Between 1987 and 1994, errors by pilots whose backgrounds had not been checked prior to hiring were identified as contributing factors in seven crashes of scheduled carriers involving 111 fatalities. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigated these crashes, found that each of the pilots involved had been hired despite a poor performance history, prior safety violations, or both. In each case, NTSB reported, the carrier had lacked access to, or had failed to obtain, the pilot’s records with previous employers before hiring. Accordingly, on four separate occasions between September 1988 and October 1995, NTSB recommended that carriers obtain information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and previous employers on a pilot’s training, performance, and safety history before hiring. NTSB later also recommended that information about the pilot’s driving record be checked with the National Driver Register (NDR). In June 1988, we likewise recommended, after surveying carriers’ pilot-hiring practices, that FAA encourage carriers to review a pilot’s safety history before making a hiring decision. On October 9, 1996, Congress enacted the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) to help ensure that fatal crashes would not again occur because, in part, carriers had not investigated the backgrounds of the pilots they hired. The act, which took effect on February 6, 1997, requires that air carriers conduct background checks on all pilot applicants. The vast majority of commercial carriers carrying paying passengers or transporting cargo are classified as air carriers because these carriers meet specific statutory requirements that are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. These carriers are, therefore, subject to the act. Besides requiring that carriers obtain key records from FAA, past or current employers for whom the applicant worked as a pilot, and NDR, PRIA includes provisions to protect pilots’ rights and to protect those furnishing records from liability for providing the information. PRIA also gives FAA responsibility for overseeing compliance with the act, by stating that FAA may prescribe regulations as necessary to ensure compliance with the requesting and receiving of pilot records, protect the personal privacy of anyone whose records are requested as well as the confidentiality of those records, and preclude further dissemination of those records by the person requesting them. Furthermore, as the agency responsible for aviation safety, FAA has a broader responsibility to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for the aviation industry. To carry out this responsibility, FAA issues regulations and develops guidance. FAA also performs inspections to ensure compliance with federal statutes and regulations and has the authority to take enforcement actions against violators. Specifically, FAA regulates and monitors the safety of air transportation and air commerce through its safety programs, which provide the initial certification, periodic surveillance, and inspection of airlines, airports, repair stations, and other aviation entities, including pilots. These inspections are intended to primarily detect actual violations of statutes or regulations. When safety inspectors identify violations, FAA guidance requires that such violations be investigated, appropriately addressed, and reported. The Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us to review the status of PRIA since its enactment in October 1996. Specifically, they asked us to determine the following: whether (1) hiring air carriers have complied with the act by requesting and receiving key documents about pilot applicants before making final hiring decisions and (2) FAA, NDR, and other carriers have complied with the act by providing these documents in a timely manner; whether air carriers are aware of PRIA’s requirements for protecting what FAA has done to oversee compliance with the act; and whether air carriers believe PRIA has been helpful to them in making pilot-hiring decisions and is worth the cost. Until recently, pilot hiring was expected to keep pace over the next decade with projected growth in air traffic and anticipated pilot retirements. With the economic downturn in 2001 and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, however, the demand for air travel declined. As a result of the September 11 attacks, concerns about aviation safety and security are likely to remain central, and pilot background checks, such as those required by PRIA, may assume even greater importance. PRIA requires that air carriers conduct background checks on a pilot job applicant. Specifically, PRIA requires them to request, from FAA, previous air carrier and other employers, and NDR, and review information about the applicant’s qualifications, performance, and training over the past 5 years. This information is to be provided within 30 days, and a reasonable fee may be charged to the requesting carrier for the service. Table 1 identifies the information required from each source. PRIA’s definition of an air carrier is based on several statutes. An air carrier subject to PRIA is operated by a U.S. citizen who directly or indirectly provides air provides interstate air transportation—that is, transports passengers or property across state lines by aircraft as a common carrier for compensation, or transports mail by aircraft; and operates as a common carrier—that is, advertises to the public to carry persons, property, or mail for hire. To operate as an air carrier, a carrier must have an air carrier certificate issued by FAA under Part 119 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FAA issues a number of operating certificates under various parts of the CFR. FAA may require an aviation operator to have several of these certificates, depending on the number of passengers carried, the weight of the aircraft, and whether the aircraft is used to fly out of state or carry mail. For example, Part 121 certificates are generally issued to major carriers who operate turbojet-powered airplanes or airplanes with more than nine passenger seats, excluding crew members’ seats, or airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds. Part 135 certificates are generally issued to small carriers operating other than turbojet-powered airplanes having no more than nine passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less. The criteria for issuing certificates under Parts 121 and 135 have changed since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the seven fatal accidents that led to PRIA’s enactment occurred. At that time, all seven carriers operated under Part 135 certificates; however, under the new criteria, all of these carriers would operate under Part 121 certificates. As of April 13, 2001, FAA had identified 3,059 operators with active certificates to operate under Parts 121 and 135 or with dual certificates to operate under both. The vast majority of these operators are air carriers and thus are subject to PRIA. (See table 2.) PRIA includes several provisions to protect the privacy of a pilot’s records during the hiring process and indicates how a pilot can obtain and comment on the records contained in PRIA files. First, PRIA specifies that, generally, only information covering a 5-year period preceding the date of the employment application or the date of the request is to be forwarded to the hiring air carrier. Second, to help ensure that a pilot’s records are not requested without permission, a carrier must obtain the pilot’s written consent before requesting the release of records from FAA, NDR, and current or former employers. PRIA also includes provisions to protect air carriers from liability for providing a pilot’s records and requires that they not provide records without first ensuring that the pilot’s consent has been obtained. Finally, PRIA limits access to a pilot’s records to those individuals directly involved in the hiring process and restricts the use of those records to assessing the pilot’s qualifications as part of making a hiring decision. To further protect a pilot’s privacy, a carrier must protect the confidentiality of these records. PRIA also provides a pilot with access to his/her PRIA records. Whenever a request is received, a carrier, employer, or agency has 20 days to notify the pilot of the request and of the pilot’s right to receive a copy of the PRIA file. If requested in writing by a pilot, a copy of the PRIA file must be provided within 30 days of the pilot’s request. Under PRIA, a pilot has the right to submit written comments to correct inaccuracies in the records before a final hiring decision is made. To further protect the rights of pilots under PRIA, FAA may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to protect the personal privacy of any pilots whose records are requested, preclude the further dissemination of records received, and ensure prompt compliance with requests for PRIA records. PRIA required FAA to provide a written report to Congress on the act’s implementation 18 months after the act was passed and at least once every 3 years thereafter on proposed changes to FAA’s records, carriers’ records, and other employers’ records. If FAA does not recommend changes to PRIA, the act also requires the agency to give reasons for its position. FAA provided Congress with two reports that were issued in October 2000 and April 2002. Neither report recommends any change to (1) the agency’s current system of collecting and maintaining certificate records on airmen or on legal enforcement actions and (2) air carrier and other records required to be furnished under PRIA. FAA did not recommend any change because it thought that the existing records and system were effective and met PRIA’s requirements. PRIA also required FAA to conduct three studies related to carriers’ procedures for hiring pilots—two jointly with representatives of the aviation industry. The three studies that FAA transmitted to Congress recommended additional research on, rather than changes to, carriers’ pilot-hiring practices, but FAA has not yet begun any of the recommended research. According to officials in the Air Transportation Division, FAA has not pursued any of the proposed research because it has not yet heard whether Congress agrees with the studies’ findings. To clarify some of PRIA’s requirements and to lessen the act’s burden on smaller carriers, Congress passed amendments in December 1997 and April 2000 that narrowed and clarified PRIA’s scope and provided some relief in areas that had proven burdensome to some carriers. The April 2000 amendment also directed FAA to carry out certain actions related to PRIA. Table 3 summarizes the major changes resulting from these amendments. The December 1997 amendment made a key change that allows a carrier to request and review a PRIA file after hiring an applicant as long as the carrier completes the background check before allowing the pilot to fly an aircraft with passengers or cargo. Initially, the act required all carriers to request and review a pilot’s records from FAA, NDR, and previous employers before hiring the pilot. This requirement caused delays in hiring decisions because, at the time of the amendment’s enactment, FAA and some carriers could not meet the 30-day deadline. As a result, Congress amended the act to permit a carrier to perform these background checks after the pilot was hired as long as they were completed before the carrier used the pilot to fly passengers or cargo—a step often referred to as the final hiring decision. In essence, this amendment gives carriers the option to use PRIA information not as part of a pilot’s initial screening process but as a last check before the pilot is put into the cockpit. To meet our objectives, we gathered quantitative and qualitative information from a variety of sources for the period from PRIA’s implementation in February 1997 through July 2002. Our primary method for addressing the four objectives was two nationwide, anonymous mail surveys—one for Part 121 carriers and one for Part 135 carriers. Carriers with dual certificates, that is, authorized to operate under both Part 121 and Part 135, received the Part 121 survey, and we include the responses of these carriers with the Part 121 responses throughout this report. The surveys, conducted from June through September 2001, provided data on the carriers’ compliance with the act, including the timeliness with which they received records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers; use of information to hire pilots; costs incurred because of the act’s requirements; awareness of actions to protect pilots’ rights; views on PRIA’s usefulness; opinions on which aspects of PRIA require more clarification or recommendations for improving PRIA. The survey population included the Part 121 and Part 135 air carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information from July 1998, when FAA began tracking such requests electronically, through April 30, 2001. This population includes 124, or 86 percent, of the 144 carriers that operate under Part 121 or have dual certificates to operate under both Parts 121 and 135. All 124 of these carriers received the survey. However, the survey population covers only 1,144, or 39 percent, of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers. Of these 1,144 carriers, we randomly selected 350 to receive the survey. Although we would have preferred to survey a representative sample of all Part 135 carriers, we were unable to do so in a manner that would produce reliable data because we were unable to identify and pretest carriers that were out of compliance with the requirement to request documents from FAA. Thus, we cannot discuss the opinions and experiences of the 1,771 Part 135 carriers that did not submit requests to FAA for PRIA information. The surveys requested historical data from PRIA’s implementation in February 1997 through December 2000 for those questions to which carriers said during pretesting that they could provide more complete information. Where this was not the case, we requested that carriers provide data for calendar year 2000 to offer the most current and reliable perspective on carriers’ compliance with the act. We did not verify the information provided in our surveys. (See app. II for a more detailed discussion of our methodology.) Besides analyzing our survey responses, we used other methods to address the first objective on the extent to which carriers have complied with the act by obtaining key documents about pilot applicants before making final hiring decisions and whether FAA, NDR, and carriers have provided these documents in a timely manner. Specifically, we interviewed carrier officials who were responsible for requesting and reviewing PRIA information as part of their hiring decisions. We also analyzed FAA and NDR data on carriers’ PRIA requests. We performed limited internal testing of the database that FAA uses to respond to PRIA requests, but we did not independently review the validity of the data it derives from three other FAA databases. We also did not independently review the validity of the NDR database that states use to provide information to carriers about pilots’ driving records. To obtain further information on compliance with PRIA by Part 135 carriers, FAA, at our request, asked its principal operations inspectors in April 2001 for information on which Part 135 carriers should have made requests to FAA for PRIA records in calendar year 2000. Specifically, FAA asked these inspectors to determine how many pilots each of these Part 135 carriers had hired that year and how many of the carriers operated only intrastate and thus might be exempt from PRIA’s requirements. FAA received information on about 842 of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers in operation, 798 of which were interstate carriers subject to PRIA. We analyzed the information about hiring and certification to operate interstate operations and compared it with requests for PRIA information made to FAA by these same carriers in 2000 to determine whether these 798 carriers had requested information from FAA for at least as many pilots as they had hired. To help determine our second objective of whether FAA, NDR, and carriers were aware of PRIA’s requirements to protect pilots’ rights, we also interviewed officials from these two federal agencies, carrier hiring officials, aviation associations, representatives of a major pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand how well PRIA has been working, including the effectiveness of measures to protect pilots’ rights. To understand pilots’ views of PRIA, we interviewed a sample of 20 pilots at hiring fairs and carriers. We also interviewed and reviewed the PRIA files of 27 pilots whom we identified as having reported experiencing problems with their PRIA records because they had contacted FAA, congressional staff, or our office. To determine our third objective of what FAA has done to oversee compliance with PRIA, we reviewed the agency’s policies, guidance, and internal documents about implementation as well as the reports and studies to Congress that FAA generated in response to the act. We also interviewed program officials at the Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA headquarters, and FAA field offices responsible for responding to PRIA requests from carriers, generating the data needed for these responses, and overseeing the program’s implementation. We also reviewed enforcement cases initiated by FAA against carriers that had violated PRIA’s requirements. To address our fourth objective on the extent to which carriers believe the act has helped them make better pilot-hiring decisions, we surveyed Part 121 and Part 135 carriers, as previously stated. We also interviewed officials from aviation associations, representatives from a major pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand the impact of PRIA on making better pilot-hiring decisions. In addition, to obtain information on the act’s costs to FAA, NDR, carriers, and pilots, we reviewed FAA’s submissions on costs to the Office of Management and Budget, which are required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We discussed the costs of PRIA with officials from all of these organizations as well as with officials from state motor vehicle agencies that process the vast majority of carriers’ PRIA requests for pilots’ NDR information. We conducted our work from August 2000 through July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Efforts to comply with PRIA have increased since the act took effect in February 1997, but compliance is not always complete or timely. Although available data are not adequate to determine the extent of industrywide compliance, our analyses indicate that hiring carriers have requested and agencies and other carriers have provided background checks on increasing numbers of pilots. However, our analyses also suggest greater compliance with some PRIA requirements than with others. Both FAA and NDR databases and carriers’ responses to our surveys indicate that hiring carriers requested the required records more often from FAA than from NDR, even though the carriers are required to request records from both organizations for all prospective pilots. The survey responses further indicate that hiring carriers requested the required records still less frequently from other carriers. In general, the hiring carriers reported receiving the requested records on time more frequently from FAA and NDR than from other carriers. Delays in receiving these records can negatively affect both pilots and carriers. As discussed in chapter 1, PRIA, as amended, requires hiring carriers to request and review information for the past 5 years on a pilot applicant’s qualifications, performance, and training. This information is to be obtained from FAA, NDR, and carriers and other employers, apart from the military, who employed the applicant to fly passengers or cargo. While FAA and NDR maintain data on the requests for PRIA records that they receive, there are no centralized data on requests between carriers. According to our analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers’ responses to our surveys, the number of requests for background checks increased steadily from 1997 through 2000. However, requests did fall in 2001, reflecting the downturn in air traffic resulting from the economic recession and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Although this generally steady growth in the number of requests suggests increasing compliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records, we could not assess carriers’ compliance because data are not available on how many and which pilots were hired each year by each carrier that is subject to PRIA and whether each subject carrier requested records from all three required sources for each pilot hired. When we began our review, FAA did not know which carriers were subject to PRIA, but following discussions with us, FAA agreed to analyze its Operations Specification database to make this determination. Information regarding carriers’ requests for records from the three required sources is not available because federal laws and regulations do not require that carriers report it to FAA or that FAA maintain it. FAA does not believe that the costs of gathering and maintaining these data would be worth the benefits to aviation safety. According to FAA data, the number of requests for background checks nearly doubled from 14,938 in 1997 to 27,104 in 2000. With the recession and the terrorist attacks, the number dropped to 21,047 in 2001. From February 1997, when PRIA was implemented, through December 2001, carriers requested background checks on 111,552 pilots from FAA. (See fig. 1.) The required records include a pilot applicant’s flight certificate, medical certificate, and enforcement history. Although the number of requests to FAA for background checks increased, not all carriers requested records. According to our analysis of FAA’s records, fewer than half of the 3,059 carriers in operation as of April 13, 2001, requested PRIA background checks from FAA on at least one pilot from July 1998, when FAA began tracking PRIA requests by carrier, through April 2001. Without data on how many pilots were hired or on how many carriers hired at least one pilot during the period of our review, we could not determine how many carriers should have requested records. In addition, the Part 135 carriers were less likely than the Part 121 carriers to request records. According to our analysis of the available automated data for July 1998 through April 2001, 39 percent of the Part 135 carriers requested PRIA records from FAA at least once, compared with 86 percent of the Part 121 carriers. (See table 4.) Again, data were not available to determine whether or to what extent the lower percentage for Part 135 carriers was related to compliance. On the one hand, information provided by FAA indicated that over 900 Part 135 carriers have only one pilot, making it unlikely, FAA officials said, that they hired any pilots during this period. Furthermore, 4 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed—all of whom had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA records—reported that they did not hire any pilots from 1997 through 2000. On the other hand, as discussed later in this chapter, we found evidence of Part 135 carriers that hired pilots but may not have complied fully with PRIA’s background check requirements. The number of requests for NDR driver information records, primarily from carriers but occasionally from pilots, also increased, although NDR data, like FAA data, show a drop in 2001 in response to the recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks. Specifically, the number of requests increased from 9,549 in 1997 to 23,104 in 2000, but dropped to 18,175 in 2001. (See fig. 2.) According to NDR data, carriers and pilots made 81,509 requests for driver information from PRIA’s implementation through December 2001. The NDR information required for PRIA purposes includes records of revocations or suspensions of a driver's license for such serious offenses as reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, or drug convictions. The carriers we surveyed reported receiving increased numbers of requests for pilot records from hiring carriers for each year from PRIA’s implementation through 2000, the last year covered by our survey. These requested records include information about a pilot’s training and performance as well as the results of drug and alcohol testing. For the period from 1997 through 2000, the Part 121 carriers reported that the number of requests received nearly tripled, and the Part 135 carriers reported that the number of requests nearly doubled. (See fig. 3.) The number of Part 121 carriers that reported receiving such requests rose from 67 in 1997 to 91 in 2000, and we estimate that the number of Part 135 carriers receiving such requests increased from 461 to 931 during this period. Under PRIA, carriers that hire pilots should make the same number of requests to FAA and NDR, and they may be required to make more or fewer requests to other carriers, depending on how many employers their pilot applicants had in the preceding 5 years and whether records are required from those employers. According to our analysis of data from FAA and NDR and from our surveys of carriers, FAA received thousands more requests for records than NDR and carriers, and both FAA and NDR received thousands more requests than carriers. According to FAA and NDR data, from 1997 through 2001, carriers requested records for about 30,000 more pilots from FAA than from NDR, and in each of those years, carriers made thousands more requests to FAA than to NDR. (See table 5.) Although disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some degree of noncompliance with the requirement to request driver information from NDR, FAA and NDR data cannot readily be compared. First, NDR does not track its data by carrier or by pilot, as FAA does. Therefore, the two agencies’ data cannot be matched to verify that a carrier has requested background checks on a pilot from both federal agencies. Second, NDR data are, to some extent, understated, partly because NDR cannot always identify requests from pilots for NDR information as PRIA requests and partly because NDR did not include known PRIA requests made by pilots under the Privacy Act in its PRIA database until 1999. Although requests from carriers for NDR information are readily identifiable as PRIA requests, carriers sometimes delegate their responsibility for obtaining NDR information to pilot applicants, even though PRIA requires that a carrier receive the records directly from NDR or the state agency. Pilots’ requests for NDR information—whether made directly to NDR under the Privacy Act or to state motor vehicle agencies—are not identifiable as PRIA requests unless the pilots specify as much. From 1999, when NDR began tracking pilots’ requests separately from other Privacy Act requests, through 2001, pilots made 1,187 (2 percent) of 58,627 requests to NDR for background checks under PRIA. Carriers’ delegation of their responsibility for obtaining NDR information to pilot applicants raises issues beyond how to account accurately for the number of PRIA requests made for NDR information. First, PRIA directs carriers to obtain the NDR information on each pilot with the pilot’s consent. Although PRIA allows carriers to have a pilot applicant request that either NDR or a state motor vehicle agency provide the NDR information directly to the carrier, PRIA does not allow the pilot to obtain the information and then provide it to the carrier. This practice, which gives the pilot custody of the information, potentially compromises the reliability of the information. According to NDR officials, at least one major Part 121 carrier requires pilot applicants to obtain NDR information under the Privacy Act and bring it with them to an interview—a procedure that violates PRIA. The carriers responding to our surveys reported receiving substantially fewer requests for background checks each year than did FAA and NDR. From 1997 through 2000, the last year covered by our surveys, the carriers reported receiving about 44,000 requests, compared with about 91,000 requests to FAA and about 63,000 requests to NDR. Again, disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some degree of noncompliance, but our analysis also identified other possible reasons for differences. First, carriers estimated the number of requests they received each year, whereas FAA and NDR tracked their requests electronically. Second, as previously explained, our survey covered only those carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot records. Some carriers might have requested records from other carriers or NDR, but not from FAA. Finally, under PRIA, as amended, carriers do not need to request records from the military, from employers for whom pilot applicants worked in jobs unrelated to flying, or from certain types of aviation operators. Eighty-eight percent of the Part 121 carriers and 46 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported hiring at least some pilots with military flight experience in 2000. In addition, many smaller Part 135 carriers may hire pilots whose recent experience includes working for an aviation operator that is not required to maintain the kinds of information on training and performance included in PRIA records, such as a private flight school or an operator that provides agricultural crop dusting, banner towing, travel by corporate jet, or aerial surveying. Furthermore, PRIA requires only that carriers make a “good- faith” attempt to obtain records from foreign employers or bankrupt carriers. Even though there are several reasons why carriers may have reported receiving fewer requests than FAA and NDR received, carriers’ survey responses pointed to greater noncompliance with the requirement to request records from other carriers or employers than with the requirements to request records from FAA or NDR. For example, 57 percent of the Part 121 carriers reported requesting records from other carriers for all or almost all pilots they hired in 2000, compared with 97 percent for FAA and 95 percent for NDR. Similar percentages of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported requesting records from each of the three sources. (See fig. 4.) Two types of evidence we gathered suggest that some carriers, especially some Part 135 carriers, may not have complied fully with requirements to complete background checks on pilots they hired in 2000. First, our analysis of hiring data gathered by FAA inspectors showed that hundreds of pilots were hired by Part 135 carriers that either had not requested PRIA records from FAA or had requested records for fewer pilots than they had hired. To better understand why many Part 135 carriers had not requested records, we asked FAA to have its inspectors determine how many pilots were hired in 2000 by Part 135 carriers that operate interstate and therefore are subject to PRIA’s requirements. Data generated by the inspectors raised questions about the compliance of 227 (28 percent) of the 798 Part 135 carriers for which the inspectors obtained information. These 227 carriers had requested records for 318 pilots but had hired 1,078. While the carriers that hired some of the remaining 760 pilots might have complied with PRIA if the pilots were not placed in service in 2000 or if the pilots’ records were requested at the end of 1999 or at the beginning of 2001, it is unlikely that these circumstances applied to all 760 pilots. According to FAA, its Office of Flight Standards Service has asked the regions responsible for overseeing these 227 carriers to review their compliance with PRIA. Second, to obtain a snapshot of carriers’ compliance with PRIA’s requirements for obtaining background information, we asked our survey respondents about the records they requested for pilots hired in 2000. A few carriers self-reported significant noncompliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records. Of the Part 121 carriers, 1 percent reported requesting FAA records less than half the time for the pilots hired in 2000, 3 percent reported requesting NDR information less than half the time for the pilots hired, and 6 percent reported requesting other employers’ records for half or fewer of the pilots hired. The percentages for Part 135 carriers were generally comparable. PRIA requires FAA, NDR, and carriers to provide PRIA records to a hiring carrier within 30 days of receiving a written request. The act also requires hiring carriers to receive the records from all three sources for each pilot applicant before making a final hiring decision—that is, before using the pilot to fly passengers or cargo. According to industry representatives and carrier hiring officials we surveyed or interviewed, most carriers received PRIA records from FAA and NDR, and, in the majority of instances, they reported receiving the records within 30 days, as required. However, in a few cases, carriers reported never receiving the required records. Furthermore, carriers said they sometimes needed more time to follow up with state motor vehicle agencies on the initial NDR information they received. Carriers reported more problems in receiving records on time from other carriers and, in a few cases, reported never receiving the required information. Without complete information, a carrier is not allowed to use a pilot to fly passengers or cargo, and delays in receiving the required information can be costly to both the carrier and the pilot. During the first 6 months after PRIA was implemented, FAA said it was not always able to respond to requests for background checks within 30 days. FAA said it did not have enough staff to keep up with the volume of requests it received. In addition, the agency needed to gather the required records—pilot’s flight certificates, medical certificates, and enforcement histories—from three separate databases maintained in three different offices. As a result, FAA’s responses sometimes took months, delaying carriers’ hiring of pilots. To reduce the delays in responding to requests for records, Congress amended PRIA and FAA modified its procedures. Noting that delays in receiving records presented a particular burden to small aviation businesses, Congress amended PRIA in December 1997 to provide relief to the on-demand air carriers by allowing them to use pilots to fly passengers for up to 90 days before receiving their PRIA records. In the summer of 1997, FAA transferred the responsibility for responding to PRIA requests from its Civil Aerospace Medical Institute to its Aviation Data Systems Branch in the Office of Flight Standards, which had more staff available to respond to requests. In addition, in July 1998, FAA developed a centralized database that is automatically updated each night with new information from the three databases that contain FAA’s flight, medical, and enforcement records. We observed FAA staff using this database and saw that they can, within minutes, generate a response letter for a carrier and a copy for a pilot. Our review of FAA’s response times for the 27,104 requests received in 2000 showed that FAA generally provided PRIA information in less than 2 work days after receiving a carrier’s request. According to FAA staff responsible for responding to PRIA requests, delays can occur if information such as a pilot’s name or certificate number is incorrect or illegible. In these instances, the staff said, they usually call the carrier to obtain the correct information so that they can process the requests on time. They further noted that some carriers reduce response times by transmitting requests to FAA by fax or Express Mail. In responding to our surveys, carriers also indicated that FAA generally provides records and provides them on time. Ninety percent of the Part 121 carriers reported receiving the required records from FAA for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000. Of these carriers, 71 percent reported receiving almost all records on time, and 4 percent reported receiving the records on time less than half the time. Of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed, 74 percent reported receiving almost all FAA records on time, and 12 percent reported receiving these records on time less than half the time. Initially, NDR processed carriers’ PRIA requests directly in Washington, D.C., because state motor vehicle agencies’ computer systems were not yet set up to handle the requests electronically. Until December 31, 1997, carriers could submit PRIA requests directly to NDR for processing. Beginning in January 1998, state agencies largely assumed this responsibility, and in 2000, the state agencies processed 92 percent of carriers’ 22,201 requests, while NDR processed 8 percent on an emergency basis. Six states now process over three-quarters of the requests for NDR information, including most of the requests for residents of four states and the District of Columbia that do not process any requests because computer testing has not yet been completed to ensure the reliability of the NDR search process for those entities. To gain perspective on recent NDR activity in response to carriers’ PRIA requests, we asked carriers whether they had received the NDR information they had requested and whether they had received the information within 30 days. Those responding to our surveys generally reported receiving NDR information from state motor vehicle agencies in response to their requests. Specifically, 85 percent of the Part 121 carriers reported receiving NDR information for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000, as did 77 percent of the Part 135 carriers. Smaller percentages of carriers reported receiving the NDR information on time: 67 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 69 percent of the Part 135 carriers reported receiving all or almost all records on time. Furthermore, some carriers reported problems with timeliness: 4 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 18 percent of the Part 135 carriers reported receiving the records on time less than half the time. If a driver’s license has been revoked or suspended for violations, the process of following up with the motor vehicle agency in each state where violations occurred can take much longer, particularly if the NDR information provided by a state motor vehicle agency does not include identifiers, such as the driver’s Social Security number, height, weight, and eye color. Without such identifying information, the carrier must take additional steps to determine whether the pilot applicant or someone else committed the violation. Furthermore, when a state motor vehicle agency fails to provide the NDR information required under PRIA, a carrier cannot legally hire a pilot. The good-faith exception that Congress established for instances when carriers cannot obtain PRIA information from foreign carriers or from domestic carriers that have gone out of business does not apply to instances when carriers cannot obtain NDR information. Over two-thirds of the carriers responding to our surveys reported receiving the PRIA records required from other carriers for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000, but the percentages that said they received these records were smaller than the percentages that said they received the records required from FAA and NDR. (See fig. 5.) Of the carriers that said they did not receive the required records from other carriers for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000, 2 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 10 percent of the Part 135 carriers reported receiving the records from other carriers for few or none of the pilots hired. The responses to our surveys also indicated that carriers had more problems with receiving records on time from other carriers than from FAA or NDR. The Part 121 carriers reported that they were more likely to receive records within 30 days, as required, from major, regional, and commuter carriers than from small cargo or on-demand carriers. The information on timeliness reported by the Part 135 carriers was similar to the information reported by the Part 121 carriers, although the Part 135 carriers reported more problems with the timeliness of records from large cargo carriers than did the Part 121 carriers. Many of the carrier hiring officials, aviation association officials, and pilots we interviewed voiced concerns about problems in obtaining PRIA records on time or at all from other carriers. Several of the carrier officials said they often need to follow up with additional telephone calls and letters when these records are not received within 30 days. Of the 400 comments about PRIA that the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has received from its members since PRIA’s implementation in February 1997, the most common ones were that past employers did not send the requested records to the hiring carrier at all or did not send them in a timely fashion and that no one was enforcing the 30-day mandate. Several of the pilots we interviewed also maintained that it took months to get current and former carrier employers to forward PRIA records to prospective employers. Not providing PRIA records to hiring carriers or providing them late can adversely affect both carriers and pilots. In a few cases, carriers reported that they never received the required information. Hiring carriers are not allowed to use pilots to transport passengers or cargo until all PRIA records have been obtained and reviewed, except in the on-demand air charter industry, which allows carriers to use pilots for up to 90 days while completing background checks. Hiring officials at two carriers told us they had to let pilots go after providing expensive training. One Part 121 carrier official told us that the carrier had waited over 5 months for one pilot’s records. In the interim, the carrier said it put this pilot through 70 days of training and then sent him back for more simulator training, since it could not use him for transporting passengers or cargo. Until this matter was settled, the carrier said it paid the pilot a weekly training salary of $200 instead of a much higher salary as a crew member. The carrier said it did not want to release the pilot because he was good and because it had spent more than $25,000 on his training. Although PRIA’s good-faith exception covers instances when a hiring carrier cannot obtain records from a bankrupt or foreign carrier, this exception does not apply when an operating U.S. carrier fails to provide records. Not providing a PRIA file or delays in providing it can also cost a pilot an opportunity for career advancement to a larger carrier. With delays, a pilot can lose a job offer or receive a lower seniority number, which in turn limits job security, choice of flights, and pay. For example, according to one pilot, delays by his former employer in forwarding his PRIA file postponed his training by 2 months, caused him to receive a less desirable seniority number, gave him less choice in assignments, and delayed his promotion to captain by 4 months. He said this delay in promotion alone cost him nearly $7,500. See chapter 4 for our analysis of how FAA could help to improve compliance with PRIA’s requirements for providing pilot records within 30 days. Some carriers indicated that they are not aware of some of PRIA’s requirements to protect pilots’ rights. For example, many carriers said they were unaware of requirements for notifying pilots and for giving them opportunities to review and submit corrections to their records. In addition, state motor vehicle agencies sometimes provided records to carriers that they should not have provided. As a result, hiring carriers sometimes received PRIA files that contained information that was outdated or was not related to an individual’s performance as a pilot. While PRIA gives pilots an opportunity to submit written comments to correct records before final hiring decisions are made, this opportunity comes too late to prevent hiring carriers from seeing inappropriate information that could potentially jeopardize pilots’ chances of being hired. Carriers’ reported awareness of PRIA’s requirements for protecting pilots’ rights varied considerably. In general, carriers said they were more aware of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is hiring than they were of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is responding to a PRIA request. Nearly all of the Part 121 hiring carriers we surveyed said they were aware of PRIA’s requirements to obtain a pilot’s consent before seeking records from other carriers, NDR, and FAA and to keep those records confidential, as shown in figure 6. The carriers were somewhat less aware of requirements to limit access to those records and to use them only during the hiring process. They were least aware of the requirement to give the pilot an opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a final hiring decision. Specifically, 31 percent of the Part 121 carriers said they were unaware of the requirement to give the pilot an opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a final hiring decision, whereas 44 percent of the Part 135 carriers said they were unaware of this requirement. When responding to PRIA requests, as figure 7 shows, 88 percent of the Part 121 carriers responding to our survey said they were aware of PRIA’s requirement that, within 30 days of receiving a pilot’s written request, they provide the pilot with a copy of the PRIA records that they sent to a prospective employer. However, 80 percent of the Part 121 carriers were unaware of a requirement that gives a pilot the right to review the PRIA records kept by a current or former employer at any time. In addition, about half of the carriers were unaware of two notification requirements designed to let the pilot know that a prospective employer had requested his or her records and to give the pilot an opportunity to review those records for accuracy and completeness. Under these requirements, a carrier must notify a pilot within 20 days of (1) a prospective employer’s request for PRIA records and (2) the pilot’s right to request a copy of the records that were sent. These notification requirements are especially important if a pilot’s application and signed PRIA consent form have been on file with a carrier in a pool of possible candidates. The Part 135 carriers that we surveyed indicated similar levels of awareness of these provisions. According to AOPA officials and several of the pilots we interviewed, many pilots as well as carriers were unaware of the PRIA provisions giving pilots opportunities to review their records. AOPA found that one of the most common questions raised by the 400 pilots who inquired about PRIA was how to obtain copies of their records. Several of the pilots who contacted us with concerns about their PRIA records also said they were uncertain about how to obtain copies of their records from their current and former employers. Some added that they had tried unsuccessfully to obtain their records. Several of the PRIA files that we reviewed contained information that should have been excluded, and carrier officials and pilots we interviewed also cited examples of inappropriate information in these files. To protect pilots’ rights, PRIA specifies what records should and should not be included in pilot files. Although FAA met these criteria in the records it forwarded, NDR and other carriers did not consistently follow these criteria. Both carrier officials and pilots we interviewed told us of instances in which outdated records were included in pilots’ files. Officials at a Part 121 carrier explained that deleting older records can be difficult, especially if the records are part of computerized training reports that may cover much longer periods of time. How widespread the inclusion of outdated records in PRIA files may be is unknown; however, this practice raises concerns because there is no mechanism for a pilot to have them deleted until after the hiring carrier has seen them. Outdated driver information may also sometimes be included in pilot files. According to the chief of NDR’s Driver Register and Traffic Records Division, a number of states provide a driver’s complete record rather than limit the information to 5 years. The Vice President of the Aviation Services Department at AOPA also noted that the inclusion of old driving information has been a problem with PRIA files. One pilot who contacted us complained that his driving record still showed a violation from about 20 years earlier for having unopened beer in his car when he was 18. NDR officials explained that if a pilot requests driver information directly from NDR or through a state motor vehicle agency without specifying that the information is needed for PRIA, the information provided may include information older than the 5 years required by this law. Although an amendment to PRIA in April 2000 limits the records to be provided by a former employer to those directly related to a pilot’s performance as a pilot, we found limited evidence that at least three carriers had forwarded unrelated records to hiring carriers. In reviewing the PRIA files of the 27 pilots who contacted us, we found one file that contained the pilot’s personal bankruptcy papers. Another file contained copies of documents from a dispute between the pilot and the carrier about unemployment compensation. A third file included court records of a carrier’s suit against a pilot for failing to repay training funds but excluded the judge’s ruling that the pilot did not have to repay those funds. These court documents were unrelated to the pilot’s flying abilities. About 29 percent of the Part 121 carriers we surveyed indicated a great need for clarification of which records are related to an individual’s performance as a pilot and thus should be included in the files forwarded to hiring carriers. The Part 135 carriers we surveyed indicated a similar need for clarification. Information unrelated to a pilot’s driving record is also sometimes included in the files NDR and states send to hiring carriers, according to the Chief of NDR’s Driver Register and Traffic Records Division. For example, he said that some states have included information on nonmoving violations, such as parking tickets, as well as on tax liens, nonpayment of child support, and unpaid library fines. Such information can appear in PRIA files because NDR gives the states some flexibility in determining what information they submit to its computerized registry. NDR requires the states to submit the names of persons whose driver licenses have been denied, canceled, revoked, or suspended for cause as well as of those who have been convicted of certain serious traffic offenses, such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. However, NDR also allows the states to submit information on convictions and withdrawals of licenses for other offenses. While NDR limits the information provided in response to a PRIA request to the most recent 5 years, it does not otherwise screen the information provided. In contrast, when FAA reviews a pilot’s fitness to hold a medical certificate to fly, it obtains driver information from NDR that is screened to include only certain serious moving violations and drug- and alcohol- related convictions over a 3-year period. FAA must then obtain detailed information about the pilot’s driving record from any states where violations occurred. Some of the PRIA files we reviewed included records of disciplinary actions that were subsequently overturned. Although PRIA requires carriers to include records of disciplinary actions that were not overturned, carrier officials, aviation attorneys, and one pilot who contacted us raised concerns about including records of overturned disciplinary actions. For example, the file for one pilot showed he was suspended briefly for departing late, but did not show that his suspension was later overturned and he was paid in full after providing copies of air traffic control tapes showing that he had departed on time. But because a copy of the final ruling that cleared him was not included in his file, the prospective employer did not hire him, according to the pilot. This example shows how any reference in a pilot’s file to a past problem, even a problem that has been resolved in the pilot’s favor, can be damaging to the pilot’s chances of being hired. In another case, one of the pilots who contacted us with concerns about PRIA said that his current employer had provided inconsistent records to carriers to which he had applied. Our review of his records sent to a major carrier indicated that he had tested positive on a required drug or alcohol test, while his records sent to a small Part 135 carrier indicated that he had submitted to and passed all such tests. In such a case, inaccurate information could potentially cause a carrier to unfairly reject a competent pilot whose record is clean or to unknowingly hire a pilot who has tested positive. One aviation attorney we interviewed also told us that carriers have provided inconsistent PRIA records for the same pilot to different hiring carriers. Though enacted to keep unsafe pilots from being hired to fly commercial flights, PRIA may have some unintended negative effects. While PRIA allows pilots to review their records at any time, it does not require that they have an opportunity to submit written comments to correct their records before a hiring carrier receives their file. Thus, corrections, if submitted, may come too late to prevent the hiring carrier from seeing inaccuracies; information that should not, under PRIA, have been included in the files; or disputed information presented only from the carrier’s perspective. The timing of the opportunity to correct records can create problems for both pilots and carriers. Several of the pilots we interviewed said that after successfully completing interviews, simulator testing, or other screening procedures, carriers declined to hire them because of incorrect records in their PRIA records. Some of these pilots said they were unaware of the incorrect information in their PRIA records and had no opportunity to correct it before the hiring carrier turned them down. The potential costs to both the pilot and the hiring carrier are even greater if the pilot has already accepted a position with the carrier, begun training, and given up a previous job before the PRIA records are reviewed. Eighty-two percent of the Part 121 carriers and 73 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported that they do not have the PRIA records to review until after the pilot has accepted a conditional job offer and/or begun training. In addition to the timing of the opportunity to correct records, PRIA does not indicate, and FAA has provided no guidance on, how to submit corrections to PRIA records. As a result, even when carrier officials concur with a pilot and are willing to remove or correct a record, some said they are unsure whether the act allows them to do so. Several carrier officials said they were unsure how to remove records that they believed were unfair. For example, the president, attorney, and chief pilot for one Part 121 carrier fully concurred with a pilot that the record of a failed check ride should be removed from the pilot’s file because the training manager who had administered this and other check rides had subsequently been fired for being sexist and racist. The carrier consulted with FAA and aviation attorneys but could not determine whether it could remove the questionable training record. Instead, the carrier said it included a cover memorandum explaining why the training manager was fired, affirming the pilot’s skills, and describing an emergency evacuation in which the pilot saved the lives of two other pilots. Moreover, PRIA does not establish any procedures for arbitrating disagreements between a pilot and a current or former employer over PRIA records. Several of the pilots who contacted us described problems they had experienced in getting explanations or rebuttals to specific records included in their files. Six of these pilots knew of the incorrect information but said that they had little success in removing or rebutting disputed records. PRIA establishes no remedy for wrong or unjust entries in a pilot’s records or for failing to provide an opportunity for record correction, if the carrier obtained a release of liability. According to a law review article, several carrier officials and private aviation attorneys we interviewed, and some of the pilots who contacted us with concerns about the law, another unintended consequence of PRIA is that it can be used in ways that can diminish safety. Specifically, the weight that the act gives to records from current and former employers can be used as leverage in disputes between pilots and carriers over safety issues. According to the previously mentioned law review article, disagreements over “how much safety is enough against the background of economic competition,” can pit pilots against managers “who also happen to hold the trump card of the pilot’s job in their hands.” In these instances, the article argues that pilots may feel compelled to subordinate their concerns about safety to their employers’ economic interests to avoid having negative information placed in their PRIA files. In addition, we found some limited indication that PRIA could be used in ways that could potentially reduce aviation safety, rather than enhance it as intended. Several of the pilots who contacted us said they had been threatened with having negative records placed in their PRIA files if they did not take actions that violated FAA’s safety regulations. Although we could not corroborate them, largely because discussing them with the carriers could have further jeopardized these pilots’ careers, we raised them with FAA because these allegations involve potentially serious safety issues. For example, one pilot said he was pressured to fly an aircraft with serious maintenance problems, including an inoperable radar and autopilot, during bad weather. This pilot and another pilot who flew for the same carrier also said they had been pressured to identify mechanical problems informally on post-it notes instead of recording the problems in the aircraft’s maintenance log, as FAA requires. We provided FAA with information about the carriers involved that were still in business, but FAA was unable to substantiate the allegations, and the carriers denied them. Finally, according to the previously cited law review article, the inclusion of negative information in a PRIA file effectively negates the pilot’s ability to quit and go elsewhere. Several of the pilots who contacted us said they had been threatened with negative records in their PRIA files if they did not repay the costs of their training before leaving. Some carriers require that pilots sign training contracts and remain with the carriers for a prescribed period of months or years, after which time the cost of training is considered paid in full. According to the pilots, these contracts make it difficult to leave a carrier, especially if the carrier does not prorate the cost of training, because if a pilot departs early, he or she will owe all or a disproportionate amount of the total cost. Contract disputes about training costs were included in several PRIA files that we reviewed. For example, one pilot earning an annual salary of $15,000 said he quit after being pressured to commit safety violations. He offered in writing to repay a prorated portion of the $4,000 remaining on his training contract, but the carrier sued him. The judge ruled that the training costs did not have to be repaid. Although the broken training contract was not related to the pilot’s professional competence and the carrier lost the case, the carrier included a record of the lawsuit in the pilot’s file without reference to the judge’s ruling in the pilot’s favor. See chapter 4 for our analysis of how FAA could help to improve carriers’ awareness of PRIA’s requirements for protecting pilots’ rights and better inform pilots of their options for obtaining, reviewing, and correcting their records. FAA has taken limited steps to oversee PRIA implementation and to monitor this program as part of its broader responsibility for aviation safety. To promote compliance with PRIA, FAA developed some guidance for carriers and its own staff, but the advisory circular that it issued for carriers in 1997 was soon outdated. A revised circular, which FAA produced in September 2001, addressed some of the issues on which carriers had sought clarification. FAA’s guidance also includes a new form for carriers that inappropriately (1) requires a pilot applicant to waive the rights provided by PRIA to be notified about requests and (2) changes the party PRIA makes responsible for notifying the pilot of a request for records. Although FAA has periodically provided its own inspectors with updated information on PRIA, it has not revised its handbooks or training for operations inspectors to incorporate PRIA’s requirements. To date, few inspections have identified problems with carriers’ implementation of PRIA, even though FAA’s inspectors at our request identified hundreds of Part 135 carriers that had hired pilots but did not request PRIA records from FAA. FAA has seldom initiated enforcement actions against carriers for PRIA violations. Congress gave FAA exclusive authority to oversee the implementation of PRIA by authorizing FAA to issue regulations to (1) protect the personal privacy of the pilots whose records are disseminated and the confidentiality of those records, (2) preclude the further dissemination of PRIA records, and (3) ensure prompt compliance with any request for records. Congress gave FAA discretion in deciding whether to use this authority to issue regulations. To date, FAA has not used this authority. According to FAA’s Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, the agency views PRIA as self-implementing because it places the responsibility for collecting pilot records on the carriers, not on the government. In addition, FAA has not issued PRIA regulations because it has allocated its regulatory resources to other priorities. In addition to the specific responsibilities given to FAA by PRIA, FAA has broad oversight responsibility and authority for aviation safety. This broad responsibility and authority apply to PRIA as well as to other aviation safety programs. Specifically, in carrying out its mission to ensure a safe and efficient national air space system, FAA is responsible for issuing regulations and developing implementation guidance. FAA also performs inspections to ensure compliance with federal statutes such as PRIA and under FAA’s general civil penalty authority in 49 U.S.C. 46301 has the authority to take enforcement action against violators. FAA issued guidance for carriers in the form of an advisory circular. FAA issued this circular in May 1997, 3 months after PRIA went into effect, and revised the circular in September 2001. The revised circular incorporates information on the December 1997 and April 2000 amendments to PRIA, which Congress enacted, in part, to clarify aspects of the law. For example, the revised circular includes a copy of the law, as amended; provides sample forms that hiring carriers may use in requesting pilot records; and discusses each of the key changes to PRIA made in the 1997 and 2000 amendments. (See table 3.) In our survey, which we sent to carriers before FAA issued its revised advisory circular, we asked which aspects of PRIA’s hiring requirements carriers thought needed further clarification. Hiring carriers we contacted had preliminarily identified 17 key issues that they thought warranted further clarification. However, a majority of the Part 121 and Part 135 carriers indicated little or no need for clarification on the majority of these issues, including whether they were subject to PRIA, which records they were required to maintain, how long they were required to maintain the records, how they should store the records, who should be allowed to see the records, and whether the carriers could charge a fee for supplying the records. In contrast, many carriers indicated a great or very great need for clarification on how to proceed when the hiring carrier cannot obtain requested records and how to handle situations involving disciplinary actions taken against a pilot. (App. V presents complete information on which of the 17 key issues carrier hiring officials view as most in need of clarification.) FAA’s revised advisory circular addresses some, but not all, of carriers’ issues related to the need for clarification. Many carriers said there was a great need for clarification on how to proceed in four situations when they are unable to obtain records from other carriers. These situations and the percentages of Part 121 carriers identifying them as greatly needing clarification are shown in figure 8. Similar percentages of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed expressed a great need to clarify how to proceed in these four situations. FAA’s revised circular explains how to proceed in two of these situations—when a hiring carrier cannot obtain a pilot’s records from a carrier that has gone out of business or from a foreign entity—both of which were outlined in good- faith exceptions in the 1997 and 2000 amendments, respectively. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor the revised advisory circular offers guidance on how carriers should proceed when they are unable to obtain records from other carriers that are still in business or driving records from a state. Many carriers also sought clarification on handling situations involving disciplinary actions taken against a pilot by another carrier. Of the Part 121 carriers, 43 percent identified a great or very great need to clarify which disciplinary actions are related to an individual’s performance as a pilot and therefore should be provided to carriers interested in hiring their current and former employees. In addition, 39 percent of the Part 121 carriers identified a great or very great need to clarify how carriers should handle pilot records when a disciplinary action is resolved through a negotiated settlement. Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers sought clarification on the handling of these situations. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor FAA’s revised advisory circular defines disciplinary actions, specifies which ones should be considered relevant and documented in PRIA records, or discusses how to remove records of disciplinary actions that have been resolved through a negotiated settlement. Resolving carriers’ questions about how to proceed when other carriers do not provide required records and how to determine what information about disciplinary actions should be provided to hiring carriers is important because such questions, if unresolved, can delay or preclude final hiring decisions. FAA’s guidance to carriers on PRIA includes a new sample form that requires a pilot applicant to waive certain rights provided by PRIA. The form also changes the party responsible for notifying the pilot of a request for records. In September 2001, FAA revised its advisory circular on PRIA and included the sample form for hiring carriers to use when requesting records from current and former employers. (App. VI includes a copy of FAA Form 8060-11, Air Carrier and Other Records Request (PRIA)—Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996.) Part III of the form requires the pilot to waive PRIA’s requirement that the current or former employer receiving the request for records notify the pilot within 20 days of the request and of the pilot’s right to receive a copy of the records. The form does, however, provide information on the pilot’s right to receive a copy of the records within 30 days of requesting them in writing. FAA made these changes in the form to simplify and expedite the hiring process, according to the official in the Air Transportation Division who is responsible for overseeing policy decisions related to PRIA. In addition to violating provisions in the act, part III of form 8060-11 is problematic for several reasons and could reduce a pilot’s chances of knowing when records are actually forwarded to hiring carriers and of receiving a copy of the records. First, the form makes the hiring carrier responsible for notifying a pilot of a request rather than the current or former employer as PRIA specifies. Shifting responsibility for notifying the pilot does not follow the process outlined in the law, which requires the current or former employer to provide this notification. Second, as we learned in interviewing pilots and hiring officials, forms completed at the time of application sometimes remain on file for months or years before being activated and submitted to current and former employers, particularly when the hiring carrier is a major carrier. Officials in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems Branch confirmed that the pilot often signs these forms months or even years before the hiring carrier submits them. In such cases, a pilot might not know whether and when the hiring carrier actually submits the request to the current and former employer. Furthermore, the revised form no longer includes a place for the pilot’s address, which makes it more difficult for former employers to obtain correct mailing information to notify the pilot of the hiring carrier’s request and to provide a copy of the records to the pilot, if requested. FAA has developed some additional guidance for its own staff. For example, the agency prepared draft guidance for its staff before PRIA took effect in February 1997, even though it did not issue the original advisory circular until May 1997. In addition, FAA has used E-mails and memorandums to its regional and field offices to further clarify PRIA’s requirements. Finally, FAA has assigned responsibility for responding to PRIA requests from carriers to staff in the Aviation Data Systems Branch and primary responsibility for answering policy questions about PRIA to the Air Transportation Division, both of which are within FAA’s Office of Flight Standards. FAA’s efforts to disseminate guidance on PRIA to its staff have not yet extended to revisions of the handbook that its operations inspectors are to use to monitor carriers’ training and use of pilots. Furthermore, the agency has not yet incorporated information on PRIA into its training classes for operations inspectors. FAA uses its handbooks and training classes to familiarize inspectors with laws, regulations, and inspection protocols and to enhance their oversight and monitoring of carriers’ compliance with aviation laws and regulations. Without such information, inspectors may be unaware of PRIA and amendments to the law. FAA officials said they believe information on PRIA should be included in the handbooks and training, but they are awaiting the publication of our report to ensure that all relevant information is included. In the meantime, inspectors have been addressing their questions about PRIA to staff in the Aviation Data Systems Branch. On March 22, 2002, FAA activated a new Web site with information about PRIA for carriers and pilots. The site provides brief answers to frequently asked questions about how PRIA works, which records must be provided, and what protections are afforded to pilots under the law. It also includes links to a copy of the law, to FAA’s advisory circular that provides guidance on PRIA, and to forms used by carriers to request records. As of May 1, 2002, FAA had not linked the PRIA Web site to the agency’s home site or to the Web information that FAA maintains for carriers and pilots. Linking these sites would enhance the accessibility of the PRIA information. In the spring of 2000, FAA began drafting guidance on which penalties are appropriate when carriers violate PRIA’s requirements, according to attorneys in FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel. They said that this effort has become part of a larger one to revise penalty guidance in the agency’s enforcement handbook, which is being coordinated with other FAA offices. However, this coordination stopped after September 11, 2001, because of uncertainty about FAA’s future role in aviation and airport security. These officials said the coordination would proceed once this issue is resolved. We reviewed the draft guidance that had been completed and determined that it covers most PRIA provisions and should provide inspectors with a clearer basis for identifying and, where appropriate, for taking enforcement actions against carriers for violations of PRIA’s requirements. The draft guidance proposes penalties when a carrier fails to obtain the pilot’s consent to release records, provide the records within 30 days of a request, provide a copy of the records to the pilot, and provide the pilot with an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in those records before making a final hiring decision. Several factors may explain why FAA’s operations inspectors, who conduct many thousands of inspections on carriers each year, have noted few problems with carriers’ compliance with PRIA. First, information on PRIA is not incorporated into the inspection handbooks and training classes, consequently these inspectors have no reminders to check for compliance with PRIA. Second, FAA lacks the information needed to assess compliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records because PRIA does not require that this information be reported (see ch. 2). Thus FAA may lack evidence that carriers have obtained the required records before making final hiring decisions because PRIA does not require carriers to retain the records they have received. As of July 3, 2001, FAA’s Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) database, which tracks inspections of the nation’s 10 major passenger carriers, showed no entries related to PRIA. FAA’s older Program Reporting and Tracking Subsystem database, which tracks some limited information on the 10 major carriers, as well as the results of inspections on all other carriers, contained 76 inspection entries related to PRIA since the law’s implementation in 1997. Two of these entries identified possible noncompliance with PRIA and led to the opening of enforcement cases, while the remaining 74 noted that the inspectors had provided information on PRIA to the carriers but did not identify any noncompliance. One additional entry, dated June 15, 1999, identified noncompliance but did not lead to the opening of an enforcement case. According to the entry, a random inspection of the records of 169 pilots with a large Part 121 carrier revealed noncompliance with PRIA, which the inspector reported to the carrier’s Vice President of Operations and to the responsible Principal Operations Inspector at FAA. Since PRIA’s implementation in February 1997, FAA has initiated 10 enforcement cases against six carriers. In the 3 most serious cases, which resulted in fines ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, the carriers failed to request PRIA background checks for 12 pilots they hired and, in 1 case, the carrier falsified documents related to providing PRIA checks. The remaining 7 cases resulted either in warning letters or were closed with no action. Although the number of inspection findings and enforcement actions could be indicative of widespread compliance with the act, our analyses of carriers’ requests for PRIA records and of carriers’ awareness of PRIA’s requirements for protecting pilots’ rights indicate that carriers are not always requesting the required records, especially from other carriers, and are not always sufficiently aware of the pilots’ rights protections to comply with them (see chs. 2 and 3). Alternatively, FAA inspectors may not be regularly reviewing carriers’ compliance. Without information on PRIA in their inspection handbooks and training classes, these inspectors have no reminders to check for compliance with PRIA. According to FAA’s Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Regulation and Certification, FAA’s monitoring focuses on a carrier’s processes and procedures for complying with PRIA, not on checks of records for individual pilots. Although we concur with the importance of checking carriers’ processes and procedures for complying with laws, FAA cannot determine whether a carrier actually follows its processes and procedures without performing at least limited spot checks. This system safety approach with compliance checks is the basis for the new ATOS inspection system that FAA uses to oversee the nation’s 10 major air carriers. Regardless of whether FAA operations inspectors attempt to monitor carriers’ compliance with PRIA, they may not have sufficient evidence to do so. Just as FAA lacks information needed to assess compliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records because PRIA does not require that this information be reported (see ch. 2), FAA also may lack evidence that carriers have obtained the required records before making final hiring decisions because PRIA does not require carriers to retain the records they have received. According to an attorney from FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel, nothing in the PRIA statute requires carriers to maintain the pilot records they receive from FAA, NDR, or other carriers. The statute requires carriers to maintain the records they generate on their pilot employees for 5 years, but it does not require them to store or maintain the PRIA records they receive when they hire pilots. Without these records, he noted, it is very difficult for FAA to determine a carrier’s compliance with PRIA. According to another official in FAA’s Air Transportation Division, carriers have an incentive to dispose of these records to avoid any liability resulting from their hiring decisions. Nonetheless, he observed that some carriers still keep these records, and he agreed that it would be almost impossible to complete an enforcement action against a carrier without them. Requiring carriers to maintain the PRIA records they receive could, however, be costly, especially for smaller carriers, according to the Deputy Associate Administrator, and these costs would not be warranted by the safety benefits achieved. According to FAA, it has not identified pilot performance during past training events as a high-risk area because of the extensive training, testing, and checking required for pilots. We believe it is important for FAA to be able to enforce the law. As previously discussed, FAA is responsible for overseeing PRIA’s implementation and has the authority to issue regulations or establish procedures for carriers to maintain the records needed for FAA to monitor and enforce compliance with the act. FAA has not issued regulations on PRIA because it believes that carriers, not the government, are responsible for collecting PRIA information. Furthermore, FAA believes that it should focus its regulatory resources on higher aviation-safety priorities. FAA officials agreed, however, that it was important for carriers to maintain records of background checks on pilots they hire to enable both the carriers and FAA to monitor PRIA’s implementation. By making information about pilots’ qualifications, performance, and training available to hiring carriers, PRIA improves carriers’ ability to screen pilots and may help keep unsafe pilots out of the cockpits of commercial aircraft. However, FAA’s limited oversight of the act’s implementation, together with carriers’ incomplete compliance with the requirements of the law, may have prevented PRIA from being as effective or as protective of pilots’ rights as it could be. For example: Unresolved procedural issues—such as how to correct errors in pilot records, especially before hiring carriers see inaccurate information; how to remove inappropriate records; and how to handle disputes between pilots and carriers—effectively limit pilots’ rights. As individuals, pilots have less power than carriers, and without procedures for resolving these issues, they cannot compel carriers to correct or remove inaccurate records or settle disputes. Moreover, even when carriers are willing to make changes, they may not know how to do so. Inaccurate or inappropriate information may jeopardize a pilot’s chances of being hired. FAA has not taken advantage of its Web site to make information about pilots’ rights readily available. Because the act does not mandate when pilots are to be given an opportunity to correct their records, except that it come before the final hiring decision, many pilots do not seek to correct their records until after the records have been sent to the hiring carrier. It is critical that FAA do what it can to make pilots aware of their rights to review and correct the records maintained by their current employer at any time. With knowledge of their rights, pilots can take responsibility for reviewing the accuracy of their records before the records are sent to hiring carriers. The sample form that FAA designed for hiring carriers and included in its revised guidance for carriers, though intended to streamline the hiring process, weakens pilots’ rights and inappropriately shifts the responsibility for notifying pilots of requests for their records from current or former employers to hiring carriers. If carriers follow the procedures set forth in the sample form, they will not be in compliance with PRIA’s notification provision, and pilots may not know when records are sent to hiring carriers. Although FAA has updated its information on PRIA for carriers, it has not yet included this information in key guidance for its own staff. Until the agency incorporates its guidance on the act into its inspector handbooks and provides its inspectors with appropriate training, the inspectors may not be sufficiently aware of PRIA’s provisions to review carriers’ compliance. We do not know whether the limited number of inspection findings related to PRIA is indicative of widespread compliance, infrequent compliance reviews, or a lack of evidence to determine compliance. However, there is sufficient evidence—from the discrepancies in the number of records requested from FAA, NDR, and carriers; from the reviews of 798 Part 135 carriers conducted by FAA inspectors at our request; and from carriers’ responses to our survey questions about their requests for records in 2000—to suggest that noncompliance is occurring. The number of enforcement actions taken is also difficult to evaluate, given the number of inspection findings. However, FAA has said that it cannot enforce compliance because carriers are not required to retain the records that would demonstrate their compliance. We agree. Unless carriers retain the records they receive on pilots they hire, FAA cannot monitor or enforce their compliance with PRIA’s background check requirements. As the agency with exclusive responsibility for overseeing PRIA’s implementation, FAA has the authority and, we believe the obligation, to ensure that carriers have a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot background checks have been completed for pilots hired. To assist FAA in overseeing the implementation of PRIA and to enable FAA to determine whether carriers have conducted the required background checks on pilots before making final hiring decisions on pilots, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to update FAA’s advisory circular on PRIA to (1) clarify which records to include in PRIA files that are forwarded to hiring carriers and which records to exclude and (2) have carriers put in place a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot background checks have been completed for pilots hired; incorporate information on PRIA’s Web site that informs pilots of their rights, including the right to review and correct their records under PRIA; revise the Air Carrier and Other Records Request form (FAA Form 8060- 11) to conform with the law’s provisions for notification, review, and correction of records by pilots; and incorporate information on PRIA into the handbooks, inspection guidance, and training for FAA’s operations inspectors. We provided DOT with a copy of our draft report for review and comment. In our draft report, we recommended that FAA develop a regulation requiring that carriers maintain records of background checks on the pilots they hire for as long as the pilots remain in their employ. While FAA agreed that carriers need to maintain the records for the agency to monitor and enforce their compliance with the law, FAA proposed a change in its administrative guidance rather than a regulation to achieve this goal. We agreed that such a change could accomplish the intent of our initial recommendation and revised the recommendation accordingly. FAA concurred with all other recommendations in our draft report and suggested technical changes that we incorporated in this report where appropriate. Most carriers found PRIA records at least somewhat helpful, but they were divided on whether the records were worth the cost. The majority of the carriers favored changes that would make additional information available. Nearly three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about three-fifths of the Part 135 carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information found PRIA records to be helpful in making their hiring decisions. Both groups of carriers found information from other sources, such as the job interview, the carrier’s flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the carrier’s training program, more helpful. Since PRIA’s costs are difficult to determine, Part 121 and Part 135 carriers were divided on whether the PRIA information they received in 2000 was worth the cost. Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain additional information (1) from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents and on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases and (2) from the Department of Defense on military pilots’ histories. Seventy-three percent of the Part 121 carriers found PRIA records at least somewhat helpful in making hiring decisions, and 27 percent said these records were not very helpful, as shown in figure 9. Among the Part 121 carriers, those with more than 1,000 pilots were more likely than smaller carriers to say that PRIA records were helpful in making hiring decisions, and 61 percent of these larger carriers rated PRIA as very helpful. Compared with Part 121 carriers, Part 135 carriers found PRIA less helpful in making hiring decisions: 59 percent of the Part 135 carriers found PRIA at least somewhat helpful, and 41 percent said that PRIA was not very helpful. (See fig. 10.) The Part 121 carriers found PRIA more useful in encouraging pilots to be honest about their background and experiences than did the Part 135 carriers we surveyed. Sixty-eight percent of the Part 121 carriers rated PRIA as moderately or very useful in this regard, compared with 49 percent of the Part 135 carriers. Because PRIA records allow carriers to verify pilots’ statements, receiving the records increases the likelihood that carriers will detect false statements. Nonetheless, 11 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 25 percent of the Part 135 carriers indicated that PRIA was not very useful in encouraging pilots to be honest. According to carriers’ responses to our surveys, PRIA information played a greater role in decisions not to hire pilots for Part 121 carriers than for Part 135 carriers. In 2000, 43 percent of the Part 121 carriers said they decided not to hire pilots because of PRIA information, compared with 9 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed. The Part 121 carriers said they decided not to hire 156 pilots in 2000 because of PRIA information, while we estimate that the far more numerous Part 135 carriers decided not to hire 162 pilots. About two-thirds of the Part 121 carriers that said they did not hire a pilot because PRIA information indicated that the circumstances surrounding the pilot’s departure from a previous employer and the pilot’s training records were major or moderate factors that influenced their decisions. About half of these carriers identified the pilot’s driving records or enforcement history as a factor, as shown in figure 11. Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers reported being influenced by the circumstances surrounding a pilot’s departure and by a pilot’s training records. Evidence of falsification, employers’ records of comments and evaluations, and driving records were, however, much less influential for the few Part 135 carriers that did not hire pilots because of PRIA information than they were for the Part 121 carriers, and such evidence played a smaller role in their hiring decisions than did the pilot’s enforcement history. Both the Part 121 carriers and the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported that they found some PRIA records more helpful in making their hiring decisions than others. Specifically, as shown in figure 12, they found FAA information on closed enforcement actions during the past 5 years the most helpful and FAA’s verification of the pilot’s medical record and the pilot’s NDR information the least helpful. According to the Part 121 carriers, the information not required by PRIA was generally far more helpful than PRIA records in making final hiring decisions. Virtually all of the Part 121 carriers reported that they found the results of job interviews, their own training programs, evaluations of a pilot’s flying skills, and recommendations from other pilots at least somewhat helpful in making these decisions. (See fig. 13.) This seems reasonable, given that most carriers make a conditional job offer to, and begin training, a pilot on the basis of non-PRIA information and have made their hiring decision by the time they receive and review PRIA files. According to our survey results, 82 percent of the Part 121 carriers had PRIA records available for review after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or begun training. Moreover, some carrier officials said, in survey comments and interviews, that they view training and performance records from other carriers as subjective. They said that PRIA information rarely changes their hiring decision unless they see multiple problems in a pilot’s file. Similarly, in making their final hiring decisions, the Part 135 carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA generally reported finding information not required by PRIA to be more helpful than PRIA records. At least 94 percent of these Part 135 carriers said they found the results of job interviews, their own evaluations of a pilot’s flying skills, and recommendations from other pilots at least somewhat helpful in making these decisions. About 73 percent of the Part 135 carriers said they had PRIA records available for review late in the hiring process—after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or begun training. Although the total costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to estimate, carriers bear the largest portion of these costs. According to our survey results, the Part 121 carriers spent substantially more, on average, than the Part 135 carriers to comply with PRIA in 2000, and the Part 121 carriers were more likely to view their costs as justified by the usefulness of the information received. The costs of implementing PRIA—to carriers, pilots, and federal and state agencies—are difficult to determine. In December 2000, FAA estimated $5.3 million in implementation costs, including the costs to carriers, pilots, and the agency itself; however, this estimate did not include a number of costs to these entities and individuals, and it did not include the costs of providing and obtaining NDR information. For carriers, the full costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to determine because they often are not tracked separately from other hiring and record-keeping costs. For FAA and NDR, the costs are also difficult to determine because complete data are not available. FAA estimated that carriers, in requesting and responding to requests for PRIA records, incurred $4.6 million, or about 86 percent, of the estimated $5.3 million in total implementation costs. This estimate covered the costs of staff time to obtain a pilot’s signatures on release forms, to request the records, and to follow up on records that do not arrive within 30 days; staff time to review and evaluate an applicant’s file once it is received; staff time needed to prepare, copy, review the contents of, and mail PRIA records; and the maintenance of records related to PRIA’s requirements. FAA’s estimate did not include the fees that hiring carriers pay to background investigation companies and to those carrier employers and state motor vehicle agencies that charge a fee for providing records. About 46 percent of the Part 121 carriers and about 26 percent of the Part 135 carriers responding to our survey reported hiring background investigation companies to obtain at least some PRIA records. Most carriers—81 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 94 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed—said they do not charge a fee for providing records. Two of the six state motor vehicle agencies that respond to the vast majority of carriers’ requests for NDR information charge for this service. In responding to our survey, the Part 121 carriers indicated that they spent an average of $7,000 to comply with PRIA in 2000. The Part 135 carriers said they spent an average of $1,000 or less. The total costs for individual Part 121 carriers ranged from $1,000 or less to $100,001 to $1 million. The total costs for individual Part 135 carriers ranged from $1,000 or less to $10,001 to $50,000. (For more detailed cost information, see app. VII.) Carrier officials told us that the costs for PRIA are difficult to distinguish from other hiring costs, partly because most carriers do not have staff dedicated to carrying out PRIA requirements and use the same staff to perform both PRIA and other responsibilities. In addition, the fees that background investigation companies charge to obtain PRIA information may not be billed separately from their fees for performing other services that are not required by PRIA, such as consumer credit or criminal records checks. For 2000, FAA estimated that pilots whose PRIA files were requested incurred total costs of nearly $436,000, or about 8 percent of the estimated $5.3 million total cost. This estimate did not include the pilots’ costs to obtain copies of their employment and training records from carriers for review and to obtain copies of their driving records. Complete data are not available on the costs to FAA, NDR, and state motor vehicle agencies of implementing PRIA. For fiscal year 2000, when FAA provided a more complete estimate of its PRIA costs than it had developed in previous years, the agency estimated its own costs at about $312,000, or about 6 percent of the $5.3 million total estimate. However, according to staff in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems Branch, this estimate did not include about $40,000 that FAA spent in fiscal year 2000 for the initial development and maintenance of its automated system for responding to PRIA requests. NDR officials reported spending $318 to complete 17,000 requests from carriers in 1999, but this figure did not include any portion of the $1 million that NDR spends annually to maintain its computer system or of the costs that NDR incurs to hand-process pilots’ requests for driver information under the Privacy Act. None of the six state motor vehicle agencies that respond to most carriers’ requests for NDR information could identify the costs of providing the information, according to responsible state officials. Compared with the Part 135 carriers we surveyed, the Part 121 carriers were more persuaded that the PRIA information they received was worth the cost, but even the Part 121 carriers were split in their views. Specifically, 52 percent of the Part 121 carriers believed that their PRIA costs in 2000 were justified by the usefulness of the information received, while 48 percent did not. Conversely, nearly two-thirds of the Part 135 carriers did not believe that their PRIA costs were justified, whereas about one-third did. Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain additional information from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents and on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases. Carriers can obtain this information from FAA under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but pilots are not informed of FOIA requests and are not provided copies of the FOIA files that are sent to potential employers. FOIA records also have not undergone as much legal review as PRIA records. The majority of Part 121 carriers also told us they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain flight records from the military. Such records are not available through FOIA requests. Currently, carriers can obtain more extensive information on a pilot’s safety history from FAA under a FOIA request than under a PRIA request. In responding to a FOIA request, FAA can release information on all open, closed, and pending enforcement cases from which the pilot’s identity has not been expunged, even if those cases are more than 5 years old. In responding to a PRIA request, however, FAA is precluded by the act from releasing any records more than 5 years old. In addition, as a matter of law, FAA provides information only on those accidents and incidents that have resulted in a legal enforcement action. Under PRIA, FAA is not required to provide other records that it maintains on aviation accidents and incidents as well as on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA’s analysis, nearly 20,000 more records were available in response to FOIA requests than to PRIA requests as of January 10, 2002. (See table 6.) These include 9,885 records of enforcement cases that have been closed but from which the pilot’s name has not been expunged as well as of open, pending, or reopened enforcement cases. The remaining records that FAA could provide were of accidents and incidents. According to an analysis done by staff in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems Branch, fewer than one-quarter of the 1,726 carriers that requested PRIA records between February 6, 1997, when the law went into effect, and January 11, 2002, requested additional safety information under FOIA. The analysis concluded that the majority of carriers are unaware that they are receiving incomplete safety records from FAA under PRIA. Additionally, the report noted that, under FOIA, there are no requirements to notify a pilot of a request for records, to obtain the pilot’s consent for the release of those records, or to provide the pilot with a copy of the records that were released. FAA does not support for a variety of reasons a change in the law that would provide carriers with more complete safety information on pilot applicants if it released its records of accidents; incidents; and open, pending, or reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel, using the reports of accidents and incidents in FAA’s data system to evaluate pilots’ performance could be unfair because these reports may not involve pilot error. Moreover, even if they do, pilots identified in accident and incident reports do not receive the same due process protections that pilots receive when they are subject to legal enforcement actions. Additionally, enforcement actions that have not been closed have not been fully reviewed by FAA, NTSB, and perhaps a U.S. Court of Appeals. These cases could eventually be dropped or dismissed. Over three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about two-thirds of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported having FAA include additional information on accidents and incidents and on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases in response to PRIA requests. However, the carriers were much less supportive of including enforcement information over 5 years old. (See table 7.) Although Congress excluded military flight records from the sources of PRIA information in April 2000, 62 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 56 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported a change in the law that would enable them to receive these records. Currently, carriers can review a military pilot’s logbook to obtain information on the pilot’s flight hours, types of equipment flown, and rate of progress in mastering new aircraft as well as any flight-related disciplinary actions. While substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers that had hired military pilots found the military logbook helpful in making their hiring decision, the carriers nevertheless favored receiving flight records directly from the military. Military records are important to carriers because they hire many pilots with military flight experience. Eighty-eight percent of the Part 121 carriers reported hiring at least some pilots with military flight experience in 2000, and the largest Part 121 carriers, with more than 1,000 pilots, reported that about 40 percent of the pilots they hired in 2000 had military experience. Forty-six percent of the Part 135 carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA hired pilots with military flying experience in 2000.

Summary: The Pilot Records Improvement Act, enacted on October 9, 1996, responded to seven fatal commercial air carrier accidents that were attributed, in part, to errors by pilots who had been hired without background checks. The act, which took effect on February 6, 1997, requires air carriers, before making final hiring decisions, to obtain information for the past 5 years on a pilot applicant's performance, qualifications, and training from the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), employers, and the National Driver Register (NDR). The act also includes provisions to protect pilots' rights. FAA oversees compliance with the act and has broad responsibility for overseeing aviation safety. According to GAO's analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers' responses to GAO's surveys, compliance with the act has generally increased since it went into effect, but compliance is not always complete or timely. The available data are not adequate to determine industrywide compliance. According to their responses to GAO's surveys, carriers are not always aware of the act's requirements for protecting pilots' rights. FAA has taken limited steps to oversee compliance with PRIA. Under the act and its broad responsibility for aviation safety, FAA can issue implementing regulations, develop guidance, conduct inspections to monitor carriers' compliance, and initiate enforcement actions when it finds evidence of noncompliance. FAA has not issued regulations because it regards the act as self-implementing and believes that its regulatory resources should be reserved for higher agency priorities. Although FAA provided guidance for carriers, it was slow to update the guidance after the act was amended. Although they generally found records useful in making hiring decisions, carriers were divided in their opinions on whether the records were worth the cost. However, both groups of carriers found information from other sources, such as the job interview, the carrier's flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the carrier's training program, more helpful.