a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2001 GENERAL AVIATION

Status of the Industry, 

Related Infrastructure, 

and Safety Issues

GAO-01-916

Page i GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Contents

Letter 1

Executive Summary 2

Purpose 2

Background 2

Results in Brief 4

Principal Findings 5

Recommendations for Executive Action 9

Chapter 1

Introduction

10

General Aviation Activities Are Diverse and Provide Important 

Benefits 10

General Aviation Industry Includes a Variety of Aircraft and Airports 

and Presents Special Safety Issues 14

General Aviation Manufacturing, Burdened by Liability Costs, 

Declined in the 1980s 18

The Federal Government Plays a Role in Funding and Overseeing 

General Aviation 18

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21

Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth 

Strongest in 

Manufacturing

24

Pre-GARA Slump in Manufacturing Attributed to Liability Concerns 

and Other Factors 24

Pre-GARA Slump Attributed to Liability Issues, Other Costs, 

Economic Contributions, and Changes in Lifestyle 26

Post-GARA Trends in Manufacturing and Flying Activity Are 

Attributed to Mix of Reduced Liability Concerns, Continued High 

Prices, and Other Factors 27

FAA Forecasts Continued Growth in General Aviation 39

Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

40

Federal Funding for Capital Development at General Aviation 

Airports Falls Short of Requests for Eligible Projects 40

Increased Federal Funding Will Benefit General Aviation Airports 

44

Experts Cite Several Issues Related to General Aviation Airport 

Infrastructure 45
Contents

Page ii GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

47

Accident Rate for General Aviation Is Improving but Is Still Higher 

Than for Scheduled Commercial Aviation 47

Pilot Error Is Involved in Most General Aviation Accidents 53

To Reduce Pilot Error and Improve Safety, FAA Works With Others 

to Improve Training, Technology, and Procedures 56

Appendix I: Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the 

Nation Are Difficult to Measure 64

Economic Impact of General Aviation 64

Transportation Benefits of General Aviation 69

Limitations of Measuring Economic Impacts and Transportation 

Benefits of General Aviation 71

General Aviation Enjoys Community Support 73

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment 74

GAO Contacts 74

Staff Acknowledgments 74

Tables Table 1: Table 1: Use Categories of General Aviation 11

Table 2: FAA’s Requirements for Pilot Certification 20

Table 3: Percentage of Fatal and Nonfatal Accidents Caused by 

Selected Types of Pilot Error 55

Table 4: Selected New or Modified Safety Recommendations 

Related to Training 60

Table 5: General Aviation’s 1998 Estimated Total Economic 

Output 65

Table 6: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - 

Jobs 66

Table 7: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - 

Earnings 67

Table 8: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - 

Economic Output 68

Figures Figure 1: Composition of General Aviation Fleet, 1999 15

Figure 2: Categories of Airports in the United States 17

Figure 3: Number of General Aviation Aircraft Shipped by U.S. 

Manufacturers, 1978 Through 2000 25

Figure 4: Number of Piston and Turbine Fixed-Wing General 

Aviation Aircraft Shipped, 1984-2000 29

Figure 5: Size of General Aviation Active Fleet, 1985 

Through1999 30
Contents

Page iii GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 6: Number of General Aviation Hours Flown by Use 

Category, 1985 Through 1999 32

Figure 7: Number of Active Pilots, by Certificate Type, 1984 

Through 2000 34

Figure 8: Number of Participants in Fractional Ownership 

Programs, 1986 Through 1999 36

Figure 9: U.S. Flight Departments Operating Fixed-Wing Aircraft, 

1990 Through 1999 38

Figure 10: 2000 Funding Compared With Annual Planned 

Development Costs for General Aviation Airports, 1997 

Through 2001 41

Figure 11: Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Queen City Municipal 

Airport, Allentown, Pennsylvania 42

Figure 12: Facilities at Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas 

City, Missouri 43

Figure 13: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for 

Scheduled Commercial Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 48

Figure 14: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for 

General Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 49

Figure 15: Number of Accidents, Fatal and Fatalities in General 

Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 50

Figure 16: Figure 14: Accident Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for 

General Aviation, by Segment, 1986 Through 1998 52

Figure 17: Causes of Fatal Accidents 54

Figure 18: Causes of Nonfatal Accidents 54

Figure 19: Cirrus S-20 Airplane With Deployed Parachute 62
Contents

Page iv GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Abbreviations

AGATE Advance General Aviation Transport Experiments

AIP Airport Improvement Program

AIR 21 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Centery

AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

EAA Experimental Aircraft Association

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

GADIT General Aviation Data Improvement Team

GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association

GARA General Aviation Revitalization Act

GPS Global Position System

NASA National Aeronautical and Space Administration

NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials

NATA National Air Transportation Association

NBAA National Business Aviation Association

NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

PCATD Personal Computer-based Aviation Training Device

SATS Small Aircraft Transportation System
Page 1 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 31, 2001 Letr

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman

The Honorable William O. Lipinski

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.

House of Representatives

In response to your request to conduct a comprehensive overview of the 

status of general aviation, especially since the passage the General Aviation 

Revitalization Act (GARA), we addressed three research questions.

• What did key indicators in general aviation activity show in the years 

leading up to GARA and what have they shown since then?

• What funding is available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient 

to accommodate planned development?

• What are the trends in general aviation accident rates and the causes of 

accidents, and how have the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) and 

the industry attempted to improve safety?

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator of 

FAA; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also 

make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or would like to 

discuss it further, I can be reached at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix II.

Gerald L. Dillingham

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 2 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Executive Summary

Purpose Over the past decade, the booming growth in scheduled commercial airline 

traffic has tended to obscure developments in another part of the aviation 

industry—general aviation. General aviation covers all civil aircraft not 

flown by commercial airlines or the military. Its tens of thousands of 

aircraft include corporate jets, medical-evacuation helicopters, and 

airplanes owned by recreational fliers and hobbyists. Three out of every 

four takeoffs and landings in the United States belong to general aviation 

flights. 

In 1994, concerned that general aviation was in decline, the Congress 

passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which sought to 

boost the industry by placing limitations on product liability lawsuits 

against aircraft manufacturers. The Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to provide a comprehensive 

overview of general aviation, especially since the passage of GARA. To 

attain this objective, GAO focused its review on three questions: (1) What 

did key indicators of general aviation activity show in the years leading up 

to GARA and what have they shown since then? (2) What funding is 

available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient to accommodate 

planned development? and (3) What are the trends in general aviation 

accident rates and in the causes of accidents, and how have the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) and the industry attempted to improve 

safety? 

Background The Federal Aviation Administration divides general aviation activities into 

use categories. The largest of these categories is personal flying, which is 

defined as flying for pleasure or personal transportation and not for 

business purposes. In 1998, personal flying accounted for 36 percent of all 

general aviation hours flown, nearly three times more than the next largest 

segment—business flying, which refers to activities carried out in 

connection with the pilot’s occupation or private business. The other 

major use categories include corporate flying, which involves the use of an 

aircraft owned by a corporation or business and flown by a professional 

pilot; instructional flying; and aerial application, which includes activities 

such as agricultural spraying.

The general aviation fleet consists of about 219,000 active aircraft with an 

average age of about 27 years. Certain activities are generally associated 

with certain types of aircraft. For example, corporate flying usually 
Executive Summary

Page 3 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

involves the use of business jets while personal and instructional flying 

usually involve the use of single-engine propeller aircraft. The largest 

category of aircraft is single-engine propeller, which in 1998 made up 70 

percent of the general aviation fleet. 

Although general aviation aircraft can take off and land at almost any 

airport—including many of the nation’s 538 commercial service airports—

an extensive system of airports is designated for general aviation 

operations. About 2,500 of the public-use general aviation airports within 

this system are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems, which identifies airports that are significant to national air 

transportation and to which FAA allocates funding for infrastructure 

development. 

In 1994, the Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act in an 

attempt to revitalize the general aviation industry by limiting liability costs. 

The law established an 18-year limit for product liability lawsuits against 

the manufacturers of airframes, engines, and components for aircraft with 

20 or fewer seats. Previously, there had been no time limit on 

manufacturers’ liability.

FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of general aviation. To do this, 

it determines the requirements for pilot certification and develops 

regulations and recommendations designed to improve safety. FAA’s pilot 

certification process establishes increasingly stringent piloting and medical 

requirements for five levels of certification: student, recreational, private, 

commercial, and air transport. The level of certification determines the 

type of aircraft a pilot can fly and the types of responsibilities the pilot can 

undertake. The first four levels of certification allow a pilot to fly for an 

increasingly wide range of general aviation activities. An air transport 

license allows a pilot to fly for scheduled commercial airlines.

To consider trends in general aviation, GAO reviewed FAA’s forecasts of the 

general aviation industry through 2007 and analyzed FAA’s and industry’s 

data on key indicators of general aviation manufacturing and flying activity. 

To look at funding for airport infrastructure, GAO analyzed FAA’s data on 

airport development projects and their costs, reviewed available funding 

sources, and compared expected funding to planned development. To 

describe the safety record of general aviation, GAO analyzed accident data 

from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FAA, and it 

reviewed studies and reports on the causes of general aviation accidents. 

Finally, GAO assembled a group of six aviation experts and asked them and 
Executive Summary

Page 4 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

additional experts about the general aviation industry, its airport 

infrastructure needs, and its safety.

Results in Brief Trends show that there was a decline in most general aviation indicators 

prior to the 1994 enactment of GARA and that this decline reversed in the 

years after GARA—sharply in manufacturing indicators and to a lesser 

extent in flying activity indicators. Prior to GARA, aircraft production, 

pilot activity, and hours flown all fell sharply. For example, manufacturers’ 

aircraft shipments fell from 18,000 in 1978 to a low of 928 in 1994. The 

downturn was attributed in part to high costs associated with liability 

issues, but also to downturns in the economy and lifestyle changes that 

reduced public interest in flying. According to experts, trends in general 

aviation since GARA was enacted suggest that the law has reduced 

manufacturers’ liability concerns, leading to a rebound in the 

manufacturing industry. For example, shipments of new aircraft tripled 

between 1994 and 2000, from 928 to 2,816. However, aircraft prices did not 

fall in the years after GARA. For example, the average price of a new 

piston aircraft increased from $162,000 in 1994 to $220,000 in 1999, an 

increase of 25 percent in constant dollars. General aviation flying activity 

indicators such as hours flown and number of pilot licenses also rose after 

the enactment of GARA, although at a slower rate. In addition to GARA, 

experts attributed the growth in manufacturing indicators and less-strong 

growth in other indicators to a number of factors with mixed implications, 

including the popularity of a new type of aircraft ownership called 

fractional ownership, the strong economy, the continued high price of 

aircraft, and the same lifestyle changes that contributed to the pre-GARA 

slump. 

The amount of federal funding available for capital development at general 

aviation airports has consistently been below what has been requested by 

the airport officials to fund their airports’ planned projects. In 2000, for 

example, the amount of federal funding available was almost $900 million 

short of what was requested to fund airports’ eligible planned projects. In 

order to best allocate scarce resources, FAA uses a priority system to fund 

projects that it considers to be most important. The fiscal year 2001 

Department of Transportation appropriations increases funding for general 

aviation airports in general and for particular types of projects, but funding 

will still be short of what airport officials requested to fund eligible planned 

projects. One industry association recommended that more airports build 

longer runways to accommodate business aircraft, and a different expert 

suggested that general aviation airports focus on developing facilities to 
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

accommodate technologically advanced aircraft. However, general 

aviation experts have differing opinions about the adequacy of facilities at 

general aviation airports. Several general aviation experts with whom GAO 

spoke regarding general aviation airports mentioned that they were 

concerned with community pressure to close airports.

The safety of general aviation has been improving. The total number of 

accidents declined from 3,233 in 1982 to 1,989 in 1998—a decrease of 41 

percent—while the accident rate fell from about 10 to about 7 accidents for 

every 100,000 flight hours. Even with these improvements, general 

aviation’s accident rate remains about 24 times higher than the accident 

rate of scheduled commercial aviation. Within general aviation, some types 

of flying are safer than others. The safety record of corporate flying, for 

example, rivals that of commercial passenger airlines. Other types of 

flying, such as personal and aerial application, have considerably higher 

accident rates. More than two-thirds of general aviation’s accidents, both 

fatal and nonfatal, are caused by pilot error, including mistakes related to 

procedure, skill, and judgment. Besides determining the requirements for 

pilot certification, FAA oversees the safety of general aviation by working 

with federal agencies and industry groups to identify safety improvements. 

FAA must decide whether to implement recommended improvements 

through voluntary programs, official guidance, or regulations. Most 

initiatives and recommendations seek to enhance safety through 

improvements in one of three areas: training, technology, and the 

procedures that are designed to govern operations such as takeoffs, 

landings, and flight patterns.

Principal Findings

General Aviation Activity 

Has Increased Since the 

Mid-1990s; Experts Cite 

GARA, Economy, and Other 

Factors 

In the years prior to GARA, indicators of general aviation manufacturing 

and other activities all declined. Along with a steep decline in 

manufacturers’ shipments of aircraft, the number of employees working in 

the industry fell 65 percent between 1978 and 1988. The size of the active 

general aviation fleet dropped by one-quarter between 1980 and 1994, from 

about 200,000 aircraft to about 150,000. The number of pilot licenses and 

the number of hours flown in general aviation also declined steadily 

between 1980 and 1994. For example, the number of student pilot licenses 

decreased more than one third, from 150,000 in 1980 to 96,000 in 1994. 

While GAO’s group of general aviation experts said that product liability 
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

costs played a large role in the decline of the industry, they cited other 

factors as well, including the economic recessions of the early 1980s and 

early 1990s and the high cost of aircraft ownership and operation. The 

experts also noted that lifestyle changes seem to have led to reduced 

interest in general aviation flying.

Since GARA was enacted, the number of product liability cases has 

dropped off significantly, and manufacturing has rebounded, with 

shipments of piston aircraft, for example, increasing nearly fourfold 

between 1994 and 2000. At the same time, the price of aircraft continued to 

rise. Indicators of flying activity have also increased, but at a slower rate 

than manufacturing. The number of aircraft in the general aviation fleet 

has steadily increased since the enactment of GARA. The total number of 

hours flown in general aviation increased 32 percent, to almost 32 million, 

between 1994 and 1999, the most recent year for which data are available. 

The number of active pilots in the three pilot license categories that cover 

only general aviation (student, private, and commercial, as opposed to the 

air transport license, which covers scheduled commercial flying as well) 

continued to decline for several years following the enactment of GARA, 

falling 10 percent between 1994 and 1998. In 1999 and 2000, however, the 

numbers of pilots with each type of pilot certificate increased.

While GAO’s experts rated GARA as the most significant contributor to the 

recent rise in general aviation manufacturing indicators, it also cited other 

factors. The factors experts rated as most important after GARA were the 

development of fractional ownership plans for business aircraft and the 

growth of the national economy. In fractional ownership, individuals or 

companies purchase a share in an aircraft for their occasional use. 

Fractional ownership has grown steadily since its introduction in the mid1980s. When asked to consider why other general aviation activity 

indicators did not show as great a surge as manufacturing, one expert cited 

the continuing high cost of aircraft, and another mentioned that lifestyle 

changes have led to less overall interest in general aviation flying.

FAA’s most recent forecast for general aviation predicts continued growth 

in all areas. FAA expects the general aviation aircraft fleet to increase at an 

average annual rate of 0.9 percent during the 13-year forecast period. The 

forecast indicates that the number of hours flown will increase 2.1 percent 

annually, with the growth concentrated in the turbojet segment. It also 

predicts that the pilot population will continue to increase at an annual rate 

of 2 percent. This forecast attributes the projected increase to U.S. 
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

economic growth as well as to industrywide programs designed to recruit 

new pilots to general aviation.

Federal Funding for Capital 

Development at General 

Aviation Airports Falls Short 

of Eligible Requests, but 

Importance of Funding Gap 

Is Unclear

There is not enough money available through general aviation airports’ 

combined funding sources—including federal and state grants and bond 

proceeds—to fund all planned projects. General aviation experts, however, 

had differing opinions about the adequacy of current facilities and future 

development needs at these airports. Recognizing that not all projects will 

receive funding, FAA’s funding system gives priority to projects, such as 

repairing runways and removing obstructions from landing areas, that FAA 

views as most important to general aviation’s safety and efficiency. 

FAA’s 5-year authorization and fiscal year 2001 appropriation will increase 

the level of federal assistance for capital development projects at general 

aviation airports, although it will still not cover all requested projects that 

are eligible for funding. The fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation 

appropriations act appropriates significantly greater funding to airport 

projects in general, and the provisions of the Aviation Investment and 

Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), passed by the Congress in April 

2000, provide more of these moneys specifically to general aviation airport 

projects. Several of these changes affect the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP), including an increase in the authorized level of AIP funding; 

automatic funding to all airports with project requests if appropriations 

reach a certain level; and an increase in funding available through funds 

collected by large commercial airports from passenger facility charges, a 

portion of which is turned back to FAA and redistributed to general 

aviation airports. 

Safety Record of General 

Aviation Improving; FAA 

Works With Others to 

Improve Training, 

Technology, and Procedures

Between 1982 and 1998, the number of accidents and the accident rate for 

general aviation declined. Nonetheless, in 1998, the accident rate for 

general aviation was about 24 times higher than that of commercial 

aviation, accounting for 99 percent of the accidents and 85 percent of the 

deaths. 

Some types of general aviation flying are riskier than others. Personal 

flying comprised only about one-third of total general aviation hours flown 

in 1998 but accounted for more than three-quarters of fatal accidents. 

Corporate flying comprised about 10 percent of total general aviation hours 

but accounted for only 1 percent of fatal accidents. Because accident rates 

vary so significantly by segment, the safety trend for general aviation may 
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

be affected by differences in the growth rate of different segments. Growth 

is projected to occur much faster in turbine aircraft, used almost 

exclusively for corporate flying, than in single-engine piston aircraft, used 

mostly for personal and recreational flying. If this projection is correct, the 

safety record of general aviation may improve because of the lower 

accident rates associated with corporate flying. The general aviation 

experts with whom GAO spoke attributed the disparity in accident rates to 

a number of different factors, including differences in the level of expertise 

of pilots and the safety equipment typically used. Furthermore, 

commercial aviation is subject to more oversight and regulation than 

general aviation, which is valued by pilots for its freedom from such 

constraints. 

While a broad range of factors contribute to general aviation accidents, the 

majority of them are associated with pilot error. According to our analysis 

of NTSB’s accident data, 80 percent of the fatal accidents and 72 percent of 

the nonfatal accidents that occurred between 1994 and 1998 involved pilot 

error. Previous studies have found that between 60 and 80 percent of 

general aviation accidents are associated with pilot error. Mechanical 

failures were involved in 13 percent of the fatal accidents and 25 percent of 

the nonfatal accidents. The remaining accidents were due to other factors 

such as misdirections from air traffic control.

FAA works to improve the safety of general aviation in a variety of 

initiatives with other federal agencies and industry organizations. One 

broad initiative, Safer Skies, was developed with industry organizations to 

improve the safety record of commercial and general aviation. Experts 

involved in the initiative are jointly analyzing U.S. and global data to 

identify the most serious threats to aviation safety and to find the root 

causes of accidents. The experts are then developing recommendations on 

changes in training, technology, or procedures that would prevent or 

reduce these accidents. In a previous report, GAO noted that FAA’s goal of 

reducing general aviation accidents by 20 percent in 2007 may not 

challenge the general aviation community enough to continue the kinds of 

safety improvements that have led to previous reductions in accidents.

FAA and Safer Skies focus some of their research efforts on seeking ways 

to improve training. For example, in March 2000, the weather joint safety 

implementation team of Safer Skies released implementation plans for 

reducing weather-related accidents in general aviation through changes in 

the training curriculum for both initial and ongoing training. A similar 

Safer Skies training effort will target accidents caused by controlled flight 
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

into terrain, which occurs when a pilot flies an airworthy aircraft into 

terrain or another obstacle without being aware of the impending collision.

FAA also works with other groups to research and develop technology that 

will improve aircraft safety. For example, in 1994, the National 

Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) created the Advanced 

General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE), a consortium of 

industry, higher-education, and government entities, including NASA and 

FAA, that focuses on developing advanced technologies for general 

aviation, including technologies that will reduce accidents. Finally, FAA 

and other groups, including Safer Skies, work to increase the safety of 

general aviation through improving the procedures that govern flight 

patterns, including landings and takeoffs. Safer Skies has developed 

recommendations in this area, including standardizing and expanding the 

use of markings for towers and wires and developing new procedures for 

airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS).1

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

This report does not contain recommendations.

1

Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial Steps to Reduce Accident Rates 

by 2007 (GAO/RCED-00-111, June 28, 2000).
Page 10 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Chapter 1

Introduction Chapte1r

Most consideration in the nation’s rapidly growing aviation industry 

focuses on commercial passenger and cargo airlines. Attention to general 

aviation, which includes most aviation operations other than commercial 

and military, is often the result of an accident that involves a well-known 

figure, such as the 1999 crash of John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, airplane. 

In fact, general aviation is an important component of the nation’s air 

transportation system and economy, accounting for 96 percent of all 

civilian aircraft and three out of every four takeoffs and landings. General 

aviation airports provide a vast network of landing areas across the 

country. And while most general aviation pilots fly only for personal use, 

others use their general aviation training as a base for moving into other 

parts of civilian aviation such as piloting for commercial passenger and 

cargo airlines.

General Aviation 

Activities Are Diverse 

and Provide Important 

Benefits

General aviation encompasses a wide variety of operations, including the 

training of new pilots, crop dusting, and providing air tours for sightseers 

and transportation for business executives. In addition, general aviation 

provides rapid transportation for medical and other civil emergencies.1

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) divides general aviation 

activities into use categories. About 85 percent of general aviation flying 

falls into one of five categories, as described in table 1. The largest of these 

categories is personal flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure or 

personal transportation and not for business purposes. In 1999, personal 

flying accounted for 36 percent of all general aviation hours flown, nearly 

twice as much as the next largest segment—instructional flying. The 

remaining categories include many diverse activities, such as medical 

1

These activities are regulated under one of several FAA regulations: operations that involve 

transportation for hire, such as air tours and medical evacuation, are regulated under Part 

135, which has higher standards of safety; operations such as personal and business flying 

are regulated under Part 91, which does not have as stringent safety requirements. Other 

parts govern specific operations, such as Part 137, which regulates agricultural aircraft 

operations, and Part 133, which regulates rotorcraft external load operations. From a 

strictly regulatory standpoint, only Part 91 operations are considered general aviation, but 

FAA and others generally include other operations in this category for descriptive purposes 

and trend monitoring because they are more similar to general aviation than commercial 

aviation. General aviation aircraft include all U.S. registered civil aircraft not operated under 

14 C.F.R. Part 121 (scheduled commercial airlines) or Part 135. General aviation also 

includes on-demand air carriers that operate nonscheduled commercial service under 14 

C.F.R. Part 135.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 11 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

services, aerial advertising, aerial mapping and photography, and aerial 

application of seeds or chemicals. 

Table 1: Table 1: Use Categories of General Aviation
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 12 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Note: Air taxis and some air tours are regulated under Part 135 rather than Part 91, Federal Aviation 

Regulations. However, these operations have been described as general aviation, which is regulated 

under Part 91.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 13 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Source: FAA; 1999 data and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

General aviation benefits both the users of transportation services and the 

economy at large. For example, it increases the efficiency and productivity 

of businesses by reducing the travel time that would be required to drive or 

use more congested commercial airports; provides public health services, 

such as transporting patients and medical equipment; provides public 

safety services, such as monitoring floods or fires; alleviates congestion at 

commercial airports and provides an important transportation link to small 

communities not served by commercial air carriers; and provides training 

for new pilots. 

General aviation’s economic benefits are difficult to measure quantitatively, 

and studies on this topic have had limitations that have reduced the 

certainty of the studies’ findings. Nevertheless, according to a series of 

nationwide studies done for FAA on the effects of general aviation on 

economic activity, jobs, and earnings, general aviation’s contribution to the 

national economy has grown in the past decade. A report issued for FAA in 

2000 estimated that in 1998, general aviation generated about $64.5 billion 

in total economic activity at the national level, an increase of $26.5 billion 

from the 1988 level of $38 billion.2

 In 1998, general aviation accounted for 

about 0.7 percent of the gross domestic product and 7 percent of the total 

contribution of civil aviation. State studies show that general aviation’s 

economic impact on the states’ economies is generally less than 1 percent. 

However, according to these estimates, general aviation makes important 

contributions to the states in terms of economic output, jobs, and earnings 

that are generated. Appendix I provides more detailed information on the 

transportation and economic benefits of general aviation as well as on the 

limitations of the studies on this issue. 

2

The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy—2000, prepared for FAA 

and MCA Research Corporation by Wilbur Smith Associates with Applied Management 

Solutions, Inc. (Mar. 2000); and The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. 

Economy, Wilbur Smith Associates (June 1989).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 14 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

General Aviation 

Industry Includes a 

Variety of Aircraft and 

Airports and Presents 

Special Safety Issues

All types of aircraft can be used in general aviation operations, including 

single- and multiengine piston aircraft, turboprops and turbojets, rotorcraft 

such as helicopters, and gliders. The general aviation fleet consists of 

about 219,000 active aircraft. While this fleet of general aviation aircraft is 

diverse, certain activities are generally associated with certain types of 

aircraft. For example, corporate flying generally involves the use of 

turboprop and turbojet aircraft; personal and instructional flying generally 

involve the use of small propeller aircraft. The largest category of aircraft 

is single-engine propeller, which in 1999 made up 69 percent of the general 

aviation fleet. Additional types of general aviation aircraft and their uses 

are described in figure 1.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 15 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 1: Composition of General Aviation Fleet, 1999

Source: FAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

Although general aviation aircraft can take off and land at almost any 

airport, including most of the nation’s 538 commercial service airports, 

there is an extensive system of general aviation airports. Figure 2 

illustrates the categories of airports in the United States. There are 

approximately 13,000 private-use general aviation airports and 4,800 publicuse general aviation airports in the United States. About 2,500 general 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 16 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

aviation airports are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS), which identifies airports that are significant to national 

air transportation and to which FAA allocates funding for capital 

development. Reliever airports are a special category of general aviation 

airports in the NPIAS. Usually located near commercial airports, reliever 

airports are intended to help relieve congestion at commercial airports by 

diverting general aviation traffic away from commercial airports. FAA has 

designated 334 general aviation airports as reliever airports.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 2: Categories of Airports in the United States

Source: GAO’s analysis of FAA’s data.

The safety record of general aviation is sometimes brought to light when 

high-profile accidents occur. General aviation accidents, like commercial 

aviation accidents, can result from pilot error, mechanical failure, or other 

causes. Although the number of accidents in general aviation has 

decreased markedly during the past few years, its accident rate remains 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

much higher than that of commercial aviation. Commercial aviation, 

because it involves the flying public, is subject to greater oversight and 

regulation than general aviation. While FAA’s primary effort to reduce 

general aviation accidents is to ensure that all regulations and requirements 

are met, FAA has also emphasized voluntary training and technology to 

reduce the accident rate of general aviation.

General Aviation 

Manufacturing, 

Burdened by Liability 

Costs, Declined in the 

1980s

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, aviation manufacturers became more 

frequent targets of product liability lawsuits that were brought by survivors 

of airplane crashes or families of victims of airplane crashes. This surge in 

the number of lawsuits came on the tail of a 1963 California Supreme Court 

ruling that adopted a rule of “strict liability,” which maintained that 

companies may be held liable for a product found to be defective or 

dangerous without proof of negligence. Other courts across the nation 

soon followed suit, shifting a greater liability burden toward 

manufacturers. 

As a result of the large number of lawsuits brought against aviation 

manufacturers, insurers increased the premiums they charged for product 

liability insurance. Manufacturers, some of whom were self-insured, also 

incurred costs from defending an increasing number of lawsuits. The 

escalating costs associated with product liability were reflected in rising 

aircraft prices, and by the 1980s, new aircraft sales plummeted as more and 

more prospective buyers chose to purchase used airplanes or to build their 

own airplanes from kits. The manufacturing industry began to suffer; 

between 1978 and 1988, production fell 94 percent, and the number of 

employees working in the industry fell 65 percent. By the end of 1986, two 

manufacturers, Beech and Cessna, had shut down most of their production 

lines for single-engine piston aircraft; and Piper, another manufacturer, had 

sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The Federal 

Government Plays a 

Role in Funding and 

Overseeing General 

Aviation

The federal government manages the national airspace system, including 

general aviation, with the goal of ensuring the adequate and safe operation 

of the system. The federal role includes allocating funds for airport 

improvements, controlling air traffic, issuing training rules for aviation 

personnel, and certifying the airworthiness of aircraft and other aviation 

equipment. A number of offices are responsible for related areas of the 

industry. These include the Office of Airport Planning and Programming, 

which provides funding for airport construction and improvements; the 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Aircraft Certification Service, which ensures that the types of aircraft in 

use are safe and airworthy; and the General Aviation and Commercial 

Division of the Flight Standards Service, which develops policies for the 

certification of pilots and instructors.

FAA supports the nation’s airport infrastructure by providing funds for 

airport development and maintenance through the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP). Funds for this program, some of which are collected from 

taxes on airport users, are authorized and appropriated by the Congress 

and distributed among qualifying airports by FAA. The federal government 

provides more funding to general aviation airports than any other single 

source. 

FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of general aviation. To do this, 

FAA determines the requirements for pilot certification and develops 

regulations and recommendations for pilot activities and training as well as 

for the use of technologies and the procedures that govern the use of 

airspace and airports. FAA’s pilot certification process establishes 

increasingly stringent piloting and medical requirements for certificates 

allowing pilots to fly in more advanced circumstances. In addition to 

certifications, pilots may also receive ratings, which allow them to perform 

additional activities or to fly certain types of aircraft. For example, pilots 

may receive ratings for activities such as instrument flying or for flying 

particular types of aircraft such as seaplanes or multiengine planes. To 

help ensure pilot proficiency, FAA also has requirements for recent flight 

experience, including requiring pilots to perform three takeoffs and 

landings within a 90-day period if they intend to carry passengers (or three 

night-time takeoffs and landings if they intend to carry passengers at night), 

requiring a flight review every 2 years, and requiring instrument-rated pilots 

to fly in instrument conditions for 6 hours within every 6-month period in 

order to maintain their instrument rating. 

Table 2 summarizes FAA’s requirements for the different certificates, along 

with the activities each certificate permits a pilot to perform.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Table 2: FAA’s Requirements for Pilot Certification

Note: Student pilot certificates are issued for a 2-year period. Other certificates are issued without a 

specific expiration date, but pilots must have current medical certificates and comply with recency of 

flight requirements where applicable. First class medical certificates have the most stringent 

requirements, and third class certificates have the least stringent.

Source: 14 C.F.R Part 61.

In addition to establishing certification requirements, FAA also oversees 

flight schools that operate under Part 141 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. These schools are certified and monitored by FAA: Students 

are tested on a periodic basis and taught a curriculum that is approved by 

FAA. Other flight schools operate under Part 61 and do not have as high a 

degree of FAA oversight. Students at Part 61 schools are not required to be 

tested periodically throughout their training and may receive all of their 

training from one instructor rather than from multiple instructors. At Part 

61 schools, students are not required to be taught according to an FAAapproved curriculum unless they are using a Personal Computer-based 

Aviation Training Device (PCATD). However, many large Part 61 schools 

use a commercially developed curriculum that is based on FAA-approved 

curricula. Part 141 students may be examined for their pilot’s certificate 

after 35 hours of flight time, and Part 61 students may be examined after 40 

hours of flight time. Finally, FAA requires all general aviation pilots to 

undergo a biennial flight review, in which the pilot’s skills are assessed.

Certificate Piloting requirements Medical requirements

Types of activities pilots can or cannot 

perform

Student None Third class medical 

certificate; must be 

renewed every 3 years.

Pilot may not carry passengers or operate 

without visual reference to the ground; pilot 

may operate solo cross-country flights only if 

deemed prepared by the flight instructor. 

Private Pilot must pass flight test and 

written knowledge test and have 

logged at least 40 hours of flight 

instruction and solo flight time.

Third class medical 

certificate; must be 

renewed every 2 years.

Pilot may not carry passengers for hire. 

Commercial Pilot must pass flight test and 

written knowledge test, hold a 

private pilot certificate, be 

instrument-rated, and have logged 

at least 250 flight hours.

Second class medical 

certificate; must be 

renewed every year. 

Pilot can engage in flight activities for hire, 

including acting as second in command for 

commercial airlines. Pilot is eligible to obtain 

a flight instructor certificate. 

Airline transport Pilot must pass flight test and 

written knowledge test, hold a 

commercial certificate, and have 

logged at least 1,500 flight hours. 

First class medical 

certificate, must be 

renewed every 6 months. 

Pilot can fly as pilot in command for 

scheduled commercial cargo or passenger 

airlines and is eligible to obtain a flight 

instructor certificate.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

In 1994, the federal government became involved in two projects aimed at 

revitalizing the industry. First, the Congress enacted the General Aviation 

Revitalization Act (GARA), which established an 18-year statute of repose 

for lawsuits against manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, parts, and 

components. Under this provision, no civil actions can be brought against 

a manufacturer for damages for death or injury arising out of an accident 

more than 18 years after the aircraft, part, or component is delivered to a 

purchaser. Second, FAA and the National Aeronautical and Space 

Administration (NASA), which plays a role in developing technology 

related to general aviation, joined in the Advanced General Aviation 

Transport Experiments (AGATE) initiative. AGATE, a consortium of 

industry, higher education, and government entities, was developed in 

response to the fact that new aircraft being manufactured were not taking 

full advantage of the most advanced technologies available. AGATE was 

intended to help revitalize the general aviation industry by advancing the 

use of new technology in aircraft and developing new training methods for 

pilots. 

Recently, NASA initiated the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) 

Program, a 5-year, $69 million program scheduled to run from fiscal year 

2001 through fiscal year 2005. SATS is designed to demonstrate the 

viability of new technologies for enabling small aircraft to affordably 

reduce many of the expected problems in the nation’s transportation 

system, such as increasing congestion on highways and at the major 

airports serving commercial passenger airlines.3

 For example, SATS 

envisions the development and use of easy-to-operate all-weather aircraft 

that can fly into the more than 5,000 existing public use general aviation 

airports with minor modification to airports’ landing and navigational 

facilities. NASA officials claim that a successful SATS program will be able 

to double the number of communities with air transportation, alleviate the 

gap between transportation demand and supply, and create new economic 

growth for communities throughout the nation. 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on 

Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us 

to provide a comprehensive overview of general aviation, especially since 

3

Many of these new aircraft technologies have been developed in NASA’s AGATE, which 

preceded SATS.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

the passage of GARA. Specifically, we addressed three main questions in 

our review:

• What did key indicators in general aviation activity show in the years 

leading up to GARA and what have they shown since then?

• What funding is available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient 

to accommodate planned development?

• What are the trends in general aviation accident rates and in the causes 

of accidents, and how have FAA and the industry attempted to improve 

safety? 

In collecting and analyzing data on flying activity, manufacturing, 

infrastructure, and safety, we focused on fixed-wing aircraft, as they 

represent the largest portion of general aviation aircraft. To respond to the 

first question, we reviewed FAA’s forecasts of the general aviation industry 

through 2007; analyzed data from the industry and FAA on trends in general 

aviation aircraft manufacturing, the supply of pilots, and the hours flown 

from 1979 through 1999; and interviewed FAA and industry officials about 

expected developments in the industry. In addition, we sought the opinions 

of six aviation experts: two from academia who had written extensively on 

general aviation issues as identified through a computerized bibliographic 

search of relevant publications; three industry association officials from 

the Aircraft Pilots and Owners Association (AOPA), the General Aviation 

and Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the National Association of 

State Aviation Officials (NASAO); and an FAA official. These experts 

responded to our questions about the general aviation industry.

To answer the second question, we analyzed FAA data from fiscal year 2000 

to identify planned airport development projects and their costs, reviewed 

available funding sources, and compared expected funding to planned 

development. We identified relevant recent funding legislation and FAA 

documents. In addition, we interviewed industry and FAA officials about 

current and future infrastructure needs. Finally, to identify general aviation 

airports that may have raised funds through bond issuance, we analyzed a 

database maintained by a private data vendor. We then telephoned the 

airports we had identified to determine the amount of funds actually raised, 

if any.

To reply to the third question, we analyzed accident data from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the years 1994 through 1998. 

NTSB sometimes assigns more than one cause to accidents. To facilitate 

the classification of accidents by the type of error involved in the accident, 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

we limited our analysis to the first cause cited. This approach followed the 

classification used in a previous study done for FAA. We categorized the 

causes according to a framework developed for FAA that distinguished 

among deficiencies in procedural knowledge, perceptual and motor skills, 

and decision-making.4

 In addition, we reviewed studies and reports on the 

causes of general aviation accidents, including FAA accident data from 

1982 through 1998. Finally, we interviewed the group of experts we had 

found on general aviation safety.

We conducted our work from December 1999 through May 2001 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

4

Judgement Evaluation and Instruction in Civil Pilot Training, Jensen, R.S. and R.A. 

Benel (FAA-RD-78-24, December 1977).
Page 24 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing Chapte2r

General aviation reached a peak in the late 1970s as indicated by factors 

such as aircraft production, pilot activity, and hours flown. This peak was 

followed by a long downturn that persisted through most of the 1980s and 

the early 1990s and has been attributed to high manufacturing costs 

associated with product liability issues as well as other factors. GARA was 

enacted in 1994 with the goal of revitalizing the industry by limiting 

product liability costs. Trends in general aviation since GARA was enacted 

suggest that since the law went into effect, liability costs have been less 

burdensome to manufacturers, shipments of new aircraft have increased, 

and technological advances have been made. Indicators of general aviation 

activity, such as the numbers of hours flown and active pilots, have also 

risen in the years since GARA, but their growth has not been as marked as 

the growth in manufacturing. Our group of experts noted that a number of 

factors in addition to GARA contributed to the rebound of manufacturing 

and other indicators of general aviation activity. These experts also noted a 

number of factors that may be continuing to slow the growth in flying 

activity indicators as compared with manufacturing indicators. FAA 

forecasts continued growth for all areas of general aviation.

Pre-GARA Slump in 

Manufacturing 

Attributed to Liability 

Concerns and Other 

Factors

During the 15 years preceding the enactment of GARA in 1994, indicators of 

general aviation activity declined or remained flat, with the decline most 

pronounced in manufacturing. This downward trend was attributed to high 

aircraft manufacturing costs associated with product liability issues, a 

sluggish economy, and changes in lifestyle that reduced interest in general 

aviation flying.

Manufacturing and Activity 

Indicators Declined in the 

1980s and Early 1990s 

In the years prior to GARA, general aviation manufacturing indicators 

declined significantly. Aircraft shipments from U.S. manufacturers fell from 

18,000 in 1978 to 928 in 1994.1

 (See fig. 3.) Between 1980 and 1991, the 

number of employees working in general aviation manufacturing fell by 

almost half.

1

Shipments are the number of aircraft delivered by manufacturers to individual pilots, 

corporations, or aircraft distributors.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 25 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 3: Number of General Aviation Aircraft Shipped by U.S. Manufacturers, 1978 Through 2000

Source: GARA.

The downturn in general aviation manufacturing was reflected in other 

areas of the industry as well. The number of fixed-wing aircraft in the 

general aviation fleet dropped by more than one-quarter between 1984 and 

1994, from about 200,000 aircraft to about 150,000 aircraft.2

 The total 

number of active pilots also declined in this time period, with the number 

of pilots holding private certificates falling from about 320,000 in 1984 to 

about 284,000 in 1994. The decrease was even more noticeable in the 

number of student pilots, which fell from about 150,000 in 1980 to about 

96,000 in 1994, a decrease of more than a third. The number of hours flown 

in general aviation also declined. Total hours fell by 22 percent between 

2

The active general aviation fleet is defined as all aircraft registered with FAA that have 

flown at least 1 hour in a given year.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 26 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

1985 and 1994, with hours flown in the business segment falling by about 

half and hours flown in the corporate segment falling by more than a third. 

There was, however, limited growth in certain segments. Instructional and 

personal flying, for example, both were on the rise during the mid- and late 

1980s.

Pre-GARA Slump 

Attributed to Liability 

Issues, Other Costs, 

Economic 

Contributions, and 

Changes in Lifestyle

According to the experts we consulted and other industry observers, the 

escalating number of product liability lawsuits that general aviation 

manufacturers were subject to in the 1970s and 1980s adversely affected 

the industry. A study commissioned by the General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) in 1986 found that paid claims and out-of-pocket 

defense expenses for the entire U.S. general aviation industry3

 grew from 

$24 million a year in 1976 to $210 million a year in 1986. In 1987, the three 

major U.S. manufacturers of single-engine piston aircraft, Beech4

, Cessna, 

and Piper, said that their annual costs for product liability ranged from 

$70,000 to $100,000 for each aircraft built. The escalating costs associated 

with product liability were reflected in rising aircraft prices. Our experts 

rated the price of purchasing a new aircraft as the factor having the 

greatest impact on the decline of general aviation. The average price of a 

new, single-engine piston aircraft, which is a type of aircraft commonly 

used for personal flying, rose from just over $25,000 in 1975 to nearly 

$112,000 in 1990, an increase of over 105 percent in constant 1990 dollars. 

The increasing cost of operating an aircraft—including higher fuel prices 

and maintenance expenses—also served as a deterrent to some would-be 

pilots, according to our panel. 

Despite the increase in the price of new aircraft, the manufacturers did not 

offer important advances in safety features or technology, according to 

aviation experts. Moreover, there was a large supply of less-expensive used 

aircraft as a result of the thousands of single-engine piston aircraft that had 

been shipped each year during the 1970s and early 1980s. Considering that 

the useful life of these aircraft can be upwards of 30 years, consumers had 

little incentive to buy new ones. Amateur-built, or “kit,” airplanes were 

another option for consumers not in a position to spend $100,000 or more 

on a newly manufactured unit. From 1989 to 1992, kit airplanes accounted 

3

This includes manufacturers of airframes, power plants, propellers, avionics, and other 

components and parts used in general aviation aircraft.

4

Raytheon Aircraft acquired Beech Aircraft in 1995. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 27 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

for more new single-engine aircraft registrations than aircraft built by the 

traditional manufacturing sector. 

The experts that we consulted, as well as FAA and other general aviation 

experts, also noted that the health of the industry has traditionally been 

linked to the economy and that economic downturns played a role in the 

pre-GARA slump in general aviation manufacturing and activity indicators. 

Although the economy generally grew during the 1980s and early 1990s, 

there was a deep recession from 1981 through 1982, and there were two 

briefer recessions in 1980 and late 1990 through early 1991. Industry 

experts also said that other economic factors contributed to the decline in 

general aviation sales. For example, the investment tax credit, which had 

made aircraft ownership more affordable for businesses, was repealed. 

Finally, our experts noted that changes in lifestyle seem to have 

discouraged interest in general aviation flying. These experts state that 

many personal or recreational flyers had stopped flying out of concern that 

they had not flown sufficient hours to maintain their flying skills. Our 

experts also said that consumers who might have been candidates for 

general aviation activities have increasingly turned to other recreational 

pursuits, such as boating, skiing, or driving sports cars, which have the 

advantage of considerably lower licensing and training requirements and 

can have lower operating costs. Previous government research on general 

aviation manufacturing also noted that less expensive forms of 

entertainment may be attracting individuals who might otherwise take 

flying lessons. 

Post-GARA Trends in 

Manufacturing and 

Flying Activity Are 

Attributed to Mix of 

Reduced Liability 

Concerns, Continued 

High Prices, and Other 

Factors

Since the enactment of GARA, product liability concerns have fallen, and 

general aviation manufacturing indicators have surged. New 

manufacturers have entered the market, and manufacturers have put more 

resources into research and development for new technologies. General 

aviation activity indicators, such as hours flown and number of active 

pilots, have also increased since GARA, although less sharply. These 

positive trends have been attributed to a number of factors in addition to 

GARA, including a type of aircraft ownership called fractional ownership 

that allows businesses to share aircraft, and the strong economy. On the 

other hand, one expert has attributed the slowness of the rise in flying 

activity indicators and the continued high price of aircraft to the same 

lifestyle changes that contributed to the pre-GARA slump. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 28 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Trends Suggest That Since 

GARA, Product Liability 

Costs Have Fallen and 

Aircraft Manufacturing Has 

Rebounded

The Congress passed GARA in 1994 in an attempt to reverse the downward 

trends in general aviation manufacturing by limiting the financial burden 

created by product liability concerns. The expected benefits of reducing 

liability costs included enabling manufacturers to sell aircraft at lower 

prices and still achieve technological advances by devoting more resources 

to research and development. The law, which applies to aircraft with 20 or 

fewer seats, established an 18-year statute of repose for lawsuits against 

manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, parts, and components. Under 

this provision, no civil actions can be brought against a manufacturer for 

damages for death or injury arising out of an accident more than 18 years 

after the aircraft is delivered to a purchaser or after a new part or 

component is installed. Previously, lawsuits could be brought against 

manufacturers regardless of the age of the aircraft. Because today’s fleet of 

single-engine aircraft has an average life of 28 years, GARA eliminates the 

liability exposure for more than a third of an airplane’s average life. 

According to representatives of GAMA, the number of product liability 

lawsuits brought against general aviation aircraft and components 

manufacturers has decreased since the enactment of GARA. A 

representative of one major general aviation aircraft manufacturer told us 

that the number of open lawsuits this company was defending fell from a 

high of around 900 in the early 1980s to a present total of about 80. 

Spurred in part by reduced liability concerns, general aviation 

manufacturing has rebounded since the 1994 enactment of GARA. GAMA 

reported in 1999 that more than 25,000 new manufacturing jobs had been 

created since 1994. Shipments of new aircraft also increased, more than 

tripling between 1994 and 2000, from 928 to 2,816. The change was 

especially marked in piston aircraft, which increased nearly fourfold during 

that time period. (See fig. 4 for information on the number of piston and 

turbine aircraft shipped.) Much of this dramatic rise in piston aircraft 

shipments was due to the reentry of Cessna into the single-engine piston 

market, as well as the stepping-up of production by other manufacturers, 

such as Beech, that had drastically reduced their production during the 

height of their product liability problems. Cessna alone has shipped 3,000 

units since it reopened its single-engine piston production lines in 1996. 

Additionally, GAMA also reports that since the 1994 enactment of GARA, 

manufacturers have increased their investment in research and 

development by more than 150 percent and new companies have entered 

the market. However, the average price of new single-engine piston 

aircraft—the largest segment of the new fixed-wing aircraft market—has 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 29 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

continued to increase, even when the price is adjusted for inflation. 

Representatives of the general aviation manufacturing industry said that 

manufacturers are producing more high-end, technologically advanced 

aircraft than before GARA was enacted, which accounts, at least in part, for 

the increased average price. Industry representatives also said that this 

advanced technology is spurring more individuals and corporations to 

purchase new aircraft. 

Figure 4: Number of Piston and Turbine Fixed-Wing General Aviation Aircraft Shipped, 1984-2000

Source: GAMA.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 30 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Most Trends in General 

Aviation Activity Are Also 

Up, Although Less Sharply 

Than in Manufacturing 

Most indicators of general aviation activity have also risen since the 

enactment of GARA, although not as significantly as the manufacturingrelated trends. The size of the general aviation fleet has steadily increased, 

with increases particularly marked in turbine aircraft. The number of 

turbine aircraft grew 60 percent between 1994 and 1999, to almost 13,000; 

the number of piston aircraft grew 21 percent during the same period, to 

almost 172,000. Figure 5 provides details on the size of the general aviation 

fleet.

Figure 5: Size of General Aviation Active Fleet, 1985 Through1999

Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA’s annual survey of registered civil aircraft.

Source: FAA.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 31 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

The total number of hours flown in general aviation increased 32 percent 

between 1994 and 1999, to almost 32 million in 1999, the most recent year 

for which data are available.5

 However, this total number of hours flown is 

only now beginning to surpass the levels of the late 1980s; for example, in 

1989 the total number of hours flown was about 31 million. The four 

largest use categories—instructional, personal, business, and corporate—

also experienced net increases between 1994 and 1999. (See fig. 6.) 

Corporate flying had the greatest proportional growth, increasing 45 

percent during this time period. 

5

Due to changes in data collection procedures, the estimated number of general aviation 

hours flown prior to 1995 may not be comparable to data from 1995 and beyond. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 32 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 6: Number of General Aviation Hours Flown by Use Category, 1985 Through 1999

Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA’s annual survey of registered civil aircraft. Categories 

included in “Other” change from year to year due to changes in how FAA categorizes flight operations. 

The category “Other” in this figure includes the following operations every year except where noted: 

aerial application, aerial observation, external load (1993-1999 only), other work, sightseeing (1993-

1999 only), air taxi, air tours (1995-1999 only), medical use (1999 only), public use (1996-1999 only), 

rental (1985 only), aerial other (1999 only) and other (all years except 1999). The estimated number of 

general aviation hours flown prior to 1995 may not be comparable to data from 1995 and on due to 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 33 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

changes in data collection procedures.

Source: FAA.

The number of active private pilots—the largest single pilot category—

continued to decline for several years following the enactment of GARA, 

falling 13 percent between 1994 and 1998, while the number of student 

pilots increased marginally—1.5 percent—during this same time period. 

More recently, however, the number of pilots has shown signs of greater 

growth, with private pilots increasing about 5 percent and student pilots 

more than 6 percent between 1998 and 2000. (See fig. 7.) Some of this 

growth may be due to industry efforts to attract new pilots to general 

aviation, such as the “Be a Pilot” program, which provides low-cost initial 

flight lessons to those interested in becoming pilots. Another positive 

indicator of pilot growth is the proportion of private pilots with instrument 

ratings, which has increased from 17 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 1998.6

 

An instrument rating indicates that a pilot is able to fly without seeing the 

horizon or other visual landmarks; and industry association experts said 

that having an instrument rating may indicate that pilots have a serious, 

long-term interest in flying.

6

This figure includes pilots holding private certificates for airplanes, gliders, helicopters, or 

any combination thereof. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 34 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 7: Number of Active Pilots, by Certificate Type, 1984 Through 2000

Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA’s annual study of detailed airmen statistics. Holders of 

student and private certificates may fly only in general aviation activities. Holders of commercial and 

airline transport pilot certificates may fly in general aviation activities and in commercial aviation 

activities.

Source: FAA.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 35 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Rising Indicators Also 

Attributed to Fractional 

Ownership and Strong 

Economy

The experts we consulted said that a new system for aircraft ownership—

fractional ownership—has had the highest impact on the recent growth in 

general aviation. FAA also said that fractional ownership has had a 

significant impact on general aviation activity. Under this system, 

individuals or companies purchase a share in an aircraft—usually a 

business jet—for their occasional use. Unlike traditional time-share 

programs, in which several buyers purchase a single aircraft together and 

must coordinate schedules, fractional owners have full access to their 

aircraft, or a comparable one, with as little as 4 hours notice. Using a 

business aircraft under a fractional arrangement instead of a commercial 

airline allows a traveler to bypass major airports and to take advantage of 

the thousands of general aviation airports, which are less congested and 

more dispersed.

Fractional ownership has grown steadily since its introduction in the mid1980s. According to FAA, its growth is accelerating. In 1999, the number of 

individual and corporate fractional shareowners grew from 1,215 to 1,693, a 

39-percent increase, and the number of aircraft—primarily jets—in 

fractional programs grew from 253 to 370, a 46-percent increase. (See fig. 

8.) The parent corporation of one major airline, United Airlines, has 

announced its intention to operate a fractionally owned fleet of 200 

business jets. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 36 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 8: Number of Participants in Fractional Ownership Programs, 1986 Through 1999

Source: National Business Aviation Association.

Historically, most fractional ownership programs have operated under Part 

91, which regulates general aviation business activities. However, some 

programs operate under Part 135, which regulates on-demand and 

scheduled air transportation and has more stringent requirements. In 

response to the rapid growth of this sector, FAA initiated a review of 

fractional programs to determine if they are operating within the 

appropriate regulatory structure. The agency established an advisory 

rulemaking committee consisting of representatives of aircraft 

manufacturers, fractional owners and managers, and trade associations, 

among others. The committee reviewed current Federal Aviation 

Regulations regarding fractional ownership activity and developed a draft 

proposal that would require fractional ownership aircraft to operate under 

a new subpart of Part 91. This subpart would hold fractional ownership 

operators to higher standards of safety and accountability. FAA issued 

these changes in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 18, 2001, and 

expects to publish the final regulation sometime in 2002. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 37 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

The experts we consulted, as well as an FAA official, said that the 

flourishing economy of the mid- and late-1990s was instrumental in the 

renewal of general aviation. According to FAA, the expanding U.S. 

economy and increased consumer confidence in the years since 1992 

appear to have stabilized or pushed utilization rates up.7 One member of 

our group of experts said that the favorable economic conditions made 

businesses more willing to invest in productivity tools, such as business 

jets. A representative of a major general aviation aircraft manufacturer 

said that while GARA undoubtedly provided a boost to general aviation 

manufacturing, economic growth was also instrumental to the rebound. 

The increase in new aircraft sales can also be attributed to an increase in 

the number of corporations with flight departments, according to FAA. The 

National Business Aviation Association reports that the number of 

businesses in the United States that have flight departments grew 28 

percent between 1994 and 1999. (See fig. 9.)

7

Utilization rates refer to the average number of hours flown per aircraft in the active fleet. 
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 38 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 9: U.S. Flight Departments Operating Fixed-Wing Aircraft, 1990 Through 1999

Source: National Business Aviation Association.

More Restrained Growth in 

Other Activity Indicators 

Attributed to Cost and 

Lifestyle Factors 

With regard to the reasons that general aviation flying activity indicators 

did not increase at the same rate as the manufacturing indicators, one of 

our group of experts noted that the increased prices of aircraft may still be 

dampening general aviation activity. In addition, the lifestyle and choice 

issues contributing to the earlier decline in the industry were not directly 

addressed by liability reform or even an improved economy. Another 

expert noted that changes in lifestyle and attitudes have continued to 

reduce public interest in taking up general aviation flying.
Chapter 2

Post-GARA Growth Strongest in 

Manufacturing

Page 39 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

FAA Forecasts 

Continued Growth in 

General Aviation

Each year, FAA convenes panels of experts in aviation and develops 

forecasts for future activity in all areas of aviation, including general 

aviation. FAA’s most recent forecast predicts continued growth in all of the 

aspects of general aviation activity that it analyzes. FAA expects the 

general aviation aircraft fleet to increase at an average annual rate of 0.9 

percent during the 13-year forecast period, with the number of active 

aircraft increasing from 219,464 in 1999 to 245,965 in 2012.8

 The fleet of 

turbine aircraft is expected to increase at a greater rate than the fleet of 

piston aircraft; as a result, the number of piston aircraft, while continuing 

to increase, is expected to represent a smaller percentage of the total 

general aviation fleet. FAA attributes this shift toward turbine aircraft to 

the success of fractional ownership, the introduction of new types of 

turbine aircraft that have piqued buyer interest, strong U.S. and global 

economies, and a transition from commercial air travel to 

corporate/business air travel by many business travelers and corporations. 

FAA forecasts that the number of hours flown will increase 2.1 percent 

annually, with the growth concentrated in the turbojet segment, which FAA 

predicts to increase at an annual rate of 7 percent. FAA also predicts that 

the pilot population will continue to increase at an annual rate of 2 percent 

for the 13-year forecast period.9

 FAA attributes the projected increase to 

U.S. economic growth as well as to industrywide programs designed to 

recruit new pilots to general aviation. The number of student pilots is 

expected to increase 2.7 percent annually—the highest rate of the general 

aviation pilot categories. Private pilots are projected to increase 1.4 

percent annually. 

8

FAA’s aviation forecast is based on several assumptions, including continuous moderate 

economic growth in the United States and worldwide, no changes in the regulations 

affecting general aviation, no new user fees or changes in access to airports and airspace, 

improved flight school infrastructure, increased effectiveness on the part of the industry in 

keeping consumers interested in aviation, success of new products entering the market, and 

continued expansion of fractional ownership.

9

This figure includes all pilot categories: student, recreational, glider, private, commercial, 

helicopter, and airline transport.
Page 40 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure Chapte3r

The amount of federal funding available for capital development at general 

aviation airports has consistently been below what has been requested by 

airport officials to support their airports’ planned projects. In order to 

allocate available funding, FAA prioritizes the types of projects that it 

considers most important. The fiscal year 2001 Department of 

Transportation Appropriations Act increased funding for general aviation 

airports in general and for particular types of projects, but funding will still 

be short of what is requested for eligible projects. Experts with whom we 

spoke had differing opinions on the adequacy of current facilities at general 

aviation airports and the future development needs of these airports. 

Federal Funding for 

Capital Development at 

General Aviation 

Airports Falls Short of 

Requests for Eligible 

Projects

General aviation airports receive funding for capital development from 

multiple sources, including state governments and the sale of bonds. The 

largest single source of funding is grants from the federal government. 

However, there is not enough federal money available to fund all planned 

projects; the annual capital development that has been planned for these 

airports and that is eligible for federal funding would cost at least $884 

million more than the federal funding provided in 2000. Recognizing that 

not all projects will receive funding, FAA’s funding system gives priority to 

certain kinds of projects, such as repairing runways and removing 

obstructions from landing areas.

AIP Funding Is Insufficient 

to Cover Eligible Projects

During the past few years, we have reported and testified on future funding 

shortfalls for the nation’s airports.1

 The planned capital development for 

general aviation airports that is eligible for federal funding is estimated to 

be about $1.2 billion per year, or more than $884 million per year more than 

airports received in federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds in 

2000.2

 Additional support received from the airports’ sale of bonds and 

from state grants still leaves airports with a funding shortfall. (See fig. 10.) 

1

See General Aviation Airports: Oversight and Funding (GAO/T-RCED-99-214, June 1999); 

and Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development (GAO/RCED-98-71, 

Mar. 1998). 

2

AIP grants are made available from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is financed 

by taxes on domestic and international airline travel, domestic cargo transported by air, and 

aviation fuel. FAA allocates most AIP grants on the basis of (1) a legislated apportionment 

formula and (2) discretionary spending approved by FAA based on project priority and 

other selection criteria. Discretionary spending is also subject to set-asides and other 

spending criteria.
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 41 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Moreover, many airports have other projects planned that are not eligible 

for AIP funding and therefore are not reflected in figure 10. In fiscal year 

2000, for example (the most recent year for which these data are available), 

general aviation airports had an additional $494 million in planned projects 

that were not eligible for federal funding, such as the construction of 

hangars and maintenance buildings. 

Figure 10: 2000 Funding Compared With Annual Planned Development Costs for 

General Aviation Airports, 1997 Through 2001 

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from FAA and Thompson Financial.

Estimates Do Not Fully 

Represent Future Funding 

Costs

While estimates of future capital development costs are useful indicators of 

possible future development activity, the actual level and types of 

development that occur are likely to be different for a number of reasons. 

Estimates of development created by FAA and others are based on airports’ 

master plans, the accuracy of which diminishes beyond 3 to 5 years into the 

future, and these projections tend to underestimate actual construction 

costs. In addition, the development anticipated by airports’ master plans 

may not reflect the concurrence of local communities. The availability of 

funds also affects actual capital spending. For example, because general 
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 42 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

aviation airports especially rely on AIP grants, they are sensitive to changes 

in their availability. Finally, airports’ master plans may not anticipate all 

future costs, such as meeting new regulatory requirements or responding 

to unanticipated changes in demand for air travel. 

FAA’s Priority System 

Allocates Resources 

According to Established 

Priorities and Qualitative 

Judgments

To receive federal funding, airports must submit their plans for future 

development to FAA. Each airport’s plan describes the development 

projects for the next 5 years and links the development to the current use 

and condition of the airport as well as forecasted aviation activity. In 

preparing their plans, airports also may take into consideration their state’s 

airport system plan, which identifies the location and scale of development 

that is considered necessary to satisfy the state’s need for air 

transportation. FAA reviews airports’ plans and enters eligible projects 

into a national database that FAA uses to make decisions about the 

allocation of discretionary funds. 

Figure 11: Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Queen City Municipal Airport, Allentown, 

Pennsylvania

Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 43 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 12: Facilities at Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas City, Missouri

Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

To help determine which projects will receive funding, FAA uses a system 

that categorizes airport development in accordance with the agency’s goals 

and objectives. In assigning priority, the system takes into consideration 

the type of airport, the purpose of the work,3

 the physical component of the 

work (e.g., a runway, building, apron, and so forth), and the type of work 

(that is, the specific project being done, such as construction, purchasing a 

fire-fighting vehicle, or making security improvements). The system favors 

projects that address the safety and security requirements found in federal 

regulations and guidance. These requirements apply to relatively few 

general aviation airports, however. Projects that have been given statutory 

emphasis receive the second-highest degree of emphasis. This category 

consists of airport development items included in federal law, such as 

runway grooving, friction treatment, and taxiway lighting.4

 Again, few of 

3

The purpose categories are safety and security, statutory emphasis, reconstruction and 

rehabilitation, environment, planning, capacity, standards, and other. 

4

U.S.C. 49 Sec. 47101(f)
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 44 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

these requirements tend to apply to general aviation airports. The priority 

rating is intended to be used in conjunction with qualitative factors to 

select airport development projects. Qualitative factors that FAA considers 

include state and local priorities, environmental issues, the impact on 

safety and performance, and airport growth. 

Increased Federal 

Funding Will Benefit 

General Aviation 

Airports

FAA’s 5-year authorization increases the level of federal assistance for 

capital development projects at general aviation airports. The fiscal year 

2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act gave significantly 

greater funding to airport projects in general; and provisions of the Wendell 

H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21, 

P.L. 106-181), passed by the Congress in April 2000, provided more of these 

monies specifically to general aviation airport projects. Several of these 

changes affect the Airport Improvement Program, including an increase in 

the authorized level of AIP funding, automatic funding to all airports with 

project requests if appropriations reach a certain level, and the possibility 

of an increase in funding from federal money redirected from large 

commercial airports. 

AIR 21 will increase AIP funding from $2.47 billion in fiscal year 2000 to 

$3.4 billion in fiscal year 2003.5

 Additionally, certain funding provisions take 

effect when total AIP funding for a given year is $3.2 billion or more.6

 One 

of these provisions allocates funding to all nonprimary airports—a 

category that includes general aviation airports—based on the lesser of 20 

percent of the cost of development they have planned for a 5-year period as 

published in the NPIAS, an annual entitlement of $150,000.7

 Another 

provision allocates additional funding to general aviation airports that are 

designated relievers for congested commercial airports.8

5

U.S.C. 49 Sec. 48103

6

The amount of AIP funding authorized in 2001 was reduced from $3.2 billion to $3.19 

billion. However, the $3.2 billion minimum requirement for certain funding provisions to 

take effect was suspended for fiscal year 2001, allowing the provisions to take effect. 

7

U.S.C. 49 Sec. 47114(d)

8

U.S.C. 49 Sec. 47117(e)(1); see Airport Improvement Program: Reliever Airport Set-Aside 

Funds Could Be Redirected (GAO/RCED-94-226, June 1994) for additional information on 

the relationship between reliever airports and congestion at commercial airports.
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 45 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Other changes to AIP include additional aid in the form of federal support 

turned back by large and medium hub airports.9

 AIR 21 allows large and 

medium hub airports to increase their passenger facility charges, but if they 

do, they must return a larger portion of their AIP entitlement funds to FAA, 

which could redistribute the funds among other airports. FAA officials 

estimate that under this provision, the amount of AIP money available for 

general aviation airports could increase as much as $50 million to $90 

million per year. 

The additional federal aid available under AIR 21 will make up part of the 

shortfall between planned development and available funding. However, 

even with the approximately $628 million in AIP awards for general 

aviation airports proposed for fiscal year 2001 (an increase of $286 million 

from fiscal 2000 funding), a 54-percent gap will still exist between funding 

and the full cost of AIP-eligible capital development projects. This 

indicates that about half of these projects will have to be funded by other 

means, postponed, or abandoned. While updated figures for state funding 

and bond proceeds are not similarly available, it is likely that a substantial 

difference remains between the amount of available funding and the 

projects proposed. 

Experts Cite Several 

Issues Related to 

General Aviation 

Airport Infrastructure 

The group of general aviation experts we spoke with brought up several 

issues related to general aviation infrastructure. Several were concerned 

with airport closings; one industry association recommended longer 

runways, and a different expert recommended that airports include 

development related to accommodating aircraft with new technologies.

According to some of the organizations we interviewed as well as some of 

our experts, attention needs to be focused on maintaining the existing 

network of airports. For example, several of the groups and experts we 

spoke with expressed concern about community pressure to close general 

aviation airports. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), an 

organization representing general aviation users, has been involved in 

efforts to keep general aviation airports open and to prevent incompatible 

zoning and land use around existing airports. AOPA—through its Airport 

Support Network—is monitoring a number of general aviation airports at 

which local opposition has led to efforts or plans for closure or operating 

9

U.S.C. 49 Secs. 40117(b) and 47114(f).
Chapter 3

Airport Infrastructure

Page 46 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

restrictions, including Meigs Field in Chicago, San Carlos Airport in 

California, and Lantana Airport in Florida. 

Officials of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the 

National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) also said that they 

are interested in the issue of airport closures.10 They said they have been 

seeing a greater resistance to airports by the public, including efforts to 

close airports—particularly privately owned airports—as a way of reducing 

noise in residential areas and obtaining large parcels of open land for 

revenue-generating development. As we previously reported, some airport 

authorities and localities have converted portions of their airports to 

nonairport use, often in violation of the terms of FAA’s grants to the 

airports.11

Some experts also said that potential changes in the composition of the 

fleet of general aviation aircraft may require alterations to airports. For 

example, one industry association expressed an opinion that, in order to 

accommodate the expected continued growth in the number of business 

jets, general aviation airports would need to build more long runways and 

install precision navigation equipment to enable all-weather landings and 

takeoffs. Representatives of the National Air Transportation Association, 

an organization representing airport service providers, said that such 

improvements are necessary for communities that want to take advantage 

of the economic opportunities and benefits that come with being able to 

accommodate business aviation operations. Several members of our panel 

agreed that there will be a need for longer runways at more airports if 

growth continues in the business jet segment. In addition, one member 

said improvements would be needed to handle the technologically 

advanced aircraft that he believes will become an increasingly large part of 

the general aviation fleet. One example he cited was NASA’s Small Aircraft 

Transportation System, which would rely on technological improvements 

to make greater use of small aircraft for personal and business 

transportation between smaller airports. To accommodate this system, 

airports would need to be equipped to enable approaches using global 

positioning systems (GPS).

10NASAO represents state government officials charged with administering aviation 

programs, and NBAA represents organizations that own or operate aircraft in the conduct of 

their business.

11See General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for Improved 

Oversight and Enforcement (GAO/RCED-99-109, May 7, 1999). 
Page 47 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety Chapte4r

The safety of general aviation, for which FAA has oversight responsibility, 

has been improving. However, the accident rate for general aviation 

remains about 24 times higher than for scheduled commercial aviation. 

The accident rate for general aviation varies by segment. For some 

segments, it rivals that of scheduled commercial aviation; for other 

segments, it is considerably higher. More than two-thirds of general 

aviation accidents, both fatal and nonfatal, are caused by pilot error, 

including mistakes related to procedure, skill, and judgment. FAA works 

independently and with other federal agencies and industry organizations 

to improve the safety of general aviation through training, technology, and 

procedures. Many of its current efforts involve research whose findings 

FAA considers for developing regulations and other guidance that enhance 

safety.

Accident Rate for 

General Aviation Is 

Improving but Is Still 

Higher Than for 

Scheduled Commercial 

Aviation

Safety has improved more in general aviation than in scheduled 

commercial aviation. Although the safety record of scheduled commercial 

airlines remains better than that for general aviation, the accident rate for 

general aviation has been declining more rapidly than that of scheduled 

commercial airlines. Furthermore, accident rates vary among segments of 

general aviation. The accident rate for the corporate segment, which is 

close to the accident rate for scheduled commercial aviation, is the lowest, 

while the accident rate for the personal segment is the highest. Because of 

this variance in accident rates among segments of general aviation, the 

safety trend for general aviation as a whole may be affected by differences 

in the growth rate of different segments. Experts cite multiple reasons for 

disparities in accident rates. These reasons include differences in pilot 

training and experience, in the use of technology, and in flying patterns.

Safety of General Aviation 

Has Improved More Rapidly 

Than Safety of Scheduled 

Commercial Aviation

In 1998, the accident rate for general aviation—the number of accidents per 

100,000 flight hours—was about 24 times higher that for scheduled 

commercial airlines, accounting for 97 percent of the accidents and 99 

percent of the deaths. However, general aviation’s fatal accident rate has 

been dropping more quickly than commercial aviation’s. From 1982 

through 1998, the commercial accident rate remained stable at about 0.20 

accidents per 100,000 flight hours, as shown in figure 11. (The number of 

fatalities fluctuated sharply because of variations in the number of deaths 

associated with individual airline crashes.)
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 48 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 13: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for Scheduled Commercial Aviation, 1982 Through 1998

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

During the same period, the total accident rate for general aviation 

declined from 10.4 per 100,000 flight hours in 1982 to 7.1 per 100,000 flight 

hours in 1998 (see fig. 12).1

1

The slope of the trend line for the scheduled commercial aviation accident rate is .00 versus 

-.12 for general aviation for the period 1982 through 1999.
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 49 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 14: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for General Aviation, 1982 Through 1998

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

In 1999, there were 312 general aviation accidents, which resulted in 559 

fatalities, 15 of which occurred to bystanders on the ground, not 

passengers in an airplane (see fig. 13). 
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 50 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 15: Number of Accidents, Fatal and Fatalities in General Aviation, 1982 

Through 1998

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

Accident Rates Vary Among 

Segments of General 

Aviation 

Some types of general aviation flying are riskier than others (see fig. 14). 

Personal flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure or personal 

transportation and not for business purposes, accounted for only about 

one-third of total general aviation hours flown in 1998 but accounted for 

almost three-quarters of fatal accidents. Corporate flying, which involves 

the use of aircraft owned by a corporate firm and flown by professional 

pilots, accounted for about 10 percent of total general aviation hours but 

accounted for no fatal accidents. Business flying, in which pilots use 
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 51 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

aircraft in connection with their occupation or private business, accounted 

for 14 percent of total general aviation hours but accounted for only 5 

percent of fatal accidents. Because accident rates vary so significantly by 

segment, the safety trend for general aviation may be affected by 

differences in the growth rate of different segments. Growth is projected 

to occur much faster in the turbine aircraft fleet, used almost exclusively 

for corporate flying, than in single-engine piston aircraft, used mostly for 

personal and recreational flying (see ch. 2). If this projection is correct, the 

safety record of general aviation may improve because of the lower 

accident rates associated with corporate flying.
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 52 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 16: Figure 14: Accident Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for General Aviation, by Segment, 1986 Through 1998

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 53 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Experts Cite Multiple 

Reasons for Disparities in 

Accident Rates

Experts attribute the differences between the accident rates for 

commercial and general aviation, and among those for the different 

segments of general aviation, to a number of factors, including training, 

experience, technology, and procedures. An analysis of these factors 

shows that the corporate segment of general aviation is more closely 

aligned to scheduled commercial aviation than to the recreational segment 

of general aviation. Scheduled commercial aviation pilots and general 

aviation pilots who fly in the corporate segment are highly trained, tend to 

fly on nearly every day, and may be required to take ongoing training to 

maintain and improve their skills. FAA data show general aviation pilots 

flying for personal or recreational purposes, on the other hand, average 

only 30 hours of flight time per year and are subject to few recurrent 

training requirements. In addition to differences in pilots’ skills, 

differences in aircraft, according to one expert, affect accident rates. The 

aircraft flown by commercial and corporate pilots generally have more 

cockpit resources to compensate for events that may threaten safety. 

According to experts, most flying in commercial aviation and the corporate 

segment of general aviation involves cruising at high altitudes, a phase of 

flight during which few accidents occur. Some general aviation flying may 

be inherently riskier than other general aviation flying; agricultural 

spraying, for example, involves flying low to the ground and maneuvering 

at slow speeds, actions that have been shown to be involved in a high 

proportion of accidents. Overall, FAA subjects scheduled commercial 

aviation to more oversight and regulation than general aviation because of 

its need to ensure the safety of consumers who cannot ensure their own 

safety. For example, while FAA regulations restrict the use of drugs and 

alcohol for all pilots, the agency regulates the number of consecutive hours 

flown and the pilot’s age for airline pilots. Additionally, airlines monitor 

pilots’ behavior to ensure compliance with both FAA regulations and their 

own safety rules. There are no such controls for the majority of general 

aviation pilots.

Pilot Error Is Involved 

in Most General 

Aviation Accidents

According to our analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

accident data, 80 percent of the fatal accidents and 72 percent of the 

nonfatal accidents that occurred between 1994 and 1998 involved pilot 

error. Experts estimate that between 60 and 80 percent of general aviation 

accidents are associated with pilot error. Alternatively, mechanical failures 

were involved in 13 percent of the fatal accidents and 25 percent of the 

nonfatal accidents. The remaining accidents were due to other factors, 
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 54 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

such as mistakes by air traffic control. Figures 15 and 16 provide the 

distribution of common errors contributing to fatal and nonfatal accidents. 

Figure 17: Causes of Fatal Accidents 

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

Figure 18: Causes of Nonfatal Accidents

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 55 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

The mistakes that pilots make involve errors in following procedures, using 

skills correctly, or in judgment. Overall, skill-related errors resulted in 52 

percent of the fatal accidents (see fig. 17). Skill-related errors, which cause 

most accidents, include such problems as failing to maintain flying speed; 

misjudging distance, altitude, or clearance; or failing to maintain control of 

the aircraft (see table 3). 

Table 3: Percentage of Fatal and Nonfatal Accidents Caused by Selected Types of Pilot Error

Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

Error Description Fatal Nonfatal

Procedural errors

Running out of fuel or failing to 

clear blocked fuel line

An airplane’s engine stops due to lack of fuel, either 

because all available fuel on board the airplane has been 

depleted or because the fuel supply has been interrupted.

Not significant 10.4

Skill errors

Failure to maintain flying speed The aircraft slows so much that it can no longer maintain lift. 

Also commonly known as a stall. 

16.0 Not significant

Misjudged distance, altitude, or 

clearance

These can result in controlled flight into terrain, which is 

when an airworthy aircraft is flown into terrain or another 

obstacle without the pilot’s being aware of the impending 

collision. 

13.8 13.7

Failure to maintain directional 

control

Accidents resulting from situations in which the pilot should 

have maintained or regained control of the aircraft but did 

not. 

9.6 14.8

Judgment errors

Continued flight into low-visibility 

conditions without proper 

training or equipment

Many of these accidents occurred when pilots who did not 

have an instrument rating attempted to fly into conditions 

with greatly reduced visibility, such as fog or clouds, 

otherwise known as instrument-meteorological conditions 

(IMC). 

11.4 Not significant

Inadequate preflight planning Preflight planning includes a number of activities, such as 

ensuring the airplane’s load is within proper weight limits 

and is properly distributed, determining that the runway 

length is adequate, calculating how much fuel will be 

needed for the flight, and checking weather briefings.

Not significant 12.6
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 56 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

To Reduce Pilot Error 

and Improve Safety, 

FAA Works With 

Others to Improve 

Training, Technology, 

and Procedures 

FAA works to improve the safety of general aviation in a variety of 

initiatives with other federal agencies and industry organizations. One 

broad initiative, Safer Skies, was developed with the general aviation 

industry to improve the safety record of commercial and general aviation. 

FAA and the other groups involved research ways to reduce pilot error and 

the common types of accidents and make recommendations to improve 

safety. FAA must decide whether to implement these recommendations 

through voluntary programs, official guidance, or regulations. Most 

initiatives and recommendations seek to enhance safety through 

improvements in three areas: training, technology, and the procedures that 

are designed to govern operations such as takeoffs, landings, and flight 

patterns.

FAA Works With Other 

Agencies and Industry 

Associations on Safety 

Initiatives

FAA works with a number of federal agencies and industry-related 

organizations on research initiatives designed to identify changes to 

current standards for training, technology, or procedures that would 

improve the safety of general aviation. The federal agencies include the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigates air 

crashes and recommends regulatory changes based on the results of its 

investigations; and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration 

(NASA), which has researched and developed technological advances to 

make aircraft more desirable and safer. Industry associations involved in 

safety efforts with FAA include the Airline Owners and Pilots’ Association 

(AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the National 

Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and the General Aviation 

Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA). FAA has the responsibility of 

implementing the conclusions and recommendations from researchoriented efforts through voluntary programs, official guidance, or 

regulations. 

One of the recent initiatives FAA has developed with other federal agencies 

and industry, Safer Skies, has the mission of reducing the accident rates in 

both commercial and general aviation. Regarding general aviation, FAA’s 

goal in Safer Skies is to decrease the number of fatal general aviation 

accidents by 20 percent in 2007. As we previously reported, this 20-percent 

goal represents 350 fatal accidents in 2007, only 4 fewer than the 354 that 
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 57 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

took place in 1999.2 (Using FAA’s forecasted flight hours for 2007 of 

30,500,000, this goal represents a fatal accident rate of 1.15 per 100,000.) In 

our previous report, we noted that this goal may not challenge the general 

aviation community enough to continue the kinds of safety improvements 

that have led to previous reductions in accidents. 

To achieve this reduction in general aviation fatal accidents, experts 

involved in the initiative are to jointly analyze U.S. and global data to 

identify the most serous threats to aviation safety and to find the root 

causes of accidents. The experts will then determine the best actions to 

reduce accidents and direct resources to those actions. Because the 

primary cause of accidents is pilot error, many of FAA’s efforts to improve 

the general aviation industry’s safety record focus on ways to prevent or 

mitigate those errors. For example, additional training can address 

deficiencies in training and experience; technological innovations can 

reduce the need for pilots to take certain difficult or risky actions; and 

procedural measures can help coordinate and manage the various takeoff, 

flying, and landing patterns that may threaten safety.

As a result of the ongoing work of Safer Skies, FAA, NTSB, NASA, and 

industry associations have also formed a General Aviation Data 

Improvement Team (GADIT) to gather better data on general aviation 

accidents. This initiative was formed to address complaints about a lack of 

data on the causes of general aviation accidents and incidents, especially 

those involving human error. In addition, this team will develop strategies 

for (1) improving the quality and timeliness of estimates of general aviation 

activity and (2) measuring the effectiveness of the various Safer Skies 

interventions.

FAA and Other Groups 

Work to Improve Safety 

Through Better Training

FAA first oversees the safety of general aviation through the requirements 

of the pilot certification process described in chapter 1. Beyond these 

initial requirements for pilot certification, FAA has only one ongoing 

training requirement for maintaining this certification—the biennial flight 

review. The biennial flight review is designed to assess a pilot’s knowledge 

and skills over time and is required of all general aviation pilots. During 

this review, a certified flight instructor accompanies a pilot on a flight and 

provides assistance or guidance if any weaknesses in the pilot’s abilities are 

2

Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial Steps to Reduce Accident Rates 

by 2007 (GAO/RCED-00-111, June 28, 2000).
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 58 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

identified. There is no curriculum for the flight review, such as 

requirements for what types of skills are to be assessed. However, FAA’s 

guidance does state that, at a minimum, the following factors should be 

considered: the type of equipment flown by the pilot, the nature of the flight 

operations, and the amount and recency of the pilot’s flight experience.3

 

After the review, the person who gave the review must endorse the pilot’s 

logbook to certify that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the flight 

review.

FAA also develops continuing education programs through its Aviation 

Safety Program and encourages pilots to take advantage of them. These 

programs are voluntary, and pilots may participate in as many or as few as 

they choose. One such option is the Back to Basics program, which 

provides written and video materials on takeoffs, landings, and other 

critical flight maneuvers. FAA also offers safety seminars, administered by 

its Flight Standards district offices. Experienced pilots and certified flight 

instructors cover a range of topics, such as global positioning system 

devices, flight psychology, the use of over-the-counter medication, runway 

incursions, mountain flying, and winter flying. AOPA’s Flight Safety 

Foundation also conducts seminars and courses throughout the United 

States on a variety of safety topics. 

FAA also influences safety through its certification procedures for flight 

instructors. For example, in 1998, FAA initiated a program in Orlando, FL, 

to reduce training accidents and incidents involving flight instructors by 

providing more direct FAA involvement in flight training. This program 

increased surveillance at some flight schools, reexamined flight instructors 

who failed to meet their instructional responsibilities, and assigned FAA 

inspectors to conduct all initial tests for the certification of flight 

instructors. Over 2 years, this program was associated with a 60-percent 

reduction in accidents and incidents during training of pilots. The program 

has a national influence because instructors who participate in it teach 

throughout the country.

Although FAA’s and AOPA’s safety seminars cover a number of issues that 

contribute to general aviation accidents, they are voluntary, and many 

pilots may never choose to receive this additional training. An FAA 

evaluation of the agency’s safety seminars indicated that approximately 

3

FAA’s guidance is described in Advisory Circular 61-89A, “Currency and Additional 

Qualification Requirements for Certificated Pilots.”
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 59 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

one-third of pilots surveyed had not attended a seminar during the previous 

year and that only half regularly attend the seminars. In part, as a result of 

these findings, FAA is developing additional means of providing continuing 

education to pilots such as developing computer-based training courses 

and providing safety information on the Internet. 

In addition to establishing training requirements and offering continuing 

education opportunities, FAA works to research training improvements 

that might eventually be integrated into required or recommended training. 

For example, some experts believe that current training methods do not 

sufficiently emphasize the ability to integrate information quickly, an ability 

that is crucial in emergency situations. According to one FAA official, 

many accidents might have been avoided if the pilot had recognized which 

skills were called for by the unfolding situation.

FAA and other experts have conducted studies on this issue that suggest 

that the use of personal computer-based aviation training devices (PCATD) 

that resemble an aircraft’s cockpit can help pilots learn to integrate 

information quickly. These computer-based devices permit instructors to 

preselect emergency situations that require the rapid recognition of a 

problem and integration of skills needed to solve it. Exposing students to 

many of these situations would be too dangerous to do in aircraft but could 

easily be done with PCATDs. Training pilots to react to emergency 

situations in simulators is the training approach used by the commercial 

airlines. Moreover, there is some evidence that the use of PCATDs can 

decrease the time needed to acquire particular skills. As we reported, as a 

result of these studies, FAA approved the limited use of PCATD for private 

license certification.4

In March 2000, the Weather Joint Safety Implementation Team of Safer 

Skies released implementation plans for reducing weather-related 

accidents in general aviation through changes in the training curriculum for 

both initial and ongoing training. The intent of the plan is to place 

emphasis during training on the use of knowledge in realistic and dynamic 

aviation settings. The curriculum changes are based on scenario training 

and assessment that will test not only how much a pilot knows about 

current weather products but also how well the pilot applies that 

knowledge. A similar Safer Skies training effort will target accidents 

4

Aviation Safety: Research Supports Limited Use of Personal Computer Aviation 

Training Devices for Pilots (GAO/RCED-99-143, July 12, 1999).
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 60 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

caused by controlled flight into terrain, which occurs when a pilot flies an 

airworthy aircraft into terrain or another obstacle without being aware of 

the impending collision. Table 4 shows key recommendations that have 

recently been developed by groups working on improving safety through 

improving training procedures.

Table 4: Selected New or Modified Safety Recommendations Related to Training 

Source: GAO analysis.

FAA and Others Also Seek 

to Improve Safety Through 

Researching and Developing 

Technology

In 1994, NASA created through the Advanced General Aviation Transport 

Experiment (AGATE), a consortium of industry, higher education, and 

government entities, including FAA, to develop advanced technologies for 

general aviation. Some of AGATE’s efforts have focused on increasing both 

the accessibility and development of technological innovations that can 

counter causes of accident and increase safety. For example, advanced 

cockpit displays permit pilots to visually fly predetermined courses without 

depending on instruments to maintain direction and orientation. Similarly, 

graphical displays allow pilots to determine the location and severity of 

weather hazards and make easily accessible the information needed to 

control the aircraft. These innovations should help pilots avoid several 

types of accidents, including controlled flight into terrain and accidents 

that are weather-related and/or involve loss of control of the aircraft. 

This initiative also works to develop equipment that will lower the risk of 

injury or death in the event of an accident. Some manufacturers have 

Source Selected recommendations

Safer Skies Enhance the biennial flight review and/or instrument competency check.

Improve pilot training (i.e., weather briefing, equipment, decision-making, wire and tower 

avoidance, and human factors).

Develop and distribute mountain flying technique advisory material

AOPA Enhance requirements for initial training to include instruction in flying in marginal weather 

conditions and topics relating to weather awareness.

Enhance requirements for the biennial flight review to include competence in (1) reading and 

interpreting aviation weather reports and forecasts, (2) obtaining in-flight weather information, 

and (3) explaining various adverse weather conditions and strategies for avoiding them.

NTSB Establish a cooperative program that encourages the training of pilots who are transitioning 

from one type of airplane to an unfamiliar type.
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 61 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

already begun using these advanced technologies in their aircraft. The 

Cirrus S-20 aircraft, for example, has an attached parachute that can be 

deployed to enhance passenger survivability in the event of a stall and 

equipment malfunction. 
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 62 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Figure 19: Cirrus S-20 Airplane With Deployed Parachute
Chapter 4

General Aviation Safety

Page 63 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Source: Cirrus Design.

Safer Skies has also developed recommendations geared toward improving 

safety through changes in the development and use of technology. These 

recommendations include promoting the development and use of a lowcost terrain clearance and/or look-ahead device; developing new mountain 

and low-altitude airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance 

(CNS) infrastructure; adapting global positioning satellites for general 

aviation navigation; and removing regulatory impediments, such as 

certification processes for new equipment, that slow the integration of new 

technologies into aircraft.

While technological advances have the potential to dramatically reduce 

some types of accidents, there is often a significant lag time between the 

research phase and the time when technological advances reduce the 

overall accident rate. First, the technology must be developed. Then, after 

the technology is available for use in aircraft, the current fleet of aviation 

aircraft must be retrofitted with the technology. Without regulations 

requiring that aircraft be retrofitted, the cost of retrofitting equipment in 

the current fleet or replacing older aircraft may also delay the deployment 

of these new technologies. Additionally, once new technology is widely 

available, pilots will require additional training in its use.

Recent Efforts Also Seek to 

Improve Safety Through 

Procedural Measures

Finally, Safer Skies also developed recommendations to enhance the safety 

of general aviation through improvements in procedures governing flight 

patterns, including landings and takeoffs. These recommendations include 

standardizing and expanding the use of markings for towers and wires; 

using high-visibility paint and other visibility-enhancing features on 

obstructions; providing better information to pilots on the location and 

severity of weather hazard areas; and developing new procedures for 

airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance.
Page 64 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure ApendxiI

General aviation plays an important role in U.S. civilian aviation. For 

instance, 96 percent of the U.S. civilian aircraft fleet is general aviation, 

while the remainder is commercial. Also, three out of four takeoffs each 

day are general aviation flights. General aviation makes important 

economic and social contributions to local communities in which the 

airports are located and to the nation at large. The total economic 

contribution of general aviation services consists of both the economic 

impacts and the transportation benefits of general aviation activities. 

Economic impacts refer to the economic contribution of general aviation 

as an industry. Transportation benefits, on the other hand, accrue primarily 

to the users of general aviation services. There are important limitations in 

measuring both types of economic contributions. It is difficult to 

accurately measure the economic impacts that are generated through 

general aviation activities, and it is difficult to assign accurate monetary 

values to many transportation benefits. Measurement limitations make 

state-by-state comparisons of general aviation benefits tenuous and 

impractical. However, while it is difficult to accurately measure the 

economic impacts and the transportation benefits generated by general 

aviation activities, the economic contributions are nonetheless 

considerable, and in some rural areas critical to the surrounding 

communities. 

Economic Impact of 

General Aviation

The economic impact of general aviation is measured by considering the 

contributions of the general aviation industry to the economy. One 

methodology for measuring economic impact was developed by the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 1 This methodology estimates three 

related measures of the economic impact of general aviation on the nation 

and on regional communities—economic activity (or output), employment 

(or jobs), and income (or earnings).2

1

FAA (1986), Measuring the Regional Economic Significance of Airports, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., Report No. 

DOT/FAA/PP/87-1.

2

The total economic impact of general aviation is an aggregation of three impacts: direct, 

indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts are those financial transactions that occur as 

a result of providing general aviation services that include the provision of aircraft and 

airport-related services. Indirect impacts occur as results of the use of general aviation 

services, which include expenditures by visitors patronizing hotels and restaurants in the 

area. Induced impacts are the “multiplier” effects of the direct and indirect impacts; the 

multiplier effects result from successive rounds of spending that originate with the direct 

and indirect impacts.
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 65 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

A recent study prepared for FAA estimates that in 1998, at the national 

level, general aviation generated about $64.5 billion in total economic 

output, about $19.9 billion in earnings, and about 638,000 jobs.3

 Table 5 is a 

break down of general aviation’s estimated total economic output for 1998. 

Table 5: General Aviation’s 1998 Estimated Total Economic Output

Source: The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy – 2000, p.2.

The economic activity category includes the dollar value of all general 

aviation and general aviation-related services plus the sum of intermediate 

goods and services needed to produce general aviation services. The 

earnings category includes the total wages and salaries paid to all persons 

who directly or indirectly owe their jobs to general aviation. The jobs 

category includes the number of people employed in the general aviation 

industry and in sectors that support general aviation or general aviation 

use.

In addition to the nationwide study prepared for FAA, many states have 

conducted studies on the statewide economic impacts of general aviation. 

Results of the 14 state studies on this topic that we reviewed in detail are 

presented in tables 6 through 8.4

 We selected studies that included 

statewide coverage of the public-use general aviation airports and for 

3

The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy – 2000, prepared for the 

Federal Aviation Administration and MCA Research Corporation by Wilbur Smith 

Associates with Applied Management Solutions, Inc., March 2000. Similar reports were 

done in 1988 (using 1987 data), in 1990 (using 1989 data), in 1993 (using 1991 data), and in 

1995 (using 1993 data).

Dollars in billions

Annual

economic

activity

Annual

earnings Jobs

Providing aviation service $30.8 $8.9 298,000

Using aviation service 11.4 4.4 163,000

Manufacturing 22.3 6.6 177,000

Total $64.5 $19.9 638,000

4

Economic impact studies for 32 states were reviewed.
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 66 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

which information was available on the year(s) used in the studies and 

state-level comparable economic data. The results in tables 6 through 8 

indicate that the estimated economic impacts of general aviation on the 

states’ economies are generally less than 1 percent. However, according to 

these estimates, general aviation still makes important contributions to the 

states’ economies in terms of jobs, earnings, and economic output that are 

generated.

Table 6 presents estimates of jobs created by general aviation. While the 

numbers of jobs created may seem small relative to total state employment, 

the earnings generated can be substantial. Table 7 illustrates the range of 

estimated earnings—for example, in 1997, Minnesota had estimated 

earnings of $7.5 million while Arizona had estimated earnings of $476.4 

million. Table 8 presents the estimated impact on total economic output. 

Again, while each states’ general aviation output share is less than 1 

percent of the gross state product, the total economic benefits are 

substantial, ranging from $24.4 million to about $1.5 billion.

Table 6: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Jobs

a

Ratio of general aviation jobs to state jobs.

b

Data for the state based on only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study period was 1997 and 

1998.

State Year

General

aviation jobs State jobs

General aviation

jobs’ share

(percent)

Arizonab 1997 22,239 1,977,502 1.13

Colorado 1996 8,155 1,873,585 0.44

Georgiac 1992-93 5168 3,001,808 0.17

Idaho 1997 3,157 509,528 0.62

Kansasd 1997 5,070 1,243,093 0.41

Kentucky 1996 1,374 1,617,063 0.08

Maryland 1995 3,757 2,145,317 0.18

Minnesota 1997 361 2,423,593 0.01

Mississippi 1997 1,563 1,068,747 0.15

New Jersey 1994 16,000 3,463,345 0.46

North Carolina 1995 2,700 3,431,839 0.08

Oregon 1995 5,472 1,411,916 0.39

Pennsylvania 1994 5,317 5,054,453 0.11

Virginia 1995 3,269 3,011,704 0.11
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 67 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

c

Data for the state are an average of the 2 years. 

d

General aviation economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996 survey data.

Source: GAO’s analysis based on economic impact studies by various states and Employment and 

Wages, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Table 7: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Earnings

a

Ratio of general aviation earnings to state earnings.

b

Data for the state based on only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study period was 1997 and 

1998.

c

Data for the state are an average of the 2 years.

d

General aviation economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996 survey data.

Source: GAO’s analysis from the economic impact studies by various States and Employment and 

Wages, Annual Averages, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Dollars in millions

State Year

General aviation

earnings State earnings

General

aviation share

of total

earningsa

(percent)

Arizonab 1997 $476.4 $54,685 0.87

Colorado 1996 $171.8 $53,433 0.32

Georgiac 1992-93 $103.8 $73,925 0.14

Idaho 1997 $60.8 $12,255 0.50

Kansasd 1997 $103.0 $31,954 0.32

Kentucky 1996 $35.9 $39,557 0.09

Maryland 1995 $102.8 $62,498 0.16

Minnesota 1997 $7.5 $73,323 0.01

Mississippi 1997 $32.4 $24,793 0.13

New Jersey 1994 $450.9 $115,809 0.39

North Carolina 1995 $55.0 $83,742 0.07

Oregon 1995 $95.9 $36,473 0.26

Pennsylvania 1994 $119.8 $136,216 0.09

Virginia 1995 $57.3 $80,997 0.07
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 68 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Table 8: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Economic Output

a

Ratio of adjusted general aviation output to the gross state output. The adjusted general aviation 

output is based on the assumption that general aviation earnings are about 66% of general aviation 

output, which is the typical share of gross domestic product represented by earnings (wages and 

salaries, other labor income, and proprietor’s income) for the whole nation. Thus, the adjusted general 

aviation output equals general aviation earnings divided by 0.66. The adjustment is warranted 

because to compare general aviation’s output impact to gross state output, the impact measure must 

include only the value-added components. The earnings impact measure includes only value-added 

but the general aviation output does not. See The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. 

Economy – 2000, p. 6. b

Data for the state based on only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study period was 1997 and 

1998.

c

Data for the state are an average of the 2 years. 

d

General aviation economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996 survey data.

Source: GAO’s analysis based on information from economic impact studies by various States and 

Current Regional Studies, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Dollars in millions

State Year

General aviation

output Gross state output

General

avition output

share

(percent)

Arizonab 1997 $1,466.0 $121,200 0.60

Colorado 1996 $555.5 $116,200 0.22

Georgiac 1992-93 $333.6 $165,000 0.10

Idaho 1997 $159.6 $29,100 0.32

Kansasd 1997 $296.0 $71,700 0.22

Kentucky 1996 $124.5 $94,500 0.06

Maryland 1995 $348.3 $138,100 0.11

Minnesota 1997 $24.4 $149,400 0.01

Mississippi 1997 $102.5 $58,300 0.08

New Jersey 1994 $1,300.0 $255,800 0.27

North Carolina 1995 $153.0 $193,600 0.04

Oregon 1995 $422.4 $80,700 0.18

Pennsylvania 1994 $389.7 $296,800 0.06

Virginia 1995 $175.1 $188,000 0.05
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 69 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Transportation 

Benefits of General 

Aviation

General aviation airports improve air transportation services in local 

communities and in the nation. The improvements in transportation 

services can be classified broadly as commercial, community, and other 

benefits. These benefits help to increase the efficiency and productivity of 

businesses, and they enhance the well-being of individuals in the 

community and the nation at large.5

Commercial Benefits General aviation saves time and reduces costs to business travelers who 

use general aviation airports instead of transportation alternatives, such as 

driving, or using a more distant airport or a congested commercial airport. 

By using general aviation airports, many businesses are able to increase 

their productivity as well as the flexibility of the schedules of their top 

business executives. For example, the headquarters for a noted drugstore 

chain is located in the middle of the Northeast United States and a logistical 

hike from almost everywhere else. This company operates over 4,000 

neighborhood drug stores in 30 states. The company uses a helicopter to 

enable its senior managers to move rapidly from door to door. The 

company estimated that it probably saves from 1 to 1.5 staff-hours per 

passenger for every hour it flies. 

General aviation also facilitates commercial activities, including 

agricultural applications (such as aerial seeding and spraying), monitoring 

pipelines and utility lines, and providing express or just-in-time cargo and 

package delivery services. Mississippi, among other states, uses aerial 

seeding and insect spraying to enhance agricultural yields and improve 

crop quality. Minnesota is among the states that use aerial inspections of 

utilities to enable businesses to monitor their infrastructure and quickly 

locate problems.

Community Benefits General aviation provides public health services. General aviation is a 

critical component of a community’s public health network, used for 

regular or emergency transportation of persons, medical equipment and 

supplies. In Arkansas, helicopters are used in emergency situations to 

transfer critically injured patients for treatment. Air response can save 

5

See, for example. FAA (1992), Estimating the Regional Economic Significance of 

Airports, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, 

D.C., Report DOT/FAA/PP-92-6.
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 70 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

valuable time in delivering treatment that can mean the difference between 

life and death. Aviation is also used to transfer patients between hospitals 

for specialist care, transfer organs for transplant, and to transport health 

care specialists to rural areas for patient care.

General aviation activities also assist state and federal governments in 

addressing challenges to public safety by facilitating both routine and 

emergency services, including monitoring floods, forest fires and storms, 

and providing relief to victims of natural disasters. General aviation 

airports serve as vital civil defense facilities, providing key staging grounds 

for responding to natural disasters, local police and surveillance work, and 

Civil Air Patrol and National Guard activities.

General aviation provides recreational facilities for individuals who use 

general aviation airports for leisure activities, including skydiving, personal 

pleasure flying, flying home-built aircraft, local sightseeing, and tourism. 

For example, 436,000 tourists annually choose to visit Pennsylvania via 

private or corporate aircraft. These tourists spend over $28.4 million 

annually for hotels, food, retail, and other items.

General aviation assists in aerial photography that is used for a variety of 

purposes, including mapping, surveying, and in managing environmental 

and wildlife matters. In Maryland, as elsewhere, aerial photography has 

become an indispensable tool for local developers, planners, and others 

who depend on the aerial surveys for their business operations.

General aviation helps to aid economic development by attracting 

businesses to small-and medium-sized communities. The availability of a 

general aviation airport is one of the factors that businesses consider when 

they are contemplating relocation or expansion.6

 An April 2000 National 

Air Transportation Association (NATA) telephone survey indicated that 

between 44 and 60 percent of survey respondents believed that recruitment 

of new business and industry and retention of current business was very 

important or one of the most important benefits provided by local general 

aviation airports. An identical percentage of respondents believed that the 

airports had a positive impact on local businesses and the local economy.

6 See, for example, Economic Impact of New Jersey’s General Aviation Airports, prepared 

for the New Jersey Division of Aeronautics, by the Airport Technology and Planning Group, 

Inc. (May 1996). Other factors include available labor supply, convenient highway access, 

tax incentives, and academic and cultural centers.
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 71 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

Other Benefits General aviation airports relieve congestion by freeing operating slots at 

nearby busy commercial service airports. This service benefits 

commercial-air travelers by allowing the commercial airports to support 

higher passenger and cargo volumes. Between 29 and 47 percent of the 

respondents to the NATA survey believed that serving as an alternative 

airport for private aircraft to reduce air traffic at large commercial airports 

was a very important or one of the most important benefits of general 

aviation airports.

General aviation airports provide flight instruction facilities for training 

new pilots in the aviation industry. Apart from the direct benefits to the 

new pilots, using public-use general aviation airports rather than 

commercial airports for flight training also reduces crowding at 

commercial airports. A majority of respondents to the NATA survey, 

between 51 and 63 percent, believed that general aviation airports’ role in 

providing training services and facilities for pilots was very important or 

one of the most important benefits.

General aviation provides the fastest means of accessing the national 

airspace system, especially for many small and medium towns and cities, 

which, in turn, provides access to other regions of the nation and the world 

at large.

Limitations of 

Measuring Economic 

Impacts and 

Transportation 

Benefits of General 

Aviation

General aviation can have a significant economic impact on the local 

economies of communities served by the airports, of the states, and of the 

nation, as estimated in various studies. However, the estimated values 

reported in these studies may not reflect the true or actual economic 

impact of general aviation for many reasons. The limitations of the studies 

on the economic impact of general aviation include the following major 

issues.

Opportunity Cost of General 

Aviation Activities

The studies of the economic impact of general aviation do not account for 

the economic impact of using the funds for the general aviation activities in 

alternative projects. The economic impact methodology, therefore, 

assumes implicitly that general aviation activities do not replace other 

economic activities. But this assumption is not necessarily true. Ideally, 

the economic impact studies should measure only those activities that exist 
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 72 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

only because of general aviation airports. This would involve developing a 

base-case (or counterfactual) scenario that depicts a community without 

the general aviation airport. Furthermore, from a local perspective, the 

local community benefits from the direct and indirect economic impacts 

resulting from the construction and operation of a general aviation airport. 

However, from a national or regional perspective, these impacts may 

simply be a redistribution of benefits from one local area to another rather 

than a net gain.

Measurement of the 

Induced or Multiplier 

Economic Impacts

One of the categories of the total economic impact of general aviation is the 

induced (or multiplier) effect from the direct and indirect impacts of 

general aviation activities. The estimated multipliers generally tend to be 

less reliable for small areas of the national economy because there are no 

readily reliable data to use in computing them. Also, the value of the 

multiplier in local communities depends on how the region affected by the 

economic impact is defined. Another important problem is that different 

economic models are used in different studies to determine the induced 

effects, and different methodologies exist within each model, making 

comparisons of the estimates from different studies difficult.7

Double-Counting of 

Economic Transactions 

Under the Benefit-Cost 

Methodology

There is the potential for double counting of benefits under the benefit-cost 

methodology for evaluating general aviation airports. For instance, there is 

double-counting of benefits when both the timesaving benefits realized by 

airport users and the fees that they pay to airport operators are counted 

because the former is reflected in the latter. 

While it is generally agreed that general aviation activities can provide 

benefits from improvements in air transportation services, there are 

significant practical problems in identifying and measuring the 

7

Types of models include economic base models, econometric models, and input-output 

models. See, for example, Michael W. Babcock, “The Economic Significance of General 

Aviation Airports in Rural Areas,” Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, vo1. 39, 

no. 3, Summer 2000, pp. 141-156. The most popular model used is the input-output. However, 

different input-output multiplier systems have been employed. For instance, there is the 

AIMS (Automated Input-Ouptput Multiplier system), the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for 

Planning) system, and the RIMS (Regional Input-Output Modeling System).
Appendix I

Economic Contributions to Local 

Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to 

Measure

Page 73 GAO-01-916 General Aviation

transportation benefits.8 For instance, it is difficult to estimate the dollar 

value of travel time savings to individuals whose time has different 

opportunity costs, or the value of general aviation services to an individual 

who uses the airport for leisure or recreation. Furthermore, the discussion 

and estimation of transportation benefits of general aviation services tend 

to ignore some important external costs and benefits, such as the costs of 

pollution and noise from aircraft, and the benefits from relieving 

congestion at nearby commercial service airports.

General Aviation 

Enjoys Community 

Support

As noted above, communities realize considerable benefits from general 

aviation airports, and general aviation receives community support in 

return. Such support was recently demonstrated in a telephone survey 

conducted by the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). Among 

other things, questions were included on perceived benefits of general 

aviation airports. Between 44 and 60 percent of survey respondents said 

general aviation airports had a positive impact on local businesses and the 

local economy. An identical percentage of respondents thought 

recruitment of new business and industry and the retention of current 

business was very important or one of the most important benefits 

provided by local general aviation airports. An even higher percentage of 

respondents, 51 to 63 percent, believed it was very important that the 

general aviation airports provided training services and facilities for pilots. 

Favorable reactions were also offered for general aviation airports serving 

as an alternative for private aircraft to reduce air traffic at large 

commercial airports and as a source of jobs.

8

See, for example, Harry P. Wolfe, “Quantifying the Benefits of a New General Aviation 

Airport: A Return on Investment Approach,” Transportation Research Circular, 

Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., No. 259, 

July 1983, pp. 33-38.
Page 74 GAO-??-?? Document Name

Appendix II

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment ApendxiI

GAO Contacts Gerald L. Dillingham (202) 512-2834

Christopher A. Keisling (404) 679-1917

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Jonathan Bachman, Janet Barbee, Carolyn Boyce, Jay Cherlow, Elizabeth 

Eisenstadt, Dana Greenberg, Heather Halliwell, Art James, John Karikari, 

Paul Lacey, Bert Japikse, Richard Scott, and Alwynne Wilbur made key 

contributions to this report. 

(348201) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00