Technical ~eport Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accesston No. 3. Recip•ent' s Catalog No. 

OOT/FAA-AM-87-4 

4. Tttle and Subtitle 5. Report Dote 

1986 SURVEY OF AVIATION BUSINESS OPERATORS: MARCH 1987 

THEIR VIEWS OF FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 6. Performtng Organization Code 

8. Performing Orgonizotion Report No, 

7" A,oho•'•l Da "d J S h d W"ll' E C 11' v1 . c roe er, 1 1 am • o 1 ns, 

Carnlvn S DoHar and Charles W Schaffer. ,Jr 

9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FAA Civil Aeromedi ca 1 Institute 

P.O. Sox 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federa 1 Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

15. Supplementary Notes 

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

16. Abstract 

A nationwide survey of 8,854 aviation business operators (users) was conducted to 

assess their perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the performance of the agency's 

avionic and maintenance a 1 rwor th I ness Inspectors (AWls). Results are based on 

returns received from 45X of the overall sample. User rat lngs on 21 I terns were 

analyzed and comparisons were made for each FAA region, type of aviation business 

activity, and FAA district office within each region. A criterion based on other 

research concerning consumer satisfaction with services was used to ldent lfy positive 

aspects of AWl performance and areas of performance In need of Improvement. over a II 

satisfaction with AWl performance was fully acceptable and within the range of levels 

reported In the literature for higher ranking professional/technical services. Users 

felt very positively about AWl knowledge of FAA regulations and policies, AWl 

courtesy, and their thoroughness. Areas that could be targeted for Improvement 

Included: the consistency and clarity of the technical Interpretations, the 

frequency of visits, and reliance on AWls for counsel lng In either regulatory or 

technical areas. Written comments provided by respondents were placed In general 

Information (5.5X), favorable (24.1X), and unfavorable (70.1X) categories. Comments 

that Indicated shortcomings focused on the same areas that received low Item ratings. 

These ana I yses w I I 1 provide FAA management with an opportunity to pinpoint high- and 

low-rated faclllt les and determine what features of the 

facl lltles/lnspectors/procedures differentiate the less from the more successful. 

Corrective action plans based on the data can then be devised and Implemented. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Airworthiness 

Document is available to the public 

Inspector through the National Technical 

Job performance Information Service, Springfield, 

Survey assessment Virginia 22161 

19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 29 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (B-72l Reproduction of completed page authorized 
1986 SURVEY OF AVIATION BUSINESS OPERATORS: 

THEIR VIEWS OF FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

Within the past two decades, the development and uti 1 lzatlon of consumer 

surveys to assess customer/consumer/cl lent satisfaction with products and 

services have Increased significantly. Information from these surveys has 

assisted management In modifying, Improving, or developing products and 

services. During 1985, the FAA Administrator, Admiral Donald Engen, 

requested that Information be gathered concerning the perceptions by 

aviation business operators (users) of the qual lty and performance of 

avionics and maintenance airworthiness safety Inspectors (AWls) throughout 

the entire agency. As a result, a questionnaire entitled "FAA Survey of 

Users: Airworthiness Inspectors," was developed to assess aspects of the 

working relationship between FAA AWls and those business operators within 

the aviation Industry. 

PROCEDURE 

The Office of Airworthiness and the Clvl I Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) 

jointly developed the survey Instrument, which consisted of 21 Items. Of 

the Items, four refer to aspects of the user's awareness of, and 

faml I larlty with, agency regulations, pol lcles, and the duties and 

responslbll I ties of AWl's, as wei 1 as the extent to which the current 

regulations permit flexlbll lty In decision-making. The remaining Items 

assess user perceptions of aspects of their Interactions with AWls, 

Including AWl aval labl llty, competence, conduct of duties, and 

communication, to mention a few. In a short demographic section of the 

survey, respondents were requested to Identify: (1) the FAA region within 

which they are located; (2) the location and type of FAA District Office 

with which they have contact; (3) the aviation activity that Is most 

representative of their current work; and (4) their length of time In the 

aviation business. Space was provided for the respondent to write the 

complete location of his/her servicing office. For the 21 questionnaire 

Items, users -were asked to Indicate the degree to which they agreed with 

each statement by selecting one of six available alternatives ("not at 

all", "to a limited extent", "to a moderate extent", "to a considerable 

extent", "to a great extent", or "do not know". Space for written 

comments was provided at the end of the questionnaire. A copy of the 

booklet Is Included In Appendix A. 

~Sample. The survey sample was developed from mal I lng I lsts of members 

provided by several aviation organizations. Although an Indeterminate 

number of Individuals named on those I lsts was probably not a proper 

target for the survey, each of the 8,854 1 lsted persons was sent a copy of 

the questionnaire and a franked return envelope In December 1985. A 

follow-up letter prompting participants to return the questionnaire was 

mailed approximately 15 days following the Initial distribution of the 

survey. After el lmlnatlng 171 questionnaires that were returned as 

undel lverable, the adjusted number of assumably del lvered forms was 8,683. 

Betyrns. Returns were received from 3,913 anonymous users. Of this 

group, 295 were not Included In the analysis due to the lateness (after 

1 
March 1986), or Incompleteness of their response, or an Indication that 

the respondent felt that the questionnaire was not appropriate for his/her 

business. The overal I response rate was 45%, but this Is probably an 

underestimate of the actual user response rate, since It Is known that not 

alI persons on the final mal I lng I 1st were qualified recipients of the 

questionnaire. 

Comments made by the respondents were reviewed, and a numerical system was 

developed to code each comment for subsequent analysis. During scanning 

and Initial analysis of the results, It was noted that there were frequent 

Instances where respondents had fa I led to provide coded responses to some 

of the demographic questions, or where the responses were Inconsistent 

with written Information provided. This problem generally occurred when 

respondents had Identified an ACDO, GADO, or FSDO that was no longer In 

existence. In Instances where the respondent provided written Information 

concerning location of the facl 1 lty, an up-to-date code was used, based on 

the current I 1st of existing flight standards district offices and numbers 

provided by the regions. Missing codes or Inconsistencies were reconcl led 

In 1,030 cases. Also, comments from a number of respondents who Indicated 

that their major aviation activity was "Part 91 Operator" led to creation 

of an additional demographic breakdown which had not been Included In the 

original questionnaire. Thus, modification of the data base was required 

to Include missing Information from the respondents, to correct 

Inconsistent data, and to categorize responses from Part 91 Operators. 

RESULTS 

Responding~- Characteristics of the responding sample are provided 

In Table 1. The regional proportions of returned questionnaires tended to 

reflect the number of aircraft repair stations and the amount of related 

aviation activity In the various FAA regions. Thus, the FAA's Great Lakes 

(AGLJ, Southwest (ASW), Southern (ASOJ, and Eastern (AEAJ regions each 

produced 13-17% of the responses while New England (ANE) and Alaskan (AAL) 

had the lowest percentages (3.8% and 2.5%, respectively). Percentages of 

respondents from the other regions were Intermediate. Most of the 

respondents (67.9%) Indicated that the Inspector assigned to their 

operation was from a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Although 

respondents were requested to Indicate the major aviation activity on 

which they based their ratings, 897 (24.8%) fa I led to provide that 

designation. The largest percentage of the respondents who did Indicate 

their major aviation activity were Part 135 Certificate Holders (29.5%) 

and a sizeable percentage (19.3%) was Involved with Certificated Repair 

Stations. No other category reached as high as 9% and several categories, 

(Part 125, Part 127, and Part 133 Certificate Holders, Certified Parachute 

Lofts, Approved Aviation Technical Schools, and FAA Parachute Riggers> 

each comprised less than 1% of the responses. Most of the respondents 

(71.0%) had been In some aspect of the aviation business for 11 or more 

years, 14.0% had been active for 6-10 years and only 5.3% Indicated that 

they had been In the business for 5 years or less (data for 9.7% were 

missing). Information concerning characteristics of the respondents was 

used to make comparisons between regions, types of servicing office, and 

various user aviation activities. 

2 

T 
REGION 

AAL 

ACE 

AEA 

AGL 

ANE 

ANI.! 

ASO 

ASW 

AWP 

MISSING 

OFFICE 

TYPE 

ACDO 

FSDO 

GADO 

MISSING 

TABLE 1.-CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS TO THE FAA 

SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

NUMBER PERCENT MAJOR FUNCTION NUMBER PERCENT 

92 

247 

493 

619 

137 

312 

556 

584 

372 

206 

21 

2457 

919 

221 

2.5 

6.8 

13.6 

17.1 

3.8 

8.6 

15.4 

16. 1 

10.3 

5.7 

.6 

67.9 

25.4 

6.1 

PART 91 OPERATOR 

PART 121 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

PART 125 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

PART 127 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

PART 133 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

PART 135 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

PART 137 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 

CERTIFICATED REPAIR STATION 

CERTIFICATED PARACHUTE LOFT 

APPROVED AVIATION TECHS SCHOOL 

INSPECTION AUTHORIZED MECHANIC 

CERTIFICATED REPAIRMAN 

CERTIFICATED MECHANIC 

FAA PARACHUTE RIGGER 

FAA DESIGNATED PERSON 

MISSING 

TIME IN AVIATION 

5 YEARS OR LESS 

6 TO 10 YEARS 

11 TO 20 YEARS 

21 YEARS OR MORE 

MISSING 

58 

55 

15 

1 

14 

1069 

67 

698 

1 

6 

281 

46 

314 

0 

96 

897 

191 

507 

1153 

1416 

351 

1.6 

1.5 

0.4 

o.o 

0.4 

29.5 

1 .9 

19.3 

o.o 

0.2 

7.8 

1 .3 

8.7 

o.o 

2.7 

24.8 

5.3 

14.0 

31.9 

39.1 

9.7 

ADalyses Q1 Responses. Percentages of respondents selecting each of the 

six response alternatives, Including the "do not know" category, were 

calculated and are provided In Table 2. The proportion of respondents 

select log "do not know" ranged from 0% for the Item (Q1) concerning 

respondents' faml I larlty with FAA regulations that apply to their aviation 

functions to 15.9% for the Item (Q20) concerning respondent satisfaction 

with participation by AWls In safety seminars and other pub! lc meetings. 

On the remaining questions, 7% or less selected the "do not know" response 

a 1 ternat 1 ve. For stat! st 1 ca I compar 1 sons, the "do not know" responses 

were considered as missing values. 

Responses to the first two rating alternatives ("not at all" and "to a 

limited extent") were combined to produce a non-positive response category 

and responses for the last three rating alternatives ("to a moderate 

extent", "to a considerable extent", and "to a great extent") were 

combined to produce a positive response category. The percentages of 

users who selected one of the three alternatives comprising the positive 

response category for each Item are shown In Table 3 for each region and 

for the nation overall. 

3 
T I 

TABLE 2.-0VERALL PERCENTAGE OF USERS SELECTING EACH OF THE RESPONSE ALTERNATIVES Bl ITEM 

IN THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS* AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

TO WHAT EXTENT I Not at ....,_ Conaid- Don't _.!.!!..._,~ arat.a ..!!!lli. Great .... 1, &1"11 you taaillar with the FAA r.aulattona tbat o. 1 1.7 

apply to your aviation tunotlona? 16.7 117.5 33.9 o.o 

2. are you r .. tllar vitb the FAA publtahed policlea 2.0 13.11 

and lntarpl"lltationa reprdln& thO" replatlona 

31.2 38.7 , ... 3 o •• 

that apply to your aviation tunctlona? 

3· do those resulat.iona pol1c1ea, and 1nterpretat.1ona 

give you tlexlblllty in .. kin& declelona about the 

•• o 33-0 33·· 20.5 6 •• 2.2 

vork you do? 

•• are you aware or the duties and 

ot alrworthlnesa lnapeotora? reapona1b1lltlas 1 ·9 20.1 29.3 33·• 1.11.7 0.7 

5. are you vlalted durlna the year b1 alrworthineaa 

lnapectora assigned to you or your taolllty? 

7.2 35.7 )6, 7 1S.2 •• 5 0.6 

6. do alrvorthineaa inapeotora, aaalgaed to you or o •• 5.2 

your racility, appear to know the FlA resulatiooa? 

1.11.5 .112.8 33.5 3.6 

7. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 

your tacility, appear to know the FAA published 

0.5 8.8 19.5 39.6 25.11 6.1 

policies and interpretations supporting the 

regulatiooa? 

8, do airworthineas tnapectora, assisned to you or •• 5 17.8 22.8 )6.0 111.0 •• 9 your racility, interpret the resulationa 1n a consiatent way? 

g. do airworthiness inspectors, aasisned to you or 0.8 11.3 

your facility, interpret the resulationa accurately? 

22.9 110.8 17.2 7.0 

10. do airworthiness inspectors, asaiped to you or 5·5 18.5 22.9 31.5 18.8 2.8 

your tacility, explain the regulations and your 

options clearly? 

,, are ditfereacea of opinion between you and •• 9 15.8 22.8 33.0 18.0 5.6 airworthineaa inspectors (reprdinc; interpretations or a regulation) reaolved in .utually acceptable ways? 

12. do airworthiness inspectors, aaaiped to you or your facility, conduct their duties in a thorough 

1 •• ••• 19.5 111.6 2.11.5 ..5 

..... 13. do airworthiness inspectors, asaiped to you or 2.3 12.1 20.7 37.6 23.8 3.5 

your facilitJ 1 appear to be technloally co.petent 

in the conduct ot their duties? 

,., are airworthiness inspectors, asat&ned to you or your facility, courteous ln the OODduct ot tbeir 

1.1 •• 7 11.9 3.11.1 Jt6.t 2.2 

duties? 

15. do airworthineaa inspectors, aaaipaed to you or your facility, appear to underatand JOUr 

orsanization and ita needs? 

•-a 15.7 21.5 33·7 20.9 3.5 

16. do airwortblneaa inspectors, aaataned to you or 2.8 16.6 211.1 35 •• 18.9 2. 1 JOur facility, provide clear and accurate anavera to your queatlona? 

17. do airworthineaa inspectors, aaaigaed to you or 3.0 1.11.2 22.1 37.1& 21.0 2.3 

your facility, provide answers in a tt.ely aanner? 

18. do you rely on airworthiness inspectors tor 16.7 

counseling in technical areas? 37.7 23.2 1.11.2 7.1 1.2 

19. do you relJ on airworthineas inspectors tor 7.0 32.3 28.5 20.8 10.3 1. 1 counseling 1n regulatory areas? 

20. are you aatiafied vitb participatiOD by 

airworthiness inspectors 1n safety ... inars and ··5 13.9 22.6 2.7 •• 15.6 15.9 

other public ... tioga? 

21. are you satisfied with the perto...-nce of 

airwortbineas inspectors, assiSD8Cf to you or your facility? 

3·7 12.9 22.2 36.3 23.1 1.8 

4 
TO WHAT EXTENTs 

TABLE ].-PERCENTaGES OF POSITIVE llESPONSES NlTlONALL.I AND II FAA REGION 

FROH EACH ITEM IN THE FAA SURVEY OF USERSs AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

IATIONAL 

OV~.!!!:!::_ AAL A£A 

PU IIEGION 

1 ..... JOY r.utar MU.b \he PAl repla\lOM t.ha\ ... , 98.9 91.6 99.2 98.1 98o5 ,... 98.6 98.1 97.6 

applJ to JO\Ir aviation tunct.iona? 

2. are JOY t•111ar Wit.h the FAA pub1111hed poUclea 1.11.6 17.2 86.2 88.6 82.8 83.2 82.2 85.0 86.2 811.11 

and 1n\erpretat.1ons reprdln& t.boM nsulat t.ODS 

that. applJ \o rour avta\1on tunc\1ona? 

3. do \hOse re&'llat10M poUctea, and interpretations 61.7 56,5 61.9 65.9 55.6 68.2 57.8 62.7 63.2 65.8 

&he JOY tle:db1l1t.J ln ukln& decisions abou\ the 

Mork )'OY do? 

11. are you at~are ot the duties and reapona1b111tias 77,9 76,1 76.1 81.3 77.11 75.6 7~.i& 78.0 78.8 80.3 

or ainrorthlnaas inspectors? 

5. are you vlsl\ed durin& \he rear by ainrorthlneu 56.8 66.3 59,11 58.6 53.2 1118.2 58.il 51.6 62.6 59.9 

la.pectors aaalpad t.o rou or rour racllit.J1 

6. do alrvort.hinesa la.pectora, aastanecl to you or 911.2 95.7 97.0 911.1 92.8 91.0 911,1 95.6 95.2 9il.3 

JOur facility, appear tO know tbe Fll resulatlona? 

1. do ain~orthiness inspectors, aasiped t.o you or go,o 89,8 96.1 90.8 88.9 811,0 86,1 90.2 93.6 89.11 

your taclllty, appear to knOW t.be Fll published 

policies and lnt.arpretatlODS aupport.tn& the 

resulatlona? 

8. do ainrorthlneas inspectors, asslped to you or 

your raclllty, interpret. the rasulationa in a 

consistent way? 

76.6 69.6 82.6 79.7 75.5 73.5 71.5 81.1 76.) 72.) 

9. do ainrorthinaas inspectors, aaalped t.o you or 86.9 78.9 91.2 87.7 87.1 80.3 82.0 90.2 88.5 86.6 

your taclllty, interpret tbe resulst.iona accurately? 

10. do alrvorthlneaa lnapect.ora, aaaiped to you or 

your facility, explain the resulationa and your 

options olearlJf 

11. are dlttaranoes ot opinioa betMHn rou and 78.1 67,0 78.11 79,11 76.9 80,5 T6o3 79o3 80,7 78,6 

airworthtneaa inspectors (rasardinc interpretations 

ot rasulatlona) resolved 1n aut.uallJ aocaptabla 

Mara? 

12. do ainrorthinaaa inspectors, asaiped to you or 89.7 91.2 93.2 89.8 88.3 89.0 85.8 92.0 90.7 89.11 

your taclllty, conduct their duties in. a tborOU&h 

way? 

13. do ainrorthine.as inspectors, asalpad to rou or 85.1 80.2 86.9 86.11 811.3 81.2 81.8 88.0 85.3 8Jl.5 

your tacilit.y, appear to be taalmloallr c011pet.ant 

in the oonduot or their duties? 

111. are aln~orthlneaa lnapectora, assiped to you or 91&.2 92.11 97.1 95.6 93.2 91.9 90.6 95.11 93.5 95.9 

your facility, courteous in tbe ooDduct or their 

duties? 

15. do alnrorthinasa inspectors, aaaiped t.o you or 78.8 67.11 83.8 80.2 78.0 76.9 76.0 83.1 79.7 711.7 

your tacili tJ, appear to ~a~dentand rour 

orpnlutlon and 1\a n"da? 

16. do ain~ort.hiness inspectors, aaaiped t.o you or 80.2 75.0 85.8 83.6 78.2 77.2 77,3 82.6 80.1 78.0 

your tacllity, provide clear and accurate anawera 

t.o your queationa? 

17. do ainrort.hlneas inspectors, aaaiped to you or 82.5 87.0 86.11 8JI.1 80.3 80.0 79.8 8Jl.7 811.7 76.11 

your tacllity, provide answers 1D a tl•ly aanner? 

18. do you rel)' on alnrorthiness inapectora tor 115.0 111.8 50.2 116.8 111.9 31.2 u.o 117.2 117.6 110.0 

counaelln& in techninal areas? 

19. do fOil relr on ain~orthlnesa lnapect.ora tor 60.3 59.8 611.2 60.6 57,7 56.2 65.5 63.3 58.1 58.7 

counseltna in resulatorr areas? 

20. are you satisfied with participation by 

aln~orth1neaa inapectora in safety aainars and 

other public ... tlnss? 

21. are you aatiatled with the pertoraance ot 

ainrorthlness inspectors, aaslsned to you or your racillty? 

78.0 70.1 86.3 76.7 77-2 81.0 72.9 81.3 78.9 73.5 

83.1 73.9 89.0 86.1 81.1 80.3 77.7 86.8 811.0 80.11 

5 
In categorizing the various aspects of the performance of AWls, user 

responses were considered satisfactory If 80% or more of the respondents 

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

of the respondents selected the positive alternatives IdentifY performance 

areas that could be targeted for Improvement. This cutoff Is compatible 

with other research concerning consumer satisfaction with services. In 

those studies, average or better levels of satisfaction for higher ranking 

professional/technical occupations were reported by 70-91% of the 

respondents. Of course, the relationship between AWls and aviation users 

Is different from most other "consumer relations", since AWls perform a 

relatively unique regulatory function with Implications not Involved In 

most studies of consumer satisfaction. Table 4 provides a summary of the 

AWl performance areas above and below the positive criterion. 

TABLE 4.-AREAS OF AWl PERFORMANCE ABOVE AND BELOW THE 

POSITIVE CRITERION (SURVEY ITEMS 5 THROUGH 21) 

ABOVE 80% POSITIVE 

o knowledgeable concerning FAA regulations (94.2%) 

o courteous In the conduct of their duties (94.2%) 

o knowledgeable of FAA publ lshed policies and 

Interpretations supporting the regulations (90%) 

o thorough In the conduct of their duties (89.7%) 

o able to Interpret the regulations accurately (86.9%) 

o technically competent (85.1%) 

o overall satisfaction with AWl performance (83.1%) 

o able to answer questions In a timely manner (82.5%) 

o able to provide clear and accurate answers to questions (80.2%) 

BELOW 80% POSITIVE 

o the understanding by AWls of the user's organization 

and Its needs (78.8%) 

o the resolution of AWl-user differences of opinion In 

mututal ly acceptable ways (78.1%) 

o participation by AWls In safety seminars and other 

public meetings (78.0%) 

o the consistency of AWls In Interpretations of 

regulations (76.6%) 

o the extent to which AWls explain regulations and 

options clearly (75.3%) 

o the extent to which users were visited by AWls during 

the year (56.8%) 

o user reliance on AWls for counseling In regulatory 

(60.3%) or technical (45%) areas 

For analytic purposes, four major sets of statistical treatments were 

performed. One of these was a factor analysis based on each response to 

each Item (the final Item, Q21 on overal I satisfaction, was omitted since 

It represented a criterion Item). Results of that analysis (Table 5) 

yielded 3 factors by a principal components method with varlmax rotation. 

The first factor (survey Items 6 through 17 plus Item 20) might be labeled 

6 

T 
TABLE 5.-FACTOR LOADINGS FOR RESPONSES TO THE FAA 

SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

QUESTION FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 

Q 1 0.754 

Q 2 0.811 

Q 3 0.494 

Q 4 0.658 

Q 5 0.503 

Q 6 0.750 

Q 7 0.785 

Q 8 0.829 

Q 9 0.841 

Q10 0.799 

Q11 0.651 

Q12 o. 741 

Q13 0.800 

Q14 0.695 

Q15 0.751 

Q16 0.833 

Q17 0.722 

Q18 0.763 

Q19 0.753 

Q20 0.517 

ONLY LOADINGS ABOVE .400 ARE REPORTED 

3 

as "AWl Performance", the second (Items 1 through 4), as "User Knowledge", 

and the third (Items 5, 18, and 19), as "Contacts with AWls". A second 

analysis yielded the lntercorrelatlon of each questionnaire Item with 

every other Item (Table 6). And, finally, two multiple regression 

analyses were computed with overall user satisfaction (Q21) as the 

criterion variable. For the first regression analysis, each survey Item 

and time In aviation served as the Independent variables (Table 7), while 

In the second, the factor scores from the factor analysis were used (not 

shown). 

Overall uaAL Ratings. Applying the above-mentioned criteria, 90% or more 

of all responses were positive for user's own knowledge of regulations 

(Q1), AWl knowledge both of regulations (Q6) and supportive pol lcles (Q7), 

and courteous behavior by AWls (014). Six other Items, Including overall 

satisfaction (021-83.1%) yielded positive responses from 80-89% of users 

(see Table 3). These positive responses Included user faml I larlty with 

published policies and Interpretations of regulations, and satisfaction 

with AWl performance In the areas of thoroughness, technical competence, 

accurate Interpretations of regulations, and, to lesser extents, clarity 

and timeliness of responses to questions posed by users (see Table 4). 

Areas below the •satisfactory• cut off (I.e. those with less than 80% 

positive responses) Included the perceived lack of user awareness of AWl 

duties (Q4), and (perhaps related) the lack of AWl awareness of user needs 

(Q15), along with Items associated with user-perceived shortcomings 

7 
01 

regarding: the consistency of AWl Interpretations (Q8), resolutions of 

AWl-user differences (Q11), clarity of explanations by AWl's about 

regulations and user options (Q10), and AWl participation In safety 

seminars and public meetings (Q20). The four remaining Items were 

considerably lower, 45-62% positive (see Table 4). This grouping Included 

all Items (Q5, 18, 19) In factor 3 of the factor analysis (I.e. frequency 

of contacts with AWls by visits and consultations) plus (Q3) the perceived 

flexibility of regulations and policies for decisions by users. 

TA8LE 6.-ITEM INTERCORRELATIONS FOR THE FAA SURVEY 

OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

o1 o2 oJ 04 os o6 o7 oe 09 010 011 012 olJ ol4 o1s ol6 011 o1a Ol9 020 o21 

02 .49 

03 .17 .34 

04 .34 .43 .28 

05 .17 .18 .08 .27 

06 .15 .21 .18 .25 .23 

07 . 12 . 28 . 25 . 27 . 2 3 . 79 

08 .07 .24 .29 .23 .19 .63 .69 

09 .10 .23 .26 .23 .20 .66 .70 .79 

010 . ll . 26 . 28 . 27 . 22 . 60 . 65 . 70 . 70 

011 .12 .21 .26 .21 .18 .41 .44 .51 .52 .54 

012 .11 .20 .18 .25 .31 .59 .59 .61 .63 .61 .51 

013 .u .20 .23 .23 .24 .64 .65 .66 .69 .65 .50 .69 

014 .11 .15 .22 .20 .18 .47 .49 .52 .54 .55 .52 .55 .59 

QlS .10 .20 .28 .24 .21 .51 .55 .60 .61 .65 .56 .59 .64 .65 

Ql6 .09 .20 .26 .24 .23 .60 .65 .69 .70 .73 .57 ,65 .72 .61 .74 

017 .07 .17 .20 .21 .22 .49 .53 .57 .58 .59 .51 .60 .59 .56 .62 .71 

018 .08 .18 .20 .23 .26 .34 .36 .39 .38 .43 .30 .43 .48 .34 .43 .46 .39 

019 .09 .15 .14 .21 .26 .36 .34 .35 .35 .43 .32 .38 .37 .36 .40 .42 .37 .59 

020 .08 .17 .18 .19 .20 .42 .42 .45 .46 .48 .37 .50 .49 .44 .46 .51 .48 .38 .37 

021 .09 .20 .24 .25 .27 .60 .63 .68 .69 .68 .59 .69 .72 .67 .74 .76 .67 .48 .44 .60 

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

Qyeral I ~ Satisfaction. The final survey Item, assessing user 

satisfaction with AWl performance, yielded an 83.1% overall positive 

response (see Table 3). The Item lntercorrelatlons (Table 6) and the 

regression analysis (Table 7) provide some useful Information regarding 

the determinants of this rating and areas where Improvements are I lkely to 

Increase the rating. For example, the Items (Q1-4) comprising Factor 2 

(User Knowledge) had 1 lttle relationship to the satisfaction rating; 

Factor 3 (Contacts with AW1s-Q5, 18, 19) had more, but, clearly, Factor 1, 

the actual performance of AWl's, had the strongest relationship. (This 

was supported by the second regression analysis of the factor scores on 

8 
Item 21, where Factor 1 was first to enter the equation, followed by 

Factor 3 and Factor 2.) The Item regression analysis (Table 7) Indicated 

that the three Items which best predicted the overall satisfaction rating 

were: clear answers by AWls to user questions (Q16), AWl thoroughness 

(Q12), and AWl understanding of the needs of the user (Q15). Three more 

Items which added to the predlctabllty of overall satisfaction ratings 

were Items dealing with AWl participation In safety seminars and public 

meetings (Q20), courteousness (Q14), and consistency of Interpretations 

(Q8). 

TABLE 7.-STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF SURVEY ITEMS 

AND TIME IN AVIATION WITH OVERALL SATISFACTION (Q21) 

STEP ITEM MULTIPLE r r SQUARED rSQ CHANGE BETA 

1 Q16 .75672 .57262 .57262 .175909 

2 Q12 .80756 .65215 .07953 .198192 

3 Q15 .83235 .69281 .04066 .198247 

4 Q20 .84876 .72040 .02760 .176278 

5 Q14 .85722 .73482 .01442 .162140 

6 Q8 .86390 .74633 .01151 .158042 

eomments bY~- Percentages of comments written by the users, as coded 

Into various categories by region, are presented In Table 8. Examples of 

the general comments within each of the categories are Included In 

Appendix B. Of the user respondents, 42.3% provided one or more written 

comments. Of these comments, 5.5% fell In a general Information category 

("The above responses concern the FAA and our manufacturing/repair 

functions. We also deal with the modification branch."). Nearly one 

fourth (24.1%) of the comments were favorable and could be accounted for 

by three categories. Most favorable comments praised the performance of 

the local office and/or Inspectors In general (e.g., "AI 1 experience with 

the local people Is positive. They are friendly, helpful, and know their 

jobs.") The next largest category Included comments about a particular 

Inspector who was cited for having a good working relationship with the 

respondent (" ... Is very knowledgeable of aviation technical and mechanical 

problems. He has been very helpful, as well as courteous."). In the 

final favorable category, the agency was cited for doing a good job ("The 

FAA Is by far the most efficient and professional of all government 

agencies 1 have worked with, and 1 have worked with a great many."). 

Negative statements comprised 70.3% of alI comments. Almost half of these 

alleged Inconsistency and lack of knowledge/ski I Is/training/manpower. The 

single category with the largest number of unfavorable commments (13.1%) 

was concerned with the lack of consistency of Inspectors both within and 

between offices ("No set rules or regulations. Decision Is left to each 

Inspector to Interpret the regulations In his region. No two regions seem 

to apply the same rules."). The next highest percentage (10.6%) referred 

to 1 lmlted manpower and an apparent need for more Inspectors ("FAA seems 

to be understaffed, their visits are few and far between."). A third 

major category of negative comments (also 10.6%) Involved the 

training/knowledge/ski lis of Inspectors ("Most Inspectors avoid discussing 

9 
anything 

hands-on 

category 

technical about aircraft or equipment, as most have no recent 

experience or training on the subJects."). No other single 

of comments comprised as much as BX of the total responses. 

In general, the comments tended to provide some personalized support for 

ratings made below the satisfactory cutoff score for the frequency of 

Inspection visits (Q5), consistency of Interpretations of regulations 

(QB), clarity of explanations (Q10), and resolutions of differences of 

opinion (Q11). The comments may also suggest some reasons why Inspectors 

are not more frequently relied on by users for counsel lng In technical 

(Q18) and regulatory (Q19) areas. 

TABLE 8.-SUMMARY TABLE OF COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS NATIONALLY AND BY FAA REGION 

TO THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

NATIONAL FAA REGIONS 

OVERALL AAL ACE AEA AGL ANE ANM ASO ASW AwP 

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 3618 92 247 493 619 137 312 556 584 372 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 1529 42 99 205 269 59 141 264 213 168 

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS li2.3 115.7 1.!0.1 41.6 43.5 43.1 45.2 47.5 36.5 45.2 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPARATE COMMENTS CODED 2029 57 120 279 362 80 197 350 273 218 

COMMENTS CATEGORY 

FAVORABLE PERCENTAGE OF COMMENTS 

GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS 18.1 l7 .s 21.7 22.6 16.3 21.3 12.7 18.3 20.9 14.7 

PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP 4.3 8.8 4.2 5.7 3.0 2.5 5.6 3.7 4.8 4.6 

AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 2.5 2.0 3.1 1.1 1.8 

NON-FAVORABLE 

TOO MANY INSPECTORS 0.2 0.0 0.8 o.o o.o o.o 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.9 

NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) 10.6 5.3 6.7 16.5 11.9 12.5 6.1 10.0 8.1 12.8 

LIMITED AVAILABILITY (LACK OF MANPOWER NOT CITED) 3.5 3.5 4.2 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.1 2.9 5.1 3.7 

INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) 13.1 10.5 17.5 10,0 14.1 20,0 13.7 14.3 11.4 11.9 

INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING 10.6 10.5 8.3 10.0 11.0 5.0 15.7 7.1 12.5 10.6 

ATTITUDES OF INSPECTORS (AUTHORITARIAN, UNHELPFUL) 7.2 8.8 9.2 4.7 7.7 5.0 9.1 7.4 7-7 7.3 

AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE 2.0 7.0 0.8 0.7 1.9 2.5 2.5 1.1 2.6 2.3 

AGENCY POLICIES/PROCEDURES MAKE WORK DIFFICULT 7.6 1.8 8.3 6.5 8.0 10.0 9.6 8.3 8.4 5.5 

AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN'T ENFORCE REGULATIONS 6.0 15.8 2.5 5.0 7.7 8.8 5.1 5.1 3.7 6.9 

REGULATIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO READ/INTERPRET 5.4 8.8 4.2 6.1 3.9 2.5 4.1 7.1 5.9 5.0 

GENERAL NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS 3.9 0.0 3.J 4.3 4.1 1. 3 4.1 3.1 2.9 6.9 

GENERAL INFORMATION 5.5 1.8 7.5 3.9 6.6 1.3 5.1 8.0 5.1 5.0 

Resylts nY Regions. One way of further analyzing the data Is to examine 

differences among regions (see Table 3). The varlabl I lty of positive 

responses to a given Item ranged from 1.6% (Q1 -user knowledge of 

regulations) to 18.1% (Q5 -frequency of AWl visits). Overal I, across 

regions 14 Items had a range of positive scores greater than 10% and six 

Items ranged from 6.0-9.4%. An examination of Table 3 Indicates that, 

overal 1, the Central Region (ACE) had the most positive responses, 

followed by a clustering of the Eastern (AEA), Southern (ASO), and 

southwest (ASW) Regions. The lowest positive scores for a number of Items 

were shared by the two smallest regions- Alaska (AAL) and New England 

(ANE) and by the Northwest Mountain region (ANM). 

10 

"t 
TABLE g.-PERCENTAGE OF pOSITIVE RESPONSES NATIONALLY AND BY AVIATION ACTIVITY 

FOR EACH ITEM IN THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS1 AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

AVIATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY 

NATIONAL PAIIT PART PART PART CERT INSP CERT CERT DESG 

TO VHAT EXTENT 1 QYERALL ...11_ .J.ll _ill_ ..lli. STAT MECH ltEPR MECH PERS~ 

'· are you taailiar with Lhe FAA ragulationa that 98.1 apply to Jour aviation tunctiona? 

2. are you ta.iliar with the FAA publiahed policiea 80.6 

and interpratationa recardinB thoae resulationa 

that applJ to your aviation runotiona? 

), do those regulation• policiea, and interpretation• 61.7 

give you flexibility in aaking deciaiona about the 

work you do? 

•• are you aware of the dutiea and reaponaibilities 11·9 or airworthiness inapectora? 

5. are you visited during the year by airvorthineaa 56.8 

inspector• assigned to you or your facility? 

6. do airvorthinesa inspectors, aasigned to you or 91&.2 

your facilitJ, appear to know the FAA regulations? 

7. do airvorthineaa inspectora, assigned to you or 90.0 

your facility, appear to knOw the FAA published 

policies and interpretations supporting the 

regulatioas'l 

8. do airvorthinesa inspectors, assigned to you or 76.6 

JOur tacilitJ, interpret the regulations in a oonsiatent way? 

9. do airworthiness inspectors, aaaiped to you or 86.9 

your facility, interpret the regulations accurately? 

10. do airvorthiaeas inspectors, assigned to you or your facility, explain the regulations and your 

optiooa clearly? 

98.) 98.2 

72.11 87.) 

66.1 70.6 

57.9 89.1 

12.3 77.8 

86.) 88.9 

89.6 85.2 

73.8 67.) 

95.0 81. 1 

99.1 100.0 99.0 99.6 97.8 98.7 96.9 97.) 

82.8 86.0 88.0 85.7 89.1 86.9 90.6 7).0 

5ll.1 61.5 61t.AI 61.2 61 •• 69.1 68 •• 58.) 

77.0 ?5.8 8).6 80.3 78.) 78.5 811.2 8).8 

68 •• 67.2 68.8 ., ... 60.9 )2.9 112.7 55.6 

9ii.O 9).9 97.1 91.5 9).) 97·3 92.6 97.2 

88.5 89.1 9).0 88.9 88.1 95.5 90.2 82.11 

70.1 73.1 8).8 76.1 85.ll 82.2 80.0 70.3 

811.1 81.5 90.) 88.5 90.9 91. 1 86.2 86.1 

11. are differences of opinion between you and airvorthineaa inspectors (regarding interpretations 

of regulations) resolved in autually acceptable 

ways? 

78.1 77.8 78.2 72.9 76.6 86.11 80.9 83.7 79.11 80.2 82.9 

12. do airworthineas inapectora, assigned to you or 89.7 82.9 90.9 88.8 85.1 9li.O 87.5 90.5 88.9 87.2 88.9 

JOUr facility, conduct their duties in a thorough 

way'/ 

13. do ainforthinesa inspectora, assigned to you or 85.1 89.8 76.11 s-.s 80.3 87.0 79.9 86 • .11 86.0 85.1 86.1 

JOUr tacilitJ, appear to be technically ca.petent 

1D the OODduct of their dutiea? 

1ll. are airworthineaa inspectora, aasigned to JOU or 

your t.aoilitJ, courteous in the conduct of their 

duties? 

15. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to JOU or 

your tacUitr • appear to underatand rour orsanisation and ita needs? 

16. do airvort.binesa inspectors, assi&ned to JOU or your tacilitJ, provide clear and accurate anavera 

to your queatioaa? 

17. do airvorthineaa inapectora, assigned to rou or your tacilitr, provide answera in a tt.elJ aanner? 

18. do you rely on airvorthineaa inspectors for 

oounaelitJa in technical areaa? 

19. do you nly 011 airvorthineaa inspectora for 

oounaelins in ngulatory areas? 

20. are JOU aatiafied with participation by 

airworthiness inapectora in aafet7 seminars and 

other public ... tinga? 

21. are you aatiafied with the performance or airvortbineas inspeotora, aaaigned to you or your facility? 

78.8 

80.2 

82.5 

ll5.0 

60.) 

78.0 

83.1 

80.9 81.8 711.2 

81.8 72.7 76.3 

82.7 711.5 77.8 

32.7 1111.11 u.z 

35.7 66.7 60.9 

66.7 78.9 78.1 

88.9 90.9 78.2 

74.6 86.6 75.6 81.11 82.8 78.7 

77.6 86.9 81.ll 79.5 82.5 78.9 

82.1 BB.o 80.9 82.2 85.7 87.ll 

55.2 03.7 ll1.8 37.0 110.3 ll1.1 

611.2 71.5 59.1 58.7 51.11 5ll.7 

82.5 80.8 76.6 711.3 79-3 7ll.ll 

82.1 89.5 79.9 78.3 85.11 85.11 

-rhis breakdown ia a combination of Parta 125, 127, and 133 certificate holdera, certificated parachute lofta, and 

approved a•iation techniciana eohools. 

11 

82.9 

86.5 

83.8 

•o.5 

75.7 

72.7 

86.1 
Generally low scores across regions for given Items suggest areas where an 

agency-wide effort or emphasis probably would be required to bring about 

significant Improvement. On the other hand, high positive scores 

tabulated for any given Item In one or more regions suggest that 

Improvement, to at least those levels, Is attainable for any region. 

Results Qy Aylatlon Actlylty. Another way of analytically evaluating the 

same overall data Is to examine differences as they relate to specific 

user activities (see Table 9). Differences In the percentages of positive 

responses among aviation activity groups were larger than those noted for 

regions, ranging from 3.1% (Q1 -user knowledge of regulations) to 65.5% 

(Q5 -frequency of visits). Overal I, across types of activity groupings, 

only one Item (Q1) had a percentage range under 10%, 16 Items varied from 

10-19%, 3 Items varied from 20-39%. An examination of Table 9 Indicates 

that the Certificated Repair Station (CERT STAT) respondents had more 

Items with positive responses than any of the other activity groupings. 

Some of the lowest positive scores for Items were from Part 91 Operators. 

Part 121 Certificate Holders presented an Interesting response pattern. 

Next to CERT STAT respondents, they exhibited the highest positive scores 

on several Items; however, they also followed Part 91 Operators In the 

number of Items for which they had the least positive scores. These three 

groups (CERT STAT, Part 91, and Part 121), also had the highest positive 

TABLE 10,-SUHMARY TABLE OF COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS BY THEIR AVIATION BUSINESS 

ACTIVITY TO THE FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS 

AVIATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY 

PART PART PART PART CERT INSP CERT CERT DESG 

_21_ 121 ____!?.?_ __ill_ STAT MECH REPR MECH PERS OTHERS• 

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 58 55 1069 67 698 281 46 314 96 37 

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 52 26 511 21 309 124 17 115 40 16 

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 89.7 47.3 47.8 31.3 li4.3 44.1 37.0 36.6 41.7 43.2 ' 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEPARATE COMMENTS CODED 58 34 682 31 420 176 23 144 57 25 

COMMENTS CATEGORY 

FAVORABLE PERCENTAGE OF COMMENTS 

GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS tg.o 8.8 15.1 25.8 23.1 18.8 17.4 15.3 15.8 8.0 

PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP 3.4 2.9 4.8 o.o 6.4 1.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 o.o AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB 3-4 2.9 2.1 0.0 1.4 o.o 4.3 1.4 1.8 4.0 

NON-FAVORABLE 

TOO MANY INSPECTORS 0.0 o.o 0.6 o.o 0.2 o.o o.o o.o 0.0 o.o 

NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) 3.4 17.6 7.8 6.5 14.5 14.8 8.7 13-9 14.0 20.0 

LIMITED AVAILABILITY (LACK OF MANPOWER NOT CITED) 3.4 2.9 2.9 6.5 3.6 5.7 4.3 5.6 3.5 o.o 

INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) 0.0 8.8 12.6 12.9 13.6 13.1 4.3 10.4 15.8 24.0 

INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING o.o 20.6 11. 3 9-7 8.3 12.5 17.4 11.8 8.8 8.0 

ATTITUDES OF INSPECTORS (AUTHORITARIAN, UNHELPFUL) 1.7 8.8 10.7 12.9 3.6 9.1 o.o 6.9 5.3 4.0 

AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE 5.2 o.o 2.9 3.2 0.5 2.3 4.3 2.1 0.0 o.o 

AGENCY POLICIES/PROCEDURES MAKE WORK DIFFICULT 1.7 11.8 9.8 3.2 6.7 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.8 8.0 

AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN'T ENFORCE REGULATIONS o.o 8.8 4.8 6.5 6.7 6.3 8.7 9.7 7.0 8.0 

REGULATIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO READ/INTERPRET 3.4 2.9 5.4 12.9 5.5 5.1 17.4 4.9 8.8 8.0 

GENERAL-NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS 3.4 2.9 4.7 0.0 2.4 2.8 8.7 4.9 7.0 o.o 

GENERAL INFORMATION 51.7 o.o 4.4 o.o 3.6 1.1 4.3 6.9 3.5 8.0 

•This category is a combination of Parts 125, 127, and 133 Certificate Holders, Certified Parachute Lofts, and 

Approved Aviation Technicians Schools. 

12 
TABLE 11.-RANGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES (PERCENTS) TO EACH ITEM AND 

NUMBER OF USERS (N) RESPONDING FOR DISTRICT OFFICES WITHIN EACH REGION 

ITEM AAL-FSOO ACE-FSOO AEA-GAOO AEA-FSOO AGL-GAOO AGL-FSOO 

1 88.9-100.0 96.0-100.0 96.3-100.0 97.9-100.0 96.6-100.0 97.1-100.0 

2 66.7- 83.8 80,6- 91o9 611.3- 96.3 87.0- 911.3 711.1- 89.3 80.o- 92.9 

3 29.2- 87.5 53.3- 71.11 55.9- 88.9 55.8- 79.2 113.2- 711.1 116.2- 53.3 

II 55.6- 80.0 76.3- 81.8 66.7- 88.6 73.1- 86.11 75.9- 89·3 70.2- 86.7 

5 55.6- 75.7 51.3- 75.7 116.9- 79.2 113.11- 68.2 111.5- 78.6 34.0- 66.7 

6 88.9-100.0 97.11-100.0 85.7-100.0 90.9- 98.0 85.7- 96.11 78.6- 95.6 

7 87.0-100.0 96.11-100.0 811.8-100.0 80.0- 911.0 82.5-100.0 78.6- 93.8 

8 52.0- 83.8 80.0- 88.6 69.6- 91,2 77.6- 85.7 65.7- 84.0 58.1- 84.6 

9 68.0- 88.9 89.2- 96.7 68.2- 96.3 85.11- 95.0 74.3- 93·9 78.6- 96.7 

10 50.0- 88.9 83.3- 88.6 57.1- 88.9 711.0- 80.0 58.3- 84.0 57.1- 80.8 

11 36.0- 88.9 63.3- 87.9 71.4-100.0 69.0- 80.0 65.7- 87.5 53.3- 83.3 

12 89.2-100.0 89.5- 96.9 86.2- 96.9 811.0- 85.11 82.4- 98.1 811.6- 93.5 

13 66.7- 86.5 77.11- 90.6 79.2- 96.3 79.5- 811.2 80.7- 86.5 78.6-100.0 

111 91.9-100.0 911.7-100.0 87.5-100.0 90.2-100.0 80.6- 96·3 71.4- 95.6 

15 55.6- 72.0 75.7- 90.6 70.8- 90.3 71.11- 81.8 70.6- 811.9 71.11- 83.3 

16 64.0- 88.9 83.3- 93·5 82.4- 92.6 711.5- 80.0 711.3- 88.7 66.7- 84.6 

17 88.0- 89.2 81.1- 91.7 75.0- 96.3 78.4- 90.9 75.9- 96.4 62.2- 91.7 

18 37.5- 411.11 38.5- 57.1 35.4- 55.6 110.4- 52.2 25.0- 116.4 36.7- 64.3 

19 118.0- 66.7 53.8- 75.0 26.7- 74.2 55.8- 65.9 114.4- 69.0 56.3- 69.2 

20 65.0- 78.6 85.7- 90.6 69.8- 91.7 68.2- 83.3 64.6- 88.0 69.2- 93.3 

21 72.0- 77.8 811.6- 93.1 81.3- 93.3 72.7- 81.8 74.3- 85.7 71.11-100.0 

N: 9 - 37 32 - 50 15 - 48 22 - 53 27 - 58 13 - 79 

ITEM ANE-FSOO ANH-FSOO ASO-FSOO ASW-FSOO AWP-FSOO 

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

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

3 50.0- 71.4 53.11- 66.7 50.0- 67.11 53.8- 69.4 112.9- 90.0 

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

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

6 79.2- 90.9 90.9- 96.6 33.3- 98.0 87.0-100.0 82.11-100.0 

7 65.2- 86.8 80.9- 87.3 33.3- 911.6 83.3- 97.8 70.6-100.0 

8 58.3- 68.2 60.3- 80.11 33.3- 88.0 56.5- 86.8 33.3- 86.7 

9 72.7- 80.0 74.5- 88.9 66.7- 94.8 80.6- 95.7 50.0-100.0 

10 115.8- 65.8 63.8- 77.8 33·3- 88.0 63.2- 87.3 28.6- 87.5 

11 75.0- 86.11 71.11- 82.2 66.7- 91.9 75.0- 86.11 57.1-100.0 

12 79.2- 92.3 77.8- 91.4 82.4-100.0 75.0- 97.2 80.0-100.0 

13 70.8- 811.2 73.7- 89.6 33.3- 96.0 65.2- 94.9 50.0-100.0 

14 83.3-100.0 82.8- 98.0 66.7- 97.8 81.6- 98.4 88.2-100.0 

15 65.2- 76.9 67.2- 83.3 33·3- 88.1 56.4- 92.3 22.2- 90.0 

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

17 58.3- 86.4 75.9- 87.9 66.7- 88.9 711.0- 95.0 33.3- 93.8 

18 16.7- 116.2 39.1- 56.3 25.5- 55.3 37.5- 60.9 10.0- 71.4 

19 41.7- 61.5 63.8- 67.4 33.3- 70.9 35.0- 65.6 42.9- 81.3 

20 73.7- 84.4 68.4- 73.8 50.0- 93.8 67.5- 85.7 51.9-100.0 

21 72.7- 83.3 71.1- 87.5 66.7- 90.2 62.5- 93.8 33.3- 95.0 

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

13 
ratings on overall satisfaction (88.9-90.9%). Part 135 Certificate 

Holders had the smallest percentage of positive responses for several 

Items and the lowest overall satisfaction level (78.2%). It Is noteworthy 

that the greatest variability across the aviation activity categories 

occurred for the Item concerning visits during . the year bY AWlS (Q5). 

That Item yielded a low score of 12.3X positive responses for Part 91 

Operators and a high score of 77.8% positive for Part 121 Certificate 

Holders. The differences In percentages across these groupings reflects, 

to some degree, the emphasis that the agency places on Inspections In each 

of the areas. 

A categorization of the users' comments by their primary aviation activity 

areas Is presented In Table 10. Part 121 users and users In the combined 

group made proportionately fewer overall' favorable comments (14.6% and 

12.0% respectively), than did users In any of the other groups. CERT STAT 

users had the h lghest percentage o.f favorable comments (30.9%). Compared 

to other user groups, Part 91 respondents made only a small percentage of 

negative comments; most of their comments (5.1.7%) fell In the general 

Information category. Part 121 users and users In the combined group had 

the highest percentage of non-favorable comments concerning the need for 

more Inspectors (17.6% and 20.0% respectively). Part 121 respondents and 

Certificated Repairmen had the highest percentage of comments concerning 

the lack of knowledge, ski lis, abll lty, and training of Inspectors (20.6% 

and 17.4X, respectively). 

Results I2Y Facilities. Of perhaps most value In Improving some aspects of 

the services of AWls Is to focus on the facll lty ratings made by the 

users. The varlabllty of ratings, by Item, Is considerable among 

facll I ties (see Table 11). For example, on overal 1 satisfaction with AWls 

(Q21), the range of positive scores among facll I ties within a region Is 

smal I for AAL (5.8%) and very large (61.7%) for AWP. By focusing on 

user-perceived deficiencies at selected faclllt les, · considerable 

Improvement In service to users may be feasible. A ful 1 report of results 

from each facll lty .appears In Appendices c through I. 

DISCUSSION 

The level of satisfaction with AWls expressed by the aviation business 

respondents of this survey Is comparable to that obtained In studies of 

other selected professional areas. For example, Day and Bodur (1977), 

found the following levels of user satisfaction with public, professional 

and personal services: veterinarians (91%), Income tax preparation 

services (88.3%), optometrists and opthalmologlsts (86.2%), scheduled 

major alrl lne services (84.9%), dentists and dental technicians (84.8%), 

air commuter and air charter services (83.1%), medical doctors and nurses 

In offices or homes (81.3%), lawyers (79.2%), psychologists/marriage 

counselors (78.1%), medical doctors and nurses In hospitals (75.9%), the 

local telephone company (76.5%), and the u.s. postal service (69.2%). 

Lower levels of satisfaction were noted for such services as computer 

dating, nursing and rest homes, architects and home designers, and home 

security agencies/private detectives, among others. Andreasen and Best 

(1977), In their survey of dissatisfaction among purchasers of goods and 

services, provide a quote from the manager of the Consumer Research 

14 

I 

I 

\ 

l 
l 

I 

'[ 

I 

Division of Sears, Roebuck and Company. That manager noted 

"problem rate" (I.e. level of dlssat lsfact lonJ of 10-12X might 

lowest figure reasonably achievable In any survey of consumers. 

that a 

be the 

In a large scale survey, Yankelovlch, Skelly, and White, Inc. 

(1984) reported a 65X positive rating by ,taxpayers for their overall 

evaluation of Internal Revenue Service (IRSJ performance based on direct 

contacts with the IRS; that rating may be compared to the 83.1X overall 

positive evaluation for AWls. (It should be ,noted that Items dealing with 

some specific aspects of the IRS' performance recleved higher ratings.) 

Yankelovlch, et al., also asked taxpayers to provide ratings on a 

seven-point scale from "much better than others" to "much worse than 

others" to Indicate their overall sat lsfact lon with the services provided 

by IRS employees as compared to other federal departments. For that 

rating, 86X of the surveyed taxpayers rated the IRS from "about the same" 

to "much better than others", relative to other federal government 

departments. That finding; In conjunction with the overall 65% positive 

rating for the IRS, suggests a relatively high standing for AWl 

performance. 

Within the past year (1985-1986), several state banking associations have 

completed participation In a National Bankers Association (NBAJ Bank 

Examination survey, which was designed to assess bank satisfaction with 

examinations conducted by the Federal Deposit Insurance corporation 

(FDIC), the State, the Office of the Comptroller of the currency (OCCJ, 

and the Federal, Reserve. Based on available reports of participating 

banks In Kansas, 79% gave the FDIC a satlsfactlonratlng of "average" or 

"good;" 'In Nebraska that percentage was 88%. A related finding of 

Interest was the perceived consistency of evaluations made by examiners; 

In Kansas, 79X of the banks felt that the FDIC examiners had changed the 

basis for classifying loans from the previous examination (I.e., were not 

consistent), whl le only 31% felt the same way about the state examiners. 

By comparison, although the questions are obviously net directly 

comparable to those of the present survey, over 75% of user repondents 

were satisfied with the consistency of AWl's. 

Based on the survey results reported here, aviation users appear to be 

generally satisfied with the manner In which AWls conduct their duties 

(83.1% of the respondents Indicated a "moderate" to "great extent• of 

overal 1 satisfaction with AWl performance). satisfaction was highest for 

AWl's courtesy In the conduct of their duties, their knowledge of FAA 

regulations and of FAA publ lshed policies and Interpretations supporting 

the regulations, the thoroughness with which they conduct their duties, 

and the accuracy of their Interpretations of the regulations. Most users 

did not rely heavl IY on AWls for counseling In either technical or 

regulatory areas. Satisfaction with the performance of AWls was below the 

positive cutoff for responses In areas concerning the number of AWl visits 

In a year, AWl consistency In Interpretations of regulations, the extent 

to which AWls clearly explained regulations and options, and the extent to 

which the regulations permitted the users flexlbl llty In making decisions 

about the work they do. 

Separate analyses of the same data by FAA regions and by the major 

aviation activity of the users, point to a fair consistency Jn the overall 

15 
perceptions of the performance of AWls, but some regions and some aviation 

business areas generate more positive responses than others. For example, 

AWls In the Central (ACE), Southern (ASO), Eastern (AEAl, and Southwest 

(ASW) regions are clearly perceived more satisfactorily than are those In 

the other regions. AWls In the Alaska (AAL), New England (ANE), and 

Northwest Mountain (ANU) regions received the lowest proportions of 

positive ratings. Analyses by the user's primary aviation activity showed 

the most positive responses for AWls who worked with Certificated Repair 

Stations. Some of the lowest positive responses on selected Items 

regarding the performance of AWls were from Part 135 Certificate Holders, 

who tied with Certificated Repairman (CERT REPR) for reporting the lowest 

positive rating for overall user satisfaction. 

A finer focus Is available through analysis by AWl facl lltles. This slIce 

of the data gives more Information on relative strengths and weaknesses 

and provides opportunities to (I) pinpoint locations where pol lcles and 

procedures appear to be working either least effectively or most 

effectively and (I I) compare managerial procedures and conditions which 

differentiate the less successful from the more successful servicing 

facilities as Indicated by the users. 

These results tend to support other Information gathered as a part of 

Project Safe. The Allen Corporation, In a study of FAA Inspectors 

(1985), reported the concerns Inspectors have about a lack of 

standardization which affects their consistency In the Interpretation of 

regulations. This consistency Issue was an area In the survey that users 

rated below the satisfactory cutoff score, and user comments (13.1%) noted 

the Inconsistency of Interpretations both within offices and between 

offices. A second area Identified In Project Safe as one of concern to 

Inspectors was that of "Incomplete and outdated handbooks and other 

guidance material, as well as confusing and obsolete Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FARs)." While users responding to the survey were highly 

satisfied with AWl's knowledge of FAA regulations, publications, and 

policies, the single Item that best predicted overall user satisfaction 

was concerned with clear and accurate answers from AWls to user questions 

(Q16). ConceivablY, Inadequate guidance material and confusing FARs could 

contribute to user dissatisfaction In this regard. Related Items that can 

be considered In a "needs to Improve" category Include consistent 

Interpretations (Q8) and mutuallY acceptable resolutions of AWl/user 

differences of opinion In Interpreting regulations (Q11). 

CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS 

1. The overal 1 satisfaction level (83.1%) reported by users of AWl 

services Is fully acceptable. It Is within the range of levels reported 

In the literature for higher ranking professional/technical services, 

about In the middle of ratings recently reported for consumer satisfaction 

with work of FDIC bank examiners (by participating banks), and above 

overall ratings given the IRS (by taxpayers). 

2. There are variations In user perceptions of AWl's between regions, 

between groupings of users by their primary aviation business activity, 

and by FAA facility. These differences should be closely examined to 

16 
determine how Improvements can be effected. Comparisons can be made of 

high vs. low rated facilities to determine what features of the 

facilities/Inspectors/procedures produce the differences. 

3. Results from this survey suggest that substantive Improvements In 

varied forms of communication by AWl's will positively Impact user 

satisfaction. These areas for continued efforts and/or Improvement would 

Include: 

-Providing clear and accurate responses to questions 

-Conducting duties thoroughly 

-Gaining an understanding of the needs of the users' organizations 

(and communicating that understanding) 

-Becoming Involved In safety seminars and other public meetings 

-Being courteous 

-Working at maintaining consistency 

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

and responsibilities of AWls. 

5. Consistent with the goals of Project Safe, there Is a need to Improve 

standardization of Interpretations of regulations, both within and between 

offices/regions. A mechanism to process unique problems and communicate 

Interpretations to other offices should be Included. 

6. User comments and user responses to the Item on the frequency of AWl 

visits suggested some need for additional AWl manpower. This finding 

supports current efforts (Including Project Safe) to Increase AWl staffing 

and, thereby, Increase the frequency of visits to users. 

7. An Increase 

necessarily lead 

demonstrate, It Is 

In AWl-user contact, In and of Itself, wll 1 not 

to more satisfied users. As this study and others 

the quality of the Interaction that Is significant. 

8. Although users were generally satisfied with the technical ski lis of 

AWls, there were Indications In the user's comments of some perceived need 

to upgrade the overall knowledge, skill, and abilities of AWl's. Training 

curricula and training schedules should address these Issues and should 

Incorporate Instructional methods related to the communication needs noted 

above. An effective continuing education program for AWls to upgrade and 

maintain their technical and communication skills should be developed. 

9. User expectations play an Important role In determining overal I 

satisfaction. Nearly all users, regardless of the extent of their total 

aviation experience, report moderate or greater famll larlty with FAA 

regulations. That user perceived level of their own expertise Is I lkely 

to affect discussions and Interactions with AWls concerning 

Interpretations of regulations. AWls need to be aware of how these user 

perceptions may Influence and shape user responses to Interpretations. 

17 
REFERENCES 

1. AI len Corporation of America. Project Safe: 

Standards (Vol. 1 and II), OPM contract No.: 

A Blueprint for Fl lght 

OPM 41-83/WO 41-182, 1985 

Washington, D.C. 

2. Andreasen AR and Best A. Consumers Complain--Does Business Respond?, 

Harvard Business Reylew, ~:98-101, 1977. 

3. Day RL and Bodur M. A Comprehensive Study of Satisfaction with 

Consumer Services and Intangibles. In R. L. Day (Ed.), Consymer 

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction. ~ Complaining Behaylor. Division of 

Business Research, Indiana University, 1977, pp. 64-74. 

4. Kansas Bankers Association. 

Examination Survey of Kansas banks. 

5. Nebraska Bankers Association. 

Examination survey of Nebraska banks. 

Results from the 

1986 Topeka, KS. 

Results from the 

1986 Lincoln, NB. 

1985 Regulatory 

1985 Regulatory 

6. Yankelovlch, Skelly, and White, Inc. 1984 General Purpose Taxpayer 

Opinion Survey. 1984 Washington, D.C. 

18 
·=- ·-- :-

=-

.-

·=- :--

:-=-

·-- :=-

·-·-- :--

.-

·=- ·-:-

·=: 

._ 

. __ 

·-- :-

·-

APPENDIX A 

In order to a•""" "'"''"'""' ,.toty and to pmvldo you with •morovod _..le&<. tno Fedo•at 

AV<Otoon Adm>nt>trotton I fAA)" oookong a bettor undorotondong ot lho workong rolotlon.nop "'"""Q ~otwoon you tor your oogoMOtlonl and tho ""atlon ootoly '"''"'"'lor tmotntononco 

and ovtontcol '"''0""d to you To occomphon '"''g.,. I, we oro pmvldong one onclo,_, 

quoottonnooro. ""''""""FAA Su,oy ol u ... ,._ Al""o~non ... o '""''""oo• · 

Vou oro ono ol o coootully ootoclod •ample o1 fAA uooto~thln ono '"'"''"" mdustry Sonco only 

o •olouvo>y omall numbe• or"'"" wtll <ocolvo thiS ou.-.oy, ol,. vttry tmporoont thOI you comototo 

ond .-etum lho quol!lonno"o vo"' ootntono wtll be comb< nod'"''" lho .. of olhO<> to rep .... nt 

tho tMughto Ond foehn go ot all"""""''"'" yoU< ovootton activity 

Tho Ou.-.oy. tn q.-tlon lor mot, CO'"'" t!OtnO f8!10rdong behO.,Oo, CO<nptltOOC<I, commuOICOIIOO. 

ond '"'"'"'""" Ootwoon FAA lnopootoro and """ono tn occupatio no""'''"' lo yours Vou< •ooponooo wtll a .. lao thO FAA tn ""'"'tog Ito .. toly ond """''"" ob;<t<:tovoo PI00$0 be o .. urod 

I hot you• onowO<S will romoon anonymous. ContldontiOI•ty '"'"be moontotnod toy 1•1 maehinoocorong tho roopon-. ond lbl onolyzong ooovo g•oupo ot rooullo - NOT INDtvtOUAL 

ANSWERS Tho major porlion ot tho ourvoy llmlto yOU< <eoponooo to a oc01o or 1 lh•ough 6, bU1 

wo """' o•o.,dod optte<t at tho ond or the quootlonnol!o too ony oommttnt! you might wooh 10 

moko 

wo ""d to begin onolyooo or tM •••oonoos oo oooo'" po .. oblo. ond t "'"!hot you eomplolo 

and moll tho oumoy w~hin 5 days ot <eoo<p! Whon 1ho tlnol roooro noo been pro porod, It will bo 

modo ovotrobJo 10 tno public 

1 would opprocooto your portle.pOI,on ond ooouro you that you• ..-.oluo11ono will bo gi•on oorolul 

conoldorotlon 

~~,~~~ Adm•niOt•oto• 

FAA SURVEY OF USERS: AIRWORTHINI!:SSINSPECTORS 

GENERAL SUAV£Y INSTRUCT10NS 

:::".:~u'~o~~~~!~o~:r::::"i~.."::;::'::.oJ':~ ~=.:.-;:;::_'t,Y1':,'! =~!::"' that COIMS Cl_,l to youo 00'"00" 

Romombo<, you• <atlng.o ol '"" A""'""'"'..,., '""""'"'" >Mula 00 """' on OM t>ao10 ol '"" onopo<loro ::!"'" ""'"'""' '"''" o• o-In '"" """''"n ""''"'" """ doslgntuoa oo Y""' M.o,.JOR fUNCTION 

• to -• "'~"' "',.. ~m,., ""' ,,. ,,. ,.,....,., tN• .,,, .. ,... ......... "'""''' 0 To~Ool mo~ ""~'"~-·-- -"""'"'"" 

ooo .. ,.ow 

0""'"'" 

0'""~- .... ~ 

QToom""'"''-

OToo..-""'"~"' 

or .. -,.~" 

', _.,._, • ...,.,,...,,,..~m""'""''"'''"""~"""' ____ ......... ,, ........ ... .. ..,. .. ,......._t, ........ 0.,..,.,_ 

QNo<~OI< 

o,,,_...,.. 

o,. ....... , ... ..,... QToooo--'"~"' 

Otoo.,.., .. ~., 

' .... ~ ......... .--..... , ....... ~.- ... ~=-::::.:::, ~= ~",'; .... ~,,~ '" ......... -"'""' 

0""""-

0"""~' 

Otool·~"'""""' 

Qt 0•••-•~"~" ... ..,_ .......... 

o"••-""~ 

. .......... , .................... ~ .... ... _..,,,.,.,_ .... ._ .. ._,,_ .. ,, oo .. , ..... 0 ""~"' 0 '"'"rn'"'"'~"' 

0 '••m"""'•""~"' 

0'"""'"*'"'"""' 0 Too,...,,.~., 

' ~:.".'.':':,:::':n~·.::::::=.:":~·.~': .:.N,:,::; -~~~· 000•1koo.-

QHo<""' 

Oroo"rn-""'" 

0Toom"''"',_. 

0 '""'"""'-"""' 0 .... ~ ... ~ .. 

.. ,.......,.,~ .. _ .. ,_,, ............. , ooo ...... 

0""'""' 

Qtooom'""'"'""' 

0'''""""''~"~"' o•··-,..,...,., 

QToo",.'"'''"' 

' .... ~ .. ~ ..... ....., •. ...,, .. ..,._ ... , ..... 0,~ 

.................... """'''""'""''"'"-""''""''~·- _. .. , .............. , .. ·- 0"""'"- o• ...... Oloolom,,..,.~., 

o, .............. , 

0'•"""'"''""'"'~' 0'···-.. -· ................ ._.,,_, '""'''"" _,,_ ...... """''"'""-'-O'~i"'' ..... '""''"""""_'...,' oo..· .. - 0"""''" 0foolomlt"'""" 

o•··-"""' 0 ... , ............. ""' 

0'"'-""" 

. " ...... ~ .. '" "~"'"'- '"'"'"" _,, ... "' "" """" '"'"~ .. ~ ... ~ '"' .. , .. , .... ~ ........ . uo ........ 

0 ""'~'" (J "'''rn"•"""' Qfoom""'"'"""' 

(~ '""""'' ... '""'"""' 0"'""''"""' 

" .... ., ... ~ ... ~~'""''""''" ... ""'--""'""" "' , ... "''"'' '"~"" '"' ..,.,~~ ..... , ... ·~~ .... 

::;, -·· ..... ,~ 

o•••"'"' 

o•••"m'~""''" 

Qtoo.-~"'"~"' 

0 0'""'-"~"""' ............ .. 

19 

INSTRUCTIONS YOUA RESPONSES WILL BE AeAO BY AN OPTICAL MAAK EADER IT IS 

IMPORTANT THAT YOU AEAO AND COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING 

I 00 NOT .. M 01 lold lh• 0"""'"""""" !><>oklo<'" ••v wov ! U.. o numbo•! lood 00""' I NOT A !!ALe POINT OA INK PENI 

) MOkoan .. .,.,d,"'m"''""'''"'""'""""''o"''""'""'""""$0 4 Pl .. oee'O .. como<otoly '''""'"'"""'"'"'""'""""'""'""""''""'""<no st<aym"''"""'"'""""'"""' 5 T"<COMOIOIOOq.,.oloon001"'0hOuld 00 MOoiOdlo 

O"•dJ "'""'"d••.PnD FAAAO<ooau"""' Gonlo< 

CAMI.AAM-nS 

PO eo''"''"' 0"•nomaC<Oy o• 73125 

U you h<«< ooy """'"""'you may""'' to 

"'" '"""'"· oo oM no o, S""'""'' at 14001686·4-

"'" y<><,JR CONvEN''lC< A F05TMlE-""D POE AOOFI<SSEO """"" EmEcOOE ACC(li.OP-S TH<S<lU<5"0NNAJR[ 

P10100 odont1ty HoB loeol FAA 0•""'' Off•Co wotn 

whom vou novo cootO<t '"" • ., .. , "'" co<CIO 

,.., .. tho •PP'DP""' ·~•M '"Column 1 Neot 

•donhly tM •oo•ow'"" type ol .,,.,,oel "'"'' by t•l "-"•n,ngoooo<tMoo"'O..'nCotumn2tt>ot 

••o, ... no "''"' 'Yb< ono roroaokon~no "'" "'" cu<IO>•nColumn3thlltodon"tyn,.,ooe•hed"'""' 

O!I1Conum""' FoooAOmOIO,IItMd""'""ff'« 

'""''"gyou "'ntMNowEng.,ndRog•on "' 

ei1ght Standaodo 0"'"" otheo CfSOO), ood '' oU•co "'"""' S(ANE-F$00-IJ you "0u00 dO•kon the 

""'" b<••Oo "ANE '"Column 1, be$•00 'FSOO 1n Column2,ondo.,•Ohe"O I'"""""'""'I•Mthe I" f>e<OM numOoo> 1n C<Humn3 

IIOhod"'""'""''"'""'"g you"""' not""""' num .. , ooyoueannot otne"'•M•dontlly" oy 

moo"' of tho th,..eotum"' Ootow, pte"e w"" '" 

;.::::~~=~::;·r·"'~;,·~ 0. "''" "" c <COO I ,...... 

g ;:;~ ·. :~:· ~ ::: f-s-lc- CON'""' •oc v C 

c; ... , ..... '"' 0 .. ..,,_ ~~" •• '"" o ........ , ... o, 0 

Oso••-• •Sw 

OW<••"'K"' ... , '" 

t1_ 

" To •"" "~"' •~ <'"~·- .. 0~""" .. ,_, "" '"' '""'"'""'"'-~·· ....... ···'"--'"'""' '"'b""' ,...,, .. , .• ~~-~·· '""'~'~ ..... 00.."-

0••""" 

0 ••• "~'~"·~" 

0 0 ............ ···~-·~··~"' ~ ..... .. 0 .... ~~ ..... . 

,,, ....... ~ ...... ._. .. _,,..,...,, ............... . ........... , ... ""'·~-··~-···'"""''"""' 

oo .... ...-

0"•'""' 0 toollmoi .. O•IO•I 

Q•oomo-"'""'" 

0 ................. ~ .. 0 .......... ~ .. 

" 00 •"'' """' Ooo""'""_",._""' _., .. ," "" :;:;:;:,'::;~~':,,'!~,!;~' "'.,......,,~ oom ... ~• "" '"' 

000"""'" 

0""'""' 

0 To••m""''"'~' 

O•··-"~"~" Otoo«-~""orto"' 

0"'""''"'"" 

.. ···"""~"'""'""''""""'"'""''~·-•"''"'" ,.,oo<iK"''-""'"""'"'"'"' ....... ""'"''~-) 

00.."-

0N•'"" 

Q ''"'m'~'"""' 0 toOmodO<o~O<IOOI 

0"'""" ............ . 0 .... ~ .... ~ .. 

""•"'''"""''"'""'""-·"'"''"'""'"'"'''" :::::::.::··''" ................... ,. ........ ~ .•... , 

00o"''""" 

0""'"" 

O foO<•m•t"'"""' 

0 '"mo"'"''"""' 

c."'"""'"~"'"~"' 

0 '"'"'""'"' 

" "~"''"'"'""''"0""'"'"""'""''"" "'"'"''""0 "''"'"''""''~0o<IN!On0~"'"''"'"~"""' ·-"'"'' 

0 "'"''"'" 0 ........ , 

0 To>'•m"""""' 

0 , .. ~-~"'"'"' 

0 '''"'"''""""''""' 0 '"''NiooiOM 

Pl .... '""«"•· bY''"'""'"'"•molot••.,oeYES O•NO, whoth" oonotyou<CU<!Ontwo•k 1nolud" ANY O• All Q! "" '"0110h Oct<> II• .. l•otOd .. low 

"""-''""''"""""'"t"'''""YOU '""''"'"""" po!l Q! vo"' '"''' (YES column), .. ...,t tM ono that" MOST REPRESENTATIVE t10•ol,., thO 

IOo ... tamountolyou•l•moloMdo•konohe""'" 

"'"''" <<om thot oot1"ty ,, .. , thO MAJOR f<JNCttON column 

A"at•onAch••tv ' ¥ ""'''c.'"'"~"""~ c 0 

'"'"'"''"'"'~~"'" 0 c 

''"'""""'"'~"""" 0 0 

"•" '"""'"'<'~"""'" 0 0 

""' '"''-"''"'""~"""' 0 c 

''" '""""''"'~"""'' 0 c c''"''""'"'""""''" 0 0 

c'"'""''''''"'"""'~' 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 

c 6 0 

.... ~'"""''' .. ' 0 

, .. O..···~··"·""" 0 c 

E•onthougn,oumoy"-'"'""'"t"''""'""' 

w<><k 1ootuO., mo«thOOOOOO!theo"'"O" 

""'""" you •noutO "'"'"""''""""ONLY ONE act .. oty undO< oM MAJOR FUNCTION oolumn You< , .. pon,., to'"' .U<''<V ouoot•oo• .. low 

•houiO b< bO>Od On tho MwMhlne$$ '"'""""'' 

you hO«WO''"""'" "'""'""'"""""• ""rloom~ngyouomOjO<I""'""'"""""" 

PI00$0 1M1<"" now tono vou "''' ... "'"tho .... ,on""'""" by ••••• ,.no the •PO<OP""'" 

'"'''"'t"" 

.-,.,_,,,.,, 

c."'"""~ ... 

0 

" .... ., .......... ~ ... -............... ~ .. . """ "" "'''" ''""'" '"'-'"" ' "m~, ~'""~' 

0 "'"''"'" 0 """"' 0 To"m'~"'~"' 

ooo·~-·•"•"•"' 

0'""""'""'"''""' 

0'"'"""'"~' 

''"""''"'""'"''""''0"'"""'"'""''"'""'0'''"" "'""''"''""'.,"'""m' 

0""""""" 0"'"""' 

0 '""~'~"'""' 0 '"m"~""'""' 

0 ""'"'''~'"'''""' 0'"''""'""' 

............... , ..... ,0 ... ~ .... - ........... ,, """'""""'""''"'"''""' 0 o •• , •• ,. 

0 """'"' 0 '""m""'"'~' 0 •oomooo'""'""' 

0 '""'"'"""-''""' 

0 ""'"""'~"' 

"' ''""""""'"'""'"~'>oOml'""'""""'""' 

:::;;.:;·~;::;;:""''= '" ""'' Hmo~" onO "'"'' 

0 "'"""'" C'"''"" 

0 ""'M'~"'' .. ' c., .. ~-~~ ...... 

0 ''"''"'''"~'""~"' 0'"'"'""""' 

"o .. '"'"""""""'~""""'""'""""" -·'"'""'""'"'"''""'"""''"'""-''"'''0'0" ••••••<K""'' 

0 ""''"""'" 

0 '"'"'"'' Q loolom''"'"""' (J , ...... ~ ........ 

0 0 '""'"'""''""'"""' 

, .. , .......... 

--· --: 

-=: 

-=: 

--· --: 

--: 

-=: 

--

--: 

-=~ 

-=: -=: 

-= -=: 

-=: -=: 
APPENDIX B.-REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS 

GENERAL INFORMATION - 5.5X (NO.• 112 COMMENTS) 

1. "We reI y on manufacturer for most techn I ca I quest Ions." 

2. "For a period of time that ended 5 years ago I would have 

answered 14 and 21 quite differently." 

3. "We are operating Part 91 and therefore not In contact with the 

GADO as much as when we were a Part 135 Certificate Holder." 

FAVORABLE COMMENTS - 24.2X (NO.• 491 COMMENTS) 

A. GOOD LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR INSPECTORS- 18.1X 

1. "There exists a good working relationship between the governing 

GADO off 1 ce and our ope rat I on." 

2. "They are most helpful and are an asset to me." 

3. "They do a fIne job." 

B. PARTICULAR PERSON CITED FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIP - 4.3% 

1. " ... has provided leadership with fairness In deal lng with the 

aviation community.• 

2. "We w 1 sh to express a specIfIc recommendatIon for " 

3. " ... Is a valuable person In your organization, If they were 

all like him, It would be great." 

C. AGENCY DOES A GOOD JOB- 1.7% 

1. "I have never worked with a better agency." 

2. "Best appreciate FAA when compared to your foreign counterparts 

who are unresponsive autocrats." 

NON-FAVORABLE COMMENTS - 70.3% (NO.• 1426) 

A. INSPECTORS ARE INCONSISTENT (WITHIN AND BETWEEN OFFICES) - 13. 1% 

1. "I feel alI regions are not treated equally. Some FAA Inspectors 

require everything letter perfect, whl le others accept less." 

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

3. "1 t seems that every t 1 me we get a new Inspector he wants 

procedures done differently- It would be nice If they alI 

wanted their procedures the same- IT WOULD SAVE TIME AND 

MONEY." 

B. NEED MORE INSPECTORS (LIMITED MANPOWER) - 10.6% 

1. "Need more Inspectors." 

2. "I feel In our area at least, that both maintenance and safety 

functions are limited by man power." 

3. "Not enough Inspectors assigned to enforce regulations." 

20 
f 

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

C. INSPECTORS LACK KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, TRAINING- 10.6X 

1. "Professional ability- poor, knowledge- very shallow." 

2. "They often do not know what should be done about major Issues." 

3. "Lack mechanical knowledge and skills." 

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

1. "If I ran my business the way the Inspectors do would not have 

a business." 

2. "Too often the Inspectors seem to be more Interested In 

demonstrating their power and control over us peasants than In 

being of real service In resolving the problems of the aviation 

community. First priority seems to be to show that they are In 

charge." 

3. "I have had very curt Inspectors at times for no apparent 

reason .•. can be very Intimidating." 

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

1. "Have never been v lsi ted by an AW 1. • 

2. "Need more contact with general aviation." 

F. TOO MANY INSPECTORS- 0.2% 

1. "The FSDO Is overstaffed and personnel are overpaid for the amount 

of work they do, It Is twice as big as It needs to be.• 

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

1. "Expedite U.S. certification procedures on previously U.s. 

registered aircraft. 

2. "The entire regulatory system needs overhaul If general aviation Is 

to survive." 

3. "The major drawback Is the repeated submission of requests that the 

FAA knows the answer to, but they make you discover it. 

H. AGENCY IS TOO LAX/DOESN'T ENFORCE REGULATIONS - 6.0X 

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

aircraft maintenances." 

2. "FAA takes little or limited stand In enforcing section 1305A, 

1349A, and In policing sponsor's assurances under section 2210." 

3. "Don't enforce consistently, one operator Is leaned on heavilY while 

another Is unsupervised." 

21 
APPENDIX B.-REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS (CONTINUED) 

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

1. "FAR's governing flight operations and pilot certification are 

very confusing and worthless In many cases." 

2. "The problem of Interpretations of regulations Is always 

present." 

3. "FAA regulations have long been known to be ambiguous, verbose, 

over-complicated. Stop trying to hide behind your lawyers and 

write documents that can be readily understood by all people In 

the aviation community." 

J. AGENCY IS TOO REGULATED/RESTRICTIVE- 2.0% 

1. "The Industry Is vastly over-regulated." 

2. "Local Inspectors are good men, but somewhat Intimidated by FAA 

regulations and directives published by a bureaucracy that Is more 

Intent on being legally correct than they are on addressing 

problems In practical terms." 

K. GENERAL NEGATIVE/MISCELLANEOUS - 3.9% 

1. "There should be no double dipping." 

2. "The FAA has been Insensitive by reassigning their N numbers to 

other aircraft." 

22 
r 

APPPDII C.•PERCIITAGES OF rQSlTlVE USPOIIES fOR AUSlAH AND IORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REG I Oil 

PSDOS FOR IACM ITEM llf THE SURVEY 

rsoo ...... NORTHWEST HOUNTAII 

to WHAT UTENTI -·- -·- _c_._ -·- -'- -'- ..J!_ 

1. are JOU fuilhr with tM FU. NIUl&Uona \hat 100.0 81.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.) 98.0 

applJ to rour ••lation functlaa.7 

•• are JOU fu1lhr with tM F&a publlabed policlaa 72o0 66.7 8).8 89.1 78.9 70.7 87.2 

and lntarpretatlona re&ardlDI tboae reaulatlona 

that applJ to your awlatloa tuaotlonat 

). do ihoaa reaulatlona policlaa, and lnterpretattona 29o2 87.5 70.6 58.7 66.7 5) •• 58.) 

1lwe JOU flaxlbllltJ tn •klnc declalona about UM 

work JOU do? 

•• are you aware or the duties and reaponalblUUea ao.o 55.6 75.7 76.1 70.2 711.1 75.0 

of alrvorthlneaa lnapectora? 

5. are you Ylalted durlna tbe rear by alrworthlnaaa 72o0 55.6 75· 7 .,.5 55.2 86.2 52·1 

1napectora aaalsned to JOU or rour racillty'l 

6. do airworthln .. a 1napeot.on, aaalsned to you or 100.0 81.9 9Tol 90.9 96.6 91.1 9).9 rour tacllitJ, appear to know tbe ru regulatlona? 

To do alnrortbineaa 1n8pectora, aaalped to )'OU or 87.0 100.0 91.7 86 •• 87-0 87.3 80.9 

your racility, appear to know tbe FAA publiabed 

policies and interpretationa su.pportina the 

reauletiona? 

8. do airworthiness inspectors, aaaigned to you or 52o0 77.8 8).8 75.6 60.3 69.0 .... your facility, interpret the reaulations in • 

consistent way? 

g. do airworthiness inspectors, asslped to you or 68.0 81.9 86.5 79.5 83.6 711.5 88.9 

your facility interpret tbe reaulationa accurately? 

10. do airworthiness inspectors, aaaiped to you or 50.0 81.9 78 •• 77.8 7lo9 6).8 611.6 

your facility explein t.be ... aulationa and your 

options clearly? 

"· ar. differences or opin1ao between you and )6.0 81.9 78 •• 82.2 72.7 71.11 76.1 

airvorthineaa i.Dapectora (reprdinc 

iDterpretationa or reauletiona) resolved in 

autually acceptable ways? 

12. do eirvorthineaa inspectors, aaaisned to you or 9lo7 100.0 89.2 77.8 91.1& 82.8 89.1 

your facility, conduct tbeir duties iD a thorou&h .. ,. 

13. do airworthiness inapeotora, assisned to you or 8).3 66.7 86.5 80 •• 81.0 7).7 89.6 

your taoility, appear to be teChnically cc.petent 

1n tbe conduct or their duties? 

... are airworthiness ina pectora, asaiped to JOU or 92.0 100.0 91.9 91.1 87-9 82.8 98.0 

your facility, courtaoue 1n tbe conduct ot their 

duties? 

15. do eirvorthineaa inspectors, aasisned to you or 72.0 55.6 73.0 82.6 70.2 67.2 8).3 

your taoility, appear to understand 70ur 

orpnuatioa. met its DMdaf 

16. do eirvorthineas 1napectora, aaaisned to you or 61&.0 81.9 86.5 76.1 79·3 70.7 83.3 

your racility, provide clear and accurate anevera 

to your questions? 

17. do airvorthineaa inspectors, assigned to you or 81.o 81.9 89.2 78.3 87.9 75-9 8•.8 

your facility, provide answers in a ttaely aannerf 

18. do you rely en atrvortbiness inspectors for 37.5 1&1&.11 1&3.2 39.1 &111.8 ,.,_. 56.3 

counaelins 1D technical areaat 

"· do you rely on airvorthiDeas inspectors tor .118.0 66.7 "·' 67.11 67.2 63.8 611.6 counaelinl in resulatory areaat 

20. are you satisfied with participation by 65.0 77.8 78.6 73.8 73-3 68.11 72.1 

airworthiness inspectors 1n aatety seainara ... otber public aeetingaf 

21. are you aatiatied with tbe performance or 72.0 77.8 75-7 71.1 79-3 72.11 87.5 

airvorthineas inapectors, aaatsned to you or 

your tacilityf 

TOTAL IIU!eER OF RESPONDENTS: •• 25 9 37 " 58 58 .9 

23 
po 

APPEMDII D.-PERCENTAGES Of POSltlY£ RESPONSES FOR NEW PGUND AID CENTRAL REGION 

PSDOS POR UCH ITEH 111 THE PU SURVEY 

11EV IENGLAIID CENTRAL 

TO WHAT UTEIITI -·- -·- _r._._ -·- • c -·- __j_ 

1. are rou taa111ar lf1th the ru replationa U.t 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.3 100.0 96.0 100.0 

applJ to ,our awtatton tunotton.1 

•• are rou t•Utar lfitb the ru publbbed pollolaa 15.0 17.2 17.3 19.7 91.9 8-.8 •••• 80.6 

and int.rpretatlona reprdift& thoaa "&Ulatione 

that applJ to rour awlatlOD tunotlonaf 

3· do thoa4 ra,ulatlona pollclaa, and tntarpretatlone 50.0 66.7 ,, .. 60.5 60.0 59·' 71 •• 53o3 

11ve rou tlazibllltr ln .. ttna deolalona about tbe 

work rou dot 

'· ara JOU aware or the dutlaa and reaponalbllltlaa 78.3 1].1 61.2 76.3 78.- 81.8 n., 78.1 or alrvorthineaa lnapectorat 

5. ara JOU Y1a1 ted durlnc the ,..r bJ alrworthlneaa 50.0 -3.6 31.8 51.3 75.7 60.6 69.- 59·' 

tnapeotora aaaipM to rou or rour rac1Utrt 

6. do a1rworUd.Den ina pectora, aaalped to JOU or 79.2 89.7 ,._, 97·' 100.0 100.0 97-9 100.0 

J'OW' fac111tJ, appear to know tbe ru r.plationa'l 

1. do a1nfOI"tb1nen ina pectora, aaalped to JOU or 65.2 86.8 17o3 91.2 100.0 100.0 91.8 96 •• 

rour fac111tr, appear to lmOW tbe FAA publiabed 

policlea and 1nterpretat1ona aupportln& tbe 

nplat10DBt 

a. do alnrorthlneaa 1DBP41ctora, aaaiped to JOU or 51.3 67.6 61.2 81.1 ... , 87.5 88.6 80.0 

your tacilitr, 1Dterpret tbe replat1ooa 1D a 

CODBietent •rt 

,. do a1rvorth1neea in~ pectora, auiped to rou or 12.7 80.0 72.7 89.2 9].9 96.7 91-3 92.6 

JOUr facility interpret tbe resulatiODB aocuratelyt 

10. do a1rvortb1Deea inepectora, aaaiped to rou or .115.8 65.8 59.1 86.5 81.6 8-.- 87.2 83-3 

your taoility npla1D the replatiODa and :rour 

optlona cl.eu'lyt 

11. are dittereooea ot oplnioa betVMD rou and 15.0 79.5 16 •• 81.1 87.9 78.1 79.2 63.3 

ali"WWO'tbiDUa 1ft81141ctora (reprdiq 

1DterpretatiOD8 ot reaulatlona) reached 1n 

•utuallr acoeptable .. ,., 

12. do &lMtOrtbiMU inapectora, aaaiped to rou or 79.2 92o3 ,._, 89.5 9Ji.3 96.9 91-7 93-3 JOUr" taclUtr, concluct tbelr dut1u in a tborouab 

.... 13. do ainrortbiD&U lnapectora, aniped to you or 70.8 8Ji.2 12.1 89.5 88.6 90.6 89.6 rour racilitr, appear to be teobftloallr ~1141t.ant "·' 

in tbe coaduot ot tbelr dutieat 

"· .... a1rvortb1D&aa inapectora, aaalped to rou or 83.3 92o3 100.0 9Ji.7 91.1 100.0 97·9 100.0 

your rac111ty, oourteou 1ft the coaduct or U.1r 

d~o~t1eat 

15. do a1rvortb1~~eaa ina pectora, aaaiped to rou or 65.2 76.9 72-7 75.7 81.6 90.6 83.0 90.0 rour tacilitr, appear to underatand your 

or_.aization and ita needat 

16. do a1rvortb1neaa ia.pectora, aaaiped to JOU or 66.7 76.9 61.2 86.8 88.6 90.9 83.3 93-5 

JOW' tacllitJ', prowide clear and accurate .nawer~~ 

to rour qu.at10D81 

17. do alrwortblneaa iMpactors, aaaiped to you or 51.3 811.2 86.- 81. 1 85.7 90.9 91.7 87.1 rour racilit)', prowide anavera in a ti .. lJ' -.nnert 

18. do you rely on airvortbineaa tnapectora tor 16.7 116.2 18.2 ]8.5 51 •• 51.6 57.1 53.1 

COWlBeU.q in tecbn1oal aruat 

"· do you rely oo ai"'ortbineaa inapectora tor 1111.7 61.5 so.o 53.8 75.0 65.6 69 •• 65.6 

counaeliq in resulatory areaat 

20. .,.. rou utiatled with participation by 73-9 811.4 13·1 81.2 90.6 86.2 89.7 85.7 

airvortblneaa inspectors in aatety ••lnara ad 

other public ... tinsat 

21. are you aatlatied vitb the pertor.ance or 83.3 76.9 72.7 811.6 91.2 87.9 91.7 93.1 

alnrortbiaeaa iDa pectora, aaalped to you or your facility? 

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPOIIDEIITS: •• 2- 39 22 39 37 33 50 32 

24 
T 

I 

I APPENDII E.-PERCENTAGES OF POSITIVE RESPONSES FOR SOUTHWEST REGION 

FSDOS FOR EACH ITEH IN THE SURVE! 

rsoo 

TO WHAT EXTENT a A ' c _o_ _E_ _r_ ---"-- _!._ 

'· are you raUtar with the Fll resulatlona that 100.0 98.0 98.0 95.3 9S.8 97-5 100.0 100,0 

apply to your aviation functional 

2. are you r .. tllar with the FA& published policies 8S.7 90.2 79.8 90.6 9So8 73.7 87.S 92.7 

and interpretations resardlDI thOse reaulationa 

that apply to your avlat1oa functional 

3. do those resulatlona policies, and lnterpretationa 63.0 68.0 69.11 62.3 511.2 53.8 6S.8 68.s 

&iva you flexlblllty in aaklDC declalona about the 

work JOU do? 

•• are you aware of the duties .ad responalb111tlea 92.6 711.0 80.8 82.8 79.2 61.5 as.o 76.11 

of alrworthlneaa inspectors? 

s. are you vial ted durin& the year ~ airworthineaa 78.6 51.0 54.1 57.8 511.2 72.5 S7.S 61.8 

lnapectora assigned to you or ,our facility? 

6. do alrworthlneaa inspectors, usigned to you or 100.0 95.9 91.9 96.8 87.0 91.7 94.7 88.7 

your facility, appear to lcnov the FAA regulationa? 

7. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 92.0 85.1 97.8 96.7 90.9 83.3 97·3 90.2 

your facility, appear to know the FAA published 

policies and tnterpretationa supporting the 

regulations? 

8. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 80.0 71.4 83.9 75 • .11 56.5 67.6 86.8 73.1 

your facility, interpret the regulations 1n • 

consistent way? 

9. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 95-7 811.0 90.3 91.8 81.8 80.6 911.7 88.9 

your facility interpret the resulations accurately? 

10. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 80.8 7ii.O 711.0 87.3 69.6 63.2 82.5 7S.9 

your facility explain the resulations and your 

options clearly? 

"· are differences of opinion between you and 75.0 75-0 83.9 86 • .11 75.0 75.7 84.2 71.11 

airworthiness inspectors (r-.arding 

interpretations of regulatiODS) resolved in 

•utually acceptable ways? 

12. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to your or 96.il 82.0 91.6 95.0 75.0 81.6 97.2 88.9 

your facility, conduct tbeir duties in a thorough 

way? 

13. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 81.5 85.11 86.6 9'·9 65.2 73.7 9 •• 9 83.0 

your facility, appear to be technically competent 

in the conduct of their duties? 

"· are airworthiness inspectors, aaaisned to you or 96.2 86.0 95-9 98 •• 87.5 81.6 97.5 90.7 

your facility, courteous in tbe conduct of tbeir 

duties? 

1S. do airworthiness inspectors 1 assigned to you or 76.9 71 •• 86.0 83-3 66.7 56 •• 92-3 81.1 

your ractlity, appear to understand your 

orpnhation and ita needs? 

16. do 'airworthiness inspectors, aaaigned to you or 71.11 76.0 83.7 8ll.1 62.5 76.3 87.S 79.6 

your facility, provide clear IIDd accurate answers to your questions? 

17. do airworthiness inspectors, aaaigned to you or 78.6 711.0 85.7 85.9 75.0 78.9 95.0 83.3 

your facility, provide answera in a tiMly 11armer? 

18. do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 39.3 116.9 110.8 60.9 115.8 37.5 115.0 50.9 

counseling in technical areas? 

'9· do you rely on airworthiness inspectors for 112.9 5.14.2 55.1 65.6 56.5 35-0 65.0 61.5 

counseling in regulatory areas? 

20. are you satisfied with partiCipation by 85.7 85.0 67.5 83.6 71.11 71 • .11 81.1 81.3 

airworthiness inspectors in safety seminars and 

other public aeettnga? 

21. are you satisfied with the perfOI'IIance of 78.6 76.0 86.7 93.8 62.5 66.7 92.3 85.2 

ai rworthineas inspectors 1 aaatped to you or your facility? 

TOTAL NUHBEI OF RESPONDENTS: •• 28 51 99 " .. •o •o ss 

25 
rr 

! 

APPENDIX F.-PERCENTAGES Of' POSITIVE RESPONSES f'OJI SOUTHERN REGION 

FSDOS FOR EACH lTD! IN THE SURVEY 

rsoo 

TO VKAT EXTENT I A 

-·- _c_ _D_ -·- _r_ -·- -·- 1. are JOU faaillar vltb the FAA reaulationa that 100.0 97-7 98.6 98.7 100.0 98.1 100.0 100.0 

applJ t.o rour aYiation tunct.lcna'l 

2. are you ta•Ular with the FAA pu.bUahed polloi .. 33-3 86.0 85.5 92.2 87.2 82.7 82.0 78.9 

and lnterpret.atlona reaardln& tboae resulationa 

that applJ to JOUr aviation f\mctiona'l 

3· do thoae regulations pollciea, and interpretations so.o 67 •• 62.7 61.0 67.4 53.5 65.11 61.1 

&iva J'OU flexibility in aaking decialona about the 

vork you do? 

•• are rou aware of the duties and reaponaibllitlea 66.7 83.7 81.2 75.3 80.9 73.8 76 • .- 77.8 

or alrworthtneaa inspectors? 

5. are you visited during the year ~ airworthiness 100.0 60.5 51.5 118.7 52.2 61,2 38.1 117.11 

lnapectora asaianed to you or JOUr facility? 

6. do alrworthlneaa inspectors, aaaisDed to JOU or 33·3 97.6 92.6 97-3 93-2 98.0 96.1 88.9 

JOUr facility, appear to know the FJ.l regulations? 

7. do airworthineaa inspectors, asa1ped to vou or 33-3 86.5 86.8 9 •• 6 90.7 92.9 88.5 83.3 

your taeility, appear to know tbe FlA published 

policies and interpretations supporting the 

regulations? 

8. do airworthiness inspectors, assigned to you or 33-3 76.2 86.8 61.1 75.0 88.0 711.3 72.2 

your raeility, interpret tbe regulations in a 

consistent vay? 

9. do airworthiness inspectors, aaslped to you or 66.7 90.5 92.4 90.4 86,0 94.8 11'1.3 88.9 

your raeility interpret. t.he rel\llat.iona accurately? 

10. do airworthineas inspectors, aaaiped to you or 33·3 81,0 79.4 65.1 63.0 88.0 69.2 77.8 

your taoility explain the regulatioos and your 

options olearlJ? 

11. are dirrerenoes or opinion between you and 66.7 91-9 80.3 79-5 79.5 82.1 70.5 72.2 

ainfOrthinesa inapeotora (reprd1Dg 

interpretations or resulat.iona) resolved in 

.ut.ually acceptable ways? 

12. do airworthiness inspectors, aasisDed to you or 100.0 95.2 89.4 94.5 88.4 94.1 89.3 82.4 

your taoility, conduct. their duties in a thorough 

vay7 

13. do airworthiness inspectors, aa&J.aned to you or 33.3 88.1 89.6 89.2 8'1.4 96.0 85.2 84.2 

your facility, appear to be teohnicallJ competent 

in the conduct or their duties? 

... are airworthineaa inspectors, aaa18Ded to you or 66.7 95.2 95-7 93-2 97.8 96.1 94.5 94.7 

your taeility, courteous in tbe cooduct or their 

duties? 

15. do airworthizleas inspectors, aaalgDed to you or 33.3 88.1 83.3 81.1 84.4 85.1 85.2 68.4 

your facility, appear to understand your 

organization and ita needs? 

16. do airworthiness inspectors, alllliped to you or 66.7 88.1 82.6 79.7 78.3 87.0 78.0 84.2 

your facility, provide clear aDd accurate answers 

to your questions? 

11· do airworthizleaa inspectors, assigned to you or 66.7 78.6 83.8 80.8 83.0 88.9 85.2 83.3 

your tacilitJ, provide answers 1D a timely aanner? 

18. do you rely on airwortbineaa inspectors for 33.3 48.8 50.0 45.3 25.5 55.3 119.1 36.8 

counaelins in technical areas? 

19. do you rely 011 airworthiness inspectors tor 33.3 65.1 60.9 65.3 4il.7 70.9 61.6 68.4 

counseltns 1D regulatory areas? 

20. are you aattaried 111 th participation by 50.0 80.0 8G.O 81.11 80.6 82 ... 79.0 93.8 

airworthiness inspectors in sarety seminars and 

other public .eetinsa? 

21. are you satisfied with the pertonanoe or 66.7 87.8 8l&.1 89.3 83.0 90.2 86.2 78.9 

airworthiness inspectors, aasl&ned to you or 

your taoillty? 

TOTAL NUMBEH OF RESPONDENTS: •= 3 '3 69 77 .7 10. 113 19 

26 
APPINIIIJ G.~HRCEMTAO!S or POSITIVI IISPOIISI:S IY 01\U.T I.AII:!S IIIOION 

GADOS AND FSDOS FOR IACH ITEM Ill THE SUJtVlY 

TO WHAT DTEN1'1 

1 ..... JOU taailiar vittl the FAA Nllllat1ona t,..t 

apply to JOUr aviation t\mctlona? 

2. IN JOU fall1l1ar Vitti the F.U publ1abed pol101111 and interpretation• r.prdin& thoae NJUlaUona that apply to Jour aviation t\mctiona? 

OADO AHD FSDO 

_,_ __a_ __c_ __D_ _..!._ _!_ __M_ ...!!...__ __££_ .....P£....... EE rr 

98.3 100.0 97.3 96.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 97.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 

811.2 711.1 83.8 79.3 88.9 89.3 84.6 80.9 88.2 80.0 81.0 92.9 

3. do ttloae resulattona polioiaa, and loterpl"ttt.ltiorul 63.2 53,7 •3.2 60.3 7~.1 53.6 116.2 52.2 51.6 53.3 52.0 50.0 BiYa Jou tlea:ibility in u.kin& deciaiona about the 

work JOU do? 

"· ll"ffl you aware of the duttea and l"ffliPOIIaibilitiea 82.5 75.9 81,1 81,0 88.9 89.3 76.9 70.2 12.1 86.7 72,7 71.111 ot airvortbtneaa inepeotora? 

5, are JOU. Yiaited durin& the J&ar by ainrorthineaa 59.6 •1.5 11).2 50.0 51.9 78.6 61,5 )4.0 58.8 66.7 64.9 64.,) 

inspectors aaataned to you or your tacilitJ'l 

6. do a1rvortbineaa inapectora, aaalped to JOU or 96,2 92.6 85.7 89.7 96.0 96.11 92.3 95.6 9).9 86.7 911.9 78.6 JOUr f'aciltty, appear to know the FAA l"ffSUlationa? 

1. do airvorttlineaa inapeotora, aaaigned to 1011 or 

JOUr tacllitJ, appear to know the P.ll publbbed 

polieiea and interpret.attona aupportin& the 

resulattona? 

96.0 90.2 82.9 82.5 91.7 100.0 92.) 78.6 93.8 86.7 89.2 78.6 

8. do airvortbtneaa inapeotora1 aaaiped to JOU or 82,0 78.8 65.7 75.9 84.0 78.6 84.6 58.1 80.0 66.7 80.8 76.9 

JOUr tacilitJ, interpret the resulationa in a oonaiatent _,., 

9. do airvortbtneaa tnapectora, aaaiped to JOU or 93.9 90.0 711.3 85.7 87.5 85,7 8~.6 85.11 96.7 78.6 92.1 78.6 JOUr f'llcilitJ interpret the resulat1ona aocuratel)'7 

10. do airwortbineaa 1napeotora, l!laicned to JOII or 

JOUr f'llo111tJ aaplaln the l"ffSUlatlona mel JCIW' optlona olaarl77 

11 •• ,.. ditterenoea of opinion betveeo 101.1 and 

a!I'VOl"tblMaa tnapeotora (reprd1Dc 

tnterpre\altiona of replatioaa) Naolftd. lo 

111.1tuall7 aooeptable •J•7 

12. do alnfortbtneaa 1Mpectora 1 aaaf&necl to )'011 or 

JOUI" 

_, tac111t7, CODduot their dutiea in a tboroulh 

13. do airworthtr.leaa 1Mpactora, aaa1&fted to 101.1 or 

Jour taoU1tJ, appear to be techaioall)' oo.peteDt 1D tba ooraduot of tMir dutiut 

111. &N alrvortllineaa J.napeotora, •••1&ned to JOU or Jour tac111tJ, oourteou• 1D tbe conduct or t.belr 

dut1eat 

15. do a!JovortlllMaa l.Dapeotora, U11&Mcl to JOU or )'our tactlttJ, apPMr to unclarataDcl rou.r orp.Qisatioa &lid ita DHd•7 

8).3 711.1 58.) 79.3 811.0 67.9 76.9 77-3 77.11 66.7 80.8 57.1 

81.5 7-11.5 65.7 73.7 87.5 85.2 61.5 78.0 83.3 53.3 83.) 6 •• ) 

98.1 82.1 82.11 89.5 88.0 89.3 92.3 86.- 93.5 85.7 91.1 811.6 

86.5 82.7 82.9 80.7 811.6 82.1 100.0 88.6 811.11 80.0 83.5 78.6 

9-'1.3 96.3 8o.6 911.7 96.2 92.9 92.) 95.6 93.9 93-3 911.9 71.11 

811.9 72.2 70.6 81.0 811,6 71.11 83.) 81.0 78.1 73.3 82.3 71 •• 

16. do a1r'Vortb1Deae 1DIIpectora, ... ipecl to JOil or 88.7 77.8 7-'-3 79.3 88.5 82,1 511.6 75.6 81.8 66.7 78.5 n.Jil JOUI' ho111tJt proy14e olear and aoourate ._.,.. to J'OIU' quaattoaat 

17, do alnforUl!naaa lDapeotora, aaa1&MCI to Jou or 75.9 79.6 77.1 79.3 92.3 96.11 91.7 62.2 80.6 8o.o 86. 1 71.11 Jour tac111tJ, provide an ... r• in a tt..lJ ~r7 

18. do JOU rel7 oa atrvortblMa• 1napectora tor 37.9 33,3 25.0 111.11 37.0 •6.11 53.8 112.2 )6.7 •6.7 116.8 611.] OOUDHliftl in teobnioal areaa7 

19. do JOU rel7 oa atrvortblM•• 1Upect.ora tor 69.0 55.6 55.6 so.o •11.11 611,3 69.2 56.5 56.3 66.7 61.5 6•.3 oounaelina in rqulator)' areaat 

20 • .,.. JOU aatlatl.ed v!tb puotioJ.paticn bJ 

a!rwortbiDeaa 1Dapeotora 111 aatatJ ...tll8ra ..:1 

otber publlo .. tiD&a'l 

21. aN rou aat1atiad v!tb tba pert'oNanctl of 

a1rwortb1neaa 1DaPMton, auiplecl to 1011 or 

)'0111' taotlltJ? 

tOT&L llt»>UI or IISPOIIDIII1'S1 I• 

78.7 ~.6 78.1 86,8 75.0 88.0 83.3 75.7 69.2 93.3 78.3 71.11 

82.1 ~"·' T"o) 81.0 81.5 85.7 100.0 75.6 81.) 73-3 85.9 n., 

.. 3T .. 27 28 13 15 

27 
APPEIIDil 11.-PUCINTAGES Of POSITIVI HPSC*S&S fOil IASTIIX UCIOII 

OAliOS UD PSDOS fOil IAQI ITIM II 1111 SUitll' 

TO IIIAf UTUft 

1, are JOII r•J.Uar with tbli P.U l"ttllll&tiOD8 U.t 

applr t.o J01U' a•lat.ian runot.10&a1 

OADO AIID PSDO 

• • c 

100.0 100.0 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

2. ar• rou r•lllar wlt.h tM ru publlablill pollclu 87.5 88.6 96.3 89.6 91,11 8).7 82.11 111.11 611.) 

an4 lnt.erpretat.lona l"ttprlllq tho .. raplat.lCIDI 

tbat applr to JO\II" awlat.loo runctlon.'l 

)o do tbo .. l"ttJI'lat.lone polt.ci .. , and 1nt.erpNt.at.1ona 65.2 61.8 ... , 70.8 ss.t 61.9 58.8 56.) 60.0 

&J,n 1011 rledb1Utr 1n .. kina deo1a1ooa about. tM 

work rou clo'l 

4. are JOII aware or t.M dutiea and reapona1bil1t.lea 75.0 88.6 15.2 17.5 82.9 81.11 88.2 81.3 66.7 

or ail"''lortbineN 1aapaotora'l 

5. are JOu whited d\IJ"iq tM real' by a1rwort.b1oeaa 19.2 60.0 10.11 611.6 57.1 57,1 67.6 116.9 60.0 

iupaotol'a a .. i,ned. to ,ou or ,our rao111t.J1 

6.doaJ.rvorth1neuiDapeotora,an11ft&dto:rov.or 87.5 91.1 100.0 91.7 911.3 100.0 911.1 96,7 85.7 

JOW' rao111tJ, appear t.o 1cnov t.M ru Nllllatioaa'l 

1. do a1Nort.h1aeN iupectora, aaaiped t.o rou or 

JOW' rao1ltt.J, appear to knoll t.M PAA publlabed 

pol1o1u and 1nterpretat10DII aupport.1DC tbe 

l"ttllllatiana'l 

87.0 90o9 100.0 91.) 911.) ,.,_, 811.8 89-7 85.7 

a. do airvortbiau iaapaotora, aaaiped t.o JOU or 69.6 91.2 88.9 77.1 71.11 80.5 75.8 82.8 76.9 

JOIII' rac111tJ, interpr-et tbe rellllBtiOP in a 

0011111atcat. vaJ'l 

f, do a1rvot't.b1Mn iDapeotora, aaallfl&d t.o JOII or 68,2 90.3 96.) 8S.II 93.9 87.5 91.2 88.9 811.6 

J01U' racJ.lit.J interpret tba replatiana acouratalJ1 

10. do airvort.hiMBa iDapecton, aaailft&(l t.o JOU or 75.0 82.1l 88.9 70.8 TT.1 71.4 82,11 1),) 57.1 

JOIII' raclli\J BJ!Plaln tbe rt1111lat1ooa and JOW 

optioaa claar1J1 

11. are dirrerenou or opinion betVMD :rov. and 

aii'VOI"t.Jd.Dau iDapeot.on (reprdUic 

intlll'pn\atiODB or Nllllatiana) I'UOlftd in 

~n~tuallr aooeptabla wap? 

12. do a1NOt'tb1-• iupect.ora, aaa1Jned to :rou or 

,our racJ.UtJ, oooduct tbeir dllt.iaa 1n a tboroulb ... , 13. do airvurtbineaa inapeotora, aaaiped to JOU or 

JOIII' t'ao111t.J', apPear t.o M t.aobnioallJ o.patant 

111 t.ba oondiiOt or their dutiu? 

t.fl. are al.NW"tbiaua 1upeotor• • uai&ned t.o JOII or JOW" racJ.ut.,., oourt.aou 111 t.M oond110t or uae1r 

duti-? 

15, do airvurtblon• tupeot.ora 1 •••1tned t.o )'OU or 

JCNr ho111tJ, appear to W1d8rataad JOUI" 

orPDJ.atioa aa4 ita anda! 

16. do &1,_-t,.u-a inapeot.ore, aaatlft&(l t.o )'OU or ,-our hc111tJ, pro'fide ol..,. and accurate _.,.,.. 

to JOWO queaUoaa! 

79.2 81.8 too.o eo., as.1 11.11 83.9 75.9 18.6 

87.0 96.9 92.) 91.5 18.6 92.7 ,~.1 86.2 92.9 

17.5 88.2 96.3 79.2 88.6 92.7 88.2 to.o 92.9 

87.5 93-9 100.0 97.9 97.1 97.6 911.1 96.8 92.9 

10.8 as.3 81.5 as... 16.5 81.o 12.1 to-3 78.6 

17, do aJ..rvortb!.neu inapeoton, aaailft&d to 1011 or 75.0 93.9 96.3 19.2 85.7 88.1 85.3 n.- ao.o 

JOW' racJ.ut,., proride an-ra 1o • tJ.Mlr ......,., 

18. do rou rel.J oa a1NOI"\.h1.ot~a• tupeotora ror 111,7 .-o.o 55.6 35.4 St.- 511.8 117.1 51.6 53.3 oo_.u.na 1a t.eobll.toal ..,...., 

19. dO J0t.1 NlJ OD airvortbineaa 1ftllp&Ot01'8 ror 58,) 57.1 fll,l 62.5 57o1 50o0 70.6 711,2 26,7 

ooUDael1rl& 10 re&ulatorJ ...... ., 

20. are JW. aatiatied with part.1o1pat1on br 75.0 811.11 81.5 69.8 111.11 76.5 8).9 77.8 91.7 

atrvort.bine•a iDapaot.oMI 1o aatat.J' a.iMI'& aDd 

otblll' publ1o -t1op1 

21. - JOU aati•rW vttb the perrorunoe or a1NOI"Ua1-. iupeotora, ... ipad t.o 7011 or 

JOW' f'aoll1tJ1 

tOTAL IRIHBU at JIISPCIIIBI'rS1 I• 

8).) 90-9 92.6 81.] 91.11 90.5 91.2 go.) 93·3 

35 27 .. 35 ., 15 

28 

T 

_J_ --·- _L_ 

100.0 100.0 91o9 

til.] 90.9 87.0 

55.8 72.7 19.2 

13.1 86,11 79.2 

98.0 90.9 95.6 

911.0 eo.o aa.11 

15.11 95-0 87.5 

711.0 76.2 ao.o 

70.2 80.0 69.0 

111.0 as.o 85.11 

80.0 811.2 79.5 

90.2 100.0 95.5 

711.0 71.1l 11.8 

71l.5 76.2 80.0 

78,8 f2oT 81.8 

53 .. 
TO VIU.T UTDTI 

AI'PaDU: I.-PncaTIOIS or f'm;ITIYE USPC11!U P'OI VIST!IIII-PJ.CUIC II:IOIOM 

rSD0S Fa. IICH ItDI II 'hll SUII:ft'f 

• • ' • ' " 1, &N you t'u.iliar vitb tM FU. N&ul.ati..,a t!>at. 911.2 97,1 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 96.6 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 apply to your .. Jat1011 I'IIDcU.Ofta1 

2 ..... you haiu.,. lfith the ru. publillb&d poHci.. 80.8 91.2 88.9 88.9 88.2 85-7 19.3 85.7 811.6 90.0 87.5 75.o 69.2 90,9 81111 1nt.arp,oet.at.10fta .....,,.,UJ!f; thoM recuJ.attona 

that applY to your .. Jat1011 tlmOUG1182 

3• 4o tboM re11Ul.ati0ft8 poliol .. o 8114 1Jit.arpNt.atian8 60.8 76,5 .... II 17.8 "·1 U.9 58,6 61,9 76.9 90,0 7),3 115,0 72,7 72,7 &ift you nexlbllity 1D akln& ISeoWG118 about thll 

101»'1< JOU <1o2 

11 • .,.. you • ....,.. or the duttea 8lld N8PCID81bll1Uea 80.8 67.6 n.8 82.11 76.5 71.11 89.7 85.7 116.2 10.0 93.8 70.0 811.6 95.5 

or .ti"WWO"tbtM .. 1DIIpeotora7 

5 • .,.. you Yiait.H durt.a& tM ,_,. bJ' ~tM•• 1111.2 61.8 22.2 72.2 58.8 57.1 65.5 61,9 69.2 30.0 93.8 85.0 53.8 72.7 1Qpeotora aulP" to you or rour hc1UtJ1 

6, 4o airvorthtDe .. inapeotora, aNi&nad to JOU or 911.1 100.0 87,5 82.11 911,1 83·3 100,0 95.2 92,3 90,0 100.0 100,0 92,3 90,9 your hoillt:r, appear to~ the r.u. rqul.at1ona7 

1. olo airvort.htDe .. 1DIIp.otora, U8iped to JOU or 93.9 90.6 87.5 70.6 88.2 83·3 100.0 90.5 76.9 90.0 100.0 911.7 go,o 85.7 your r.outt:r, appear to 1mov u.. r.u. Jlllbli....., 

pgUoiea 81111 illt.arpNtat.iOftll aupportt.a& the rqgl.at10ft82 

8. do atrvortht.neu Wpectora, U8ta-i to JOU or 17.1 70.6 62.5 70.6 76.5 33·3 18.6 81.0 61.5 55.6 86.7 65.0 72.7 66.7 :row" fUil1ty 0 lntel'pNt the re&~~l.atiGIIII 1D 8 

-.ietent wy2 

9. do airWortlltDeu ina!*ltor80 U81$rM. to you or 91,7 90.3 62.5 76.5 81.3 50,0 92.6 85.0 76.9 87,5 100.0 100.0 10.0 811,2 :rour hoUitJ 1ntarp,..t tba J'8&11l.atiG118 -uratfll11 

10. do ali"WWO"tbtDeu inal*)tora, U8ta-l to you or 65.11 67.6 37.5 77.8 76.5 28.6 86.2 85.7 76.9 66.7 87,5 85.0 58,3 66.7 JOW' hoilitJ e~q~l.aln the N&Ul.ati- 811111 rour optlona olu.rl17 

11 • .,.. 4~a or oplniOft bet- JOU aDd 69.2 81.8 57.1 70.6 82.11 66.7 89.3 9(1,0 61.5 17.8 100.0 89.5 66.7 76.2 aiNorthtMA ia.peotora (,......tiD& 

1atvpretat10ft8 or Npl.atlOftll) rnolflld 1D 

•tuall1 aooeptable wya7 

12, 4o airvortbineu 1DIIP"Gt.ora, aulped to you or 90.0 90.9 85.7 9J1.1 88.2 8].3 88.9 100.0 811,6 80.0 100.0 100.0 811.6 86.11 your fUiUtr, OOIIduot tllair dutlu ill a thor'ollah .,, 

13. 4o a~tbtMA 11181*)ton, aMi&* to :rou or 611.3 91.2 57.1 76.5 76.5 so.n 85.7 95.2 76.9 90.0 100.0 100.0 611.6 17,3 your tuility, appear to be teolmlaaU, ~t 

1.D the ooftlluot or tbtir .tuu..7 

111 • .,.. a.t.rvortlll.Mu tnapeotora, euta-~ to :rou or ga,n 911.1 18.9 88.2 911,1 1oo.n 96.6 1oo.n 92.3 100.0 100,0 100.0 92.3 95,5 

:rour tullity, OOW'teclua ill the OCIIIdllot or their 

4utia2 

15. do a~t.lr.t-a• iupeotora, ... 1&* to J'OU or 11.11 67.6 22.2 12.2 88.2 60.n 79.3 9Q.n 61.5 ec..o 87.5 85.0 76.9 17.3 

FOUl' taollity, appear to lllldentand J'OW' 

orpniaati.., and ita neadat 

16. o1o ainiOI'thtM• t.u!*lton, ... 1&* to :rou or 76.9 79.11 1111.11 12.11 ?6.5 33.3 79.3 ao.o 69.2 ao.o 87.5 95.0 69.2 81,8 :rour taollitJ, proy11Se olM.r and ao.ftte _,.. 

to )'OUr queat10118? 

17. do air'VortbiDau tnapeotora, U8iped to JOU or 62.G 611.7 66.7 88.2 82.11 33.3 16.2 9(1.0 s-.6 17.8 93.8 80.0 61.5 81.1 

~ taollit)', proyicle _,..ill. U.)J' _, 

18. 4o :ra.o ra)J' Oil airvol'thiliOiu t.upeo"'"'* tw 32.7 31.2 22.2 U,ll 117.1 28.6 51.7 71.11 ]8.5 10.0 56.3 110.0 38.5 115.5 

-l1D& ill teobnioal .,...., 

19. 4o you ,..~ oa. a1rvortli1Mu iJiapec'-* tw 116.2 61.8 50.0 1111.11 70.6 112.9 58.6 65.0 69.2 1111.11 81.3 70.0 116.2 59.1 

-~- 1D ...... latory .,...., 

20 • .,.. JOU atietied vit.h ,..,.t.io1Pat1.., bJ' 75,9 51.9 66.7 75.0 81.3 60.0 88.0 89.5 6G.O 100.0 100.0 611.7 70.0 72.2 

al.....,rt.hiDaalil Jnap.otors ln ataty 881d.nara IIDCI 

other publio -u~~~:a7 

21. ar. you att.ried vlt.lr. the,..,.,_ or 78.11 79.11 66.7 76.5 88.2 33.3 82.8 81.0 76.9 90.0 87.5 95.0 811.6 77,3 

at.Nortbl.Mu 1.118peotol'llo ... tcaed to you or 

J'OW' hollity2 

" ,. ' " " " " " " ,, .. " 

29