General Aviation: Status of the Industry, Related Infrastructure, and Safety Issues
Published: 2001-08-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the booming growth in scheduled commercial airline traffic has tended to obscure developments in another part of the aviation industry--general aviation. General aviation covers all civil aircraft not flown by commercial airlines or the military. In 1994, concerned that general aviation was in decline, Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which sought to boost the industry by placing limitations on product liability lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers. Trends show that there was a decline in most general aviation indicators prior to the 1994 enactment of GARA and that this decline reversed in the years after GARA--sharply in manufacturing indicators and to a lesser extent in flying activity indicators. Trends in general aviation since GARA was enacted suggest that the law has reduced manufacturers' liability concerns, leading to a rebound in the manufacturing industry. The amount of federal funding available for capital development at general aviation airports has consistently been below what has been requested by the airport officials to fund their airports' planned projects. In 2000, for example, the amount of federal funding available was almost $900 million short of what was requested to fund airports' eligible planned projects. The safety of general aviation has been improving. The total number of accidents declined from 3,233 in 1982 to 1,989 in 1998--a decrease of 41 percent--while the accident rate fell from about 10 to about 7 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours. More than two-thirds of general aviation's accidents, both fatal and nonfatal, are caused by pilot error, including mistakes related to procedure, skill, and judgment. Besides determining the requirements for pilot certification, the Federal Aviation Administration oversees the safety of general aviation by working with federal agencies and industry groups to identify safety improvements. Most initiatives seek to enhance safety in one of three areas: training, technology, and the procedures that are designed to govern such operations as takeoffs, landings, and flight patterns.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In response to your request to conduct a comprehensive overview of the  status of general aviation, especially since the passage the General Aviation  Revitalization Act (GARA), we addressed three research questions.
What did key indicators in general aviation activity show in the years  leading up to GARA and what have they shown since then?
What funding is available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient  to accommodate planned development?
What are the trends in general aviation accident rates and the causes of  accidents, and how have the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) and  the industry attempted to improve safety?
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator of  FAA;  and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.  We will also  make copies available to others on request.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or would like to  discuss it further, I can be reached at (202) 512-2834.  Key contributors to  this report are listed in appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: Most consideration in the nation’s rapidly growing aviation industry  focuses on commercial passenger and cargo airlines.  Attention to general  aviation, which includes most aviation operations other than commercial  and military, is often the result of an accident that involves a well-known  figure, such as the 1999 crash of John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, airplane.
In fact, general aviation is an important component of the nation’s air  transportation system and economy, accounting for 96 percent of all  civilian aircraft and three out of every four takeoffs and landings.  General  aviation airports provide a vast network of landing areas across the  country.  And while most general aviation pilots fly only for personal use,  others use their general aviation training as a base for moving into other  parts of civilian aviation such as piloting for commercial passenger and  cargo airlines.
subsections: section_title: General Aviation Activities Are Diverse and Provide Important Benefits
paragraphs: General aviation encompasses a wide variety of operations, including the  training of new pilots, crop dusting, and providing air tours for sightseers  and transportation for business executives.  In addition, general aviation  provides rapid transportation for medical and other civil emergencies.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) divides general aviation  activities into use categories.  About 85 percent of general aviation flying  falls into one of five categories, as described in table 1.  The largest of these  categories is personal flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure or  personal transportation and not for business purposes.  In 1999, personal  flying accounted for 36 percent of all general aviation hours flown, nearly  twice as much as the next largest segment—instructional flying.  The  remaining categories include many diverse activities, such as medical  services, aerial advertising, aerial mapping and photography, and aerial  application of seeds or chemicals.
General aviation benefits both the users of transportation services and the  economy at large.  For example, it increases the efficiency and productivity  of businesses by reducing the travel time that would be required to drive or  use more congested commercial airports; provides public health services,  such as transporting patients and medical equipment; provides public  safety services, such as monitoring floods or fires; alleviates congestion at  commercial airports and provides an important transportation link to small  communities not served by commercial air carriers; and provides training  for new pilots.
General aviation’s economic benefits are difficult to measure quantitatively,  and studies on this topic have had limitations that have reduced the  certainty of the studies’ findings.  Nevertheless, according to a series of  nationwide studies done for FAA on the effects of general aviation on  economic activity, jobs, and earnings, general aviation’s contribution to the  national economy has grown in the past decade.  A report issued for FAA in  2000 estimated that in 1998, general aviation generated about $64.5 billion  in total economic activity at the national level, an increase of $26.5 billion  from the 1988 level of $38 billion.  In 1998, general aviation accounted for  about 0.7 percent of the gross domestic product and 7 percent of the total  contribution of civil aviation.  State studies show that general aviation’s  economic impact on the states’ economies is generally less than 1 percent.   However, according to these estimates, general aviation makes important  contributions to the states in terms of economic output, jobs, and earnings  that are generated.  Appendix I provides more detailed information on the  transportation and economic benefits of general aviation as well as on the  limitations of the studies on this issue.
section_title: General Aviation Industry Includes a Variety of Aircraft and Airports and Presents Special Safety Issues
paragraphs: All types of aircraft can be used in general aviation operations, including  single- and multiengine piston aircraft, turboprops and turbojets, rotorcraft  such as helicopters, and gliders.  The general aviation fleet consists of  about 219,000 active aircraft.  While this fleet of general aviation aircraft is  diverse, certain activities are generally associated with certain types of  aircraft.  For example, corporate flying generally involves the use of  turboprop and turbojet aircraft; personal and instructional flying generally  involve the use of small propeller aircraft.  The largest category of aircraft  is single-engine propeller, which in 1999 made up 69 percent of the general  aviation fleet.  Additional types of general aviation aircraft and their uses  are described in figure 1.
Although general aviation aircraft can take off and land at almost any  airport, including most of the nation’s 538 commercial service airports,  there is an extensive system of general aviation airports.  Figure 2  illustrates the categories of airports in the United States.  There are  approximately 13,000 private-use general aviation airports and 4,800 public- use general aviation airports in the United States.  About 2,500 general  aviation airports are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport  Systems (NPIAS), which identifies airports that are significant to national  air transportation and to which FAA allocates funding for capital  development.  Reliever airports are a special category of general aviation  airports in the NPIAS.  Usually located near commercial airports, reliever  airports are intended to help relieve congestion at commercial airports by  diverting general aviation traffic away from commercial airports.  FAA has  designated 334 general aviation airports as reliever airports.
The safety record of general aviation is sometimes brought to light when  high-profile accidents occur.  General aviation accidents, like commercial  aviation accidents, can result from pilot error, mechanical failure, or other  causes.  Although the number of accidents in general aviation has  decreased markedly during the past few years, its accident rate remains  much higher than that of commercial aviation.  Commercial aviation,  because it involves the flying public, is subject to greater oversight and  regulation than general aviation.  While FAA’s primary effort to reduce  general aviation accidents is to ensure that all regulations and requirements  are met, FAA has also emphasized voluntary training and technology to  reduce the accident rate of general aviation.
section_title: General Aviation Manufacturing, Burdened by Liability Costs, Declined in the 1980s
paragraphs: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, aviation manufacturers became more  frequent targets of product liability lawsuits that were brought by survivors  of airplane crashes or families of victims of airplane crashes.  This surge in  the number of lawsuits came on the tail of a 1963 California Supreme Court  ruling that adopted a rule of “strict liability,” which maintained that  companies may be held liable for a product found to be defective or  dangerous without proof of negligence.  Other courts across the nation  soon followed suit, shifting a greater liability burden toward  manufacturers.
As a result of the large number of lawsuits brought against aviation  manufacturers, insurers increased the premiums they charged for product  liability insurance.  Manufacturers, some of whom were self-insured, also  incurred costs from defending an increasing number of lawsuits.  The  escalating costs associated with product liability were reflected in rising  aircraft prices, and by the 1980s, new aircraft sales plummeted as more and  more prospective buyers chose to purchase used airplanes or to build their  own airplanes from kits.  The manufacturing industry began to suffer;  between 1978 and 1988, production fell 94 percent, and the number of  employees working in the industry fell 65 percent.  By the end of 1986, two  manufacturers, Beech and Cessna, had shut down most of their production  lines for single-engine piston aircraft; and Piper, another manufacturer, had  sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
section_title: The Federal Government Plays a Role in Funding and Overseeing General Aviation
paragraphs: The federal government manages the national airspace system, including  general aviation, with the goal of ensuring the adequate and safe operation  of the system.  The federal role includes allocating funds for airport  improvements, controlling air traffic, issuing training rules for aviation  personnel, and certifying the airworthiness of aircraft and other aviation  equipment.  A number of offices are responsible for related areas of the  industry.  These include the Office of Airport Planning and Programming,  which provides funding for airport construction and improvements; the  Aircraft Certification Service, which ensures that the types of aircraft in  use are safe and airworthy; and the General Aviation and Commercial  Division of the Flight Standards Service, which develops policies for the  certification of pilots and instructors.
FAA supports the nation’s airport infrastructure by providing funds for  airport development and maintenance through the Airport Improvement  Program (AIP).  Funds for this program, some of which are collected from  taxes on airport users, are authorized and appropriated by the Congress  and distributed among qualifying airports by FAA.  The federal government  provides more funding to general aviation airports than any other single  source.
FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of general aviation.  To do this,  FAA determines the requirements for pilot certification and develops  regulations and recommendations for pilot activities and training as well as  for the use of technologies and the procedures that govern the use of  airspace and airports.  FAA’s pilot certification process establishes  increasingly stringent piloting and medical requirements for certificates  allowing pilots to fly in more advanced circumstances.  In addition to  certifications, pilots may also receive ratings, which allow them to perform  additional activities or to fly certain types of aircraft.  For example, pilots  may receive ratings for activities such as instrument flying or for flying  particular types of aircraft such as seaplanes or multiengine planes.  To  help ensure pilot proficiency, FAA also has requirements for recent flight  experience, including requiring pilots to perform three takeoffs and  landings within a 90-day period if they intend to carry passengers (or three  night-time takeoffs and landings if they intend to carry passengers at night),  requiring a flight review every 2 years, and requiring instrument-rated pilots  to fly in instrument conditions for 6 hours within every 6-month period in  order to maintain their instrument rating.
Table 2 summarizes FAA’s requirements for the different certificates, along  with the activities each certificate permits a pilot to perform.
In addition to establishing certification requirements, FAA also oversees  flight schools that operate under Part 141 of the Federal Aviation  Regulations.  These schools are certified and monitored by FAA:  Students  are tested on a periodic basis and taught a curriculum that is approved by  FAA.  Other flight schools operate under Part 61 and do not have as high a  degree of FAA oversight.  Students at Part 61 schools are not required to be  tested periodically throughout their training and may receive all of their  training from one instructor rather than from multiple instructors.  At Part  61 schools, students are not required to be taught according to an FAA- approved curriculum unless they are using a Personal Computer-based  Aviation Training Device (PCATD).  However, many large Part 61 schools  use a  commercially developed curriculum that is based on FAA-approved  curricula. Part 141 students may be examined for their pilot’s certificate  after 35 hours of flight time, and Part 61 students may be examined after 40  hours of flight time.  Finally, FAA requires all general aviation pilots to  undergo a biennial flight review, in which the pilot’s skills are assessed.
In 1994, the federal government became involved in two projects aimed at  revitalizing the industry.  First, the Congress enacted the General Aviation  Revitalization Act (GARA), which established an 18-year statute of repose  for lawsuits against manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, parts, and  components.  Under this provision, no civil actions can be brought against  a manufacturer for damages for death or injury arising out of an accident  more than 18 years after the aircraft, part, or component is delivered to a  purchaser.  Second, FAA and the National Aeronautical and Space  Administration (NASA), which plays a role in developing technology  related to general aviation, joined in the Advanced General Aviation  Transport Experiments (AGATE) initiative.  AGATE, a consortium of  industry, higher education, and government entities, was developed in  response to the fact that new aircraft being manufactured were not taking  full advantage of the most advanced technologies available.  AGATE was  intended to help revitalize the general aviation industry by advancing the  use of new technology in aircraft and developing new training methods for  pilots.
Recently, NASA initiated the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS)  Program, a 5-year, $69 million program scheduled to run from fiscal year  2001 through fiscal year 2005.  SATS is designed to demonstrate the  viability of new technologies for enabling small aircraft to affordably  reduce many of the expected problems in the nation’s transportation  system, such as increasing congestion on highways and at the major  airports serving commercial passenger airlines.  For example, SATS  envisions the development and use of easy-to-operate all-weather aircraft  that can fly into the more than 5,000 existing public use general aviation  airports with  minor modification to airports’ landing and navigational  facilities.  NASA officials claim that a successful SATS program will be able  to double the number of communities with air transportation, alleviate the  gap between transportation demand and supply, and create new economic  growth for communities throughout the nation.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on  Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us  to provide a comprehensive overview of general aviation, especially since  the passage of GARA.  Specifically, we addressed three main questions in  our review:  What did key indicators in general aviation activity show in the years  leading up to GARA and what have they shown since then?
What funding is available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient  to accommodate planned development?
What are the trends in general aviation accident rates and in the causes  of accidents, and how have FAA and the industry attempted to improve  safety?
In collecting and analyzing data on flying activity, manufacturing,  infrastructure, and safety, we focused on fixed-wing aircraft, as they  represent the largest portion of general aviation aircraft.  To respond to the  first question, we reviewed FAA’s forecasts of the general aviation industry  through 2007; analyzed data from the industry and FAA on trends in general  aviation aircraft manufacturing, the supply of pilots, and the hours flown  from 1979 through 1999; and interviewed FAA and industry officials about  expected developments in the industry.  In addition, we sought the opinions  of six aviation experts: two from academia who had written extensively on  general aviation issues as identified through a computerized bibliographic  search of relevant publications; three industry association officials from  the Aircraft Pilots and Owners Association (AOPA), the General Aviation  and Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the National Association of  State Aviation Officials (NASAO); and an FAA official.  These experts  responded to our questions about the general aviation industry.
To answer the second question, we analyzed FAA data from fiscal year 2000  to identify planned airport development projects and their costs, reviewed  available funding sources, and compared expected funding to planned  development. We identified relevant recent funding legislation and FAA  documents.  In addition, we interviewed industry and FAA officials about  current and future infrastructure needs.  Finally, to identify general aviation  airports that may have raised funds through bond issuance, we analyzed a  database maintained by a private data vendor.  We then telephoned the  airports we had identified to determine the amount of funds actually raised,  if any.
To reply to the third question, we analyzed accident data from the National  Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the years 1994 through 1998.   NTSB sometimes assigns more than one cause to accidents.  To facilitate  the classification of accidents by the type of error involved in the accident,  we limited our analysis to the first cause cited.  This approach followed the  classification used in a previous study done for FAA.  We categorized the  causes according to a framework developed for FAA that distinguished  among deficiencies in procedural knowledge, perceptual and motor skills,  and decision-making.  In addition, we reviewed studies and reports on the  causes of general aviation accidents, including FAA accident data from  1982 through 1998.  Finally, we interviewed the group of experts we had  found on general aviation safety.
We conducted our work from December 1999 through May 2001 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Post-GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing
paragraphs: General aviation reached a peak in the late 1970s as indicated by factors  such as aircraft production, pilot activity, and hours flown.  This peak was  followed by a long downturn that persisted through most of the 1980s and  the early 1990s and has been attributed to high manufacturing costs  associated with product liability issues as well as other factors.  GARA was  enacted in 1994 with the goal of revitalizing the industry by limiting   product liability costs.  Trends in general aviation since GARA was enacted  suggest that since the law went into effect, liability costs have been less  burdensome to manufacturers, shipments of new aircraft have increased,  and technological advances have been made.  Indicators of general aviation  activity, such as the numbers of hours flown and active pilots, have also  risen in the years since GARA, but their growth has not been as marked as  the growth in manufacturing.  Our group of experts noted that a number of  factors in addition to GARA contributed to the rebound of manufacturing  and other indicators of general aviation activity.  These experts also noted a  number of factors that may be continuing to slow the growth in flying  activity indicators as compared with manufacturing indicators.  FAA  forecasts continued growth for all areas of general aviation.
subsections: section_title: Pre-GARA Slump in Manufacturing Attributed to Liability Concerns and Other Factors
paragraphs: During the 15 years preceding the enactment of GARA in 1994, indicators of  general aviation activity declined or remained flat, with the decline most  pronounced in manufacturing.  This downward trend was attributed to high  aircraft manufacturing costs associated with product liability issues, a  sluggish economy, and changes in lifestyle that reduced interest in general  aviation flying.
subsections: section_title: Manufacturing and Activity Indicators Declined in the 1980s and Early 1990s
paragraphs: In the years prior to GARA, general aviation manufacturing indicators  declined significantly. Aircraft shipments from U.S. manufacturers fell from  18,000 in 1978 to 928 in 1994.   (See fig. 3.) Between 1980 and 1991, the  number of employees working in general aviation manufacturing fell by  almost half.
The downturn in general aviation manufacturing was reflected in other  areas of the industry as well.  The number of fixed-wing aircraft in the  general aviation fleet dropped by more than one-quarter between 1984 and  1994, from about 200,000 aircraft to about 150,000 aircraft.  The total  number of active pilots  also declined in this time period, with the number  of pilots holding private certificates falling from about 320,000 in 1984 to  about 284,000 in 1994.  The decrease was even more noticeable in the  number of student pilots, which fell from about 150,000 in 1980 to about  96,000 in 1994, a decrease of more than a third.  The number of hours flown  in general aviation also declined.  Total hours fell by 22 percent between  1985 and 1994, with hours flown in the business segment falling by about  half and hours flown in the corporate segment falling by more than a third.   There was, however, limited growth in certain segments.  Instructional and  personal flying, for example, both were on the rise during the mid- and late  1980s.
section_title: Pre-GARA Slump Attributed to Liability Issues, Other Costs, Economic Contributions, and Changes in Lifestyle
paragraphs: According to the experts we consulted and other industry observers, the  escalating number of product liability lawsuits that general aviation  manufacturers were subject to in the 1970s and 1980s adversely affected  the industry.  A study commissioned by the General Aviation Manufacturers  Association (GAMA) in 1986 found that paid claims and out-of-pocket  defense expenses for the entire U.S. general aviation industry grew from  $24 million a year in 1976 to $210 million a year in 1986.  In 1987, the three  major U.S. manufacturers of single-engine piston aircraft, Beech, Cessna,  and Piper, said that their annual costs for product liability ranged from  $70,000 to $100,000 for each aircraft built.  The escalating costs associated  with product liability were reflected in rising aircraft prices.  Our experts  rated the price of purchasing a new aircraft as the factor having the  greatest impact on the decline of general aviation.  The average price of a  new, single-engine piston aircraft, which is a type of aircraft commonly  used for personal flying, rose from just over $25,000 in 1975 to nearly  $112,000 in 1990, an increase of over 105 percent in constant 1990 dollars.  The increasing cost of operating an aircraft—including higher fuel prices  and maintenance expenses—also served as a deterrent to some would-be  pilots, according to our panel.
Despite the increase in the price of new aircraft, the manufacturers did not  offer important advances in safety features or technology, according to  aviation experts.  Moreover, there was a large supply of less-expensive used  aircraft as a result of the thousands of single-engine piston aircraft that had  been shipped each year during the 1970s and early 1980s.  Considering that  the useful life of these aircraft can be upwards of 30 years, consumers had  little incentive to buy new ones.  Amateur-built, or “kit,” airplanes were  another option for consumers not in a position to spend $100,000 or more  on a newly manufactured unit.  From 1989 to 1992, kit airplanes accounted  for more new single-engine aircraft registrations than aircraft built by the  traditional manufacturing sector.
The experts that we consulted, as well as FAA and other general aviation  experts, also noted that the health of the industry has traditionally been  linked to the economy and that economic downturns played a role in the  pre-GARA slump in general aviation manufacturing and activity indicators.   Although the economy generally grew during the 1980s and early 1990s,  there was a deep recession from 1981 through 1982, and there were two  briefer recessions in 1980 and late 1990 through early 1991.  Industry  experts also said that other economic factors contributed to the decline in  general aviation sales.  For example, the investment tax credit, which had  made aircraft ownership more affordable for businesses, was repealed.
Finally, our experts noted that changes in lifestyle seem to have  discouraged interest in general aviation flying.  These experts state that  many personal or recreational flyers had stopped flying out of concern that  they had not flown sufficient hours to maintain their flying skills. Our  experts also said that consumers who might have been candidates for  general aviation activities have increasingly turned to other recreational  pursuits, such as boating, skiing, or driving sports cars, which have the  advantage of considerably lower licensing and training requirements and  can have lower operating costs.  Previous government research on general  aviation manufacturing also noted that less expensive forms of  entertainment may be attracting individuals who might otherwise take  flying lessons.
section_title: Post-GARA Trends in Manufacturing and Flying Activity Are Attributed to Mix of Reduced Liability Concerns, Continued High Prices, and Other Factors
paragraphs: Since the enactment of GARA, product liability concerns have fallen, and  general aviation manufacturing indicators have surged.   New  manufacturers have entered the market, and manufacturers have put more  resources into research and development for new technologies.  General  aviation activity indicators, such as hours flown and number of active  pilots, have also increased since GARA, although less sharply.  These  positive trends have been attributed to a number of factors in addition to  GARA, including a type of aircraft ownership called fractional ownership  that allows businesses to share aircraft, and the strong economy.  On the  other hand, one expert has attributed the slowness of the rise in flying  activity indicators and the continued high price of aircraft to the same  lifestyle changes that contributed to the pre-GARA slump.
subsections: section_title: Trends Suggest That Since GARA, Product Liability Costs Have Fallen and Aircraft Manufacturing Has Rebounded
paragraphs: The Congress passed GARA in 1994 in an attempt to reverse the downward  trends in general aviation manufacturing by limiting the financial burden  created by product liability concerns.  The expected benefits of reducing  liability costs included enabling manufacturers to sell aircraft at lower  prices and still achieve technological advances by devoting more resources  to research and development.  The law, which applies to aircraft with 20 or  fewer seats, established an 18-year statute of repose for lawsuits against  manufacturers of general aviation aircraft, parts, and components.  Under  this provision, no civil actions can be brought against a manufacturer for  damages for death or injury arising out of an accident more than 18 years  after the aircraft is delivered to a purchaser or after a new part or  component is installed.  Previously, lawsuits could be brought against  manufacturers regardless of the age of the aircraft.  Because today’s fleet of  single-engine aircraft has an average life of 28 years, GARA eliminates the  liability exposure for more than a third of an airplane’s average life.
According to representatives of GAMA, the number of product liability  lawsuits brought against general aviation aircraft and components  manufacturers has decreased since the enactment of GARA.  A  representative of one major general aviation aircraft manufacturer told us  that the number of open lawsuits this company was defending fell from a  high of around 900 in the early 1980s to a present total of about 80.
Spurred in part by reduced liability concerns, general aviation  manufacturing has rebounded since the 1994 enactment of GARA.  GAMA  reported in 1999 that more than 25,000 new manufacturing jobs had been  created since 1994.  Shipments of new aircraft also increased, more than  tripling between 1994 and 2000, from 928 to 2,816.  The change was  especially marked in piston aircraft, which increased nearly fourfold during  that time period.  (See fig. 4 for information on the number of piston and  turbine aircraft shipped.) Much of this dramatic rise in piston aircraft  shipments was due to the reentry of Cessna into the single-engine piston  market, as well as the stepping-up of production by other manufacturers,  such as Beech, that had drastically reduced their production during the  height of their product liability problems.  Cessna alone has shipped 3,000  units since it reopened its single-engine piston production lines in 1996.
Additionally, GAMA also reports that since the 1994 enactment of GARA,  manufacturers have increased their investment in research and  development by more than 150 percent and new companies have entered  the market.  However, the average price of new single-engine piston  aircraft—the largest segment of the new fixed-wing aircraft market—has  continued to increase, even when the price is adjusted for inflation.   Representatives of the general aviation manufacturing industry said that  manufacturers are producing more high-end, technologically advanced  aircraft than before GARA was enacted, which accounts, at least in part, for  the increased average price.  Industry representatives also said that this  advanced technology is spurring more individuals and corporations to  purchase new aircraft.
section_title: Most Trends in General Aviation Activity Are Also Up, Although Less Sharply Than in Manufacturing
paragraphs: Most indicators of general aviation activity have also risen since the  enactment of GARA, although not as significantly as the manufacturing- related trends.  The size of the general aviation fleet has steadily increased,  with increases particularly marked in turbine aircraft.  The number of  turbine aircraft grew 60 percent between 1994 and 1999, to almost 13,000;  the number of piston aircraft grew 21 percent during the same period, to  almost 172,000.  Figure 5 provides details on the size of the general aviation  fleet.
The total number of hours flown in general aviation increased 32 percent  between 1994 and 1999, to almost 32 million in 1999, the most recent year  for which data are available. However, this total number of hours flown is  only now beginning to surpass the levels of the late 1980s; for example, in  1989 the total number of hours flown was about 31 million.  The four  largest use categories—instructional, personal, business, and corporate— also experienced net increases between 1994 and 1999. (See fig. 6.)   Corporate flying had the greatest proportional growth, increasing 45  percent during this time period.
The number of active private pilots—the largest single pilot category— continued to decline for several years following the enactment of GARA,  falling 13 percent between 1994 and 1998, while the number of student  pilots increased marginally—1.5 percent—during this same time period.    More recently, however, the number of pilots has shown signs of greater  growth, with private pilots increasing about 5 percent and student pilots  more than 6 percent between 1998 and 2000.  (See fig. 7.)  Some of this  growth may be due to industry efforts to attract new pilots to general  aviation, such as the “Be a Pilot” program, which provides low-cost initial  flight lessons to those interested in becoming pilots.  Another positive  indicator of pilot growth is the proportion of private pilots with instrument  ratings, which has increased from 17 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 1998.   An instrument rating indicates that a pilot is able to fly without seeing the  horizon or other visual landmarks; and industry association experts said  that having an instrument rating may indicate that pilots have a serious,  long-term interest in flying.
section_title: Rising Indicators Also Attributed to Fractional Ownership and Strong Economy
paragraphs: The experts we consulted said that a new system for aircraft ownership— fractional ownership—has had the highest impact on the recent growth in  general aviation.  FAA also said that fractional ownership has had a  significant impact on general aviation activity.  Under this system,  individuals or companies purchase a share in an aircraft—usually a  business jet—for their occasional use.  Unlike traditional time-share  programs, in which several buyers purchase a single aircraft together and  must coordinate schedules, fractional owners have full access to their  aircraft, or a comparable one, with as little as 4 hours notice.  Using a  business aircraft under a fractional arrangement instead of a commercial  airline allows a traveler to bypass major airports and to take advantage of  the thousands of general aviation airports, which are less congested and  more dispersed.
Fractional ownership has grown steadily since its introduction in the mid- 1980s.  According to FAA, its growth is accelerating.  In 1999, the number of  individual and corporate fractional shareowners grew from 1,215 to 1,693, a  39-percent increase, and the number of aircraft—primarily jets—in  fractional programs grew from 253 to 370, a 46-percent increase.  (See fig.  8.)  The parent corporation of one major airline, United Airlines, has  announced its intention to operate a fractionally owned fleet of 200  business jets.
Historically, most fractional ownership programs have operated under Part  91, which regulates general aviation business activities.  However, some  programs operate under Part 135, which regulates on-demand and  scheduled air transportation and has more stringent requirements.  In  response to the rapid growth of this sector, FAA initiated a review of  fractional programs to determine if they are operating within the  appropriate regulatory structure.   The agency established an advisory  rulemaking committee consisting of representatives of aircraft  manufacturers, fractional owners and managers, and trade associations,  among others.  The committee reviewed current Federal Aviation  Regulations regarding fractional ownership activity and developed a draft  proposal that would require fractional ownership aircraft to operate under  a new subpart of Part 91.  This subpart would hold fractional ownership  operators to higher standards of safety and accountability.  FAA issued  these changes in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 18, 2001, and  expects to publish the final regulation sometime in 2002.
The experts we consulted, as well as an FAA official, said that the  flourishing economy of the mid- and late-1990s was instrumental in the  renewal of general aviation.  According to FAA, the expanding U.S.  economy and increased consumer confidence in the years since 1992  appear to have stabilized or pushed utilization rates up.One member of  our group of experts said that the favorable economic conditions made  businesses more willing to invest in productivity tools, such as business  jets.  A representative of a major general aviation aircraft manufacturer  said that while GARA undoubtedly provided a boost to general aviation  manufacturing, economic growth was also instrumental to the rebound.
The increase in new aircraft sales can also be attributed to an increase in  the number of corporations with flight departments, according to FAA.  The  National Business Aviation Association reports that the number of  businesses in the United States that have flight departments grew 28  percent between 1994 and 1999. (See fig. 9.)
section_title: More Restrained Growth in Other Activity Indicators Attributed to Cost and Lifestyle Factors
paragraphs: With regard to the reasons that general aviation flying activity indicators  did not increase at the same rate as the manufacturing indicators, one of  our group of experts noted that the increased prices of aircraft may still be  dampening general aviation activity.  In addition, the lifestyle and choice  issues contributing to the earlier decline in the industry were not directly  addressed by liability reform or even an improved economy.  Another  expert noted that changes in lifestyle and attitudes have continued to  reduce public interest in taking up general aviation flying.
section_title: FAA Forecasts Continued Growth in General Aviation
paragraphs: Each year, FAA convenes panels of experts in aviation and develops  forecasts for future activity in all areas of aviation, including general  aviation.  FAA’s most recent forecast predicts continued growth in all of the  aspects of general aviation activity that it analyzes.  FAA expects the  general aviation aircraft fleet to increase at an average annual rate of 0.9  percent during the 13-year forecast period, with the number of active  aircraft increasing from 219,464 in 1999 to 245,965 in 2012.  The fleet of  turbine aircraft is expected to increase at a greater rate than the fleet of  piston aircraft; as a result, the number of piston aircraft, while continuing  to increase, is expected to represent a smaller percentage of the total  general aviation fleet.  FAA attributes this shift toward turbine aircraft to  the success of fractional ownership, the introduction of new types of  turbine aircraft that have piqued buyer interest, strong U.S. and global  economies, and a transition from commercial air travel to  corporate/business air travel by many business travelers and corporations.
FAA forecasts that the number of hours flown will increase 2.1 percent  annually, with the growth concentrated in the turbojet segment, which FAA  predicts to increase at an annual rate of 7 percent.  FAA also predicts that  the pilot population will continue to increase at an annual rate of 2 percent  for the 13-year forecast period.  FAA attributes the projected increase to  U.S. economic growth as well as to industrywide programs designed to  recruit new pilots to general aviation.  The number of student pilots is  expected to increase 2.7 percent annually—the highest rate of the general  aviation pilot categories.  Private pilots are projected to increase 1.4  percent annually.
section_title: Airport Infrastructure
paragraphs: The amount of federal funding available for capital development at general  aviation airports has consistently been below what has been requested by  airport officials to support their airports’ planned projects.  In order to  allocate available funding, FAA prioritizes the types of projects that it  considers most important.  The fiscal year 2001 Department of  Transportation Appropriations Act increased funding for general aviation  airports in general and for particular types of projects, but funding will still  be short of what is requested for eligible projects.  Experts with whom we  spoke had differing opinions on the adequacy of current facilities at general  aviation airports and the future development needs of these airports.
subsections: section_title: Federal Funding for Capital Development at General Aviation Airports Falls Short of Requests for Eligible Projects
paragraphs: General aviation airports receive funding for capital development from  multiple sources, including state governments and the sale of bonds.  The  largest single source of funding is grants from the federal government.   However, there is not enough federal money available to fund all planned  projects; the annual capital development that has been planned for these  airports and that is eligible for federal funding would cost at least $884  million more than the federal funding provided in 2000.  Recognizing that  not all projects will receive funding, FAA’s funding system gives priority to  certain kinds of projects, such as repairing runways and removing  obstructions from landing areas.
subsections: section_title: AIP Funding Is Insufficient to Cover Eligible Projects
paragraphs: During the past few years, we have reported and testified on future funding  shortfalls for the nation’s airports.  The planned capital development for  general aviation airports that is eligible for federal funding is estimated to  be about $1.2 billion per year, or more than $884 million per year more than  airports received in federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds in  2000.  Additional support received from the airports’ sale of bonds and  from state grants still leaves airports with a funding shortfall. (See fig. 10.)
Moreover, many airports have other projects planned that are not eligible  for AIP funding and therefore are not reflected in figure 10.  In fiscal year  2000, for example (the most recent year for which these data are available),  general aviation airports had an additional $494 million in planned projects  that were not eligible for federal funding, such as the construction of  hangars and maintenance buildings.
section_title: Estimates Do Not Fully Represent Future Funding Costs
paragraphs: While estimates of future capital development costs are useful indicators of  possible future development activity, the actual level and types of  development that occur are likely to be different for a number of reasons.   Estimates of development created by FAA and others are based on airports’  master plans, the accuracy of which diminishes beyond 3 to 5 years into the  future, and these projections tend to underestimate actual construction  costs.  In addition, the development anticipated by airports’ master plans  may not reflect the concurrence of local communities.  The availability of  funds also affects actual capital spending.  For example, because general  aviation airports especially rely on AIP grants, they are sensitive to changes  in their availability.  Finally, airports’ master plans may not anticipate all  future costs, such as meeting new regulatory requirements or responding  to unanticipated changes in demand for air travel.
section_title: FAA’s Priority System Allocates Resources According to Established Priorities and Qualitative Judgments
paragraphs: To receive federal funding, airports must submit their plans for future  development to FAA.  Each airport’s plan describes the development  projects for the next 5 years and links the development to the current use  and condition of the airport as well as forecasted aviation activity.   In  preparing their plans, airports also may take into consideration their state’s  airport system plan, which identifies the location and scale of development  that is considered necessary to satisfy the state’s need for air  transportation.  FAA reviews airports’ plans and enters eligible projects  into a national database that FAA uses to make decisions about the  allocation of discretionary funds.
To help determine which projects will receive funding, FAA uses a system  that categorizes airport development in accordance with the agency’s goals  and objectives.  In assigning priority, the system takes into consideration  the type of airport, the purpose of the work, the physical component of the  work (e.g., a runway, building, apron, and so forth), and the type of work  (that is, the specific project being done, such as construction, purchasing a  fire-fighting vehicle, or making security improvements). The system favors  projects that address the safety and security requirements found in federal  regulations and guidance.  These requirements apply to relatively few  general aviation airports, however. Projects that have been given statutory  emphasis receive the second-highest degree of emphasis.  This category  consists of airport development items included in federal law, such as  runway grooving, friction treatment, and taxiway lighting. Again, few of  these requirements tend to apply to general aviation airports.  The priority  rating is intended to be used in conjunction with qualitative factors to  select airport development projects.  Qualitative factors that FAA considers  include state and local priorities, environmental issues, the impact on  safety and performance, and airport growth.
section_title: Increased Federal Funding Will Benefit General Aviation Airports
paragraphs: FAA’s 5-year authorization increases the level of federal assistance for  capital development projects at general aviation airports.  The fiscal year  2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act gave significantly  greater funding to airport projects in general; and provisions of the Wendell  H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century  (AIR 21,  P.L. 106-181), passed by the Congress in April 2000, provided more of these  monies specifically to general aviation airport projects.  Several of these  changes affect the Airport Improvement Program, including an increase in  the authorized level of AIP funding, automatic funding to all airports with  project requests if appropriations reach a certain level, and the possibility  of an increase in funding from federal money redirected from large  commercial airports.
AIR 21 will increase AIP funding from $2.47 billion in fiscal year 2000 to  $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2003. Additionally, certain funding provisions take  effect when total AIP funding for a given year is $3.2 billion or more.  One  of these provisions allocates funding to all nonprimary airports—a  category that includes general aviation airports—based on the lesser of 20  percent of the cost of development they have planned for a 5-year period as  published in the NPIAS, an annual entitlement of $150,000. Another  provision allocates additional funding to general aviation airports that are  designated relievers for congested commercial airports.
Other changes to AIP include additional aid in the form of federal support  turned back by large and medium hub airports.  AIR 21 allows large and  medium hub airports to increase their passenger facility charges, but if they  do, they must return a larger portion of their AIP entitlement funds to FAA,  which could redistribute the funds among other airports.  FAA officials  estimate that under this provision, the amount of AIP money available for  general aviation airports could increase as much as $50 million to $90  million per year.
The additional federal aid available under AIR 21 will make up part of the  shortfall between planned development and available funding.  However,  even with the approximately $628 million in AIP awards for general  aviation airports proposed for fiscal year 2001 (an increase of $286 million  from fiscal 2000 funding), a 54-percent gap will still exist between funding  and the full cost of AIP-eligible capital development projects.  This  indicates that about half of these projects will have to be funded by other  means, postponed, or abandoned.  While updated figures for state funding  and bond proceeds are not similarly available, it is likely that a substantial  difference remains between the amount of available funding and the  projects proposed.
section_title: Experts Cite Several Issues Related to General Aviation Airport Infrastructure
paragraphs: The group of general aviation experts we spoke with brought up several  issues related to general aviation infrastructure.  Several were concerned  with airport closings; one industry association recommended longer  runways, and a different expert recommended that airports include  development related to accommodating aircraft with new technologies.
According to some of the organizations we interviewed as well as some of  our experts,  attention needs to be focused on maintaining the existing  network of airports.  For example, several of the groups and experts we  spoke with expressed concern about community pressure to close general  aviation airports.  The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), an  organization representing general aviation users, has been involved in  efforts to keep general aviation airports open and to prevent incompatible  zoning and land use around existing airports.  AOPA—through its Airport  Support Network—is monitoring a number of general aviation airports at  which local opposition has led to efforts or plans for closure or operating  restrictions, including Meigs Field in Chicago, San Carlos Airport in  California, and Lantana Airport in Florida.
Officials of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the  National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) also said that they  are interested in the issue of airport closures.They said they have been  seeing a greater resistance to airports by the public, including efforts to  close airports—particularly privately owned airports—as a way of reducing  noise in residential areas and obtaining large parcels of open land for  revenue-generating development.  As we previously reported, some airport  authorities and localities have converted portions of their airports to  nonairport use, often in violation of the terms of FAA’s grants to the  airports.
Some experts also said that potential changes in the composition of the  fleet of general aviation aircraft may require alterations to airports.  For  example, one industry association expressed an opinion that, in order to  accommodate the expected continued growth in the number of business  jets, general aviation airports would need to build more long runways and  install precision navigation equipment to enable all-weather landings and  takeoffs.  Representatives of the National Air Transportation Association,  an organization representing airport service providers, said that such  improvements are necessary for communities that want to take advantage  of the economic opportunities and benefits that come with being able to  accommodate business aviation operations.  Several members of our panel  agreed that there will be a need for longer runways at more airports if  growth continues in the business jet segment.  In addition, one member  said improvements would be needed to handle the technologically  advanced aircraft that he believes will become an increasingly large part of  the general aviation fleet.  One example he cited was NASA’s Small Aircraft  Transportation System, which would rely on technological improvements  to make greater use of small aircraft for personal and business  transportation between smaller airports.  To accommodate this system,  airports would need to be equipped to enable approaches using global  positioning systems (GPS).
section_title: General Aviation Safety
paragraphs: The safety of general aviation, for which FAA has oversight responsibility,  has been improving.  However, the accident rate for general aviation  remains about 24 times higher than for scheduled commercial aviation.   The accident rate for general aviation varies by segment.  For some  segments, it rivals that of scheduled commercial aviation; for other  segments, it is considerably higher.  More than two-thirds of general  aviation accidents, both fatal and nonfatal, are caused by pilot error,  including mistakes related to procedure, skill, and judgment. FAA works  independently and with other federal agencies and industry organizations  to improve the safety of general aviation through training, technology, and  procedures.  Many of its current efforts involve research whose findings  FAA considers for developing regulations and other guidance that enhance  safety.
subsections: section_title: Accident Rate for General Aviation Is Improving but Is Still Higher Than for Scheduled Commercial Aviation
paragraphs: Safety has improved more in general aviation than in scheduled  commercial aviation.  Although the safety record of scheduled commercial  airlines remains better than that for general aviation, the accident rate for  general aviation has been declining more rapidly than that of scheduled  commercial airlines.  Furthermore, accident rates vary among segments of  general aviation.  The accident rate for the corporate segment, which is  close to the accident rate for scheduled commercial aviation, is the lowest,  while the accident rate for the personal segment is the highest.  Because of  this variance in accident rates among segments of general aviation, the  safety trend for general aviation as a whole may be affected by differences  in the growth rate of different segments.  Experts cite multiple reasons for  disparities in accident rates.  These reasons include differences in pilot  training and experience, in the use of technology, and in flying patterns.
subsections: section_title: Safety of General Aviation Has Improved More Rapidly Than Safety of Scheduled Commercial Aviation
paragraphs: In 1998, the accident rate for general aviation—the number of accidents per  100,000 flight hours—was about 24 times higher that for scheduled  commercial airlines, accounting for 97 percent of the accidents and 99  percent of the deaths.  However, general aviation’s fatal accident rate has  been dropping more quickly than commercial aviation’s.  From 1982  through 1998, the commercial accident rate remained stable at about 0.20  accidents per 100,000 flight hours, as shown in figure 11.  (The number of  fatalities fluctuated sharply because of variations in the number of deaths  associated with individual airline crashes.)
During the same period, the total accident rate for general aviation  declined from 10.4 per 100,000 flight hours in 1982 to 7.1 per 100,000 flight  hours in 1998 (see fig. 12).
In 1999, there were 312 general aviation accidents, which resulted in 559  fatalities, 15 of which occurred to bystanders on the ground, not  passengers in an airplane (see fig. 13).
section_title: Accident Rates Vary Among Segments of General Aviation
paragraphs: Some types of general aviation flying are riskier than others (see fig. 14).   Personal flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure or personal  transportation and not for business purposes, accounted for only about  one-third of total general aviation hours flown in 1998 but accounted for  almost three-quarters of fatal accidents.  Corporate flying, which involves  the use of aircraft owned by a corporate firm and flown by professional  pilots, accounted for about 10 percent of total general aviation hours but  accounted for no fatal accidents.  Business flying, in which pilots use  aircraft in connection with their occupation or private business, accounted  for 14 percent of total general aviation hours but accounted for only 5  percent of fatal accidents.  Because accident rates vary so significantly by  segment, the safety trend for general aviation may be affected by  differences in the growth rate of different segments.  Growth is projected  to occur much faster in the turbine aircraft fleet, used almost exclusively  for corporate flying, than in single-engine piston aircraft, used mostly for  personal and recreational flying (see ch. 2).  If this projection is correct, the  safety record of general aviation may improve because of the lower  accident rates associated with corporate flying.
section_title: Experts Cite Multiple Reasons for Disparities in Accident Rates
paragraphs: Experts attribute the differences between the accident rates for  commercial and general aviation, and among those for the different  segments of general aviation, to a number of factors, including training,  experience, technology, and procedures.  An analysis of these factors  shows that the corporate segment of general aviation is more closely  aligned to scheduled commercial aviation than to the recreational segment  of general aviation.  Scheduled commercial aviation pilots and general  aviation pilots who fly in the corporate segment are highly trained, tend to  fly on nearly every day, and may be required to take ongoing training to  maintain and improve their skills.  FAA data show general aviation pilots  flying for personal or recreational purposes, on the other hand, average  only 30 hours of flight time per year and are subject to few recurrent  training requirements.  In addition to differences in pilots’ skills,  differences in aircraft, according to one expert, affect accident rates.  The  aircraft flown by commercial and corporate pilots generally have more  cockpit resources to compensate for events that may threaten safety.   According to experts, most flying in commercial aviation and the corporate  segment of general aviation involves cruising at high altitudes, a phase of  flight during which few accidents occur.  Some general aviation flying may  be inherently riskier than other general aviation flying; agricultural  spraying, for example, involves flying low to the ground and maneuvering  at slow speeds, actions that have been shown to be involved in a high  proportion of accidents.  Overall, FAA subjects scheduled commercial  aviation to more oversight and regulation than general aviation because of  its need to ensure the safety of consumers who cannot ensure their own  safety.  For example, while FAA regulations restrict the use of drugs and  alcohol for all pilots, the agency regulates the number of consecutive hours  flown and the pilot’s age for airline pilots. Additionally, airlines monitor  pilots’ behavior to ensure compliance with both FAA regulations and their  own safety rules.  There are no such controls for the majority of general  aviation pilots.
section_title: Pilot Error Is Involved in Most General Aviation Accidents
paragraphs: According to our analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)  accident data, 80 percent of the fatal accidents and 72 percent of the  nonfatal accidents that occurred between 1994 and 1998 involved pilot  error.  Experts estimate that between 60 and 80 percent of general aviation  accidents are associated with pilot error.  Alternatively, mechanical failures  were involved in 13 percent of the fatal accidents and 25 percent of the  nonfatal accidents.  The remaining accidents were due to other factors,  such as mistakes by air traffic control.  Figures 15 and 16 provide the  distribution of common errors contributing to fatal and nonfatal accidents.
The mistakes that pilots make involve errors in following procedures, using  skills correctly, or in judgment. Overall, skill-related errors resulted in 52  percent of the fatal accidents (see fig. 17).  Skill-related errors, which cause  most accidents, include such problems as failing to maintain flying speed;  misjudging distance, altitude, or clearance; or failing to maintain control of  the aircraft (see table 3).
section_title: To Reduce Pilot Error and Improve Safety, FAA Works With Others to Improve Training, Technology, and Procedures
paragraphs: FAA works to improve the safety of general aviation in a variety of  initiatives with other federal agencies and industry organizations.  One  broad initiative, Safer Skies, was developed with the general aviation  industry to improve the safety record of commercial and general aviation.   FAA and the other groups involved research ways to reduce pilot error and  the common types of accidents and make recommendations to improve  safety.  FAA must decide whether to implement these recommendations  through voluntary programs, official guidance, or regulations.  Most  initiatives and recommendations seek to enhance safety through  improvements in three areas: training, technology, and the procedures that  are designed to govern operations such as takeoffs, landings, and flight  patterns.
subsections: section_title: FAA Works With Other Agencies and Industry Associations on Safety Initiatives
paragraphs: FAA works with a number of federal agencies and industry-related  organizations on research initiatives designed to identify changes to  current standards for training, technology, or procedures that would  improve the safety of general aviation. The federal agencies include the  National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigates air  crashes and recommends regulatory changes based on the results of its  investigations; and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration  (NASA), which has researched and developed technological advances to  make aircraft more desirable and safer.  Industry associations involved in  safety efforts with FAA include the Airline Owners and Pilots’ Association  (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the National  Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and the General Aviation  Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA).   FAA has the responsibility of  implementing the conclusions and recommendations from research- oriented efforts through voluntary programs, official guidance, or  regulations.
One of the recent initiatives FAA has developed with other federal agencies  and industry, Safer Skies, has the mission of reducing the accident rates in  both commercial and general aviation.  Regarding general aviation, FAA’s  goal in Safer Skies is to decrease the number of fatal general aviation  accidents by 20 percent in 2007.  As we previously reported, this 20-percent  goal represents 350 fatal accidents in 2007, only 4 fewer than the 354 that  took place in 1999.  (Using FAA’s forecasted flight hours for 2007 of  30,500,000, this goal represents a fatal accident rate of 1.15 per 100,000.)  In  our previous report, we noted that this  goal may not challenge the general  aviation community enough to continue the kinds of safety improvements  that have led to previous reductions in accidents.
To achieve this reduction in general aviation fatal accidents, experts  involved in the initiative are to jointly analyze U.S. and global data to  identify the most serous threats to aviation safety and to find the root  causes of accidents.  The experts will then determine the best actions to  reduce accidents and direct resources to those actions. Because the  primary cause of accidents is pilot error, many of FAA’s efforts to improve  the general aviation industry’s safety record focus on ways to prevent or  mitigate those errors.  For example, additional training can address  deficiencies in training and experience; technological innovations can  reduce the need for pilots to take certain difficult or risky actions; and  procedural measures can help coordinate and manage the various takeoff,  flying, and landing patterns that may threaten safety.
As a result of the ongoing work of Safer Skies, FAA, NTSB, NASA, and  industry associations have also formed a General Aviation Data  Improvement Team (GADIT) to gather better data on general aviation  accidents.  This initiative was formed to address complaints about a lack of  data on the causes of general aviation accidents and incidents, especially  those involving human error.  In addition, this team will develop strategies  for (1) improving the quality and timeliness of estimates of general aviation  activity and (2) measuring the effectiveness of the various Safer Skies  interventions.
section_title: FAA and Other Groups Work to Improve Safety Through Better Training
paragraphs: FAA first oversees the safety of general aviation through the requirements  of the pilot certification process described in chapter 1.  Beyond these  initial requirements for pilot certification, FAA has only one ongoing  training requirement for maintaining this certification—the biennial flight  review.  The biennial flight review is designed to assess a pilot’s knowledge  and skills over time and is required of all general aviation pilots.  During  this review, a certified flight instructor accompanies a pilot on a flight and  provides assistance or guidance if any weaknesses in the pilot’s abilities are  identified.  There is no curriculum for the flight review, such as  requirements for what types of skills are to be assessed.  However, FAA’s  guidance does state that, at a minimum, the following factors should be  considered: the type of equipment flown by the pilot, the nature of the flight  operations, and the amount and recency of the pilot’s flight experience.   After the review, the person who gave the review must endorse the pilot’s  logbook to certify that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the flight  review.
FAA also develops continuing education programs through its Aviation  Safety Program and encourages pilots to take advantage of them.  These  programs are voluntary, and pilots may participate in as many or as few as  they choose.  One such option is the Back to Basics program, which  provides written and video materials on takeoffs, landings, and other  critical flight maneuvers.  FAA also offers safety seminars, administered by  its Flight Standards district offices.  Experienced pilots and certified flight  instructors cover a range of topics, such as global positioning system  devices, flight psychology, the use of over-the-counter medication, runway  incursions, mountain flying, and winter flying.  AOPA’s Flight Safety  Foundation also conducts seminars and courses throughout the United  States on a variety of safety topics.
FAA also influences safety through its certification procedures for flight  instructors.  For example, in 1998, FAA initiated a program in Orlando, FL,  to reduce training accidents and incidents involving flight instructors by  providing more direct FAA involvement in flight training.  This program  increased surveillance at some flight schools, reexamined flight instructors  who failed to meet their instructional responsibilities, and assigned FAA  inspectors to conduct all initial tests for the certification of flight  instructors.  Over 2 years, this program was associated with a 60-percent  reduction in accidents and incidents during training of pilots.  The program  has a national influence because instructors who participate in it teach  throughout the country.
Although FAA’s and AOPA’s safety seminars cover a number of issues that  contribute to general aviation accidents, they are voluntary, and many  pilots may never choose to receive this additional training. An FAA  evaluation of the agency’s safety seminars indicated that approximately  one-third of pilots surveyed had not attended a seminar during the previous  year and that only half regularly attend the seminars.  In part, as a result of  these findings, FAA is developing additional means of providing continuing  education to pilots such as developing computer-based training courses  and providing safety information on the Internet.
In addition to establishing training requirements and offering continuing  education opportunities, FAA works to research training improvements  that might eventually be integrated into required or recommended training.   For example, some experts believe that current training methods do not  sufficiently emphasize the ability to integrate information quickly, an ability  that is crucial in emergency situations.  According to one FAA official,  many accidents might have been avoided if the pilot had recognized which  skills were called for by the unfolding situation.
FAA and other experts have conducted studies on this issue that suggest  that the use of personal computer-based aviation training devices (PCATD)  that resemble an aircraft’s cockpit can help pilots learn to integrate  information quickly.  These computer-based devices permit instructors to  preselect emergency situations that require the rapid recognition of a  problem and integration of skills needed to solve it.   Exposing students to  many of these situations would be too dangerous to do in aircraft but could  easily be done with PCATDs.  Training pilots to react to emergency  situations in simulators is the training approach used by the commercial  airlines.  Moreover, there is some evidence that the use of PCATDs can  decrease the time needed to acquire particular skills.  As we reported, as a  result of these studies, FAA approved the limited use of PCATD for private  license certification.
In March 2000, the Weather Joint Safety Implementation Team of Safer  Skies released implementation plans for reducing weather-related  accidents in general aviation through changes in the training curriculum for  both initial and ongoing training.  The intent of the plan is to place  emphasis during training on the use of knowledge in realistic and dynamic  aviation settings.  The curriculum changes are based on scenario training  and assessment that will test not only how much a pilot knows about  current weather products but also how well the pilot applies that  knowledge.  A similar Safer Skies training effort will target accidents  caused by controlled flight into terrain, which occurs when a pilot flies an  airworthy aircraft into terrain or another obstacle without being aware of  the impending collision.  Table 4 shows key recommendations that have  recently been developed by groups working on improving safety through  improving training procedures.
section_title: FAA and Others Also Seek to Improve Safety Through Researching and Developing Technology
paragraphs: In 1994, NASA created through the Advanced General Aviation Transport  Experiment (AGATE), a consortium of industry, higher education, and  government entities, including FAA, to develop advanced technologies for  general aviation.  Some of AGATE’s efforts have focused on increasing both  the accessibility and development of technological innovations that can  counter causes of accident and increase safety.  For example, advanced  cockpit displays permit pilots to visually fly predetermined courses without  depending on instruments to maintain direction and orientation.  Similarly,  graphical displays allow pilots to determine the location and severity of  weather hazards and make easily accessible the information needed to  control the aircraft.  These innovations should help pilots avoid several  types of accidents, including controlled flight into terrain and accidents  that are weather-related and/or involve loss of control of the aircraft.
This initiative also works to develop equipment that will lower the risk of  injury or death in the event of an accident.  Some manufacturers have  already begun using these advanced technologies in their aircraft.  The  Cirrus S-20 aircraft, for example, has an attached parachute that can be  deployed to enhance passenger survivability in the event of a stall and  equipment malfunction.
Safer Skies has also developed recommendations geared toward improving  safety through changes in the development and use of technology.  These  recommendations include promoting the development and use of a low- cost terrain clearance and/or look-ahead device; developing new mountain  and low-altitude airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance  (CNS) infrastructure; adapting global positioning satellites for general  aviation navigation; and removing regulatory impediments, such as  certification processes for new equipment, that slow the integration of new  technologies into aircraft.
While technological advances have the potential to dramatically reduce  some types of accidents, there is often a significant lag time between the  research phase and the time when technological advances reduce the  overall accident rate.  First, the technology must be developed.  Then, after  the technology is available for use in aircraft, the current fleet of aviation  aircraft must be retrofitted with the technology.   Without regulations  requiring that aircraft be retrofitted, the cost of retrofitting equipment in  the current fleet or replacing older aircraft may also delay the deployment  of these new technologies.  Additionally, once new technology is widely  available, pilots will require additional training in its use.
section_title: Recent Efforts Also Seek to Improve Safety Through Procedural Measures
paragraphs: Finally, Safer Skies also developed recommendations to enhance the safety  of general aviation through improvements in procedures governing flight  patterns, including landings and takeoffs.  These recommendations include  standardizing and expanding the use of markings for towers and wires;  using high-visibility paint and other visibility-enhancing features on  obstructions; providing better information to pilots on the location and  severity of weather hazard areas; and developing new procedures for  airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance.