0 36.6 41.7 43.2
TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPARATE COMMENTS CODED 58 3468231420176 23 THN STO

COMMENTS CATEGORY

FAVORABLE PERCENTAGE OF COMMENTS:

GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS 9
PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP 3.
AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB 3

15.
a
2.

2 2

5.
0.
0.

3.
6.
1

ERO
Le
Som
ao8

@oe
FO@
205

NON-FAVORABLE.

00 MANY INSPECTORS 0.
NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) 3.
LIMITED AVAILABILITY (LACK OF MANPOWER NOT CITED) 3.
INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) 0.
INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING 0.
ATTITUDES OF INSPECTORS (AUTHORITARIAN, UNHELPFUL) 1
AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE 5.
AGENCY POLICIES/PROCEDURES MAKE WORK DIFFICULT 1

0.

3

3

eoyeSwto

BGR

Bono
mains
Bwee

mn
ePoSo

boeeoeoDOoD

onowuwne’d

AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN'T ENFORCE REGULATIONS
REGULATIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO READ/INTBRPRET
GENERAL ‘NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS

rrONNNOOREO
SouNnnerouune
boo eob@ounse

Ww a@ereoNe
2 o@emor

wo pan

GENERAL INFORMATION 51.7 0.0 4e

°
°
ue
°

*TTMis category is a combination of Parts 125, 127, and 133 Certificate Holders, Certified Parachute Lofts, and
Approved Aviation Technicians Schools.

12



Division of Sears, Roebuck and Company. That manager noted that a
“problem rate" (l.e. level of dissatisfaction) of 10-12% might be the
lowest figure reasonably achlevable In any survey of consumers.

In a large scale survey, Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc.
(1984) reported a 65% positive rating by taxpayers for their overall
evaluation of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) performance based on direct
contacts with the IRS; that rating may be compared to the 83.1% overall
positive evaluation for AWis. (It should be noted that items dealing with
some specific aspects of the IRS’ berformance recieved higher ratings.)
Yankelovich, et al., also asked taxpayers to provide ratings on a
seven-point scale from “much better than others" to “much worse than
others" to Indicate thelr overali satisfaction with the services provided
by IRS employees as compared to other federal! departments. For that
rating, 86% of the surveyed taxpayers rated the IRS from “about the same"
to “much better than others", relative to other federal government
departments. That finding, in conjunction with the overall 65% positive
rating for the IRS, suggests a relatively high standing for AWI
per formance.

Within the past year (1985-1986), several state banking associations have
completed participation in a National Bankers Association (NBA) Bank
Examination Survey, which was designed to assess bank satisfaction with
examinations conducted by the Federai Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), the State, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC),
and the Federa! Reserve. Based on avallable reports of participating
banks In Kansas, 79% gave the FDIC a Satisfaction rating of “average” or
“good;" In Nebraska that percentage was 88%. A related finding of
Interest was the perceived consistency of evaluations made by examiners;
in Kansas, 79% of the banks felt that the FDIC examiners had changed the
basis for classifying loans from the Previous examination (1.e., were not
consistent), while only 31% felt the same way about the state examiners.
By comparison, although the questions are obviously not directly
comparable to those of the present survey, over 75% of user repondents
were satisfled with the consistency of AWI's.

Based on the survey results reported here, aviation users appear to be
generally satisfied with the manner in which AWIs conduct thelr dutles
(83.1% of the respondents Indicated a "moderate" to “great extent" of
overall satisfaction with AW! performance). Satisfaction was htghest for
AWI’s courtesy in the conduct of their duties, their knowledge of FAA
reguiations and of FAA published policies and interpretations supporting
the reguiations, the thoroughness with which they conduct their duties,
and the accuracy of their interpretations of the regulations. Most users
did not rely heavily on AWis for counseling In either technical or
regulatory areas. Satisfaction with the performance of AWIs was below the
Positive cutoff for responses in areas concerning the number of AWI visits
in a year, AWI consistency in interpretations of regulations, the extent
to which AWIs clearly explained regulations and options, and the extent to
which the regulations permitted the users flexibility in making decisions
about the work they do.

Separate analyses of the same data by FAA regions and by the major
aviation activity of the users, point to a fair consistency jn the overall

15