The U.S. commercial aviation industry, with less than one fatal accident per 5 million flights from 2002 through 2005 has an extraordinary safety record. However, when passenger airlines have accidents or serious incidents, regardless of their rarity, the consequences can be tragic. In addition, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics data, flight arrival delays have increased from 15 percent in 2003 to 22 percent in 2006. Increases in flight delays can be viewed as evidence of strain in the aviation system, as a loss of efficiency in the air system is a symptom of increased strain. Losses of efficiency and the corresponding strain on the system could potentially result in hazards that decrease safety. In order to maintain a high level of aviation safety, it is critical to have well- established, efficient, and effective systems in place to provide an early warning of hazards that can lead to accidents. FAA has established a number of systems and processes to inspect and oversee various aspects of passenger airline safety, such as aircraft maintenance and flight operations. In 1998, the agency implemented the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS), which currently oversees 35 commercial airlines and cargo carriers; the goal is for ATOS to oversee all commercial passenger and cargo airlines. ATOS emphasizes a system safety approach that extends beyond periodically checking airlines for compliance with regulations to using technical and managerial skills to identify, analyze, and control hazards and risks. For example, under ATOS, inspectors develop surveillance plans for each airline, based on data analysis and risk assessment, and adjust the plans periodically based on inspection results. Our review of ATOS’s early implementation found weaknesses, which FAA addressed by improving guidance to inspectors and increasing data usefulness. FAA’s inspection process for the 81 commercial airlines not covered by ATOS has two components. The National Work Program Guidelines (NPG) is the original oversight program for these airlines. Under NPG, an FAA- wide committee of managers identifies an annual minimum set of required inspections to ensure that airlines comply with their operating certificates; this process is not risk-based. In 2002, FAA added another component, the Surveillance and Evaluation Program (SEP), to the inspection process to incorporate principles of ATOS into its oversight of commercial airlines. The two components are used together to establish the number and types of annual inspections for airlines. Inspections can encompass many different activities, such as visually spot-checking an airplane at a gate, monitoring procedures on a scheduled flight, or observing maintenance performed on an aircraft. Each year, FAA headquarters establishes a baseline number and type of inspections for each airline through NPG. Through SEP, teams of FAA inspectors analyze the results of an airline’s prior inspections at periodic meetings and, based on their assessment of specific risks, establish other inspections that may be needed. Since 1990, FAA has emphasized industry partnership programs that allow participants, such as airlines and pilots, to self-report violations of safety regulations and help identify safety deficiencies and potentially mitigate or avoid fines or other legal action. For example, the Voluntary Disclosure Program encourages the self-reporting of manufacturing problems and safety incidents by participants that can include air carriers and repair stations. When violations of statutory and regulatory requirements are identified through inspections, partnership programs, or other methods, FAA has a variety of enforcement tools that it may use to respond to the violations, including administrative actions (such as issuing a warning notice or a letter of correction that includes the corrective actions the violator is to take) and legal sanctions (such as levying a fine or suspending or revoking a pilot’s certificate or other FAA-issued certificate). The achievement of FAA’s mission is dependent in large part on the skills and expertise of its workforce, whose aviation safety activities include air traffic control, maintenance of air traffic control equipment, and certification and inspection of various industry participants. As of 2006, 714 of FAA’s approximately 3,400 inspectors were dedicated to overseeing the 35 airlines in ATOS. Approximately 1,100 inspectors oversee other entities and individuals, including the remaining 81 commercial airlines that are included in the SEP inspection program, about 5,200 aircraft repair stations, and approximately 625,000 pilots. FAA’s safety oversight programs for other aspects of the aviation industry—including manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft parts, repair stations, flight schools, aviation maintenance technician schools, pilots, and mechanics—involve certification, surveillance, and inspection by FAA’s safety inspectors, engineers, flight surgeons, and designated representatives. FAA authorizes about 13,400 private individuals and 218 organizations (called “designees”) to act as its representatives to conduct many safety certification activities that FAA considers to be nonsafety critical, such as administering flight tests to pilots, inspecting repair work by maintenance facilities, conducting medical examinations of pilots, and approving designs for aircraft parts. These designees are grouped into 18 different programs and are overseen by three FAA offices—Flight Standards Service, Aerospace Medicine, and Aircraft Certification Service—all of which are under the Office of Aviation Safety. In addition, FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) includes the approximately 16,700 air traffic controller workforce and nearly 7,200 field maintenance technicians responsible for maintaining ATO’s equipment and facilities, which include 21 air traffic control centers, 518 airport control towers, and 76 flight service facilities. While overall commercial aviation safety trends have been generally positive over the last several years, recent safety trends may warrant scrutiny. On the positive side, the number of serious runway incursions has decreased since fiscal year 2002. Specifically, in fiscal year 2002, there were 37 serious runway incursions, compared with 29 in fiscal year 2005. Recent fiscal year 2006 data also continue the downward trend, with 25 serious runway incursions as of August 1, 2006—fewer than at the same time in the previous fiscal year. However, with four fatal accidents in fiscal year 2006, FAA will not meet its performance target for fiscal year 2006 for commercial air carrier safety. Although general aviation accidents have decreased from 1,715 in 2002 to 1,669 in 2005, general aviation safety continues to be a concern because it represents a significant number of fatal accidents every year. (See fig. 1.) For example, 321 of the 1,669 general aviation accidents in 2005 were fatal. Additionally, the poorer safety records of cargo and air ambulances services, compared with the commercial passenger airline accident rate, point out the safety vulnerabilities in this area. According to FAA, from 1998 through 2005, the accident rate for scheduled air cargo operators declined significantly, but was still about 2.5 times higher than the accident rate for scheduled passenger operators. Further, in instances where there was not an isolated injury to a single individual, the accident rate for cargo was about 6.3 times higher than for commercial passenger aviation. In addition, from January 2002 to January 2005, there were 55 emergency medical services or air ambulance accidents, with 54 fatalities, the highest number of accidents since the 1980s. In addition, FAA did not meet its performance target with regard to operational errors for fiscal years 2003 through 2005. While operational errors continued an upward trend in 2006, FAA was below the fiscal year 2006 target of 4.27 operational errors per million activities as of June 2006. FAA’s safety oversight system has programs that focus on identifying and mitigating risk through a system safety approach, leveraging resources, and enforcing safety regulations, but the programs lack fully developed evaluative processes. As mentioned previously, FAA oversees commercial airlines by one of two programs—ATOS, which includes 35 airlines, and SEP, which includes the remaining 81 airlines. Both programs emphasize a system safety approach of using risk analysis techniques, which allow for the efficient use of inspection staff and resources by prioritizing workload based on areas of highest risk and require that inspectors verify that corrective actions are taken. For example, FAA has developed risk assessment worksheets for both programs that guide inspectors through identifying and prioritizing risks associated with key airline areas, such as flight operations and personnel training. Information from the worksheets is then used to target resources to mitigating those risks. In recent work we found that the benefits of FAA’s system safety approach for the inspection of airlines covered under SEP could be enhanced if FAA more completely implemented the program and addressed other challenges. Most of FAA’s inspections of those airlines were not risk- based. For example, as shown in figure 2 from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, SEP—a risk-based approach—guided only 23 percent of the inspection activities for the top 25 SEP airlines in terms of the number of enplanements. The remaining 77 percent of inspection activities were identified through NPG, a process that is not risk-based or system safety oriented. Although inspectors can replace NPG-identified activities with SEP-identified activities that they deem address a greater safety risk, we found that FAA inspectors interpret agency emphasis on NPG as discouraging this practice. To address this issue, we recommended that FAA improve communication with and training of inspectors in areas of system safety and risk management. In response to our recommendations, FAA revised its guidelines to require inspectors and managers to ensure that risk information is used and updated its SEP training course to reflect that change. Since FAA’s focus on system safety represents a cultural shift in the way the agency oversees the aviation industry, it will be important for FAA to monitor the implementation of system safety and risk management principles. We recommended that FAA establish a continuous evaluative process for its activities under SEP, but the agency does not intend to set up a process since it expects to eliminate the SEP program after December 2007, which is its deadline for moving all commercial airlines to the ATOS program. If the deadline slips, we believe our recommendation remains valid. Furthermore, FAA’s plans to dissolve the SEP program after moving all commercial airlines to ATOS will shift the inspectors workloads and present a challenge to FAA’s inspection oversight process. As FAA shifts airlines to ATOS, it will also move inspectors to the program. Unlike SEP inspectors, ATOS inspectors are dedicated to an airline and generally cannot be used to inspect other entities. SEP inspectors, on the other hand, have other duties in addition to overseeing airlines—such as certifying and approving aircraft types; overseeing repair stations, designees, and aviation schools; and investigating accidents. For example, our analysis of FAA data indicated that, for fiscal years 2002 through 2004, about 75 percent of SEP inspectors had responsibility for more than 3 entities, and about half had responsibility for more than 15. As inspectors are transitioned to ATOS, the remaining SEP inspector workforce will have to add those other entities to their workload. Furthermore, ATOS requires more inspectors per airline than SEP. For example, when FAA recently transitioned four airlines to ATOS, the total size of the four inspection teams increased 30 percent, from 73 to 95 inspectors. With the expansion of the ATOS program, it will be important to monitor the magnitude of the shift in resources and the effect it may have on FAA’s overall capability to oversee the industry as well as any changes to the current ATOS program that may be required by the expansion. An important part of FAA’s safety oversight system are designee programs, through which FAA authorizes about 13,400 private individuals and 218 organizations to act on its behalf to conduct safety certification activities that FAA considers to be non-safety critical. We reported that designees perform about 90 percent of certification-related activities, thus greatly leveraging the agency’s resources and enabling inspectors to concentrate on what FAA considers the most safety-critical activities. However, concerns about the consistency and adequacy of designee oversight by FAA have been raised by experts and other individuals we interviewed. For example, designees and industry officials that we spoke with indicated that FAA’s level of oversight and interpretation of rules differ among regions and among offices within a region, which limits FAA’s assurance that designees’ work is performed uniformly in accordance with FAA’s standards and policy, the primary goal of which is the safety of U.S. aviation. To improve management control of the designee programs, and thus increase assurance that designees meet FAA’s performance standards, we recommended that FAA develop mechanisms to improve the compliance of FAA program and field offices with existing policies. In response to our recommendations, FAA has, among other things, established a designee quality assurance office to address inconsistent and nonstandard oversight issues among offices. FAA has also developed a survey that will collect information from individuals who recently worked with designees, such as pilots who recently received their license through a designee, to gather information that can be used to continually improve designee programs. To increase FAA’s assurance that its designees are meeting FAA’s safety standards, it will be important for FAA to continue these activities, which are in the early stages of development or implementation, especially as the agency moves to replace certain designee programs with an organizational designation authorization (ODA). ODA would expand the number and types of organizational designees and further transform FAA’s role to that of monitoring the performance of others. In October 2005, FAA issued a final rule that established the ODA program and provides for the phasing out of organizational designees by November 2009. By that time, the current 218 organizational designees will have to apply for and be granted status as an ODA. In August 2006, FAA issued an order that establishes procedures for the ODA program, including the capability to expand the activities that may be delegated out. Under the program, FAA will focus on the performance of organizations rather than the individuals within the organization who carry out the delegated functions. As FAA makes these changes to its designee programs that remove FAA from direct oversight of the individuals performing the delegated activities, it will be important for the agency to adhere to its policy of using designees only for less safety-critical work. It will also be important for FAA to have the data and evaluative processes, which we discuss later in this testimony, to effectively monitor the new program. FAA is also becoming increasingly removed from overseeing airline maintenance. In recent years, in an attempt to reduce costs, airlines have increasingly contracted out maintenance. For example in 2000, 44 percent of major air carriers’ maintenance expenses were attributable to outsourcing; in 2004, it had increased to 54 percent. However, FAA’s inspection activities have remained focused on air carriers’ in-house maintenance, according to DOT’s Inspector General. FAA’s enforcement process, which is intended to ensure industry compliance with safety regulations, is another important element of its safety oversight system. FAA assesses legal sanctions against entities or individuals that do not comply with aviation safety regulations. Such sanctions are intended to deter future violations. However, we found that the effect of FAA’s legal sanctions on deterrence is unclear, and that recommendations for sanctions are sometimes changed on the basis of factors not associated with the merits of the case. For fiscal years 1993 through 2003, attorneys in FAA’s Office of the Chief Counsel authorized a 52 percent reduction in the civil monetary penalties assessed (from a total of $334 million to $162 million). FAA officials told us the agency sometimes negotiate lower fines, thereby reducing sanctions to close cases more quickly and reduce FAA attorneys’ caseloads. Economic literature on deterrence suggests that although negative sanctions (such as fines and certificate suspensions) can deter violations, if violators expect sanctions to be reduced, they may have less incentive to comply with regulations. In effect, it becomes more difficult to achieve the goal of preventing future violations when the penalties for present violations are lowered for reasons not related to the merits of the case. Recent changes that FAA has made to its enforcement program may lead to more uniformly set fines and, thus, potentially less need to revise fines. Prior to September 2005, the initial recommendation to use administrative actions (such as warning notices and letter of correction) or legal sanctions (such as fines or suspension of operating certificates) was based on the judgment of the inspectors. If inspectors recommended a legal sanction, they then consulted FAA’s sanction guidance policy to determine the amount of the proposed penalty. In September 2005, FAA adopted changes to its enforcement program that incorporated system safety risk management principles and established explicit criteria for inspectors to use in making an initial enforcement recommendation. As soon as FAA investigators have gathered sufficient information to categorize the safety risk and the conduct (i.e., whether it was intentional, reckless, or systemic), they prepare a risk statement that describes the hazard created by the act and the potential consequence of that hazard. An example of a risk statement is “an aircraft that operates in Class B airspace without a clearance providing separation from other aircraft could cause a mid-air collision.” The investigators then review the risk statement to determine the severity of the hazard (using a scale of catastrophic, critical, marginal, or negligible) and the likelihood of the worst credible outcome (using a scale of frequent, occasional, or remote). Based on these assessments, investigators apply a decision tool that determines the type of action (legal or administrative) to take against an individual or business. Inspectors no longer have the responsibility of recommending a specific fine level. It is too early to determine if these changes to the enforcement program have resulted in a more uniform application of penalties and fewer penalty reductions. Effective processes for evaluating FAA’s safety oversight programs, along with accurate nationwide data on those programs would provide FAA’s program managers and other officials with assurance that the programs are having their intended effect, especially as FAA’s oversight becomes more indirect. Such processes and data are also important because FAA’s workforce is dispersed worldwide—with thousands of staff working out of more than 100 local offices—and because FAA’s use of a risk-based system safety approach represents a cultural shift from its traditional inspection program. The experiences of successful transformations and change management initiatives in large public and private organizations suggest that it can take 5 to 7 years or more until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are transformed in a sustainable manner. As a result, evaluation is important to understanding if the cultural shift has effectively occurred. Our most recent work has shown that FAA had not evaluated its safety programs, and we recommended that the agency establish continuous evaluative processes for the SEP program, designee programs, industry partnership programs, and enforcement program. FAA has made recent progress in implementing some of these recommendations. For example, FAA has scheduled audits of all its designee programs, to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2009, and established a delegation steering group that first met in August 2006 and will be responsible for agencywide monitoring of the designee programs for compliance with program policies and evaluating the effectiveness of the designee programs. Additionally, as FAA implements its new enforcement policy, it has established procedures to monitor the new policy on a quarterly basis and to recommend process improvements based on the information collected. However, FAA does not plan to evaluate the SEP program because it intends to discontinue the program after December 2007. Yet, FAA’s ability to evaluate its programs is hindered by its lack of useful nationwide data. For example, we found that FAA’s oversight of designees was hampered, in part, by the limited information of designee’s performance contained in the various designee databases. These databases contain descriptive information on designees, such as their types of designations and status (i.e., active or terminated). More complete information would allow the agency to gain a comprehensive picture of whether staff are carrying out their responsibilities to oversee designees. To improve management control of the designee programs, and thus increase assurance that designees meet the agency’s performance standards, we recommended that FAA improve the consistency and completeness of information in the designee databases. To address this recommendation, FAA has established the Designee Integration User Group, which expects to begin work in September 2006 on an automated information tool that will track data on all designees. We also found problems with the accuracy or completeness of data in the SEP and enforcement programs, which FAA has recently taken steps to begin addressing. FAA’s use of a risk-based system safety approach to inspections requires inspectors to apply data analysis and auditing skills to identify, analyze, assess, and control potential hazards and risks. To effectively identify safety risks, inspectors must be well-trained in the system-safety approach and have sufficient knowledge of increasingly complex aircraft, aircraft parts, and systems. It is also important that FAA’s large cadre of designees is well-trained in federal aviation regulations and FAA policies. FAA has made training an integral part of its safety inspection system by establishing mandatory training requirements for its workforce as well as designees. Although FAA provides inspectors with extensive training in federal aviation regulations; inspection and investigative techniques; and technical skills, such as flight training for operations inspectors, we have identified weaknesses with the training program. The agency provides designees with an initial indoctrination that covers federal regulations and agency policies, and refresher training every 2 to 3 years. We have reported that FAA has generally followed effective management practices for planning, developing, delivering, and assessing the impact of its technical training for safety inspectors, although some practices have yet to be fully implemented. Appendix I describes the extent to which FAA follows effective management practices in each of these four areas. Some examples follow: In developing its training curriculum for inspectors, FAA has developed courses that support changes in inspection procedures resulting from regulatory change or agency initiatives. On the other hand, FAA develops technical courses on an ad hoc basis rather than as part of an overall curriculum for each inspector specialty—such as air carrier operations, maintenance, and cabin safety—because the agency has not systematically identified the technical skills and competencies each type of inspector needs to effectively perform inspections. In delivering training, FAA has established clear accountability for ensuring that inspectors have access to technical training, has developed a way for inspectors to choose courses that meet job needs and further professional development, and offers a wide array of technical and other courses. However, both FAA and its inspectors recognize the need for more timely selection of inspectors for technical training. To address some of these issues, we recommended, among other things, that FAA ensure that inspector technical training needs are identified and met in a timely manner by systematically assessing inspectors’ technical training needs and better aligning the timeliness of training to when inspectors need the training to do their jobs. In addition, we have identified gaps in the training provided to SEP inspectors, and have recommended that FAA improve inspectors’ training in areas such as system safety and risk management to ensure that these inspectors have a complete and timely understanding of FAA’s policies in these areas. We identified similar competency gaps related to designee oversight. For example, FAA does not require refresher training on how to oversee designees, which increases the risk that inspectors do not retain the information, skills, and competencies required to perform their oversight responsibilities. We recommended that FAA provide additional training for staff who directly oversee designees. FAA has begun to address these recommendations. For example, FAA plans to release five Web-based courses by the end of 2006, which will allow the agency to provide training closer to the time that employees need it. Also, FAA has instituted an electronic learning management system that provides for employee input to their own learning plans. FAA has also updated the SEP training course to reflect recent policy changes that emphasize the importance of risk management. Finally, FAA has begun developing a new designee oversight training course that is planned to be ready by the summer of 2007. It is important that FAA’s inspection workforce, designees, and FAA- certified aviation mechanics are knowledgeable about the latest technology changes. While we did not attempt to assess the technical proficiency that FAA’s workforce requires and will require in the near future, FAA officials said that inspectors do not need a substantial amount of technical training courses because inspectors are hired with a high degree of technical knowledge of aircraft and aircraft systems. They further indicated that inspectors can sufficiently keep abreast of many of the changes in aviation technology through FAA and industry training courses and on-the-job training. Similarly, we did not identify any specific gaps in the competencies of designees. However, in its certification program for aviation mechanics, we found that FAA standards for minimum requirements for aviation courses at FAA-approved aviation maintenance technician schools and its requirements for FAA-issued mechanics certificates do not keep abreast with the latest technologies. In 2003, we reported that those standards had not been updated in more than 50 years. We recommended that FAA review the curriculum and certification requirements and update both. In response to this recommendation, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, which was passed December 12, 2003, required FAA to update the standards 1 year after enactment of the law and to conduct reviews and updates every 3 years after the initial update. FAA issued an Advisory Circular in January 2005 that described suggested curriculum changes; however, the agency has not updated the certification requirements for mechanics. FAA faces a number of key safety challenges, including meeting its performance target for commercial air carrier safety, which it will not meet in fiscal year 2006 because of recent fatal accidents. With four fatal commercial air carrier accidents in fiscal year 2006, the agency will not meet its target of 0.018 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures. Moreover, for the past 3 years, FAA did not meet its performance target for severe operational errors, which occur when aircraft do not maintain safe distances in the air; as of June 2006, the agency was slightly below its target level of 4.27 severe operational errors per million activities. In addition, although general aviation accidents have, on the whole, decreased in recent years, general aviation safety is also a concern because of the large number of fatal accidents every year—an average of 334 fatal accidents have occurred annually since 2000. Furthermore, other industry sectors, such as cargo operations and on-demand air ambulances, have poor safety records, as mentioned earlier. It will be important for FAA to develop the appropriate strategies to deal with the challenges posed by these safety records and to continuously monitor safety information to identify trends and early warnings of other safety problems. Also as described earlier, FAA also faces a number of challenges to several of its oversight programs. Specifically, FAA’s rapid expansion of ATOS, by transferring about 100 airlines and additional inspectors to the program over about 2 years, will cause shifts in inspector workload that may affect the agency’s ability to oversee other parts of the industry. Furthermore, some activities, such as FAA’s creation of ODAs and the trend for airlines to outsource maintenance, will remove FAA from direct oversight. It will be important for FAA to have robust data and continuous evaluative processes to monitor such activities and program changes in order to ensure they are not having a negative effect on safety. Meeting the challenges posed by recent safety trends and program changes will be exacerbated by other challenges in human capital management; the acquisition and operation of new safety enhancing technologies; and new types of vehicles, such as very light jets (VLJ), that may place additional workload strains on FAA inspectors and air traffic controllers. FAA’s ability to oversee aviation safety will be affected by recent and anticipated trends in attrition of its inspectors compounded, in some cases, by delays in hiring and increased workload. For example, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, FAA estimated that over 1,100 safety inspectors who oversee commercial airlines and general aviation will leave the agency, with an average loss due to attrition of about 195 inspectors per year. However, FAA’s efforts to hire more inspectors have been hindered by a budget situation in 2005 that resulted in a hiring freeze during part of that year. During the hiring freeze, FAA filled safety-critical positions, such as principal inspectors, through internal appointments. As other safety inspectors left, they were not replaced and their workload was divided among the remaining inspectors. Concerned about the need for additional safety inspectors, for fiscal year 2006, Congress provided additional funding over the budget request to FAA with the expectation that the funding would increase the safety staff by 248. This increase in funding would allow for hiring an additional 182 safety inspectors in Aviation Flight Standards (AFS) and an additional 66 inspectors and engineers in Aircraft Certification Service (AIR). However, as a result of a rescission and unfunded pay raises for fiscal year 2006, FAA lacks the funds to hire 67 staff of the expected 248 new staff. As a result, FAA’s revised hiring target is 139 AFS staff and 42 AIR staff. As of August 2006, FAA has hired an additional 25 AFS and 28 AIR staff. (See fig. 3.) According to FAA, it has a pipeline of applicants and expects to reach its goal of filling the 181 slots by the end of the fiscal year. However, the actual number of aviation safety inspector slots needed is unknown, because FAA lacks staffing standards for safety inspectors. The National Academy of Sciences, under a congressional mandate, has just completed a study for FAA to estimate staffing standards for inspectors to ensure proper oversight over the aviation industry. During the coming decade, FAA will need to hire and train thousands of air traffic controllers to replace those who will retire and leave for other reasons. FAA estimates it will lose 10,291 controllers, or about 70 percent of the controller workforce, for fiscal years 2006 through 2015, primarily due to retirements. To replace these controllers and to accommodate forecasted increases in air traffic and expected productivity increases, FAA plans to hire a total of 11,800 new controllers over the next 10 years, or 1,180 per year, on average. By the end of fiscal year 2006, FAA expects to hire 930 controllers. As of August 2006, FAA had hired 920. Figure 4 shows the estimated losses each year as well as the number of planned hires. Recent events may exacerbate the staffing situation. New data indicate that controllers are retiring at a faster rate than FAA anticipated. In its 2004 workforce report, FAA projected 341 retirements for fiscal year 2005; 465 controllers actually retired—36 percent more than FAA’s estimate. In addition, a new contract with the air traffic controllers union was recently implemented by FAA after lengthy negotiations. Under this new contract, most current air traffic controllers would continue to receive their existing base salaries and benefits, which may remove a financial incentive to continue working past their retirement eligibility date, while newly hired controllers would be hired at lower wage rates, which may affect FAA’s ability to hire new controllers. FAA has maintained that this contract will result in significant cost savings, freeing up resources for other critical agency needs. It is too soon to know what effect, if any, the new contract may have on retirement decisions. In addition to the challenge of hiring large numbers of controllers, FAA will face a challenge in training its new hires expeditiously so that it can plan to have the right number of controllers in the right facilities when they are needed. According to FAA, its ability to train the new controllers depends upon several factors, including hiring a relatively even number of controllers each year, reducing the time it takes to hire a controller, and reducing the duration of training. FAA estimates that because of the long training time, it must hire enroute controllers an average of 3 to 5 years in advance of when they are needed. FAA is taking actions to address these issues. For example, in line with our recommendation, a recent change to the training program allows individuals who complete collegiate requirements under the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative to bypass the first 5 weeks of initial FAA Academy training required for controllers. FAA also faces the challenge of ensuring that control facilities have adequate staffing based on their unique traffic demands and the accuracy of FAA’s retirement forecast. Historically, FAA has computed staffing standards, which are the number of controllers needed on a systemwide basis, but distribution of these totals to the facility level was a negotiated process. The staffing standards did not take into account the significant differences in complexity and workload among FAA’s 300 terminal and enroute control facilities, which can lead to staffing imbalances. FAA has begun developing and implementing new staffing standards that use an algorithm that incorporates traffic levels and complexity of traffic at the facility level to determine the number of controllers needed, according to an FAA official. As FAA further refines its process for determining controller staffing needs, the ultimate objective is to assess the traffic level and complexity on a sector-by-sector basis to develop more accurate controller staffing requirements. To enhance runway safety, FAA intends to rely on new technologies— beginning with the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) and Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X (ASDE-X)—that are expected to reduce runway accidents. AMASS and ASDE-X are instrumental in mitigating runway incursions and operational errors. However, FAA faces challenges—such as a reduced number of airports scheduled to receive the equipment, schedule delays, and cost increases— that affect its reliance on the technologies. FAA’s original plans called for 34 airports to receive AMASS and 35 airports to receive ASDE-X (see app. II). In total, 59 airports were to receive one or both technologies, but this number was reduced to 44 in August 2006 after FAA canceled plans to deploy ASDE-X at 15 of the originally scheduled airports. FAA plans to take these 15 systems and upgrade certain airports that already have AMASS based on the rationale that maximum benefit is achieved by deploying ASDE-X to airports with larger traffic counts or more complex operations. This decision leaves 15 airports (see fig. 5) that were supposed to receive ASDE-X without either advanced technology system. Since the anticipated future increase in air traffic from commuter airlines and very light jets are likely to be at smaller airports that lack the advanced technologies, it will be important for FAA to periodically re-evaluate its deployment strategy. In addition to reducing the number of facilities selected to receive the newer technology, FAA has amended the cost and extended the implementation dates for the ASDE-X program (see fig. 6). The 35 ASDE-X systems were originally scheduled to be implemented by 2007. As of August 2006, FAA had moved that date to 2011. FAA estimates the total facilities and equipment cost of the ASDE-X program at about $550 million, which is approximately $40 million more than we reported in 2005. The costs of these new technologies mean that they may never be deployed at all airports; therefore, it will be important for FAA to continue prioritizing and maximizing its resources. To ensure a national airspace system that is safe, efficient, and capable of meeting a growing demand of air transportation that is expected to triple by 2025, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) was created within FAA to plan for and coordinate the longer-term transformation to the “next generation air transportation system” (NGATS). JPDO was created in 2003 to develop an integrated plan for NGATS and to include in the plan, among other things, a description of the demand and required performance characteristics of the future system, as well as a high-level, multiagency road map and concept of operations for the future system. FAA and JPDO face the challenge of adequately involving stakeholders in the development of NGATS to ensure that the system meets users’ needs, especially air traffic controllers who will be end users of the new technology and responsible for using it to maximize safety and efficiency. In the past, air traffic controllers were permanently assigned to FAA’s major system acquisition program offices and provided input into air traffic control modernization projects. In June 2005, FAA terminated this arrangement because of budget constraints. According to FAA, it now plans to obtain the subject-matter expertise of air traffic controllers or other stakeholders as needed in major system acquisitions. It remains to be seen whether this approach will be sufficient to avoid problems such as FAA experienced when inadequate stakeholder involvement in the development of new air traffic controller workstations (known as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)) contributed to unplanned work, significant cost growth, and schedule delays. The changing aviation landscape poses further challenges for FAA. It is expected that within the next few years several hundred VLJs will be in operation. FAA estimates that if 2 percent of airline passengers switch to VLJs, air traffic controllers will have to handle three times more take-offs and landings than currently. Additionally, the industry predicts there may be as many as 5,000 to 10,000 VLJs operating in the national airspace system by 2020. VLJ manufacturers are reporting advance sales of thousands of these new jets, their customers include air taxis, charter operators, and private owners. In July 2006, FAA granted the first provisional certificate for a VLJ to Eclipse Aviation Corporation. The provisional certificate allows existing planes to be flown, but new ones cannot be delivered to customers until the FAA grants a type certificate. According to Eclipse Aviation, it has orders for over 2,350 aircrafts. DayJet, which provides on-demand jet service, expects to be operating 50 Eclipse VLJs by the end of 2007. In September 2006, FAA granted the first type certificate to Cessna Aircraft Company. (See fig. 7.) Five other companies are in the process of being issued certificates by FAA. If this sector expands as quickly as expected, FAA inspectors could face workload challenges to expeditiously issue and monitor certificates. In addition, air traffic controllers could face the challenge of further congested air space, especially at and near smaller airports, where VLJs are expected to be prevalent because of their smaller size and shorter runway requirements. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are another emerging sector that will add to FAA’s workload and may require additional FAA expertise. While historically UAVs have been used primarily by the Department of Defense in military settings outside the United States, there is growing demand to operate UAVs domestically in the national airspace system. (See fig. 8.) Federal agencies such as the Customs and Border Protection Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state and local law enforcement agencies are interested in UAVs for purposes such as border security, search and rescue, firefighting, and other law enforcement and homeland security initiatives. Some of these activities are taking place today. For example, Customs conducts surveillance along the border with Mexico. UAVs are also an emerging sector of the commercial aviation industry, and possible commercial uses include fire detection and firefighting management, digital mapping, communications and broadcast services, and environmental research and air quality management control. Currently, few regulations or guidelines exist for UAVs or UAV-related technology. FAA issues a certificate of authorization for the operation of a UAV and the airspace is restricted during the period of operation. In 2006, FAA has issue 62 certificates of authorization for UAVs and another 35 applications are pending review. FAA is receiving numerous inquiries from federal agencies, and from local, county, and state governments about how to operate UAVs in the national airspace system. FAA has established an Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, responsible for developing the regulatory framework and plan for the safe integration of UAVs into the national airspace system. FAA faces the challenge of working with industry to develop consensus standards for command and control redundancies in case there is a disruption in communication with the UAV, and detect and avoid capabilities so that UAVs can sense and avoid other aircraft. Such standards will be necessary before UAVs can be routinely integrated into the national airspace system. Until UAVs are completely integrated into the national airspace system, FAA will continue to evaluate each flight on a case-by-case basis, adding to the agency’s workload. Space tourism is an additional emerging sector that FAA is beginning to respond to. Tourist launches are expected to take place at inland locations and may have more impact on the national airspace system than previous unmanned commercial space launches, which occurred at federal launch sites near or over oceans. While UAVs pose a learning curve for safety inspectors, engineers, and air traffic controllers, space tourism launches pose a learning curve for FAA’s commercial space engineers who are responsible for licensing and monitoring commercial space launches and nonfederal launch sites (called spaceports). The prospect for commercial space tourism materialized in 2004 when SpaceShipOne, developed by Scaled Composites, flew to space twice, achieving a peak altitude of about 70 miles to win the Ansari X Prize. Several entrepreneurial launch companies are planning to start taking paying passengers on suborbital flights within the next few years. Virgin Galactic intends to enter commercial suborbital space flight service around 2008, launching from a spaceport in New Mexico, and according to the company, plans to carry 3,000 passengers over 5 years, with 100 individuals having already paid the full fare of $200,000. Several other companies, including former Ansari X Prize competitors, continue to develop their vehicles for space tourism. Several spaceports are being developed to accommodate anticipated commercial space tourism flights and are expanding the nation’s launch capacity. As of August 2006, the United States had seven federal launch sites, and seven spaceports, and an additional eight spaceports have been proposed (see fig. 9). We will be issuing a report later this year on FAA’s oversight of commercial space launches. Maintaining U.S. position as a global leader in aviation safety calls for robust participation in the setting of international safety standards. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations organization, develops standards and recommended practices for aviation safety and security for 188 member states. In 2002, the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry reported that the United States had not devoted enough resources to ICAO and was, therefore, losing its position as the de facto standard setter. Furthermore, the position of U.S. ambassador to ICAO, which was filled earlier this year, had been vacant for more than a year, which may have affected the U.S. impact on international aviation issues. To ensure that qualified U.S. applicants apply for U.S. positions at ICAO, FAA has supported a number of activities, including outreach efforts, incentive pay programs, and a fellowship program that sends FAA employees to work at ICAO for up to 12 months. However, as of December 2005, FAA had filled only 13 of the 31 positions allocated to the United States at ICAO. FAA faces difficulty in filling the allocated positions for reasons beyond its control. For example, while FAA can recruit applicants, it does not make the final hiring decisions. With unfilled positions at ICAO, it will remain important for FAA to continue these efforts to enhance the presence of the United States in the international aviation community. For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Teresa Spisak, Jessica Evans, Colin Fallon, David Hooper, and Rosa Leung. Aviation Safety: FAA’s Safety Oversight System Is Effective but Could Benefit from Better Evaluation of Its Programs’ Performance. GAO-06-266T. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005. Aviation Safety: System Safety Approach Needs Further Integration into FAA’s Oversight of Airlines. GAO-05-726. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2005. Aviation Safety: FAA Management Practices for Technical Training Mostly Effective; Further Actions Could Enhance Results. GAO-05-728. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005. Aviation Safety: Oversight of Foreign Code-Share Safety Program Should Be Strengthened. GAO-05-930. Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2005. Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to Strengthen the Management of Its Designee Programs. GAO-05-40. Washington, D.C.: October 8, 2004. Aviation Safety: Better Management Controls Are Needed to Improve FAA’s Safety Enforcement and Compliance Efforts. GAO-04-646. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2004. Aviation Safety: Information on FAA’s Data on Operational Errors at Air Traffic Control Towers. GAO-03-1175R. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2003. Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to Update the Curriculum and Certification Requirements for Aviation Mechanics. GAO-03-317. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2003. Aviation Safety: FAA and DOD Response to Similar Safety Concerns. GAO-02-77. Washington. D.C.: January 22, 2002. Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial Steps to Reduce Accident Rates by 2007. GAO/RCED-00-111. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: The U.S. commercial aviation industry has had an extraordinary safety record in recent years. However, expected increases in air-traffic--including the introduction of new vehicles into the national airspace, such as unmanned vehicles and very light jets--and human resource issues, present challenges that have the potential to strain the existing safety oversight system. GAO's testimony focuses on these questions: (1) How is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ensuring that the areas of highest safety risk are addressed? (2) How is FAA ensuring that its staff maintain the skills and knowledge to consistently carry out the agency's oversight programs? and (3) What are the key safety challenges facing FAA? This statement is based on our recent reports on FAA's inspection oversight programs, industry partnership programs, and enforcement and training programs. It is also based on interviews with FAA and relevant industry officials. FAA's aviation safety oversight system includes programs that focus on identifying and mitigating risks through a system safety approach and by leveraging resources, but as FAA is still developing evaluations for some of these programs, it remains unclear the extent to which they are achieving their intended effects. FAA's system safety approach for overseeing airlines--through the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) and Surveillance and Evaluation Program (SEP)--uses inspection staff efficiently by prioritizing workload based on areas of highest risk and ensuring that corrective actions have been taken. However, recent and planned changes that would move inspections of about 100 airlines from SEP to ATOS will shift inspector workload and might affect FAA's capability to oversee the industry. FAA also concentrates its limited staff resources on the most safety-critical functions and through its designee programs delegates other, less critical activities to designees. Designees perform about 90 percent of certification-related activities, and thus allow FAA to better leverage resources. GAO's recent work found some weaknesses in FAA's system safety approach and recommended that FAA develop effective evaluative processes and accurate nationwide data on its safety oversight programs to address these weaknesses so that program managers and other officials have assurance that the programs attain their intended effect. FAA has begun implementing those recommendations but does not plan to evaluate SEP, which it intends to discontinue after December 2007. Training--including mandatory training requirements for FAA's workforce as well as designees--is an integral part of FAA's safety oversight system. GAO has reported that FAA has generally followed effective management practices for planning, developing, delivering, and assessing the impact of its technical training for safety inspectors, although some practices have yet to be fully implemented. However, several actions could improve the results of its training efforts. For example, FAA develops technical courses on an ad hoc basis rather than as part of an overall curriculum for each type of inspector, such as inspectors of operations or cabin safety, because the agency has not systematically identified the technical skills and competencies each type of inspector needs to effectively perform inspections. FAA has recognized the need to improve its training program in this and other areas. FAA faces several key safety challenges, including not meeting its performance target for commercial air carrier safety this year because of recent fatal accidents. Further, FAA's ability to oversee aviation safety will be affected by recent and anticipated trends in inspector and air traffic controller attrition. Also, FAA intends to enhance runway safety by relying on new technologies that are expected to reduce runway accidents. However, schedule delays and cost increases challenge FAA's ability to deploy this technology. Finally, new types of aviation vehicles are changing the aviation industry and will require new areas of expertise for FAA's inspectors and controllers.