Initial Pilot Training: Better Management Controls Are Needed to Improve FAA Oversight
Published: 2011-11-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Regional airlines have experienced the last six fatal commercial airline accidents, and pilot performance has been cited as a potential contributory factor in four of these accidents. As a result, Congress and others have raised questions about, among other issues, the initial pilot education and training required before pilots can be hired by airlines, at which time they receive further training. The initial training is provided by pilot schools overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As requested, this report discusses (1) the various types of U.S. pilot schools, how they compare, and associated issues; (2) key similarities and differences between the U.S. and international approaches to pilot training; and (3) how and to what extent FAA carries out oversight of pilot training and certification. To address these issues, GAO reviewed literature, legislation, regulations, and FAA documents and inspection and enforcement data; interviewed agency and industry officials; and studied the training approach in Europe because of the different training model and visited four European countries.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The approximately 3,400 pilot schools in the United States can be divided into three types: (1) flight instructor based, (2) vocational, and (3) collegiate. The school types vary in several ways, but all pilot students must pass the same knowledge and flight tests to obtain a pilot certificate from FAA. Airline operations have evolved operationally and technologically, but the pilot training requirements for certification of commercial pilots were last revised in 1997. FAA and some industry stakeholders have indicated that current requirements for commercial pilots should incorporate additional training to improve the competency of entry-level regional airline pilots. FAA has initiated or planned a number of efforts to address these issues and recently enacted legislation requires FAA to implement regulations to increase pilot requirements for airlines by August 2013. The U.S. and Europe both offer the same pilot certifications but the training models differ, in part, due to training philosophies and other circumstances. The U.S. training approach emphasizes proficiency on actual flight training, while Europe's approach tends to emphasize academic instruction with more knowledge training requirements and testing. European pilot schools have also developed more comprehensive student screening processes than in the U.S. FAA has an annual inspection program that includes the oversight of pilot schools, pilot examiners, and flight instructors, the gatekeepers for the initial pilot training process. GAO analysis of FAA inspection data showed a 78 percent completion rate of the required inspections for pilot schools in fiscal year 2010, but, due to insufficient information, GAO was unable to determine completion percentages for prior years. Similarly, GAO could not determine 1) whether FAA completed the required inspections for pilot examiners or 2) the reasons that the discretionary inspections of flight instructors--which are generally optional--were conducted. Furthermore, FAA's national office does not adequately monitor the completion of annual inspection activities due, in part, to an inability to aggregate inspection data from the local district offices that conduct the inspections. Thus, FAA does not have a comprehensive system in place to adequately measure its performance in meeting annual inspection requirements, which could make it difficult to ensure regulatory compliance and that safety standards are being met.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States’ aviation transportation system is an important  component of the U.S. economy and one of the safest and most efficient  systems in the world. However, the continued integrity of this system  depends in part on the roughly 3,400 U.S. pilot schools providing well- trained pilot candidates for airlines. This is particularly true for regional  airlines, which hire and train pilots from these schools, whereas large  mainline airlines tend to hire and train pilots who already have experience  at regional airlines. Although the large mainline airlines have an  unprecedented safety record, in recent years regional airlines, which  account for about 53 percent of the nation’s commercial flights, have  experienced a number of fatal accidents; specifically, the last six fatal  commercial airline accidents involved regional airlines. The National  Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has cited pilot performance as a  potential contributory factor in four of these accidents, including the one in  February 2009, in Buffalo, New York, involving Colgan Air, Inc. As a  result, Congress and others have raised questions about, among other  issues, the initial pilot education and training required before pilots can be  hired by airlines, at which time they receive further training. The initial  training is provided by pilot schools overseen by the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA).
You asked us to examine the initial pilot training system in the United  States, which includes private and commercial pilot certification (license),  up to the training provided once a pilot is hired by an airline. Because  other countries have approached initial training for future airline pilots  differently, we also studied the training approach in Europe to help inform  our review. This report discusses (1) the various types of U.S. pilot  training organizations, how they compare, and issues associated with  training; (2) the key similarities and differences between the U.S. system  and international approaches to pilot training; and (3) how and to what  extent FAA carries out its oversight role of pilot training and certification.  In addition, you noted that the worldwide demand for commercial airline  pilots has also caused concerns to be raised about the ability of the  current training system to provide an adequate number of pilots and  asked that we examine this issue. We examined what is known about the  future demand for and supply of U.S. commercial airline pilots and report  our findings on this issue in appendix II.
To address our objectives and the pilot supply appendix, we reviewed  and synthesized published literature related to pilot certification and  training issues in the United States and comparable international pilot  training systems; pilot statistics; types and requirements of pilot training  schools; FAA regulatory training requirements for different levels of pilot  certification; FAA oversight of U.S. pilot training system. Literature  sources included federal agency documentation, academic journals, trade  publications, conference presentations, and newspaper articles. We also  reviewed the Federal Aviation Regulations related to training and  certification for pilots, and legislative provisions that addressed issues  related to pilot training. Specifically, we reviewed the Airline Safety and  Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 related to pilot  training requirements and the certification of pilots operating for airlines.  We interviewed officials at the Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA,  and NTSB. We conducted semistructured interviews with representatives  from a range of aviation stakeholder organizations, including pilot unions,  pilot school associations, general aviation groups, commercial aviation  industry associations, international aviation associations, and regional  airlines (see app. I for the complete list of stakeholders we interviewed).  We visited pilot training stakeholders in six states—Arizona, Florida,  Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Utah—which included FAA regions that  had higher number of pilot schools, higher number of pilot certificates  issued in 2009, presence of FAA regional and district offices, and  presence of regional airlines’ offices. In our state visits, we interviewed  officials at FAA regional and district offices, regional airlines, pilot schools,  and college aviation schools. Because we selected these six states as  part of a nonprobability sample, our site visit data cannot be generalized  to the nation. Through the combination of site visits and semistructured  telephone interviews, we interviewed representatives of 24 regional  airlines that transported about 97 percent of regional passengers in 2009,  according to the Regional Airlines Association’s 2010 annual report. We  also analyzed data from FAA’s data systems for fiscal years 2006 through  2010 that provided information on the oversight activities related to pilot  certification and training. We tested the reliability of the inspection and  enforcement data that we received from FAA with electronic testing of the  data elements that we used, obtained, and reviewed documentation  about the data and the systems that produced them, and interviewed  knowledgeable FAA officials. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable  for our purposes.
In addition, we conducted site visits to a nonprobability sample of  European countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United  Kingdom. We focused on the European pilot certification and training  requirements because they offer a different model than the United States.  Specifically, individuals with no previous flying experience are generally  trained from the beginning to be commercial airline pilots. The site visits  allowed us to obtain information on European countries’ pilot standards,  as well as their efforts to revise their piloting performance and training  standards to competency-based training models. During these site visits,  we interviewed officials at the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)  (Europe’s aviation regulatory organization), civil aviation authority  officials, and representatives from international and European aviation  stakeholder groups, airlines, and pilot training schools.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2010 through  November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I  for more information about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Civil aviation in the United States can be generally divided into two broad  categories—general aviation and commercial aviation. General aviation  comprises all aviation activities other than military and commercial  airlines. All civilian students are trained in the general aviation sector until  they are hired as airline pilots. Commercial aviation generally refers to  businesses that carry passengers or cargo for hire or compensation. To  operate as a commercial airline, a business must have an airline  operating certificate issued by FAA, based on federal aviation regulations,  which is determined by the type of commercial service being provided.  Airlines that provide scheduled commercial service are often grouped into  two categories. Mainline airlines are the traditional large airlines that  provide domestic and international passenger service on larger aircraft  such as American Airlines or Delta Airlines. Regional airlines, such as  Mesa and Piedmont Airlines, also provide domestic and international  passenger service, generally using aircraft with fewer than 90 seats and  serving smaller airports. The international service that regional airlines  provide is confined to border markets in Canada, Mexico, and the  Caribbean. More than 13,000 regional airline flights operate daily, which  represents more than half of the number of U.S. domestic flights.
As the federal agency responsible for regulating the safety of civil aviation  in the United States, FAA is responsible for the administration of pilot  certification (licensing) and conducting safety oversight of pilot training.  Regulations for pilot certification and training are found in three different  parts of the Federal Aviation Regulations—Parts 61, 141, and 142. All  pilots are subject to a series of certification requirements established by  FAA, but the requirements vary depending on the type of training  environment. Part 61 recognizes six basic types of pilot certification:  student, sport, recreational, private, commercial, and airline transport.  Part 61 also establishes the core training requirements for each pilot  certification, which describes the eligibility requirements, aeronautical  knowledge and flight proficiency standards, and the required flight hours  (see table 1). Pilot training can be provided to students by flight  instructors under Part 61. Part 141 outlines the specified personnel,  aircraft, facilities, curriculum, and other operating requirements that  approved pilot training organizations (schools) must meet in order to hold  an operating certificate from FAA. Part 142 outlines specific requirements  for training centers that primarily relate to the advanced training provided  to pilots by employers, such as airlines. Our report focuses on the initial  pilot training that students are provided until they are hired as airline  pilots; thus, advanced training for pilots is not within the scope of our  study.
To obtain a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate from  FAA to perform various aviation activities, individuals typically have to  successfully complete pilot training and pass the following two FAA tests  for each pilot certificate and rating obtained:    A knowledge test assesses applicants’ understanding of the  aeronautical knowledge areas required for a specific certificate or  rating and can be administered in written form or by a computer.   A practical test consists of a flight test and an oral examination. The  flight test assesses applicants’ knowledge of the areas of operations  of an aircraft and the ability to demonstrate the maneuvers in an  aircraft while in flight. The oral examination is conducted by having an  applicant respond to random questions related to aviation knowledge  and aircraft operations before, during, and after the flight test, and  typically lasts between 1 and 2 hours.
To become a certified commercial pilot, which is currently the minimum  requirement for being hired by an airline as a first officer, individuals also  must undergo several steps of pilot training and certification in  accordance with FAA regulations. Once cleared by the medical  examination, students obtain a medical certificate and a student pilot  certificate from FAA. Figure 1 shows the typical progression of training  and certifications required to become an airline pilot.
Figure 2 shows examples of the progression from single-engine trainer, to  multi-engine (i.e., jet) trainer—used by some pilot schools to provide  students with the multi-engine rating—to the much larger, faster jet used  by regional airlines. Once commercial pilots complete the process of  initial training, they are qualified to apply for a first officer pilot position at  an airline. Entry-level positions are typically at regional, and not mainline,  airlines; mainline airlines typically draw from regional airlines for their  pilots. If hired, pilots must complete the airline’s new hire training, which  consists of indoctrination, ground and aircraft systems, simulator training,  and the initial operating experience, wherein the pilot applies what they  learn in the previous training phases. The airline submits these training  programs for approval by the FAA to ensure they meet Part 121  requirements.
As part of its oversight responsibility, FAA has safeguards in place to  ensure that pilot applicants are provided the necessary training and  undergo complete and thorough pilot certification examinations. The  National Program Guidelines (NPG), initiated in 1985, are oversight policy  guidelines developed annually by FAA for its eight regional offices and  their associated local district offices for oversight of pilot schools, pilot  examiners, and flight instructors. The NPG identifies required  inspections and optional inspections. As part of this oversight process,  FAA uses the Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS) for  scheduling and recording inspection records and findings for NPG  inspections of pilot schools, flight instructors, and pilot examiners.  Additionally, FAA uses the Enforcement Information System (EIS) for  tracking and reporting information about any enforcement actions the  agency takes for statutory or regulatory violations.
As a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the  United States conforms to international standards and recommended  practices for pilot training and certification. ICAO is the international  body that, among other things, promulgates international standards and  recommended practices in an effort to harmonize global aviation  standards. These standards and recommended practices are developed  to ensure that civil aviation throughout the world is safe and secure. ICAO  has no enforcement powers and only establishes recommended  standards and guidelines, e.g., licensing requirements for flight crew  personnel, including pilots. Therefore, ICAO members (known as  contracting states) decide whether to incorporate the standards and  recommended practices into national laws or aviation regulations.
section_title: Pilot Schools’ Training Varies, and Although All Students Must Pass the Same Test, Concerns Exist Related to the Quality of the Testing and Other Training Requirements
paragraphs: The roughly 3,400 U.S. pilot schools can be divided into three categories:  (1) non-collegiate flight instructor-based schools, (2) non-collegiate  vocational pilot schools, and (3) collegiate aviation schools. The training  provided by the school varies in the minimum requirements for the flight  and ground school hours required for each certification level, level of  oversight provided by FAA, and level of educational instruction being  provided by type of school. However, all student pilots have to  successfully complete ground and flight training and pass the same  knowledge and practical tests prior to receiving a pilot certificate from  FAA. Nevertheless, there is no consensus and little empirical evidence on  how the different pilot training schools compare in preparing professional  pilots for the commercial airline industry. In addition, modern aircraft used  by regional airlines have evolved and the operational demands have  increased on pilots in high-altitude and complex airline operations; yet,  U.S. pilot training requirements for certification of commercial pilots were  last revised in 1997. For example, it is possible for an individual to obtain  all levels of pilot certifications (i.e., private, commercial, and airline  transport) in a general aviation flying environment in a single-engine  aircraft. However, in order to qualify to be hired by an airline, a  commercial pilot would also need to obtain instrument and multi-engine  ratings. Some stakeholders, including representatives of regional airlines,  we interviewed said the current training regulations for commercial pilots  should be revised to incorporate additional training that would improve the  competency of entry-level first officer applicants. FAA has initiated several  efforts to address issues related to pilot training and certification testing.  Recent legislation requires that FAA develop regulations increasing pilot  certification requirements for all airline pilots.
subsections: section_title: The Three Different Types of Pilot Training Schools Vary in Type of Training, but All Prepare Students to Take the Same FAA Tests
paragraphs: Approximately 3,400 pilot schools exist in the United States and the most  basic difference among the types of schools is the training environment  provided to the students. For the reporting purposes of our study, we  divided them into three categories: (1) non-collegiate flight instructor- based schools, (2) non-collegiate vocational pilot schools, and (3)  collegiate aviation schools.    Non-collegiate flight instructor-based schools (Part 61). Pilot training  conducted under Part 61 regulations is often provided by an  individual, for-hire flight instructor who can operate independently as a  single-instructor school at a local airport with a single aircraft on which  to train students. Other flight instructor-based schools operate as a  more traditional training school with a small, physical facility located at  a particular airport. These schools are the most common type (see fig.  3). The majority of students that complete training in non-collegiate,  flight instructor-based schools are generally interested in recreational  flying, although most commercial pilots in the United States also  undertake this type of training as the initial path toward becoming an  airline pilot. Flight instructor-based schools offer flexible training  environments to meet specific students’ needs as long as they pass  the final tests. These schools are not subject to direct FAA oversight  beyond the initial certification and subsequent renewal of the flight  instructor’s certificate. However, flight instructors may be inspected by  FAA when a triggering event occurs regarding the training being  provided, such as being involved in an aircraft accident.   Non-collegiate vocational pilot schools (Part 141). Vocational schools  elect to apply for an operating certificate from FAA to provide pilot  training under Part 141 regulations. Part 141 regulations require these  schools to meet prescribed standards with respect to training  equipment, facilities, student records, personnel, and curriculums.  Vocational schools must have structured and formalized programs and  have their detailed training course outlines or curriculums approved by  FAA. Curriculums can vary in content, but FAA provides fundamental  core training guidelines that must be followed within the curriculum for  the school to receive a certificate. These schools do not allow the  flexibility of flight instructor-based schools as the training sequence  outlined in the curriculum cannot be altered. FAA requires annual  inspections of these schools, unlike flight instructor-based schools.   Collegiate aviation schools (Part 61 or Part 141). Pilot training is also  provided through 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, which  typically offer an undergraduate aviation-based degree along with the  pilot certificates and ratings necessary to become a commercial pilot.  In general, most of the collegiate aviation schools provide pilot training  under a Part 141 certificate, although they can provide training under  Part 61. Collegiate schools that provide training under Part 61  regulations generally offer similar structured, curriculum-based  training as collegiate schools with a Part 141 certificate.
Figure 3 displays how each of the three types of pilots schools are  dispersed across the United States.
For the most part, all pilot schools must provide training that includes both  classroom and flight training. Classroom training, or ground school,  provides students with the required aeronautical knowledge and cognitive  skills necessary to perform the tasks required to become a pilot. Flight  training focuses on learning how to manipulate the controls of an airplane  and make it perform certain maneuvers. Regardless of the type of school,  flight instructors must teach students by demonstrating and explaining, on  the ground and in the air, the basic principles of flight (e.g., airspace,  aerodynamics, weather factors, and Federal Aviation Regulations). The  number of training flight hours required for pilot certification varies by the  aviation regulations being used to provide pilot training. Because training  under Part 141 regulations requires a school to use an FAA-approved  curriculum, fewer hours of actual flight training are required than under  Part 61. Figure 4 shows the differences in general characteristics of the  types of U.S. pilot schools.
FAA regulations do not prescribe the entry requirements, selection  criteria, and screening procedures for students seeking entry into U.S.  pilot schools, and as a result, they could vary considerably among  schools. In general, pilot schools admit those students who can pay for  the training; however, FAA sets a minimum age requirement for each pilot  certification and requires a current FAA medical certificate and that every  pilot student is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English  language. FAA’s long-standing requirement for English proficiency  complies with the 2008 ICAO standard that all private, commercial, or  airline transport pilots who operate internationally have a pilot certificate  with the level of English language proficiency. If a person is determined to  be proficient during the FAA practical test for pilot certification, FAA  issues pilot certificates with an “English Proficient” endorsement to attest  that the pilot meets the ICAO standard.
One of the distinctive characteristics of collegiate schools is that they are  generally accredited academic programs, which recognizes a level of  program quality. However, a recently-created organization, the Flight  School Association of North America, implemented an accreditation  program in August 2011 for non-collegiate pilot schools intended to  establish an educational quality standard. According to association  officials, accrediting non-collegiate pilot schools will help to level the  playing field with the collegiate schools and assist consumers in  comparing pilot schools.
Regardless of the type of pilot schools that students attend, once training  has been completed pilot candidates must pass the same knowledge and  practical tests to obtain a pilot certificate. FAA uses a multiple-choice,  knowledge test to measure the extent to which applicants for FAA pilot  certificates have mastered the required aeronautical knowledge areas  provided in ground school. To pass, applicants must achieve an overall  score of 70 percent or higher. However, concerns have been voiced by  some aviation stakeholders related to whether the current knowledge test  actually requires students to learn the material, as opposed to simply  studying sample test questions from publicly available sources. Literature  related to pilot certification and training issues and some aviation  stakeholders have pointed out that FAA testing is generally based on rote  memorization. They stated that this encourages instructors and students  to focus on memorizing test questions to pass the required FAA  knowledge test, rather than developing a true understanding of the  material. In 2004, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA) published a study on FAA’s pilot knowledge tests. NASA found  that many applicants completed the test in far less time than would be  required for the average human to even read the questions and answers  on the test—indicating that students had memorized the questions and  answers—which raises concerns about the extent to which students  actually mastered the material.
section_title: Little Information Exists for Examining and Comparing How the Different Types of Pilot Schools Prepare Pilots for Airline Operations
paragraphs: There is little empirical research that has been conducted comparing the  extent to which different types of pilot schools prepare pilots for the  commercial airline industry. We reviewed a pilot source study, published  in 2010, authored by professors from several accredited collegiate  aviation schools that researched the impact of collegiate aviation training  on preparing students to be regional airline first officers. The  researchers analyzed data on how 2,156 new-hire pilots performed in the  training programs of six regional airlines from 2005 through 2009. The  study found that the new-hire first officer pilots with the highest rate of  success—in terms of the amount of extra training needed to complete  training tasks and fewer number of times tasks were not completed—in  the airline training: (1) were graduates of accredited college flight degree  programs, (2) had experience as flight instructors, and (3) had accrued  between 500 and 1,000 flight hours. We reviewed the study and  determined that, while statistically significant, the results of this research  showed small differences in the correlations that supported these three  conclusions. Phase II of the study, completed in early 2011, expanded the  research to include testing of multiple variables with the same dataset,  but the researchers did not report the results of the tests they conducted  of their data. Phase III is currently underway and is expanding the current  dataset to include more than six regional airlines. Phase IV will include  more detailed background data on the newly hired pilots to determine  relationship factors.
Other than the 2010 pilot source study, our literature review found that  little other academic study exists and there is no consensus about how  well the different types of pilot schools prepare commercial pilots for  airline operations. We received a variety of perspectives from industry  representatives and some anecdotal information that suggested that one  major benefit to completing a structured training program that is the  training provides better aeronautical knowledge (ground school) than an  unstructured learning environment. Officials from two regional airlines,  two collegiate aviation schools, and four industry associations with whom  we spoke generally agreed with the results of the initial phase of the pilot  source study. Officials from the Regional Airline Association (RAA) told us  that the broad-based curriculum used by vocational and collegiate  aviation schools is the better method for preparing a person for a  professional airline career. Furthermore, officials from 6 of the 12  industry associations and one mainline airline we interviewed considered  the quality of education at many of the collegiate aviation schools to be  the highest level of civil aviation pilot training because collegiate schools  are designed to produce professional pilots for airlines, rather than for  other aviation jobs.
Collegiate curriculums also cover a broad range of areas above FAA  minimum training requirements. In addition, representatives from all but  one of the regional airlines we interviewed generally told us they strongly  preferred, but do not require, first officer candidates trained in collegiate  aviation schools because they perform better in their airline’s training  program when hired. Due to limited screening, training structure, and  variability of educational content, according to some of the regional airline  officials, flight instructor-based schools are less likely to produce first  officers that are prepared immediately upon completing the training to  enter the workforce and succeed in an airline environment. On the other  hand, stakeholders from 4 of the 12 industry associations pointed out the  large number of pilots that matriculate through flight instructor-based  schools and many are hired by regional airlines without any performance  issues. Representatives from two of the regional airlines indicated that the  professional pilot experience gained through commercial aviation  positions after completing pilot training is more important than the type of  pilot school attended.
section_title: Pilot Training Requirements for a Commercial Pilot Certificate Are Not Aligned with Airline Operations
paragraphs: Several industry stakeholders have stated that current training  requirements for commercial pilots are not aligned with today’s  commercial airline environment. FAA requires the same initial training for  a pilot hired as a first officer of a regional airline carrying passengers as it  does for a pilot hired to fly for a commercial non-airline operation, for  example crop dusting. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has  suggested that FAA revise the regulations to make a clear distinction  between training and certification requirements for airline operations and  those for other types of commercial operations. ALPA contends the  regulations were developed in an era in which commercial pilots were  hired by airlines in small, slow, propeller-driven aircraft or as flight  engineers on jet-powered aircraft. It would traditionally take several years  and thousands of flight hours before these pilots were given an  opportunity as a first officer of jet transports. However, according to  ALPA, it is not uncommon today for newly hired pilots to be hired directly  into airline training programs to become first officers of high-altitude,  complex aircraft carrying 50 or more passengers, the type of aircraft that  warrants pilots with more knowledge and greater skills than the new-hire  airline pilots of the past. Officials from two industry associations and eight  regional airlines advocated for a separate pilot certification track with  additional training requirements specific to being an airline pilot. Because  airline pilots are responsible for the safety of the flying public, according  to ALPA, it is reasonable that they should be held to a higher standard of  competency, knowledge, and training than pilots in other flight operations.
Additionally, requirements for a commercial pilot certificate do not  emphasize training in some areas—like decision-making and using  modern technologies—that are directly related to the airline pilot  profession.    According to FAA and other stakeholders, the regulations regarding  ground school and flight training, as well as the test standards for a  commercial pilot certificate, generally emphasize the mastery of  maneuvers and individual tasks to determine competence. The  emphasis is on development of motor skills to satisfactorily  accomplish individual maneuvers—whereas only limited emphasis is  placed on decision-making—unlike in scenario-based training that  emphasizes improving operational experience.
In addition to traditional skills of flying, navigating, and  communicating, pilots in today’s newer aircraft have to manage  automation, information displays, and other new technologies.  According to the FAA Industry Training Standards’ guidance material  for the commercial pilot certificate, a growing number of pilots are  being hired by regional airlines as first officers to operate aircraft with  these advanced avionics and systems. While these pilots may gain  flying experience and spend years building flight time in commercial  non-airline jobs or as flight instructors, this experience may be  accumulated in smaller, slower, and less advanced aircraft. Modern  aircraft offer advanced avionics and performance capabilities and  many of these new aircraft travel faster and further than older  generation commercial aircraft. While generally considered  enhancements, these modern technologies require increased  technical knowledge of newer systems and avionics and new skills for  managing automation and computerized flight and navigation  systems.
According to literature, as airspace complexity and air traffic density  increase, airline pilots must have increased situational awareness,  understand risk assessment, and have a complete understanding of  managing the automation of the aircraft. The current training  requirements and testing for a commercial pilot certificate do not  emphasize the development of these skills.
Representatives from 10 regional airlines, 4 pilot schools, and 2 industry  associations we interviewed said the current training regulations for  commercial pilots should be revised to incorporate additional training  requirements that would improve the performance capabilities of the first  officer applicants that seek employment at airlines, such as exposure to  advanced jet concepts and simulation, aircraft unusual attitude (i.e.,  upset and stall recovery), flight crew coordination and environment,  and scenario-based training. However, when pilots are hired by airlines,  these types of training are provided by the airline to ensure that pilots are  adequately competent in these and other advanced training areas—some  required by FAA for airline operations. For example, FAA regulations for  airline operations require that all pilots are provided crew resource  management training as part of the airline’s new hire and recurrent  training programs. According to ALPA, the lack of specific training  requirements to be a commercial airline pilot results in a wide range of  initial training experiences, not all of which are well suited for the  commercial airline industry. To compensate, some regional airlines, such  as SkyWest Airlines, use various flight training devices to screen pilots  during the hiring process to gauge their piloting skills (see fig. 5).  However, if additional training is required by FAA for pilots prior to being  hired by an airline, the students would likely be responsible for the extra  costs involved and would add to the total costs of pilot training borne by  the student. (For more information on the costs associated with pilot  schools, see app. II.)
The industry concerns about current training regulations for commercial  pilots and incorporating additional initial training requirements to improve  first officer applicants’ performance capabilities could be addressed by  the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of  2010 for all airline pilots. Currently, while a captain for a commercial  airline is required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate—the highest  level of pilot certification and requiring the highest number of total flight  hours—a first officer is required to hold only a commercial pilot certificate,  i.e., requiring a minimum of 250 flight hours. However, the recent law  will require that each pilot (captain and first officer) must have an airline  transport pilot certificate, which currently requires a minimum of 1,500  total flight hours. Individuals interested in becoming a first officer for a  regional airline generally complete training from pilot schools with a  commercial pilot certificate and possess about 300 to 500 flight hours.  The 2010 law directs FAA to conduct a rulemaking and effect the  changes no later than August 2013. According to FAA, it will issue a  notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the increased requirements in  the fall of 2011. Representatives of the regional airlines we interviewed  were concerned this legislation will reduce airlines’ hiring flexibility and  make it harder to find qualified first officers that possess an airline  transport pilot certificate.
As another potentially relevant factor, the law stated that the FAA  Administrator may allow specific academic training courses—beyond the  additional courses required by the legislation to raise the minimum  requirements for the airline transport pilot certificate—to be credited in  lieu of flight hours needed to obtain an airline transport pilot certificate.  According to FAA’s First Officer Qualifications Aviation Rulemaking  Committee Report, well-structured training programs that feature  integrated academic content and flight experience optimize the pilot  learning process, and the committee supported new, higher-level  minimum certification requirement for first officers. To support the concept  that academic training courses should be credited for some of the  additional total flight hours, the report outlined a system for crediting  academic training courses based on the sources of pilot training, e.g.,  vocational pilot schools, collegiate aviation schools, or military. The  Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) and National Air Disaster  Alliance-Foundation presented dissenting opinions to this approach in the  report and suggested that academic courses, while necessary, should not  replace an increase in total flight hours required in the law.
section_title: Some Pilot Schools Provide Training That Is More Relevant to Airline Operations
paragraphs: Many of the collegiate aviation schools provide specialized training in a  flight simulation training device using realistic scenarios, including some  coursework and advanced flight training in jet aircraft systems and airline  operational procedures. For example, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical  University’s Aeronautical Science degree program is designed to prepare  graduates for a career as a professional pilot in multi-crewmember, jet  aircraft. Courses include communication theory and skills, aircraft turbine  engines, crew resource management, aviation weather, jet transport  systems, and optional upset recovery training. Officials who represented  10 of the 24 regional airlines we interviewed listed some of these types of  courses as examples that FAA could require as part of pilot schools’  training curriculums that would improve the skill level and competency of  applicants seeking to be hired as first officers.
Some collegiate aviation schools—and some large flight instructor-based  and vocational pilot schools—have developed relationships with the  training departments of some regional airlines, referred to as bridge  programs, in order to qualify their students with advanced training  procedures involving regional jet simulators. Students enrolled in a  bridge program will train on flight simulators and other flight training  devices, become familiar with regional jets, and often learn airline-specific  operational procedures in a multi-crew environment. The airlines, in turn,  will offer interviews to students from those programs that successfully  complete the school’s curriculum and earn all of the pilot certification  credentials. A bridge program is designed to bridge the gap between the  general aviation training experience in small single- and multiengine  aircraft and a professional airline career. For example, Arizona State  University’s aviation degree program has established a bridge agreement  with a regional airline, Mesa Airlines, which allows the students to train in  full-motion simulators of the regional jets that Mesa operates (see fig. 7).
FAA has initiated several efforts to address issues related to pilot  certification testing and training. In 2010, FAA began revising the  repository set of questions that it uses to create its knowledge tests for  pilot certification. FAA found that a significant percentage of applicants  tested on the new questions failed the test compared to those that took  the test with the previous questions. FAA plans to cooperate with industry  representatives on future changes to the knowledge test questions and  would likely implement any further changes over the next 2 years.  Additionally, according to FAA officials, FAA has developed other plans  related to improving pilot training to be implemented during fiscal year  2012.    FAA plans to establish a government and industry working group  during fiscal year 2012 to address issues related to pilot certification  testing standards and training. The group will make recommendations  to FAA on a variety of issues, including knowledge content, technical  information related to pilot knowledge and practical tests, computer  testing supplements, knowledge test guides, and practical test  standards.   FAA is currently updating its national guidance and associated  handbook for FAA inspectors on the recurrent training for flight  instructors that is conducted by the aviation industry by providing  refresher training courses. As stated earlier, part of the oversight for  flight instructor-based schools is the subsequent renewal of the flight  instructor’s certificate every 24 months. The refresher training is  designed to keep flight instructors informed of changes to flight  training and is one of several methods by which a flight instructor may  renew a flight instructor certificate.   FAA is also updating its guidance on the review process for the 24- month certification renewal for pilots and flight instructors. According  to FAA, the current guidance is outdated and the revised version will  provide more detailed guidance for the renewal review process,  updated terminology and references, and reorganized review content.   FAA plans to make changes to the practical test standards (i.e.,  guidance used for conducting the flight test portion of a practical test)  to incorporate required testing for runway incursions. FAA’s goal with  the revised standards is to reduce runway incursions by 2 percent  annually from the current level. Currently, the part of the practical  test standards for evaluating a student’s knowledge of runway  incursions is not required or specifically outlined. However, changes  to the practical test standards include labeling runway incursions as a  required testing task that includes specific procedures to be  conducted during the test.   FAA has also recently initiated efforts to partner with the aviation  academic community through a 5-year plan initiative, working through  AABI and the University Aviation Association (UAA), to leverage  academic expertise and develop best practices for improving all pilot  training. The goal is to identify specific non-regulatory measures that  can be used to improve training and reduce accidents.
Other efforts to improve pilot training have generally focused on  advanced training for pilots already employed at airlines—not on initial  pilot training for students at pilot schools. Over time, U.S. pilot schools  have become the primary source for producing pilots for the airline  industry. In May 2011, in response to comments to a January 2009 notice  of proposed rulemaking and requirements in the Airline Safety and  Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, FAA issued a  supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that would require existing  airline pilots to train as a complete flight crew and coordinate their actions  through crew resource management and scenario-based training, among  other things. The rule would require airlines to provide ground and flight  training to all existing airline pilots in the recognition and avoidance of  stalls, recovery from stalls, recognition and avoidance of aircraft upset,  and the proper techniques to recover from upset—all related factors  evidenced in the Colgan Air crash in 2009—as required in the act.  Additionally in May 2011, NTSB issued a series of recommendations to  FAA related to first officer leadership and communications training. One  recommendation to FAA, to which FAA has not yet formally responded,  was that role-playing or simulator-based exercises that teach first officers  to assertively voice concerns and that teach captains to develop a  leadership style that supports first officer assertiveness be included as  part of the already required crew resource management training for airline  operations. These proposals are designed to enhance the training  programs of airlines rather than the training requirements for pilot  students, however, some of these ideas could be applied to the initial  training for students seeking commercial airline careers.
In addition, other aviation industry efforts are being developed that focus  on improving all pilot training. For instance, one aviation organization has  proposed the development of a global professional pilot certification to  bridge the competency gap between pilot certification and being  employed. The professional pilot certification would be based on a set of  standards to ensure a newly-certified pilot has the knowledge required by  the standards to enter the pilot profession. A not-for-profit association of  pilot training professionals has proposed the development of an  independent, international clearinghouse for pilot training best practices.  International Air Transport Association (IATA) launched the Training and  Qualification Initiative in 2007 to update and modernize the training of  existing and future pilots. The initiative’s goal is to make pilot training  more accurately reflective of the needs of flight deck operational  procedures. Aviation stakeholders, such as Boeing and Flight Safety  International, are offering a first officer’s course to bridge the skill and  competency gap between training received at pilot schools and being  employed as a commercial airline pilot.
section_title: European Pilot Training Differs from the U.S. System, in Part Due to Varying Philosophies and Circumstances
paragraphs: Similar to FAA, EASA provides the regulatory framework for oversight of  European countries’ national aviation authorities, which carry out the  requirements for pilot licensing and training. Creation of EASA is the  centerpiece of the European Union’s strategy for developing one level of  aviation safety across Europe. EASA establishes common safety and  environmental regulations and standards, and monitors the  implementation of standards through inspections in its member states  under authorization of the European Union. The United States and  Europe provide a good comparison for aviation licensing as they offer  equivalent pilot certificates, but they provide training for these certificates  in different ways, as we describe below.
subsections: section_title: The European Pilot Training System Emphasizes Aeronautical Knowledge (Ground School) Instruction and Testing While the U.S. System Focuses More on Training in Practical Skills
paragraphs: Both FAA and EASA meet the ICAO standards for pilot certification and  offer the private pilot, commercial pilot, and the airline transport pilot  certifications (see table 2). An FAA pilot certificate is the equivalent of an  EASA pilot license (we will only refer to a certificate—not license—for the  simplicity of reporting).
In particular, for commercial pilots who may be hired as airline pilots, FAA  has less exhaustive ground school requirements and practical testing  requirements for pilot certification than EASA. Pilot certification in the  United States emphasizes piloting skills and, thus, concentrates more on  flight training. While FAA pilot certification regulations require some  ground school instruction, the regulations do not emphasize the need for  formalized training. As previously stated, FAA’s pilot training regulations  require that a person applying for a private and commercial certificate  must receive and log ground training from a flight instructor or complete a  home-study course on the applicable ground school areas. Part 61  regulations do not specify a required number of training hours for ground  school for any pilot certificate—although, they require that minimum  knowledge subject areas are covered during training—but do specify a  minimum number of actual flight hours. On the other hand, the European  system emphasizes and requires ground school training hours along with  actual flight training hours for pilot certification. EASA has no minimum  number of training hours for ground school for a private certificate similar  to FAA, but requires a minimum of 350 hours of instruction for the  commercial certificate and 750 hours for the airline transport certificate.
The United States and Europe also have differing approaches to the pilot  certification knowledge and practical testing. While FAA uses one  multiple-choice knowledge test and requires an overall score of 70  percent or higher to pass, EASA uses multiple tests for each certificate  while utilizing multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Pilot test  applicants must pass with at least a 75 percent pass score for all  questions related to each ground school area being tested. European  officials told us that the quantity and variety of tests given ensure students  have a true understanding and application of the aeronautical knowledge  provided in ground school necessary for being a skilled pilot. Also, FAA’s  pilot certification system places greater emphasis on practical testing on  various types of equipment. In addition to the required number of hours of  ground instruction and tests, the United States and Europe differ on the  type of aircraft on which pilots are trained and tested. As stated earlier,  much of U.S. pilot training takes place only in a single-pilot, single-engine  airplane, which is not reflective of today’s modern jet aircraft and the  training needs of an airline pilot, according to aviation stakeholders. FAA  does not require airline transport pilot applicants to show proficiency in a  multi-pilot airplane, either as a captain or first officer. However, FAA  officials stated that airlines are required to provide that training to their  pilots after being hired and before transporting passengers. EASA,  however, requires airline transport pilot applicants to show proficiency in  operating as a first officer on multi-pilot, multi-engine planes and there is  greater emphasis in Europe for training in a multi-crew environment.
section_title: Differences in Training Philosophy and Circumstances Have Led to Contrasting Pilot Training Methods
paragraphs: The U.S. pilot training system is based on the traditional aviation  philosophy, which relies on a modular (building block) approach. This  model requires pilots to obtain different certifications through building the  competencies and experience by accruing a certain level of aeronautical  knowledge (ground school training) and minimum number of flight hours.  In a modular training approach, students are provided different training  modules that are independent of each other. Pilot certification in the  United States is based on these building blocks whereby each level of  pilot certificate builds upon the knowledge and experience gained at the  previous level. Thus, commercial airline pilots are trained through various  levels of pilot certification by meeting ground school and flight training  requirements at each level, and then must gain actual flying experience  through various aviation jobs to build the necessary hours to be hired by a  regional airline.
Europe has two training systems for acquiring pilot certificates and  ratings—the step-by-step modular training approach and an integrated  training program approach (ab initio).  Similar to the United States, the  modular training programs train students through modular courses and in- flight training at their own pace. This approach is usually pursued part- time or on a non-continuous basis, normally focusing on flying solo, and  starts with a private pilot certificate. The integrated training approach  requires student pilots to attend an approved flight training organization  for an approved full-time course and emphasizes a multi-crew  environment. European officials we spoke with explained that the  integrated approach is specifically directed towards individuals interested  in becoming an airline pilot. The fundamental philosophy of ab initio  training—which is also the traditional approach by which U.S. military  pilots are trained—is the belief that a competent, proficient airline pilot  can be trained to airline standards with as little as 350 hours of flight time,  provided the student is immersed in a properly designed aviation  curriculum from the outset. In other words, the training approach is not  based on the quantity of hours of training, but rather on the quality of the  training to better enable an individual to achieve competency. A few U.S.  pilot schools offer an ab initio training program; however, they are  generally provided by universities and require the student to take part in a  4-year program, generally a longer timeframe than it takes to complete a  European ab initio program administered by an airline sponsored school.  U.S. ab initio programs train pilots for positions with regional or commuter  airlines, whereas in Europe, ab initio training is more specifically for pilots  being training for mainline airlines.
Another major difference between the United States and European  countries is the implementation by EASA of regulations to support the  multi-crew pilot license—an ICAO-approved, alternative pilot-training and  certification concept specifically geared toward training commercial airline  pilots. According to ICAO, a total of 32 ICAO member states have  regulations in place for the multi-crew pilot license. However, currently  only 13 of the 190 ICAO members (7 percent) have approved training  organizations to conduct training for the multi-crew pilot license, with  different training schemes in progress. The training is designed to focus  on mastering the competencies specific for becoming an airline first  officer. The multi-crew pilot license, established by ICAO, requires at least  240 hours of total flight training and is comprised of actual flight time and  simulation time for meeting competency milestones. However, the license  is not a general pilot certificate and must be granted to an individual for a  specific aircraft type and limits an individual as a first officer for a specific  airline. FAA has not developed regulations for a multi-crew pilot  certification, and there are differing views on its usefulness and necessity  in the United States. FAA officials said they have been studying the  feasibility of implementing the necessary regulations for U.S.-based  commercial airlines, but they also indicated that U.S. airlines have not  publicly shown interest in a multi-crew pilot certification due to the  availability of a broad pool of commercial and airline transport pilots in the  United States. Representatives from three regional airlines and one  industry association told us that, with the number of furloughed pilots as a  result of the economic downturn in 2008, application of the multi-crew  pilot certification is not needed in the United States and would be too  restrictive in nature. The certification would limit pilots to being first  officers, limit them to a specific aircraft type, and not allow them to  transfer to other airlines. Traditional pilot certificates require more training  hours, but do not include such restrictions.
Part of the reason European countries and airlines have adopted the ab  initio approach is to address a shortage of qualified airline pilots.  Historically, U.S. airlines have recruited experienced pilots from the  robust U.S. general aviation community and the U.S. military. The United  States also has significantly more pilot schools than Europe. Conversely,  Europe has not benefited from a steady stream of military pilots or a  thriving general aviation sector. As a result, European schools are mostly  focused on producing commercial airline pilots. European countries and  airlines have used the ab initio training model and multi-crew pilot license  to increase the number of available airline pilots.
At times, in response to pilot shortages, European airlines have funded  the training for their pilot candidates. After the screening process, many  student pilots in the European countries we visited are provided training  by airline sponsorship or an agreement for employment with an airline.  Examples of airlines that follow this practice include Lufthansa and Air  France, where students are offered the training as part of a partial  sponsorship program, wherein candidates are required to pay a small  portion of the training costs upfront (Lufthansa provides loans to students  to cover this cost). Once training is completed, Lufthansa and Air France  enter into an employment contract with the candidate, and he or she  repays the loans via a lower initial salary. Similarly, while British Airways  does not sponsor students as fully as it has in the past, when it does, the  students pay for their training through their salary once they begin  working for the airline. On the other hand, KLM airline does not sponsor  candidates; however, it does partially fund an insurance policy to help  cover the default risks for the banks that loan the money to the students  for training as a result of early termination due to poor performance, failed  medical examination, and other unforeseen circumstances. If the  insurance policy is executed, students are contractually obligated to  cease pursuit of a pilot career. U.S. airlines do not sponsor students for  initial pilot training. As mentioned previously, pilot training in the United  States is provided to individuals based on the self-sponsored concept—if  they can pay, they can train. Students do not need to meet certain  qualifications to train. However, once hired, all U.S. commercial airlines  are required to provide the advanced training for their pilots. Several  officials stated that most pilot students in the United States are not  interested in becoming commercial airline pilots and pursue training to fly  recreationally.
According to literature, most pilot schools in the United States conduct  little screening of students that apply, whereas European schools  routinely use comprehensive mechanisms to identify the most qualified  students as to provide the best pilot candidates to their sponsoring  airlines. The candidate screening process is generally the same across  Europe and includes several interviews, various psychological tests, and  scenario-based testing. According to some European officials, pilot  schools in Europe focus on selection procedures and aptitude screening.  According to officials at European airlines, basing selection on fixed  standards instead of selecting candidates influenced by commercial  pressure assures airlines that they are training a qualified pilot. Officials at  these European airlines and the pilot schools they sponsor noted that  pilot training in Europe is very expensive, and selecting the right pilot  candidates is important because of safety reasons and the upfront  investment for the company. In the United States, however, the most  intensive screening process occurs when pilots seek employment with  airlines. The airlines independently assess candidates’ work experience,  technical, and non-technical skills before hiring. (For more information on  the demand for and supply of pilots, see app. II.) According to some  aviation stakeholders, U.S. pilot schools would lose revenue if they  screened or selected students as is done in Europe and would be  challenged under privacy and anti-discrimination laws.
section_title: FAA Completed Most Required Inspections of Pilot Schools, but Oversight of Examiners and Instructors Is Difficult to Assess
subsections: section_title: The Majority of Required Inspections of Pilot Schools Were Completed from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010
paragraphs: For fiscal year 2010, our analysis of FAA’s PTRS data found that FAA  completed about 78 percent of the required inspections for the 545 pilot  schools with a Part 141 certificate (vocational schools and most collegiate  aviation schools). As part of its oversight role, FAA monitors pilot schools  with a Part 141 certificate to ensure that they meet the required safety  and training regulations. To fulfill NPG requirements, FAA requires its  inspectors to conduct on-site inspections of each of these schools at least  once a year. The inspections focus on five areas related to pilot school  operations and the airworthiness of training aircraft. Under operations, an  inspection must cover the school’s facility and student records. Under  airworthiness, an inspection must cover the pilot school facility,  compliance with FAA’s airworthiness directives, and a Part 141 ramp  check. Inspectors enter the details and results of their monitoring in  FAA’s PTRS data system. In reviewing PTRS data for fiscal year 2010,  we found that FAA completed the majority of the required inspections of  schools with a Part 141 certificate—that is, the inspections covered all  five inspection areas during the year. However, we found that for 118 of  the 545 schools that were inspected during the fiscal year, all of the five  inspection areas were not covered (see table 3). An annual inspection  covering all of the inspection areas is important for overseeing these  schools because it provides some assurance to FAA that they are  meeting the regulatory requirements for providing adequate training to  pilot students.
We were unable to determine whether the data were missing because  they were entered incorrectly into PTRS, or because the inspections did  not take place as required. We were also unable to determine the extent  inspections were completed in fiscal years prior to 2010 due to limitations  in tracking the number of pilot schools that existed in each fiscal year.  FAA does not maintain a historical listing of the active pilot schools with a  Part 141 certificate for a given fiscal year and, thus, we could not define  the universe of pilot schools that was required to be inspected during  fiscal years 2006 through 2009. As a result, we could not determine the  identity and number of schools that needed to be inspected. While FAA  officials recognized that all required NPG inspections are expected to be  completed within each fiscal year time frame, they provided several  reasons to potentially explain why some of the required inspections are  not recorded in PTRS. FAA officials said that inspectors may have  conducted the required inspections for some schools but incorrectly  entered the details in PTRS. For example, some FAA inspectors may  conduct full inspections of schools that cover the five inspection areas,  but may enter only two of the five inspection numbers into PTRS. The  officials also said that inspectors had additional duties—such as following  up on previously identified issues or addressing the need for additional  oversight for certain inspection areas—in conducting inspections for some  schools, which can make covering all five inspection areas difficult.
In addition, many of the part 141 pilot school inspections required by NPG  are incorrectly recorded as discretionary inspections in PTRS making it  difficult to use PTRS to determine if FAA had conducted all of the  required inspections of part 141 pilot schools for a given year.
Specifically, 35 percent of the 4,551 part 141 pilot school inspections  required by NPG in fiscal year 2010 were listed incorrectly in PTRS as  discretionary inspections.  Also, 32 percent of the required inspections  were listed as discretionary from fiscal year 2006 through 2010. As a  result, those inspections would not show up in a list generated in PTRS of  required inspections for fiscal year 2010. FAA officials said that this  problem is likely caused by the program that populates PTRS with the  NPG requirements.
When inspections or other sources revealed compliance issues or  violations, FAA uses a variety of actions to enforce safety standards and  regulatory compliance, such as oral or written counseling, administrative  action, legal enforcement action, and referral for criminal prosecution.  When an FAA inspector identifies a potential violation, he or she initiates  an investigation and if FAA determines that a violation has occurred, FAA  has a wide range of options available for addressing it. From fiscal years  2006 through 2010, our analysis of FAA’s EIS data found that FAA  initiated 230 enforcement cases against pilot schools with a Part 141  certificate. The majority of these cases resulted from an inspection of a  school, but others may have resulted from other sources. During fiscal  years 2006 through 2010, FAA used a wide range of enforcement actions  against pilot schools with a Part 141 certificate (see fig. 7).    No action: FAA can determine that no action is warranted. In 26 of  the 230 cases (about 11 percent), enforcement cases were initiated,  but no enforcement action was taken.   Administrative Actions: In 186 cases (about 81 percent), FAA used  administrative actions to address violations. These actions refer not  only to warning notices and letters of correction but also informal  actions, such as oral or written counseling, which can also be used by  inspectors to address an apparent violation, provided that certain  criteria are satisfied and the apparent violation is a low safety risk.   Enforcement actions: We found that FAA rarely used punitive means  such as revoking licenses and assessing penalties against pilot  schools with a Part 141 certificate. FAA assessed monetary civil  penalties in 12 cases (about 5 percent) for pilot schools with a Part  141 certificate and the sanctions ranged from $500 to $20,000. FAA  revoked the operating certificates of schools in 3 cases, or slightly  more than one percent. To illustrate the severity of an action that  leads to revoking operating certificates, these include knowingly  permitting school training aircraft to be used to carry illegal controlled  substances or an intentional action to improperly credit training to or  graduate students.
From fiscal years 2006 through 2010, our analysis of FAA’s PTRS data  found that FAA completed 9,016 inspections of pilot examiners, but it is  unclear whether FAA met all of its oversight requirements in this area  (see fig. 8). FAA uses private individuals or organizations to supplement  its workforce and to provide certification activities such as examining and  testing of pilot applicants for a fee paid for by the applicant. Known as  designees, pilot examiners are generally appointed by FAA’s local district  personnel for either 3 years (for an individual) or 5 years (for an  organization). As part of its oversight role, FAA requires each pilot  examiner to be inspected by FAA inspectors at least once annually and  high activity pilot examiners must be inspected at least twice annually, as  outlined in the agency’s oversight policy and NPG directives.  Additionally, several other circumstances may require an FAA inspector  to inspect a pilot examiner, such as noncompliance with the applicable  certification policies, an excessively high certification passing rate, or  involvement in an accident, incident, or other violation. Although we  know the number of inspections conducted for each fiscal year, we could  not determine the completion percentage of the required inspections for  either the routine annual or additional inspections for high activity or  special circumstances for each fiscal year due to limitations in available  data for the population of pilot examiners.
Although we could not determine the completion percentage of the  required inspections for pilot examiners, our analysis of PTRS inspection  data showed 1- and 2-year gaps in the oversight of some pilot examiners.  For instance, we found 114 pilot examiners with a 1-year gap between  inspections, and 11 pilot examiners with a gap of 2 years. This may  indicate that required inspections of pilot examiners were not completed  by FAA in a given fiscal year or that inspections were unnecessary due to  inactivity of the examiners during that year. FAA officials told us that, until  recently, FAA had not analyzed the extent to which it has conducted all  required pilot examiner inspections on a national level.
FAA has previously taken steps to improve oversight of pilot examiners,  but still faces issues in this area. In 2005, FAA developed 14  recommendations to improve pilot examiner compliance, 11 of which  were implemented. FAA officials told us that the implementation of these  recommendations has resulted in improvements in pilot examiner  oversight guidance and in the information technology used to oversee  pilot examiners for local district offices. They also said that, as a direct  result of the recommendations, more of the pilot examiners with poor  performance issues have been terminated and oversight of pilot  examiners has improved. Nevertheless, FAA officials acknowledged they  still face some issues in oversight of pilot examiners, due, in part, to the  FAA’s current data systems’ difficulty compiling inspection data at the  regional or national level. In September 2010, FAA began developing  quarterly assessment reports covering 12-month periods on the oversight  of its designees, including pilot examiners, to assist in identifying  oversight gaps and potential areas of concerns. We reviewed the  quarterly reports that covered July 2009 through March 2011 and found  they identified a number of areas of concern regarding the oversight of  pilot examiners. For example, some pilot examiners with the highest  activity had not been inspected over the previous 12 months. FAA began  creating the quarterly assessment reports to better inform management  officials at the national office level. For example, in the most recent report  provided by FAA officials, five high-activity pilot examiners were identified  that performed a total of 1,623 pilot practical tests, but no inspections  were conducted for these pilot examiners for the previous 12 months.  Conversely, the report found that FAA conducted 218 inspections of the  171 pilot examiners with the lowest testing activity during the same  period. Based on this report, FAA’s inspection record is not consistent  with the pilot examiners that are responsible for conducting the largest  numbers of practical tests, and conducting more oversight on the  examiners conducting significantly fewer tests.
FAA officials said that the quarterly assessment reports are a temporary  way of assessing the extent to which it is conducting all required  inspections, but FAA is in the process of developing a new designee  management system that it expects to be operational by July 2012. FAA  officials told us that the new system is being designed to provide more  comprehensive data on designees, including pilot examiners, by  combining data that FAA currently maintains in various data systems.  Thus, the new system will consolidate the management and oversight  functions for designees to allow for more readily available data. The  officials also told us that they are in the process of revising oversight  policy for designees and improving tools for selecting which pilot  examiners to inspect.
section_title: While Not Required, FAA Conducts Optional Oversight Inspections for Flight Instructors, but to What Extent Is Unclear
paragraphs: Unlike oversight of pilot schools with Part 141 certificates and pilot  examiners, annual inspections of individual flight instructors (i.e., under  Part 61 regulations) are not required by FAA. From fiscal years 2006  through 2010, our analysis of FAA’s PTRS data found that FAA  completed 1,761 inspections of flight instructors. Oversight for flight  instructors is generally limited to initial and subsequent certification  renewal, but additional oversight of flight instructors is conducted as an  optional work activity by FAA. However, despite being optional, FAA  officials from one local district office told us that their inspectors make this  area a priority in their planned work activities for a given fiscal year.  According to FAA policy, flight instructor certificates are renewed every 24  months. However, inspections of flight instructors and their training  activities should take place on a random basis in the interim, but should  be prioritized as a result of, for instance, observations of noncompliance  actions made during a pilot school inspection, an instructor or student is  involved in an accident or incident, or when an instructor has a student  failure rate of 30 percent or greater on FAA’s certification tests. The  oversight of flight instructors is important because, like the examiners, this  population serves as a gatekeeper for ensuring that pilot students are  being properly trained as they seek certification. However, similar to pilot  examiners, we could not determine the extent of oversight that FAA  provided for the entire flight instructor population or the specific reasons  that inspections were conducted during the 5 fiscal years.
Similar to pilot schools, when inspections or other sources revealed  compliance issues or violations, FAA uses a variety of actions to enforce  safety standards and regulatory compliance. For fiscal years 2006  through 2010, our analysis of FAA’s EIS data found 178 cases against  flight instructors (see fig. 9).    No action: FAA can determine that no action is warranted. In 38 of  the 178 cases (about 21 percent), enforcement cases were initiated  but no enforcement action was taken.    Administrative Actions: In 109 cases (about 61 percent), FAA used  administrative actions to address violations. These actions refer not  only to warning notices and letters of correction but also informal  actions, such as oral or written counseling, which can also be used by  inspectors to address an apparent violation.    Enforcement actions: We found that FAA rarely used punitive means  such as suspending or revoking licenses and assessing penalties  against flight instructors. FAA suspended licenses in 9 cases (about  5 percent) and revoked licenses in 16 cases (about 9 percent). FAA  also assessed monetary civil penalties in three cases (about 2  percent) for flight instructors.
In addition to using PTRS and EIS, FAA inspectors develop their work  plan using another somewhat limited oversight tool—the Safety  Performance Analysis System (SPAS)—which provides data access and  analysis on pilot schools, pilot examiners, and flight instructors. The  SPAS system is a data analysis application that monitors performance  measures and calls attention to trends. SPAS builds on inspection results  and other data and is intended to assist FAA’s local district offices in  applying their limited inspection resources to those entities and areas that  pose the greatest risk to aviation safety. For example, when particular  inspection tasks warrant attention, SPAS will “flag” an advisory  notification to a FAA inspector and prompt the inspector to look into the  situation, e.g., a flight instructor with a high rate of student failure on  practical tests. While SPAS may be useful at the local level, it does not  have the capability to perform national level rollup analysis. Thus, FAA  does not have the ability to measure FAA’s annual performance in  meeting the NPG inspection requirements for pilot schools and pilot  examiners based on PTRS inspection data, or to make risk-based, data- driven decisions about the scope of its discretionary, planned work  activities that include flight instructors. As a result, FAA’s national office  cannot readily access comprehensive inspection completion data and  determine the level of oversight its field staff is providing for pilot schools  and pilot examiners.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Public and media concerns about aviation safety escalated as a result of  the Colgan crash in early 2009, and Congress and FAA have taken steps  to improve aviation safety by making revisions to the training  requirements that airlines must provide for commercial airline pilots. Our  analysis indicates that FAA has an opportunity to ensure that the initial  pilot training process for producing pilots’ commercial certificates is still  relevant for the necessary knowledge and skills for airline positions.  Although many of the improvements to training being considered are for  existing airline pilots—such as those related to decision making and  operating in a crew environment—they may also apply to initial pilot  training. We are not making recommendations in this area, because FAA  has initiated some efforts and has plans for other efforts to address pilot  training issues. For example, FAA plans to establish a government and  industry working group during fiscal year 2012 to address issues related  to pilot certification testing standards and training. Therefore, we  encourage FAA to continue its efforts, with industry and academia  collaboration, in reviewing the initial pilot training process, including  ground school content, training hour requirements, and knowledge testing  for commercial pilot certification under the Part 61 regulations.
FAA’s oversight of key functions for the initial pilot training process in the  United States by which commercial pilots become certificated is  reasonably sound. We found that FAA completed most required  inspections of vocational pilot schools (Part 141), but the agency’s data  sources did not provide certainty that the level of oversight is consistently  being performed in accordance with the agency’s guidelines and policies,  including oversight requirements for pilot examiners. FAA’s national office  does not monitor the annual completion of the requirements outlined in  the annual NPGs related to monitoring pilot schools and pilot examiners.  Therefore, the national office cannot readily determine the level of  oversight its field staff is providing for these key stakeholders and has  been unable to produce this information. Better internal control  mechanisms, such as creating and reviewing agencywide reports using  PTRS data periodically, would improve FAA oversight by providing  assurance that all required inspections were completed. Additionally, FAA  could establish standard procedures for entering PTRS data for  inspectors at the local level of the completed inspection areas to avoid the  uncertainty of whether or not they were completed as required. This  would not only help FAA better measure its performance in meeting the  annual NPG inspection requirements, but would also enable the agency  to make more informed decisions about the scope of its discretionary,  planned work activities for flight instructors. Further, the steps taken by  FAA to develop a quarterly assessment report on the oversight and  performance of pilot examiners is promising, but FAA should also  consider developing a similar process for oversight of flight instructors  because it could identify potential areas of concerns.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making two recommendations to improve FAA’s oversight of pilot  certification and training. The Secretary of Transportation should direct  the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a  comprehensive system that may include modifying or improving existing  data systems to    measure performance for meeting the annual National Program  Guidelines’ inspection requirements for pilot schools with a Part 141  certificate and pilot examiners and   better understand the nature and scope of the discretionary, planned  inspections for flight instructors.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In  responding to our recommendations, FAA officials said that they agreed  that improvements in oversight data were needed but indicated that the  quarterly assessment reports already measure the level of oversight of  pilot examiners and summary data is being provided to the national office  and regional division managers. Additionally, the designee management  system currently under development will address the recommendation for  pilot examiner designees in a more permanent way. We retained the  recommendation; our report notes the oversight improvements underway  for pilot examiners, and we will assess the effectiveness of the designee  management system once it is implemented. FAA also provided technical  comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Transportation and appropriate congressional committees.  The report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives and the pilot supply appendix, we reviewed  and synthesized literature on pilot training and certification in the United  States. Specifically, we reviewed a range of reports from GAO, Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA), Congressional Research Service,  International Civil Aviation Organization, National Transportation Safety  Board, and Bureau of Labor Statistics that included general background  information on a variety of related issues on U.S. pilot training, such as  pilot certification and training issues in the U. S.; historical trends, current  supply and demand, and forecasts for commercial airline pilots; types and  requirements of pilot training schools; FAA regulatory training  requirements for different levels of pilot certification; FAA oversight of  U.S. pilot training system; and comparable international pilot training  systems. We conducted a literature review search from databases, such  as ProQuest, TRIS, and Lexis, as well as well as trade publications and  literature from aviation stakeholders. Furthermore, we reviewed the  Federal Aviation Regulations related to training and certification for pilots  under Part 61, Part 141, and Part 142. We also reviewed FAA  regulations, policy, and oversight documentation related to pilot training,  management guidance for overseeing pilot schools, designated pilot  examiners (pilot examiner), and certified flight instructors (flight  instructor). Additionally, we reviewed FAA’s national program guidelines  for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 regarding the required and planned  oversight activities as well as FAA’s practical test standards used to  certificate pilots as private, commercial, and airline transport. We also  reviewed provisions of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation  Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-216) related to  “Flight Crewmember Screening and Qualifications” and “Airline Transport  Pilot Certification.”
To review FAA’s inspection and enforcement activities related to pilot  schools, pilot examiners, and flight instructors, we obtained FAA’s  inspection and enforcement policies and analyzed raw data from FAA’s  inspection and enforcement databases. We analyzed data from the  Program Tracking Reporting System (PTRS) for inspections that closed  (had a closing date) in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and data from the  Enforcement Information System (EIS) for enforcement actions with a  date of final action in those fiscal years. To assess the reliability of the  inspection and enforcement data that we received from FAA, we  performed electronic testing of the data elements that we used, obtained  and reviewed documentation about the data and the systems that  produced them, and interviewed knowledgeable FAA officials. We used  these data to determine the extent to which FAA had completed all  required inspections of pilot schools and pilot examiners, and planned  inspections of flight instructors. For pilot schools with a Part 141  certificate, we analyzed data from PTRS on the numbers of required  inspections that FAA completed, and whether all five inspection areas  were covered, and compared to the requirements set in FAA’s National  Program Guidelines (NPG). The NPG for each fiscal year indicated that  an inspection was required for each school within each region and to  include under operations: (1) air agency facility inspection (PTRS activity  number 1640) and (2) student records (PTRS activity number 1649). The  NPG for each fiscal year also indicated that an inspection was required  for each school within each region and to include under airworthiness: (1)  pilot school facility (PTRS activity number 3650), (2) airworthiness  directive compliance (PTRS activity number 3667 or 5667), and (3) part  141 ramp (PTRS activity number 3664 or 5664). To determine the nature  and scope of the enforcement actions that FAA closed against pilot  schools with a Part 141 certificate, we analyzed data on these actions  from EIS, including whether the actions were administrative, fines, or  suspensions or revocations of schools’ Part 141 operating certificates.  We also analyzed data to determine the minimum, median, and maximum  dollar amounts of fines and durations of suspensions. We tested the  reliability of the PTRS and EIS data that we received from FAA with  electronic testing of the data elements that we used, obtained and  reviewed documentation about the data and the systems that produced  them, and interviewed knowledgeable FAA officials. We found the data to  be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
For pilot examiners, we analyzed data from PTRS on the numbers of  required inspections that FAA completed and compared to the  requirements set in the NPG. The NPG for each fiscal year indicated that  an inspection was required for each pilot examiner within each region  under: pilot examiner—large-turbojet (PTRS activity number 1664) and  pilot examiner—other (PTRS activity number 1665). We also obtained  and reviewed summary data from FAA contained in quarterly assessment  reports on the oversight of its designated representatives, including pilot  examiners. The quarterly reports contained data from July 2009 through  March 2011.
For flight instructors, the PTRS activity number 1662 is used to record  CFI inspections in PTRS. The NPG for fiscal years 2009 through 2010 did  not indicate inspections for certificated flight instructors as a planned work  activity. To determine the nature and scope of the enforcement actions  that FAA closed against flight instructors, we analyzed data on these  actions from EIS, including whether the actions were administrative, fines,  or suspensions or revocations of flight instructors’ certificates. We also  analyzed data to determine the minimum, median, and maximum dollar  amounts of fines and durations of suspensions.
We interviewed government officials at the Federal Aviation  Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. We conducted  semistructured interviews with representatives from a range of aviation  stakeholder organizations (see below). We also interviewed researchers  involved in the pilot source study. We visited pilot training stakeholders in  six states included in FAA regions that had higher number of pilot  schools, higher number of pilot certificates issued in 2009, while taking  into consideration the presence of FAA regional and district offices and  regional airlines’ offices in some locations. Thus, in our visits to Arizona,  Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Utah, we interviewed officials at  FAA regional and district offices, regional airlines, pilot schools, and  college aviation schools. However, because we selected these six states  as part of a nonprobability sample, our findings cannot be generalized to  all pilot training stakeholders in the United States. Through the  combination of site visits and semistructured telephone interviews, we  interviewed representatives of 24 regional airlines that transported about  97 percent of regional passengers in 2009, according to the Regional  Airlines Association’s 2010 annual report. (See table 5.)
In addition, we conducted site visits to the France, Germany,  Netherlands, and United Kingdom. We focused on these European  countries’ pilot certification and training requirements because they offer a  different model than the United States. The site visits allowed us to obtain  information on European countries’ pilot standards, as well as their efforts  to revise their training requirements from traditional training objectives  and methodology to competency-based training models. However,  because we selected these four countries as part of a nonprobability  sample, our findings cannot be generalized to all European countries.  During these site visits, we interviewed officials at the European Aviation  Safety Agency (Europe’s aviation regulator), civil aviation authority  officials, representatives from international and European aviation  stakeholder groups, representatives from airlines, and flight training  organizations (schools). However, because these four countries were  selected as part of a nonprobability sample, the findings from our  interviews cannot be generalized to all European countries. (See table 6.)
We conducted this performance audit from March 2010 through  November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Nature and Scope of the Supply of and Demand for Airline Pilots
paragraphs: For several years now, the issue of whether the United States will  maintain an adequate supply of qualified pilots has emerged in literature,  media sources, and aviation industry discussions, but the scope of the  supply of and demand for U.S. airline pilots is unknown and difficult to  determine. The number of pilot certificates held in the United States has  been declining and is expected to continue to decline in the near future.  Demand, which has historically fluctuated, is projected to significantly  increase over the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the International Civil  Aviation Organization (ICAO) is predicting a surplus of pilots in North  America, based, in part, on the regional capacity to provide pilot training,  level of current and projected pilot population, and the slow growth rate of  the aircraft fleet requiring additional pilots to operate them. However,  certain factors could affect that projected surplus, including the 2007  legislation extending the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots and  the sharp curtailment of military pilots as a hiring resource. Particularly  given the decrease in the number of military pilots available to be hired by  airlines, the number of students who enroll in and complete training in  pilot schools will also affect the supply of commercial pilots, as the  availability of pilots for entry-level regional airline jobs can be directly  linked to the number of pilot certificates issued. Student enrollment in pilot  schools is purported to be declining and the dropout rate for completing  pilot training is high. Furthermore, others factors present potential  challenges to the pilot training industry, such as available financial  sources to fund pilot training and the impact of the 2010 legislation  requiring additional pilot certification requirements for airline first officers.
subsections: section_title: The Economy and Demographics Affect Airline Pilot Supply and Demand
paragraphs: The safety and economic contribution of the air transportation system not  only relies on having well-trained airline pilots but also on having enough  of them to meet demand. The demand for commercial pilots is a function  of the size the commercial airline fleet and the number of pilots needed to  operate that fleet size. Demand for professional pilots in the United States  has historically fluctuated, driven by a number of factors including  consumer demand for air travel and the general state of the economy,  fuel prices, regulatory changes, and aircraft fleet changes. For example,  since 2008, the economic recession has significantly affected the U.S.  airline industry. Several airlines have filed for bankruptcy and ceased  operations, while other airlines have merged. It is still unknown when and  to what extent the U.S. airline industry will fully recover, but demand for  air travel is highly cyclical and largely reflective of the state of the  economy, and expected to increase significantly over the next 20 years.  The total number of pilot certificates held in the United States has been  fluctuating downward over the last 10 years. The number of active  student, private, commercial, and airline transport pilot certificates held in  the United States decreased from 608,079 in 2000 to 554,237 in 2009, or  9 percent. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) predicts  that, by 2014, the number of pilots in the United States will decline to  500,000.
In late 2010, Boeing projected the commercial aviation industry in North  America will require over 97,000 new pilots over the next 20 years (over  466,000 new pilots globally) to accommodate the strong demand for new  and replacement aircraft, but noted that emerging markets in Asia,  especially in China, will experience the greatest need for pilots. As  demand for air travel continues to increase internationally, the demand for  qualified pilots will likely continue to grow in many parts of the world,  particularly in Asia and the Middle East and possibly attract qualified  commercial pilots from the U.S. market. For instance, Boeing forecasts  that China will need over 70,000 new pilots by 2029 for new commercial  aircraft. In order to deal with the lack of available pilots today, some  foreign airlines have started training their pilots through established flight  training organizations or sending their students to pilot schools in English  speaking countries, such as the United States. However, if industry  projections are realized and commercial airlines, both mainline and  regional, need large numbers of pilots, it is uncertain whether an  adequate supply of qualified pilots will be available.
However, despite these projections, ICAO is reporting a likely surplus of  pilots in North America. ICAO noted in its 2011 report on the 20-year  global and regional forecast on civil aviation personnel that the United  States, with close to 270,000 professional pilots (i.e., commercial or  airline transport), accounts for approximately 58 percent of the global pilot  population. Furthermore, the United States has an annual training  capacity for producing about 27,000 professional pilots annually. Based  on the projected annual need for new pilots and considering several  factors, ICAO determined that the United States will likely have a surplus  of pilots under all of the scenarios it considered for the North American  region (i.e., the United States and Canada). This may seem surprising  considering the general perception that a pilot shortage in the United  States is inevitable, but was supported by ICAO based on the following  reasons. First, the annual training capacity in the United States  represents 60 percent of the worldwide training capacity; thus, the ICAO  calculations indicate that North America has more than enough training  capacity to train the number of new pilots needed in this region. Second,  fleet growth rates—i.e., the number of aircraft needing pilots—for the  North American region for which the United States is the dominant player,  are relatively low. Third, the current number of licensed professional pilots  in the United States represents 58 percent of the global pilot population.  Although these factors do point to a surplus, other economic and  demographic factors that can be difficult to determine could affect the  projected surplus.
The temporary impact of recent legislation could affect the availability of  commercial pilots in the future and other measures may be required to  address related long-term issues. When recent concerns arose about a  potential pilot shortage, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act was  enacted (age 65 law) in 2007 and allowed pilots to fly domestic routes  until age 65 instead of the prior mandatory retirement age of 60. For  international flights, one pilot may be up to age 65 provided the other pilot  is under age 60, consistent with the November 2006 ICAO standard. This  effort attempted to ensure there would not be a large group of highly  skilled pilots retiring at the same time, but according to ICAO data,  pending age-related retirements will begin to reemerge in 2012. The 2011  ICAO report also indicated that approximately 85,000 professional pilots  (31 percent of the total pilot population) are aged 55 or more; among this  age group, 34,000 (13 percent of the total pilot population) will be eligible  for retirement by 2015. Another 34,000 will be eligible for retirement by  2020. The report also asserted that it is likely, considering the age  structure of pilots in North America, that retirements will take place at an  accelerating rate, thereby contributing to a potential increase in future  pilot demand. However, all of the pilots holding commercial or airline  transport pilot certificates in the United States may not be automatically  hired by airlines due to performance and skills deficiencies. Therefore,  despite a projected surplus of professional pilots, having only a potentially  limited supply of pilots that airlines determine to be qualified to hire could  still affect the air transportation industry in the United States.
In addition, one of the traditional, preferred sources of airline pilots has  been severely curtailed, which will likely continue to affect the availability  of pilots in the future. U.S. commercial airlines are no longer hiring as  many pilots from the U.S. military as they had in the past, which has  historically provided airlines with a steady supply of highly qualified pilots.  According to literature sources, until the 1990s, roughly 90 percent of the  pilots hired by mainline airlines came from the U.S. military, with the  remaining source being from civilian aviation. In 2008, about 30 percent  of pilots hired by commercial airlines had military training backgrounds.  Moreover, the military is training fewer pilots and retaining more of them  with better pay and other financial incentives. In addition, many  commercial airline pilots from Vietnam era are reaching retirement age.
section_title: Domestic Student Enrollments in U.S. Pilot School Is Declining and the Dropout Rate of Student Pilots Is High
paragraphs: Particularly given the decrease in military pilots as a source of potential  civilian pilots, the number of students who enroll in and graduate from  pilot schools also affects the supply of pilots, and could affect the ICAO  projected surplus of pilots for the North America region, specifically in the  United States. The availability of pilots for entry-level regional airline jobs  can be directly linked to the number of student pilot starts and the number  of pilot certificates issued. In the past few years, the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) has revised its forecast to reflect an uncertain  number of student pilots. In 2008, FAA predicted 100,200 student pilots in  the year 2025, but lowered that estimate in its 2009 through 2025 forecast  report to 86,600. However, in FAA’s 2011 through 2031 forecast report,  FAA predicted the number of student pilots increasing to 113,500 in 2025  (120,600 in 2031), due to a rule change by FAA that makes student pilot  certificates valid longer for pilots under the age of 40. Also, from 1999  through 2009, the number of private certificates issued decreased about  26 percent, but commercial certificates slightly increased about 10  percent. Representatives of the pilot training industry that we interviewed  told us that the overall trend reflects a lower number of domestic students  starting pilot training, a trend which continued into 2011. Representatives  from a few pilot schools told us that pilot schools across the United States  experienced large declines in enrollments in 2010. For example, the  University of Illinois decided to eliminate its 65-year-old aviation school  after a decade of declining enrollment. The collegiate aviation school  produced fewer degrees and served fewer students than any other  program on the campus during the previous school year and no aviation  students had been accepted for the coming semester.
The decline of student pilot certificates and student dropout rate are  concerns to AOPA. According to AOPA, the number of current student  pilot certificates is the best indicator of the supply of future pilots.  Representatives of several pilot schools with whom we spoke told us that  they were becoming more and more dependent on foreign students to  maintain their pilot training operations. Also, according to FAA officials,  representatives of AOPA, four pilot schools, and several European  organizations we interviewed said that some European and Asian airlines  and pilot training organizations send students to the United States for pilot  training to take advantage of the relatively inexpensive fuel and the year- round weather conditions for training in states such as Florida and  Arizona. In addition, the dropout rate of student pilots could affect the  supply of pilots. According to a 2010 AOPA study, almost 80 percent of  student pilots drop out of training for four key reasons: (1) lack of  educational quality, (2) lack of customer focus (not a good value or pricing  not competitive), (3) insufficient sense of community (lacks an  atmosphere that makes students feel welcome in the aviation  community), and (4) lack of information sharing (school does not provide  realistic estimate of time and costs required for a pilot certificate and  statistics on student success rates at schools). The study indicated that  while cost of training was a factor, it was less significant than the other  four reasons people did not complete training—even though some  literature suggests otherwise as discussed below.
AOPA, as a result of this information regarding the dropout rate, has  initiated efforts with close coordination with the pilot training industry to  work on solutions to stop the outflow of students and to increase the pilot  population. AOPA has begun an initiative focused on student retention in  pilot training that will consist of a series of regional meetings across the  United States to collect perspectives and industry input on potential  improvements that can be made in providing pilot training. AOPA has met  with representatives from the aviation community, including pilots, student  pilots, aviation businesses, pilot schools, and flight instructors who are  currently involved in conducting pilot training. In addition, the association  has launched a Let’s Go Flying Web site (www.aopa.org/letsgoflying) and  created various publications to inspire more people to become interested  in learning to fly by providing an introduction to and information about  becoming a pilot.
section_title: Challenges to Financing Pilot Training Could Affect Enrollment
paragraphs: Aviation stakeholders from 4 of the 9 pilot schools, two industry  associations, and one industry organization we interviewed told us that  one of most important challenges for maintaining an adequate supply of  students for pilot schools is the availability of financial support for pilot  training. Pilot training costs vary amongst the pilot schools. According to  AOPA and other sources, the cost of training from the beginning of  training through a commercial pilot certificate and a multiengine rating  could be in excess of $40,000 but varies across the country. According to  AOPA, pilot training can cost about $100,000 or more at most collegiate  aviation schools for a 4-year degree and the flight training provided. The  University Aviation Association (UAA) indicated that there is no single  comprehensive information source regarding the cost of pilot training  across the United States, but AOPA officials told us costs vary between  $40,000 and $100,000 for the training needed to obtain a commercial  pilot certificate and a multiengine rating. Furthermore, as previously  stated, pilots would likely be responsible for any increased costs if  additional training requirements were developed by FAA. The costs are  high compared to the low starting salaries. According to a 2009 survey by  the Regional Airline Association (RAA) of member airlines based on 2008  salary data, the salaries for regional pilots generally averaged between  $28,000 and $43,000 for regional airline first officers and $62,000 to  $102,000 for regional airline captains. RAA estimated that salaries have  increased 2 to 5 percent since but it does not have more current data.  Some stakeholders we interviewed said that these realities could  potentially prevent prospective students from enrolling in a pilot school or  reduce the desire to become a pilot. However, it is important to note that  the previously mentioned AOPA study reported that that training costs  were not a statistically significant reason individuals dropped out of  training.
A range of tuition resources is available, but some of these sources are  drying up. To pay for pilot training, AOPA officials said that students  typically use personal funds, personal credit (credit cards and personal  loans), scholarships, grants, parent or student loans, other educational  loans, and the Veterans Administration’s (VA) Montgomery GI Bill  benefits. For example, AOPA offers loans for pilot training up to $25,000  and allows flexible funding options for students since AOPA does not limit  the use of funds to certain types of schools or training. One benefit of  collegiate schools and some vocational schools is that they are generally  eligible to receive VA benefits and federal financial aid (such as federal  education loans or grants). However, flight instructor-based schools do  not generally qualify for federal financial aid or VA benefits. VA benefits  allow a qualified student to be reimbursed up to 60 percent for ground  and pilot training costs to the maximum allowable limit, but do not fund  training for a private pilot certificate. Many financial institutions have  provided financing for pilot training through educational loan programs,  such as the Federal Family Education Loan program, and personal  loans. According to literature we reviewed and representatives of four  pilot schools and three industry associations we interviewed indicated that  many of the private banks have been tightening restrictions on financing  available to potential new pilot students, and others have left the pilot  training loan market. The National Association of Flight Instructors  reported that Sallie Mae took a $1 billion loss in 2009 for educational  loans, which explains, in part, the reason it has become increasingly  difficult to obtain funding. We reported in November 2009 that many  lenders offering student loans have exited the market in response to  limited access to capital resulting from the credit crisis. Thus, lenders  have begun to give pilot training a higher risk profile than in the past and  have been slowly exiting this loan market.
section_title: Recent Efforts to Improve Airline Safety and Pilot Training Could Impact Pilot Availability
paragraphs: Representatives of the regional airlines we interviewed and stakeholder  associations have voiced a significant level of concern regarding the  legislative mandate to increase the number of flight hours needed for first  officers to be hired by commercial airlines. As discussed earlier in the  report, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension  Act requires that FAA develop regulations requiring all airline pilots,  including the first officers, to hold an airline transport pilot certificate—the  highest level of pilot certification and requiring the highest number of total  flight hours—instead of the commercial pilot certificate that is required  today. Aviation stakeholders have voiced significant concerns that  requiring first officers for regional airlines to possess an airline transport  pilot certificate will likely result in the inability to fill some positions due to  the lack of qualified pilots. The overall decreasing trends in pilot  certificates being issued is illustrated in table 4 with the general decline in  the number of airline transport pilot certifications issued from 1999  through 2009 from pilot schools operating under Part 61, Part 141, and  Part 142 regulations. The number of airline transport certificates issued  decreased about 60 percent.
Aviation stakeholders such as AOPA and RAA have both also voiced  concerns that increasing pilot certification requirements to become an  airline pilot could significantly discourage potential pilots from entering  aviation due to the increased time and expense required to meet the new  hiring minimums of airlines. For example, regional airline officials we  interviewed said the new requirement will create a gap in experience for  new pilots seeking entry level airline jobs that could take several years to  fill. Furthermore, AOPA said the cost of obtaining the additional 1,250  flight hours needed to meet the total time for an airline transport pilot  certificate could deter many new pilots into pursuing other professional  careers by increasing the number of flight hours to obtain employment as  an airline pilot. Additionally, the 2011 ICAO report mentioned earlier  stated that even though the United States has sufficient training  capacities, the requirement that all commercial airlines’ first officers have  an airline transport pilot certificate could drastically limit the availability of  first officers to support existing delivery schedules for new aircraft at  many airlines.
The majority of officials representing the regional airlines we interviewed  also indicated that the proposed FAA rules to revise pilot duty and rest  requirements will potentially create a need for more pilots. Provisions in  the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of  2010 directed FAA to issue a regulation to specify limitations on the hours  of pilot flight and duty time to address problems relating to pilot fatigue.  NTSB has long been concerned about the possible safety effects of  fatigue in the aviation industry—specifically pilots—and have issued  several safety recommendations to FAA after identifying it as a  contributing factor in several aviation accidents. FAA identified the issue  of pilot fatigue as a top priority following the Colgan Air crash, and the  NTSB accident report stated the pilots’ performance was likely impaired  because of fatigue, but the degree to which it contributed could not be  conclusively determined. The proposed changes to the duty and rest  requirements of pilots will likely mean airlines need more pilots to comply  with the new rules. The officials said the industry will likely see a greater  demand for these additional pilots over the next few years, but this will  depend on each airline’s staffing ratios for its aircraft and flight operations.  However, the general response was that the rule changes would require  more qualified pilots in order to maintain the same level of service.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report, Keith Cunningham, Assistant  Director; Richard Brown; Owen Bruce; Vashun Cole; Cindy Gilbert; Brian  Hackney; Bob Homan; David Hooper; Amber Keyser; Nitin Rao; Amy  Rosewarne; and Michael Silver.