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

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