[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
INDEPENDENT SAFETY BOARD ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1588,
the Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1588) to amend the Independent Safety Board Act
of 1974 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1994,
1995 and 1996.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
amendment no. 1706
(Purpose: To make an amendment in the nature of a substitute)
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Ford, I send to the
desk a substitute amendment and ask for its immediate consideration;
that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 1706) was agreed to, as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Safety Board Act
Amendments of 1994''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Sec. 309(a) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49
App. U.S.C. 1907(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the
purposes of this Act not to exceed $37,580,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1994, $44,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1995, $45,100,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1996. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.''.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
TO THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.
(a) Definition of Public Aircraft.--Section 101(36) of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(36)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``persons or'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``persons, or engaged in carrying'';
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately after ``For purposes
of this paragraph,''; and
(3) by striking the period at the end of the second
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof'', and (B) `engaged in
carrying persons' includes the provision of passenger
transportation but does not include (i) the carriage of
crewmembers or of other persons aboard an aircraft whose
presence is required to perform, or is associated with the
performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting,
search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or
biological or geological resource management, or (ii) the
carriage of persons (for other than commercial purposes)
aboard aircraft operated by the Armed Forces or an
intelligence agency of the United States.''.
(b) Exemptions.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section
610(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C.
1430(a)), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration may grant exemptions pursuant to section
601(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C.
1421(c)) to a governmental entity with respect to an aircraft
which, before the date of enactment of this Act and while
owned or operated by such governmental entity, was engaged in
carrying persons. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``engaged in carrying persons'' has the meaning given that
term under section 101(36) of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(36)), as amended by this Act.
(c) Investigative Authority of Board.--(1) Section
304(a)(1)(A) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (49
App. U.S.C. 1903(a)(1)(A) is amended by inserting '', or any
aircraft accident involving a public aircraft as defined
under section 101(36) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
App. U.S.C. 1301(36)) other than an aircraft operated by the
Armed Forces or by an Intelligence Agency'' immediately
before the semicolon at the end.
(2) Section 304(b) of the Independent Safety Board Act of
1974 (49 App. U.S.C. 1903(b)) is amended by redesignating
paragraph (12) as paragraph (13) and by inserting immediately
after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
``(12) The Board, in furtherance of its investigative
duties with respect to public aircraft accidents under
subsection (a)(1)(A), shall have the same duties and powers
as are specified for civil aircraft accidents under sections
701(a)(1), 701(c), and 701(d) of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1441(a)(1), (c), and (d)).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (c) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation,
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall consider for approval under subpart C of part 171 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the new generation,
low cost, advanced landing system being developed by the
Department of Defense. The charter for approval of such
system shall be considered and acted upon expeditiously by
the Regional Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration in the region where such system is being
developed.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, we are considering a 3-year
authorization of the National Transportation Safety Board. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1588, the Independent
Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994, will provide sufficient funds for
the NTSB to continue its work protecting the traveling public. As we
attempt to address safety problems, Congress and the executive branch
could not begin to adequately review all of the issues without the
painstaking work of the NTSB.
This year I anticipate a large turnover in the members of the NTSB.
Earlier this year, a good friend, Jim Hall, joined the Board and I
welcomed him to the agency. Susan Coughlin, after serving as the vice
chair, recently left. Her efforts and dedication will be missed. Carl
Vogt has provided steady and thoughtful leadership as Chairman, and his
term as Chairman expires later this year. Finally, to my good friend
John Lauber, who is recognized as a world leader in human factors, his
humor, dedication, and thoroughness will be greatly missed. Together
those folks leaving the board have left a tough act to follow. The 3
year authorization should be provide the next set of board members
ample time to focus their energies in making transportation even safer.
It is interesting to note that the last 3 years have been the safest
on record. I know the NTSB played a significant role in the record and
those efforts are greatly appreciated.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today we are considering S. 1588, a
reauthorization bill for the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB] for a three-year period.
The NTSB serves as our Nation's primary safety investigative agency,
mobilizing teams of investigators wherever and whenever there is a
major transportation accident in the United States. NTSB experts
thoroughly examine every conceivable aspect of an accident scene to
discover the causes of these tragedies. Although it is a time-consuming
and often frustrating process, accident investigation is critical to
the safety of our transportation system. The work of the NTSB helps to
ensure that safety hazards which may have caused one tragedy will not
cause another.
In this year of deficit reduction and fiscal restraint, each Federal
agency is feeling the squeeze of a tighter budgetary belt. The NTSB is
no exception. In the early 1980's, staff levels were as high as 401;
today, there are fewer than 360 full-time equivalent [FTE] employees.
The NTSB's budget follows President Clinton's order for a slimmer
federal workforce, with a significant reduction in staff size schedule
for fiscal year 1994.
Our transportation system is the safest in the world, thanks largely
to the tireless efforts of the NTSB. The bill ensures that the NTSB
will continue its unparalleled work in the area of transportation
safety.
public aircraft safety
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senate is considering S. 1588, the
Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994. I strongly support
passage of this bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety
Board [NTSB]. S. 1588 includes a provision I authored that is designed
to advance the safety of travel on government owned or leased aircraft.
I had intended to offer my provision as an amendment to the Airport
Improvement Program temporary extension bill. That bill had particular
importance for me because it was passed by the Senate on April 19,
1994, a sad date in South Dakota history.
One year ago on that day, a tragic plane crash claimed the lives of
South Dakota's Governor, George Mickelson, and seven other South
Dakotans: Roland Dolly, Ron Reed, Angus Anson, Dave Birkeland, Roger
Hainje, Ron Becker and David Hansen. These men were killed in a
Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 aircraft while returning to South Dakota from a
meeting to help advance economic development in our State. In part, I
have pushed my public aircraft safety provision as a tribute to those
eight outstanding citizens.
I am pleased the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee has agreed
instead to include my provision, which is derived from a bill I
introduced during the first session of the 103d Congress, in the
committee substitute to S. 1588. I thank the subcommittee chairman,
Senator Ford, for his assistance with this important aviation safety
matter.
Mr. President, the purpose of my provision is to advance the safety
of travel on public aircraft; that is, aircraft used exclusively in the
service of Federal, State, and local governments. Under current law,
public aircraft are not subject to Federal Aviation Act [FAA] safety
regulations to the extent imposed on civil aircraft. In my view, this
inconsistency could jeopardize the safety of persons traveling on air
carriers currently defined as public aircraft.
I first became aware of the regulatory exemptions for public aircraft
soon after last year's tragic plane crash. Reports surfaced of a 1991
incident involving circumstances similar to those in the Governor's
crash that resulted in the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]
issuing safety recommendations to the FAA. As disturbed as I was that
the FAA had not acted on the NTSB's recommendations, I was even more
concerned to learn that even if the FAA had acted, the State of South
Dakota would have been under no obligation to enforce the FAA
requirements. I find this very troubling.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am confident the State transportation
officials responsible for maintaining South Dakota's planes do their
utmost to ensure its planes are properly maintained. In fact, the NTSB
determined the probable cause of the South Dakota MU-2 plane crash to
be generally related to manufacturing, completely exonerating the State
government and its pilots. Nevertheless, as ranking member of the
Senate Aviation Subcommittee, I think Congress is obligated to do its
utmost to advance air travel safety wherever a problem exists.
Narrowing greatly the areas in which public aircraft are exempted from
FAA compliance is one way we can advance this goal.
Mr. President, my provision would amend the definition of public
aircraft to mandate that FAA safety regulations, directives and orders
issued for civil aircraft be made applicable to all government-owned,
nonmilitary aircraft engaged in passenger transport. The Administrator
would, however, be allowed to waive FAA requirements for public
aircraft provided an equivalent level of safety has been established by
the governmental entity responsible for the aircraft. Finally, my
provision would grant the NTSB authority to investigate accidents
involving all public, nonmilitary aircraft. I consider this last point
to be extremely important because it will allow for an accurate data
base to be established, which should enable us to more conclusively
assess public aircraft safety.
Originally, I introduced legislation to mandate that all FAA
regulations issued for civil aircraft relating to airworthiness, and
other safety related orders, be made applicable to all public,
nonmilitary aircraft. I agreed to alter my original provision only
after the FAA and several other Federal agencies raised concerns that
merited consideration.
For example, according to U.S. Forest Service officials, aircraft
owned by that agency are used to perform special governmental
functions, such as fire fighting missions. These missions require
unique equipment that would not meet FAA certification standards. That
is not to say that this agency is not flying safe aircraft. Rather, its
operations require specialized equipment that deviates from FAA
certified civil aircraft.
Because it is not my intent to obstruct necessary governmental
operations--such as fire fighting, law enforcement and search and
rescue missions that require specialized equipment or perform functions
that would require exemptions from Federal Aviation regulations--I
agreed to revise my original legislation in order to prevent the
grounding of such government aircraft. At the same time, however, my
provision would require all government-owned, nonmilitary aircraft
engaged in transporting persons to meet FAA safety regulations.
Again, I had hoped to apply FAA safety regulations to all public
aircraft. However, I have agreed to an alternative approach in light of
the agencies' operational concerns and the pressing need for action.
This need for action was clearly illustrated in the April 13, 1994
Washington Post article regarding the cause of last year's fatal crash
of an FAA agency plane near Front Royal, VA. The first paragraph reads
as follows:
The federal agency that polices commercial airlines for
safety is not nearly as careful with its own operations, and
that laxness helped cause a recent plane crash that killed
three of its employees, the National Transportation Safety
Board said.
In short, the NTSB faulted FAA management. The NTSB's director of
aviation safety, Tim Forte, is quoted: ``What we're [NTSB] really
saying is, `Apply the same standards to yourself as you do to the
industry.''' That quote accurately describes the purpose of my
provision. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post
article be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1).
Mr. President.
Mr. President, my colleagues also may be interested to learn the
General Accounting Office [GAO] conducted a study of the Federal
regulation of public aircraft. This was not an easy task because the
current regulatory exemptions for public aircraft mean there is no
historical data base on which to conclusively assess public aircraft
safety. For example, The FAA does not know how well public aircraft are
maintained or operated because it has no responsibility for inspecting
or otherwise overseeing them. However, the GAO was able to make some
very important determinations.
According to the GAO, owners and operators usually adhere voluntarily
to most FAA safety regulations for aircraft operations. That is
certainly the policy of transportation officials in the State of South
Dakota. However, the GAO also cited exceptions to voluntary compliance.
In my view, these exceptions could jeopardize the safety of persons
traveling in Government-owned aircraft.
The GAO study went on to say the following:
Subjecting public aircraft to additional FAA safety
regulations is appropriate because:
1. This will enhance the likelihood of [safety regulation]
compliance;
2. Aircraft owned or used exclusively by the government
should set an example and follow the same basic safety rules
expected of private sector aircraft; and
3. A public aircraft that crashes can cause as much bodily
injury and property damage as a similar civil aircraft.
Further, the GAO found no reason why public aircraft accidents should
not be reported to and investigated by the NTSB. Given these and other
considerations, I am spurred to push my provision to expand FAA safety
regulations to government-owned aircraft engaged in the transport of
passengers.
Mr. President, I continue to advocate that all aircraft, whether
civil or public, be maintained to the highest level of aviation safety.
In that regard, proper governmental oversight is critical to promoting
a national aviation safety enforcement agenda. I am confident that upon
enactment of S. 1588, with the provisions I have pushed, we will
advance one step closer to achieving this goal.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, April 13, 1994]
FAA Management Faulted In Crash of Agency Plane
(By Debbi Wilgoren)
The federal agency that polices commercial airlines for
safety is not nearly as careful with its own operations, and
that laxness helped cause a recent plane crash that killed
three of its employees, the National Transportation Safety
Board said yesterday.
Federal Aviation Administration officials failed to address
repeated complaints from employees that the pilot of the FAA
plane, Donald J. Robbins, had shown poor judgment and taken
unnecessary risks on earlier flights, the safety board said.
Robbins also was not punished when he failed to notify the
FAA immediately after being convicted of drunken driving
several years ago, the board said, and the agency did little
to monitor his conduct or that of other pilots while they
were on the job.
``I think we're all a bit astounded that [the crash]
happened inside the FAA,'' said board Chairman Carl W. Vogt.
``The same professionalism [the agency requires of private
aircraft] has to apply.''
The board met yesterday to discuss the Oct. 26 crash of the
twin-engine Beech King Air on a fog-shrouded peak in the Blue
Ridge Mountains near Front Royal, Va., about 75 miles west of
Washington. Robbins and his two crew members, all based at an
FAA flight inspection office in Atlantic City, died in the
flaming fuselage.
The board attributed the crash to Robbins's attempt to
navigate in poor weather without flight instruments, but
added that the FAA also was responsible because it had failed
to monitor pilots and remove the ones whose work was
substandard.
Board members called on the FAA to strengthen oversight of
its own flight operations; ``retrain, reassign or dismiss''
employees who perform poorly; and furnish its 55 small
aircraft with recording equipment and a warning system that
lets pilots know when they are too close to the ground. The
planes are used by FAA inspectors who test airport equipment
across the country.
``What we're really saying is, `Apply the same standards to
yourself as you do to the industry,''' said Tim Forte, the
board's director of aviation safety.
An FAA spokesman said the agency agrees with the board's
recommendations and already has taken several steps to
improve safety. After the accident, we took a very hard look
at our operations,'' spokesman Pat Carasio said. ``We are
basically making some real major changes so that this doesn't
happen again.''
Those include a new organizational structure, in which
pilots and co-pilots report to the same supervisor; beefed-up
inspection programs; and the creation of a high-level office
charged with overseeing aircraft operations.
``They're going to start treating their own fleet as if it
was an airline . . . to receive the same type of scrutiny a
private airline would receive,'' said David Traynham, a staff
member on the House subcommittee that oversees the FAA.
The crew aboard the Beech King Air had successfully tested
a radio beacon at the Winchester, Va., airport and was headed
for an overnight stop at Newport News, Va., when it crashed.
After the crash, safety board investigators interviewed
dozens of personnel at the Atlantic City office. Several said
Robbins had sometimes communicated through cryptic hand
signals and refused to tell fellow crew members where flights
were headed or whether he had checked weather conditions.
Supervisors said that some co-pilots had refused to fly with
Robbins and that the schedule had been adjusted accordingly.
Many of those interviewed by the safety board said they had
complained to management about Robbins in vain, or had kept
quiet because they were afraid of retribution.
Although the Atlantic City office seemed particularly
troubled, the safety board found similar problems at other
flight inspection offices, its staff said yesterday.
``There are organizational deficiencies . . . starting in
the cockpit and going all the way up the chain of command,''
board member John K. Lauber said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2440, the
House companion, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate
consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the
text of S. 1588, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill
be advanced to third reading, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the bill (H.R. 2440), as amended, was passed.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 1588
be indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________