    General Aviation: Status of the Industry, Related Infrastructure,
    and Safety Issues (31-AUG-01, GAO-01-916).

    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 seven 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 operations such as takeoffs, landings, and
    flight patterns.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-916
        ACCNO:   A01696
      TITLE:     General Aviation: Status of the Industry, Related
    Infrastructure, and Safety Issues
         DATE:   08/31/2001
      SUBJECT:   Aircraft industry
    	     Aviation
    	     Liability (legal)
    	     Safety standards
    	     Transportation safety
    	     Federal aid for transportation
    	     Aircraft accidents
    	     FAA Airport Improvement Program
    	     FAA Back to Basics Program
    	     FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport
    	     Systems
    	     FAA Safer Skies Initiative
    	     FAA Aviation Safety Program
    	     FAA "Be A Pilot" Program
    	     NASA Small Aircraft Transportation
    	     System Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-916

    A

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    August 2001 GENERAL AVIATION Status of the Industry, Related Infrastructure,
    and Safety Issues

    GAO- 01- 916

    Letter 1 Executive Summary 2

    Purpose 2 Background 2 Results in Brief 4 Principal Findings 5
    Recommendations for Executive Action 9

    Chapter 1 10

    Introduction General Aviation Activities Are Diverse and Provide Important
    Benefits 10

    General Aviation Industry Includes a Variety of Aircraft and Airports and
    Presents Special Safety Issues 14 General Aviation Manufacturing, Burdened
    by Liability Costs, Declined in the 1980s 18 The Federal Government Plays a
    Role in Funding and Overseeing

    General Aviation 18 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21

    Chapter 2 24

    Post- GARA Growth Pre- GARA Slump in Manufacturing Attributed to Liability
    Concerns

    and Other Factors 24 Strongest in

    Pre- GARA Slump Attributed to Liability Issues, Other Costs, Manufacturing
    Economic Contributions, and Changes in Lifestyle 26 Post- GARA Trends in
    Manufacturing and Flying Activity Are

    Attributed to Mix of Reduced Liability Concerns, Continued High Prices, and
    Other Factors 27 FAA Forecasts Continued Growth in General Aviation 39

    Chapter 3 40

    Airport Infrastructure Federal Funding for Capital Development at General
    Aviation

    Airports Falls Short of Requests for Eligible Projects 40 Increased Federal
    Funding Will Benefit General Aviation Airports 44

    Experts Cite Several Issues Related to General Aviation Airport
    Infrastructure 45

    Chapter 4 47

    General Aviation Safety Accident Rate for General Aviation Is Improving but
    Is Still Higher Than for Scheduled Commercial Aviation 47

    Pilot Error Is Involved in Most General Aviation Accidents 53 To Reduce
    Pilot Error and Improve Safety, FAA Works With Others

    to Improve Training, Technology, and Procedures 56

    Appendix I: Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure 64 Economic Impact of General Aviation 64
    Transportation Benefits of General Aviation 69 Limitations of Measuring
    Economic Impacts and Transportation

    Benefits of General Aviation 71 General Aviation Enjoys Community Support 73

    Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment 74 GAO Contacts 74 Staff
    Acknowledgments 74

    Tables Table 1: Table 1: Use Categories of General Aviation 11 Table 2:
    FAA?s Requirements for Pilot Certification 20

    Table 3: Percentage of Fatal and Nonfatal Accidents Caused by Selected Types
    of Pilot Error 55 Table 4: Selected New or Modified Safety Recommendations

    Related to Training 60 Table 5: General Aviation?s 1998 Estimated Total
    Economic Output 65

    Table 6: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Jobs 66
    Table 7: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Earnings 67
    Table 8: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Economic
    Output 68

    Figures Figure 1: Composition of General Aviation Fleet, 1999 15 Figure 2:
    Categories of Airports in the United States 17

    Figure 3: Number of General Aviation Aircraft Shipped by U. S.
    Manufacturers, 1978 Through 2000 25 Figure 4: Number of Piston and Turbine
    Fixed- Wing General

    Aviation Aircraft Shipped, 1984- 2000 29 Figure 5: Size of General Aviation
    Active Fleet, 1985 Through1999 30

    Figure 6: Number of General Aviation Hours Flown by Use Category, 1985
    Through 1999 32 Figure 7: Number of Active Pilots, by Certificate Type, 1984

    Through 2000 34 Figure 8: Number of Participants in Fractional Ownership
    Programs, 1986 Through 1999 36

    Figure 9: U. S. Flight Departments Operating Fixed- Wing Aircraft, 1990
    Through 1999 38 Figure 10: 2000 Funding Compared With Annual Planned

    Development Costs for General Aviation Airports, 1997 Through 2001 41 Figure
    11: Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Queen City Municipal

    Airport, Allentown, Pennsylvania 42 Figure 12: Facilities at Richards-
    Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas

    City, Missouri 43 Figure 13: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight
    Hours for

    Scheduled Commercial Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 48 Figure 14: Accident and
    Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for

    General Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 49 Figure 15: Number of Accidents, Fatal
    and Fatalities in General

    Aviation, 1982 Through 1998 50 Figure 16: Figure 14: Accident Rates per
    100,000 Flight Hours for

    General Aviation, by Segment, 1986 Through 1998 52 Figure 17: Causes of
    Fatal Accidents 54 Figure 18: Causes of Nonfatal Accidents 54 Figure 19:
    Cirrus S- 20 Airplane With Deployed Parachute 62

    Abbreviations

    AGATE Advance General Aviation Transport Experiments AIP Airport Improvement
    Program AIR 21 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Centery AOPA
    Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association EAA Experimental Aircraft Association
    FAA Federal Aviation Administration GADIT General Aviation Data Improvement
    Team GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association GARA General Aviation
    Revitalization Act GPS Global Position System NASA National Aeronautical and
    Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
    NATA National Air Transportation Association NBAA National Business Aviation
    Association NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NTSB National
    Transportation Safety Board PCATD Personal Computer- based Aviation Training
    Device SATS Small Aircraft Transportation System

    Executive Summary Purpose 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. Its tens of thousands of
    aircraft include corporate jets, medical- evacuation helicopters, and
    airplanes owned by recreational fliers and hobbyists. Three out of every
    four takeoffs and landings in the United States belong to general aviation
    flights. In 1994, concerned that general aviation was in decline, the
    Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which sought
    to boost the industry by placing limitations on product liability lawsuits
    against aircraft manufacturers. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
    the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on

    Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to provide a comprehensive
    overview of general aviation, especially since the passage of GARA. To
    attain this objective, GAO focused its review on three questions: (1) What
    did key indicators of general aviation activity show in the years leading up

    to GARA and what have they shown since then? (2) What funding is available
    for general aviation airports and is it sufficient to accommodate planned
    development? and (3) What are the trends in general aviation accident rates
    and in the causes of accidents, and how have the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) and the industry attempted to improve safety?

    Background The Federal Aviation Administration divides general aviation
    activities into use categories. The largest of these categories is personal
    flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure or personal transportation
    and not for business purposes. In 1998, personal flying accounted for 36
    percent of all general aviation hours flown, nearly three times more than
    the next largest

    segment- business flying, which refers to activities carried out in
    connection with the pilot?s occupation or private business. The other major
    use categories include corporate flying, which involves the use of an
    aircraft owned by a corporation or business and flown by a professional
    pilot; instructional flying; and aerial application, which includes
    activities such as agricultural spraying. The general aviation fleet
    consists of about 219, 000 active aircraft with an average age of about 27
    years. Certain activities are generally associated with certain types of
    aircraft. For example, corporate flying usually

    involves the use of business jets while personal and instructional flying
    usually involve the use of single- engine propeller aircraft. The largest
    category of aircraft is single- engine propeller, which in 1998 made up 70
    percent of the general aviation fleet.

    Although general aviation aircraft can take off and land at almost any
    airport- including many of the nation?s 538 commercial service airports- an
    extensive system of airports is designated for general aviation operations.
    About 2,500 of the public- use general aviation airports within this system
    are included in FAA?s National Plan of Integrated Airport

    Systems, which identifies airports that are significant to national air
    transportation and to which FAA allocates funding for infrastructure
    development. In 1994, the Congress passed the General Aviation
    Revitalization Act in an attempt to revitalize the general aviation industry
    by limiting liability costs. The law established an 18- year limit for
    product liability lawsuits against the manufacturers of airframes, engines,
    and components for aircraft with 20 or fewer seats. Previously, there had
    been no time limit on manufacturers? liability.

    FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of general aviation. To do
    this, it determines the requirements for pilot certification and develops
    regulations and recommendations designed to improve safety. FAA?s pilot
    certification process establishes increasingly stringent piloting and
    medical requirements for five levels of certification: student,
    recreational, private,

    commercial, and air transport. The level of certification determines the
    type of aircraft a pilot can fly and the types of responsibilities the pilot
    can undertake. The first four levels of certification allow a pilot to fly
    for an increasingly wide range of general aviation activities. An air
    transport license allows a pilot to fly for scheduled commercial airlines.

    To consider trends in general aviation, GAO reviewed FAA?s forecasts of the
    general aviation industry through 2007 and analyzed FAA?s and industry?s
    data on key indicators of general aviation manufacturing and flying
    activity.

    To look at funding for airport infrastructure, GAO analyzed FAA?s data on
    airport development projects and their costs, reviewed available funding
    sources, and compared expected funding to planned development. To describe
    the safety record of general aviation, GAO analyzed accident data from the
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FAA, and it reviewed studies
    and reports on the causes of general aviation accidents. Finally, GAO
    assembled a group of six aviation experts and asked them and

    additional experts about the general aviation industry, its airport
    infrastructure needs, and its safety. Results in Brief 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. Prior to GARA, aircraft production, pilot
    activity, and hours flown all fell sharply. For example, manufacturers?
    aircraft shipments fell from 18, 000 in 1978 to a low of 928 in 1994. The
    downturn was attributed in part to high costs associated with liability

    issues, but also to downturns in the economy and lifestyle changes that
    reduced public interest in flying. According to experts, 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. For example, shipments of new aircraft tripled between 1994 and
    2000, from 928 to 2,816. However, aircraft prices did not fall in the years
    after GARA. For example, the average price of a new piston aircraft
    increased from $162,000 in 1994 to $220, 000 in 1999, an increase of 25
    percent in constant dollars. General aviation flying activity indicators
    such as hours flown and number of pilot licenses also rose after

    the enactment of GARA, although at a slower rate. In addition to GARA,
    experts attributed the growth in manufacturing indicators and less- strong
    growth in other indicators to a number of factors with mixed implications,
    including the popularity of a new type of aircraft ownership called
    fractional ownership, the strong economy, the continued high price of
    aircraft, and the same lifestyle changes that contributed to the pre- GARA
    slump.

    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. In
    order to best allocate scarce resources, FAA uses a priority system to fund

    projects that it considers to be most important. The fiscal year 2001
    Department of Transportation appropriations increases funding for general
    aviation airports in general and for particular types of projects, but
    funding will still be short of what airport officials requested to fund
    eligible planned projects. One industry association recommended that more
    airports build longer runways to accommodate business aircraft, and a
    different expert suggested that general aviation airports focus on
    developing facilities to

    accommodate technologically advanced aircraft. However, general aviation
    experts have differing opinions about the adequacy of facilities at general
    aviation airports. Several general aviation experts with whom GAO spoke
    regarding general aviation airports mentioned that they were concerned with
    community pressure to close airports.

    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. Even with these improvements, general aviation?s
    accident rate remains about 24 times higher than the accident rate of
    scheduled commercial aviation. Within general aviation, some types of flying
    are safer than others. The safety record of corporate flying, for example,
    rivals that of commercial passenger airlines. Other types of flying, such as
    personal and aerial application, have considerably higher accident rates.
    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, FAA oversees the safety of general aviation by working

    with federal agencies and industry groups to identify safety improvements.
    FAA must decide whether to implement recommended improvements through
    voluntary programs, official guidance, or regulations. Most initiatives and
    recommendations seek to enhance safety through improvements in one of three
    areas: training, technology, and the

    procedures that are designed to govern operations such as takeoffs,
    landings, and flight patterns.

    Principal Findings General Aviation Activity

    In the years prior to GARA, indicators of general aviation manufacturing Has
    Increased Since the

    and other activities all declined. Along with a steep decline in Mid- 1990s;
    Experts Cite manufacturers? shipments of aircraft, the number of employees
    working in

    GARA, Economy, and Other the industry fell 65 percent between 1978 and 1988.
    The size of the active general aviation fleet dropped by one- quarter
    between 1980 and 1994, from Factors about 200,000 aircraft to about 150,000.
    The number of pilot licenses and the number of hours flown in general
    aviation also declined steadily

    between 1980 and 1994. For example, the number of student pilot licenses
    decreased more than one third, from 150,000 in 1980 to 96, 000 in 1994.
    While GAO?s group of general aviation experts said that product liability

    costs played a large role in the decline of the industry, they cited other
    factors as well, including the economic recessions of the early 1980s and
    early 1990s and the high cost of aircraft ownership and operation. The
    experts also noted that lifestyle changes seem to have led to reduced
    interest in general aviation flying.

    Since GARA was enacted, the number of product liability cases has dropped
    off significantly, and manufacturing has rebounded, with shipments of piston
    aircraft, for example, increasing nearly fourfold between 1994 and 2000. At
    the same time, the price of aircraft continued to rise. Indicators of flying
    activity have also increased, but at a slower rate than manufacturing. The
    number of aircraft in the general aviation fleet has steadily increased
    since the enactment of GARA. The total number of

    hours flown in general aviation increased 32 percent, to almost 32 million,
    between 1994 and 1999, the most recent year for which data are available.
    The number of active pilots in the three pilot license categories that cover
    only general aviation (student, private, and commercial, as opposed to the

    air transport license, which covers scheduled commercial flying as well)
    continued to decline for several years following the enactment of GARA,
    falling 10 percent between 1994 and 1998. In 1999 and 2000, however, the
    numbers of pilots with each type of pilot certificate increased.

    While GAO?s experts rated GARA as the most significant contributor to the
    recent rise in general aviation manufacturing indicators, it also cited
    other factors. The factors experts rated as most important after GARA were
    the

    development of fractional ownership plans for business aircraft and the
    growth of the national economy. In fractional ownership, individuals or
    companies purchase a share in an aircraft for their occasional use.
    Fractional ownership has grown steadily since its introduction in the
    mid1980s. When asked to consider why other general aviation activity
    indicators did not show as great a surge as manufacturing, one expert cited
    the continuing high cost of aircraft, and another mentioned that lifestyle
    changes have led to less overall interest in general aviation flying.

    FAA?s most recent forecast for general aviation predicts continued growth in
    all areas. FAA expects the general aviation aircraft fleet to increase at an
    average annual rate of 0.9 percent during the 13- year forecast period. The
    forecast indicates that the number of hours flown will increase 2.1 percent
    annually, with the growth concentrated in the turbojet segment. It also
    predicts that the pilot population will continue to increase at an annual
    rate of 2 percent. This forecast attributes the projected increase to U. S.

    economic growth as well as to industrywide programs designed to recruit new
    pilots to general aviation. Federal Funding for Capital There is not enough
    money available through general aviation airports? Development at General
    combined funding sources- including federal and state grants and bond
    Aviation Airports Falls Short

    proceeds- to fund all planned projects. General aviation experts, however,
    of Eligible Requests, but

    had differing opinions about the adequacy of current facilities and future
    development needs at these airports. Recognizing that not all projects will
    Importance of Funding Gap receive funding, FAA?s funding system gives
    priority to projects, such as Is Unclear

    repairing runways and removing obstructions from landing areas, that FAA
    views as most important to general aviation?s safety and efficiency.

    FAA?s 5- year authorization and fiscal year 2001 appropriation will increase
    the level of federal assistance for capital development projects at general
    aviation airports, although it will still not cover all requested projects
    that are eligible for funding. The fiscal year 2001 Department of
    Transportation

    appropriations act appropriates significantly greater funding to airport
    projects in general, and the provisions of the Aviation Investment and
    Reform Act for the 21 st Century (AIR 21), passed by the Congress in April
    2000, provide more of these moneys specifically to general aviation airport
    projects. Several of these changes affect the Airport Improvement Program
    (AIP), 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 an increase in funding available through funds
    collected by large commercial airports from passenger facility charges, a
    portion of which is turned back to FAA and redistributed to general aviation
    airports. Safety Record of General Between 1982 and 1998, the number of
    accidents and the accident rate for Aviation Improving; FAA

    general aviation declined. Nonetheless, in 1998, the accident rate for Works
    With Others to

    general aviation was about 24 times higher than that of commercial Improve
    Training, aviation, accounting for 99 percent of the accidents and 85
    percent of the deaths.

    Technology, and Procedures Some types of general aviation flying are riskier
    than others. Personal flying comprised only about one- third of total
    general aviation hours flown in 1998 but accounted for more than three-
    quarters of fatal accidents.

    Corporate flying comprised about 10 percent of total general aviation hours
    but accounted for only 1 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 turbine aircraft, used almost
    exclusively for corporate flying, than in single- engine piston aircraft,
    used mostly for personal and recreational flying. If this projection is
    correct, the safety record of general aviation may improve because of the
    lower accident rates associated with corporate flying. The general aviation
    experts with whom GAO spoke attributed the disparity in accident rates to a
    number of different factors, including differences in the level of expertise
    of pilots and the safety equipment typically used. Furthermore, commercial
    aviation is subject to more oversight and regulation than general aviation,
    which is valued by pilots for its freedom from such constraints. While a
    broad range of factors contribute to general aviation accidents, the

    majority of them are associated with pilot error. According to our analysis
    of NTSB?s accident data, 80 percent of the fatal accidents and 72 percent of
    the nonfatal accidents that occurred between 1994 and 1998 involved pilot
    error. Previous studies have found that between 60 and 80 percent of general
    aviation accidents are associated with pilot error. 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 misdirections from air traffic control. 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 industry organizations to improve the safety record of
    commercial and general aviation. Experts involved in the initiative are
    jointly analyzing U. S. and global data to identify the most serious threats
    to aviation safety and to find the root causes of accidents. The experts are
    then developing recommendations on changes in training, technology, or
    procedures that would prevent or

    reduce these accidents. In a previous report, GAO noted that FAA?s goal of
    reducing general aviation accidents by 20 percent in 2007 may not challenge
    the general aviation community enough to continue the kinds of safety
    improvements that have led to previous reductions in accidents.

    FAA and Safer Skies focus some of their research efforts on seeking ways to
    improve training. For example, 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. 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.

    FAA also works with other groups to research and develop technology that
    will improve aircraft safety. For example, in 1994, the National
    Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) created the Advanced General
    Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE), a consortium of industry, higher-
    education, and government entities, including NASA and FAA, that focuses on
    developing advanced technologies for general

    aviation, including technologies that will reduce accidents. Finally, FAA
    and other groups, including Safer Skies, work to increase the safety of
    general aviation through improving the procedures that govern flight
    patterns, including landings and takeoffs. Safer Skies has developed
    recommendations in this area, including standardizing and expanding the

    use of markings for towers and wires and developing new procedures for
    airspace communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS). 1

    Recommendations for This report does not contain recommendations.

    Executive Action 1 Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial
    Steps to Reduce Accident Rates by 2007 (GAO/ RCED- 00- 111, June 28, 2000).

    Chapt er 1

    Introduction 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

    General aviation encompasses a wide variety of operations, including the
    Activities Are Diverse

    training of new pilots, crop dusting, and providing air tours for sightseers
    and transportation for business executives. In addition, general aviation
    and Provide Important

    provides rapid transportation for medical and other civil emergencies. 1
    Benefits 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

    1 These activities are regulated under one of several FAA regulations:
    operations that involve transportation for hire, such as air tours and
    medical evacuation, are regulated under Part 135, which has higher standards
    of safety; operations such as personal and business flying are regulated
    under Part 91, which does not have as stringent safety requirements. Other
    parts govern specific operations, such as Part 137, which regulates
    agricultural aircraft operations, and Part 133, which regulates rotorcraft
    external load operations. From a strictly regulatory standpoint, only Part
    91 operations are considered general aviation, but FAA and others generally
    include other operations in this category for descriptive purposes and trend
    monitoring because they are more similar to general aviation than commercial
    aviation. General aviation aircraft include all U. S. registered civil
    aircraft not operated under 14 C. F. R. Part 121 (scheduled commercial
    airlines) or Part 135. General aviation also includes on- demand air
    carriers that operate nonscheduled commercial service under 14 C. F. R. Part
    135.

    services, aerial advertising, aerial mapping and photography, and aerial
    application of seeds or chemicals. Table 1: Table 1: Use Categories of
    General Aviation

    Note: Air taxis and some air tours are regulated under Part 135 rather than
    Part 91, Federal Aviation Regulations. However, these operations have been
    described as general aviation, which is regulated under Part 91.

    Source: FAA; 1999 data and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

    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. 2 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. 2 The Economic Impact of Civil
    Aviation on the U. S. Economy- 2000, prepared for FAA and MCA Research
    Corporation by Wilbur Smith Associates with Applied Management Solutions,
    Inc. (Mar. 2000); and The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U. S.
    Economy, Wilbur Smith Associates (June 1989).

    General Aviation All types of aircraft can be used in general aviation
    operations, including

    Industry Includes a single- and multiengine piston aircraft, turboprops and
    turbojets, rotorcraft such as helicopters, and gliders. The general aviation
    fleet consists of Variety of Aircraft and

    about 219,000 active aircraft. While this fleet of general aviation aircraft
    is Airports and Presents

    diverse, certain activities are generally associated with certain types of
    Special Safety Issues 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.

    Figure 1: Composition of General Aviation Fleet, 1999

    Source: FAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

    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
    publicuse 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.

    Figure 2: Categories of Airports in the United States

    Source: GAO?s analysis of FAA?s data.

    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.

    General Aviation In the late 1960s and early 1970s, aviation manufacturers
    became more

    Manufacturing, frequent targets of product liability lawsuits that were
    brought by survivors of airplane crashes or families of victims of airplane
    crashes. This surge in

    Burdened by Liability the number of lawsuits came on the tail of a 1963
    California Supreme Court Costs, Declined in the ruling that adopted a rule
    of ?strict liability,? which maintained that

    1980s 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 The federal government manages the national airspace system,
    including Government Plays a

    general aviation, with the goal of ensuring the adequate and safe operation
    of the system. The federal role includes allocating funds for airport Role
    in Funding and improvements, controlling air traffic, issuing training rules
    for aviation

    Overseeing General personnel, and certifying the airworthiness of aircraft
    and other aviation

    Avi ation 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.

    Table 2: FAA?s Requirements for Pilot Certification Types of activities
    pilots can or cannot Certificate Piloting requirements Medical requirements
    perform

    Student None Third class medical Pilot may not carry passengers or operate
    certificate; must be without visual reference to the ground; pilot renewed
    every 3 years.

    may operate solo cross- country flights only if deemed prepared by the
    flight instructor.

    Private Pilot must pass flight test and Third class medical Pilot may not
    carry passengers for hire.

    written knowledge test and have certificate; must be logged at least 40
    hours of flight

    renewed every 2 years. instruction and solo flight time.

    Commercial Pilot must pass flight test and Second class medical Pilot can
    engage in flight activities for hire,

    written knowledge test, hold a certificate; must be

    including acting as second in command for private pilot certificate, be
    renewed every year. commercial airlines. Pilot is eligible to obtain
    instrument- rated, and have logged a flight instructor certificate. at least
    250 flight hours. Airline transport Pilot must pass flight test and First
    class medical

    Pilot can fly as pilot in command for written knowledge test, hold a

    certificate, must be scheduled commercial cargo or passenger commercial
    certificate, and have renewed every 6 months. airlines and is eligible to
    obtain a flight logged at least 1,500 flight hours. instructor certificate.

    Note: Student pilot certificates are issued for a 2- year period. Other
    certificates are issued without a specific expiration date, but pilots must
    have current medical certificates and comply with recency of flight
    requirements where applicable. First class medical certificates have the
    most stringent requirements, and third class certificates have the least
    stringent.

    Source: 14 C. F. R Part 61.

    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
    FAAapproved

    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. 3 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. Objectives, Scope, and

    The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Methodology
    Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us to
    provide a comprehensive overview of general aviation, especially since 3
    Many of these new aircraft technologies have been developed in NASA?s AGATE,
    which

    preceded SATS.

    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. 4 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. 4 Judgement Evaluation and
    Instruction in Civil Pilot Training, Jensen, R. S. and R. A. Benel (FAA- RD-
    78- 24, December 1977).

    Post- GARA Growth Strongest in

    Chapt er 2

    Manufacturing 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.

    Pre- GARA Slump in During the 15 years preceding the enactment of GARA in
    1994, indicators of Manufacturing

    general aviation activity declined or remained flat, with the decline most
    pronounced in manufacturing. This downward trend was attributed to high
    Attributed to Liability

    aircraft manufacturing costs associated with product liability issues, a
    Concerns and Other

    sluggish economy, and changes in lifestyle that reduced interest in general
    Factors aviation flying.

    Manufacturing and Activity In the years prior to GARA, general aviation
    manufacturing indicators

    Indicators Declined in the declined significantly. Aircraft shipments from
    U. S. manufacturers fell from 18, 000 in 1978 to 928 in 1994. 1 (See fig.
    3.) Between 1980 and 1991, the

    1980s and Early 1990s number of employees working in general aviation
    manufacturing fell by

    almost half. 1 Shipments are the number of aircraft delivered by
    manufacturers to individual pilots, corporations, or aircraft distributors.

    Figure 3: Number of General Aviation Aircraft Shipped by U. S.
    Manufacturers, 1978 Through 2000

    Source: GARA.

    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. 2 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 2
    The active general aviation fleet is defined as all aircraft registered with
    FAA that have flown at least 1 hour in a given year.

    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.

    Pre- GARA Slump According to the experts we consulted and other industry
    observers, the Attributed to Liability

    escalating number of product liability lawsuits that general aviation
    manufacturers were subject to in the 1970s and 1980s adversely affected
    Issues, Other Costs,

    the industry. A study commissioned by the General Aviation Manufacturers
    Economic

    Association (GAMA) in 1986 found that paid claims and out- of- pocket
    defense expenses for the entire U. S. general aviation industry 3 grew from
    Contributions, and

    $24 million a year in 1976 to $210 million a year in 1986. In 1987, the
    three Changes in Lifestyle

    major U. S. manufacturers of single- engine piston aircraft, Beech 4 ,
    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 3 This
    includes manufacturers of airframes, power plants, propellers, avionics, and
    other components and parts used in general aviation aircraft. 4 Raytheon
    Aircraft acquired Beech Aircraft in 1995.

    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. Post- GARA Trends in Since the enactment of GARA, product liability
    concerns have fallen, and

    Manufacturing and general aviation manufacturing indicators have surged. New
    manufacturers have entered the market, and manufacturers have put more
    Flying Activity Are

    resources into research and development for new technologies. General
    Attributed to Mix of aviation activity indicators, such as hours flown and
    number of active Reduced Liability

    pilots, have also increased since GARA, although less sharply. These
    positive trends have been attributed to a number of factors in addition to

    Concerns, Continued GARA, including a type of aircraft ownership called
    fractional ownership

    High Prices, and Other 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
    Factors activity indicators and the continued high price of aircraft to the
    same lifestyle changes that contributed to the pre- GARA slump.

    Trends Suggest That Since The Congress passed GARA in 1994 in an attempt to
    reverse the downward

    GARA, Product Liability trends in general aviation manufacturing by limiting
    the financial burden

    Costs Have Fallen and created by product liability concerns. The expected
    benefits of reducing Aircraft Manufacturing Has

    liability costs included enabling manufacturers to sell aircraft at lower
    prices and still achieve technological advances by devoting more resources
    Rebounded

    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.

    Figure 4: Number of Piston and Turbine Fixed- Wing General Aviation Aircraft
    Shipped, 1984- 2000

    Source: GAMA.

    Most Trends in General Most indicators of general aviation activity have
    also risen since the

    Aviation Activity Are Also enactment of GARA, although not as significantly
    as the manufacturingrelated

    Up, Although Less Sharply trends. The size of the general aviation fleet has
    steadily increased,

    Than in Manufacturing 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.

    Figure 5: Size of General Aviation Active Fleet, 1985 Through1999

    Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA?s annual survey of registered civil
    aircraft. Source: FAA.

    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. 5 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. 5 Due to changes in data collection procedures, the
    estimated number of general aviation hours flown prior to 1995 may not be
    comparable to data from 1995 and beyond.

    Figure 6: Number of General Aviation Hours Flown by Use Category, 1985
    Through 1999

    Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA?s annual survey of registered civil
    aircraft. Categories included in ?Other? change from year to year due to
    changes in how FAA categorizes flight operations. The category ?Other? in
    this figure includes the following operations every year except where noted:
    aerial application, aerial observation, external load (1993- 1999 only),
    other work, sightseeing (1993- 1999 only), air taxi, air tours (1995- 1999
    only), medical use (1999 only), public use (1996- 1999 only), rental (1985
    only), aerial other (1999 only) and other (all years except 1999). The
    estimated number of general aviation hours flown prior to 1995 may not be
    comparable to data from 1995 and on due to

    changes in data collection procedures. Source: FAA.

    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. 6 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. 6 This figure includes pilots holding private
    certificates for airplanes, gliders, helicopters, or any combination
    thereof.

    Figure 7: Number of Active Pilots, by Certificate Type, 1984 Through 2000

    Note: Numbers are estimates based on FAA?s annual study of detailed airmen
    statistics. Holders of student and private certificates may fly only in
    general aviation activities. Holders of commercial and airline transport
    pilot certificates may fly in general aviation activities and in commercial
    aviation activities.

    Source: FAA.

    Rising Indicators Also The experts we consulted said that a new system for
    aircraft ownership-

    Attributed to Fractional fractional ownership- has had the highest impact on
    the recent growth in Ownership and Strong

    general aviation. FAA also said that fractional ownership has had a Economy

    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 mid1980s. 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.

    Figure 8: Number of Participants in Fractional Ownership Programs, 1986
    Through 1999

    Source: National Business Aviation Association.

    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. 7 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.) 7 Utilization rates refer to the average number
    of hours flown per aircraft in the active fleet.

    Figure 9: U. S. Flight Departments Operating Fixed- Wing Aircraft, 1990
    Through 1999

    Source: National Business Aviation Association.

    More Restrained Growth in With regard to the reasons that general aviation
    flying activity indicators Other Activity Indicators did not increase at the
    same rate as the manufacturing indicators, one of

    Attributed to Cost and our group of experts noted that the increased prices
    of aircraft may still be

    Lifestyle Factors 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.

    FAA Forecasts Each year, FAA convenes panels of experts in aviation and
    develops Continued Growth in forecasts for future activity in all areas of
    aviation, including general aviation. FAA?s most recent forecast predicts
    continued growth in all of the

    General Aviation 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. 8 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. 9 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. 8 FAA?s aviation forecast is based on several assumptions,
    including continuous moderate economic growth in the United States and
    worldwide, no changes in the regulations affecting general aviation, no new
    user fees or changes in access to airports and airspace, improved flight
    school infrastructure, increased effectiveness on the part of the industry
    in keeping consumers interested in aviation, success of new products
    entering the market, and

    continued expansion of fractional ownership. 9 This figure includes all
    pilot categories: student, recreational, glider, private, commercial,
    helicopter, and airline transport.

    Chapt er 3

    Airport Infrastructure 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.

    Federal Funding for General aviation airports receive funding for capital
    development from

    Capital Development at multiple sources, including state governments and the
    sale of bonds. The

    largest single source of funding is grants from the federal government.
    General Aviation

    However, there is not enough federal money available to fund all planned
    Airports Falls Short of

    projects; the annual capital development that has been planned for these
    Requests for Eligible airports and that is eligible for federal funding
    would cost at least $884

    million more than the federal funding provided in 2000. Recognizing that
    Projects 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.

    AIP Funding Is Insufficient During the past few years, we have reported and
    testified on future funding

    to Cover Eligible Projects shortfalls for the nation?s airports. 1 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. 2 Additional support received from the airports? sale of bonds and
    from state grants still leaves airports with a funding shortfall. (See fig.
    10.) 1 See General Aviation Airports: Oversight and Funding (GAO/ T- RCED-
    99- 214, June 1999);

    and Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development (GAO/ RCED-
    98- 71, Mar. 1998). 2 AIP grants are made available from the Airport and
    Airway Trust Fund, which is financed by taxes on domestic and international
    airline travel, domestic cargo transported by air, and aviation fuel. FAA
    allocates most AIP grants on the basis of (1) a legislated apportionment
    formula and (2) discretionary spending approved by FAA based on project
    priority and other selection criteria. Discretionary spending is also
    subject to set- asides and other spending criteria.

    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. Figure 10: 2000 Funding Compared With
    Annual Planned Development Costs for General Aviation Airports, 1997 Through
    2001 Source: GAO?s analysis of data from FAA and Thompson Financial.

    Estimates Do Not Fully While estimates of future capital development costs
    are useful indicators of

    Represent Future Funding possible future development activity, the actual
    level and types of Costs

    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.

    FAA?s Priority System To receive federal funding, airports must submit their
    plans for future Allocates Resources development to FAA. Each airport?s plan
    describes the development According to Established projects for the next 5
    years and links the development to the current use

    Priorities and Qualitative and condition of the airport as well as
    forecasted aviation activity. In preparing their plans, airports also may
    take into consideration their state?s Judgments

    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.

    Figure 11: Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Queen City Municipal Airport,
    Allentown, Pennsylvania

    Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

    Figure 12: Facilities at Richards- Gebaur Memorial Airport, Kansas City,
    Missouri

    Source: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

    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, 3 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. 4 Again, few of 3 The purpose
    categories are safety and security, statutory emphasis, reconstruction and

    rehabilitation, environment, planning, capacity, standards, and other. 4 U.
    S. C. 49 Sec. 47101( f)

    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. Increased Federal

    FAA?s 5- year authorization increases the level of federal assistance for
    Funding Will Benefit

    capital development projects at general aviation airports. The fiscal year
    2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act gave significantly
    General Aviation greater funding to airport projects in general; and
    provisions of the Wendell Airports H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
    Act for the 21 st 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. 5 Additionally,
    certain funding provisions take effect when total AIP funding for a given
    year is $3. 2 billion or more. 6 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. 7 Another
    provision allocates additional funding to general aviation airports that are
    designated relievers for congested commercial airports. 8

    5 U. S. C. 49 Sec. 48103 6 The amount of AIP funding authorized in 2001 was
    reduced from $3. 2 billion to $3. 19 billion. However, the $3. 2 billion
    minimum requirement for certain funding provisions to take effect was
    suspended for fiscal year 2001, allowing the provisions to take effect.

    7 U. S. C. 49 Sec. 47114( d) 8 U. S. C. 49 Sec. 47117( e)( 1); see Airport
    Improvement Program: Reliever Airport Set- Aside Funds Could Be Redirected
    (GAO/ RCED- 94- 226, June 1994) for additional information on the
    relationship between reliever airports and congestion at commercial
    airports.

    Other changes to AIP include additional aid in the form of federal support
    turned back by large and medium hub airports. 9 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. Experts Cite Several

    The group of general aviation experts we spoke with brought up several
    Issues Related to issues related to general aviation infrastructure. Several
    were concerned with airport closings; one industry association recommended
    longer General Aviation

    runways, and a different expert recommended that airports include Airport
    Infrastructure

    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
    9 U. S. C. 49 Secs. 40117( b) and 47114( f).

    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. 10 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. 11 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). 10 NASAO represents state government officials
    charged with administering aviation programs, and NBAA represents
    organizations that own or operate aircraft in the conduct of their business.

    11 See General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for
    Improved Oversight and Enforcement (GAO/ RCED- 99- 109, May 7, 1999).

    Chapt er 4

    General Aviation Safety 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.

    Accident Rate for Safety has improved more in general aviation than in
    scheduled

    General Aviation Is commercial aviation. Although the safety record of
    scheduled commercial airlines remains better than that for general aviation,
    the accident rate for Improving but Is Still general aviation has been
    declining more rapidly than that of scheduled Higher Than for

    commercial airlines. Furthermore, accident rates vary among segments of
    Scheduled Commercial general aviation. The accident rate for the corporate
    segment, which is close to the accident rate for scheduled commercial
    aviation, is the lowest, Avi ation

    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.

    Safety of General Aviation In 1998, the accident rate for general aviation-
    the number of accidents per Has Improved More Rapidly

    100,000 flight hours- was about 24 times higher that for scheduled Than
    Safety of Scheduled commercial airlines, accounting for 97 percent of the
    accidents and 99 Commercial Aviation 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.)

    Figure 13: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for
    Scheduled Commercial Aviation, 1982 Through 1998

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    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). 1

    1 The slope of the trend line for the scheduled commercial aviation accident
    rate is .00 versus -. 12 for general aviation for the period 1982 through
    1999.

    Figure 14: Accident and Fatality Rates per 100,000 Flight Hours for General
    Aviation, 1982 Through 1998

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    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).

    Figure 15: Number of Accidents, Fatal and Fatalities in General Aviation,
    1982 Through 1998

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    Accident Rates Vary Among Some types of general aviation flying are riskier
    than others (see fig. 14).

    Segments of General Personal flying, which is defined as flying for pleasure
    or personal Aviation

    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.

    Figure 16: Figure 14: Accident Rates per 100, 000 Flight Hours for General
    Aviation, by Segment, 1986 Through 1998

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    Experts Cite Multiple Experts attribute the differences between the accident
    rates for Reasons for Disparities in commercial and general aviation, and
    among those for the different Accident Rates 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. Pilot Error Is Involved

    According to our analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in
    Most General accident data, 80 percent of the fatal accidents and 72 percent
    of the

    nonfatal accidents that occurred between 1994 and 1998 involved pilot
    Aviation Accidents

    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.

    Figure 17: Causes of Fatal Accidents Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    Figure 18: Causes of Nonfatal Accidents

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    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).

    Table 3: Percentage of Fatal and Nonfatal Accidents Caused by Selected Types
    of Pilot Error Error Description Fatal Nonfatal Procedural errors

    Running out of fuel or failing to An airplane?s engine stops due to lack of
    fuel, either Not significant 10.4 clear blocked fuel line because all
    available fuel on board the airplane has been

    depleted or because the fuel supply has been interrupted.

    Skill errors

    Failure to maintain flying speed The aircraft slows so much that it can no
    longer maintain lift. 16. 0 Not significant Also commonly known as a stall.
    Misjudged distance, altitude, or These can result in controlled flight into
    terrain, which is 13. 8 13.7 clearance when an airworthy aircraft is flown
    into terrain or another obstacle without the pilot?s being aware of the
    impending collision. Failure to maintain directional Accidents resulting
    from situations in which the pilot should 9.6 14.8

    control have maintained or regained control of the aircraft but did not.

    Judgment errors

    Continued flight into low- visibility Many of these accidents occurred when
    pilots who did not 11. 4 Not significant

    conditions without proper have an instrument rating attempted to fly into
    conditions

    training or equipment with greatly reduced visibility, such as fog or
    clouds, otherwise known as instrument- meteorological conditions (IMC).

    Inadequate preflight planning Preflight planning includes a number of
    activities, such as Not significant 12.6

    ensuring the airplane?s load is within proper weight limits and is properly
    distributed, determining that the runway length is adequate, calculating how
    much fuel will be needed for the flight, and checking weather briefings.

    Source: GAO analysis of NTSB data.

    To Reduce Pilot Error FAA works to improve the safety of general aviation in
    a variety of and Improve Safety,

    initiatives with other federal agencies and industry organizations. One
    broad initiative, Safer Skies, was developed with the general aviation FAA
    Works With

    industry to improve the safety record of commercial and general aviation.
    Others to Improve

    FAA and the other groups involved research ways to reduce pilot error and
    Training, Technology, the common types of accidents and make recommendations
    to improve safety. FAA must decide whether to implement these
    recommendations and Procedures

    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 Other

    FAA works with a number of federal agencies and industry- related Agencies
    and Industry organizations on research initiatives designed to identify
    changes to Associations on Safety

    current standards for training, technology, or procedures that would
    Initiatives

    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 researchoriented

    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. 2 (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 and Other Groups

    FAA first oversees the safety of general aviation through the requirements
    Work to Improve Safety of the pilot certification process described in
    chapter 1. Beyond these

    Through Better Training 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 2 Aviation Safety: Safer Skies Initiative Has Taken Initial Steps to
    Reduce Accident Rates by 2007 (GAO/ RCED- 00- 111, June 28, 2000).

    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. 3 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

    3 FAA?s guidance is described in Advisory Circular 61- 89A, ?Currency and
    Additional Qualification Requirements for Certificated Pilots.?

    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. 4

    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 4 Aviation Safety:
    Research Supports Limited Use of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices
    for Pilots (GAO/ RCED- 99- 143, July 12, 1999).

    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.

    Table 4: Selected New or Modified Safety Recommendations Related to Training
    Source Selected recommendations

    Safer Skies Enhance the biennial flight review and/ or instrument competency
    check. Improve pilot training (i. e., weather briefing, equipment, decision-
    making, wire and tower avoidance, and human factors).

    Develop and distribute mountain flying technique advisory material AOPA
    Enhance requirements for initial training to include instruction in flying
    in marginal weather

    conditions and topics relating to weather awareness. Enhance requirements
    for the biennial flight review to include competence in (1) reading and
    interpreting aviation weather reports and forecasts, (2) obtaining in-
    flight weather information, and (3) explaining various adverse weather
    conditions and strategies for avoiding them. NTSB Establish a cooperative
    program that encourages the training of pilots who are transitioning

    from one type of airplane to an unfamiliar type. Source: GAO analysis.

    FAA and Others Also Seek In 1994, NASA created through the Advanced General
    Aviation Transport to Improve Safety Through

    Experiment (AGATE), a consortium of industry, higher education, and
    Researching and Developing

    government entities, including FAA, to develop advanced technologies for
    Technology

    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.

    Figure 19: Cirrus S- 20 Airplane With Deployed Parachute

    Source: Cirrus Design.

    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 lowcost

    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. Recent
    Efforts Also Seek to

    Finally, Safer Skies also developed recommendations to enhance the safety
    Improve Safety Through of general aviation through improvements in
    procedures governing flight Procedural Measures 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.

    Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are Difficult to

    Appendi x I

    Measure General aviation plays an important role in U. S. civilian aviation.
    For instance, 96 percent of the U. S. civilian aircraft fleet is general
    aviation, while the remainder is commercial. Also, three out of four
    takeoffs each day are general aviation flights. General aviation makes
    important economic and social contributions to local communities in which
    the

    airports are located and to the nation at large. The total economic
    contribution of general aviation services consists of both the economic
    impacts and the transportation benefits of general aviation activities.
    Economic impacts refer to the economic contribution of general aviation

    as an industry. Transportation benefits, on the other hand, accrue primarily
    to the users of general aviation services. There are important limitations
    in measuring both types of economic contributions. It is difficult to
    accurately measure the economic impacts that are generated through

    general aviation activities, and it is difficult to assign accurate monetary
    values to many transportation benefits. Measurement limitations make state-
    by- state comparisons of general aviation benefits tenuous and impractical.
    However, while it is difficult to accurately measure the economic impacts
    and the transportation benefits generated by general aviation activities,
    the economic contributions are nonetheless considerable, and in some rural
    areas critical to the surrounding

    communities. Economic Impact of

    The economic impact of general aviation is measured by considering the
    General Aviation

    contributions of the general aviation industry to the economy. One
    methodology for measuring economic impact was developed by the Federal
    Aviation Administration. 1 This methodology estimates three related measures
    of the economic impact of general aviation on the nation

    and on regional communities- economic activity (or output), employment (or
    jobs), and income (or earnings). 2 1 FAA (1986), Measuring the Regional
    Economic Significance of Airports, U. S. Department of Transportation,
    Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D. C., Report No. DOT/ FAA/ PP/
    87- 1. 2 The total economic impact of general aviation is an aggregation of
    three impacts: direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts are
    those financial transactions that occur as a result of providing general
    aviation services that include the provision of aircraft and

    airport- related services. Indirect impacts occur as results of the use of
    general aviation services, which include expenditures by visitors
    patronizing hotels and restaurants in the area. Induced impacts are the
    ?multiplier? effects of the direct and indirect impacts; the multiplier
    effects result from successive rounds of spending that originate with the
    direct and indirect impacts.

    A recent study prepared for FAA estimates that in 1998, at the national
    level, general aviation generated about $64.5 billion in total economic
    output, about $19.9 billion in earnings, and about 638, 000 jobs. 3 Table 5
    is a break down of general aviation?s estimated total economic output for
    1998.

    Table 5: General Aviation?s 1998 Estimated Total Economic Output

    Dollars in billions

    Annual economic

    Annual activity earnings Jobs

    Providing aviation service $30. 8 $8. 9 298, 000 Using aviation service 11.
    4 4. 4 163, 000 Manufacturing 22. 3 6. 6 177, 000

    Total $64. 5 $19.9 638, 000

    Source: The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U. S. Economy - 2000,
    p. 2.

    The economic activity category includes the dollar value of all general
    aviation and general aviation- related services plus the sum of intermediate
    goods and services needed to produce general aviation services. The earnings
    category includes the total wages and salaries paid to all persons who
    directly or indirectly owe their jobs to general aviation. The jobs category
    includes the number of people employed in the general aviation

    industry and in sectors that support general aviation or general aviation
    use.

    In addition to the nationwide study prepared for FAA, many states have
    conducted studies on the statewide economic impacts of general aviation.
    Results of the 14 state studies on this topic that we reviewed in detail are

    presented in tables 6 through 8. 4 We selected studies that included
    statewide coverage of the public- use general aviation airports and for

    3 The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U. S. Economy - 2000 ,
    prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration and MCA Research
    Corporation by Wilbur Smith Associates with Applied Management Solutions,
    Inc., March 2000. Similar reports were done in 1988 (using 1987 data), in
    1990 (using 1989 data), in 1993 (using 1991 data), and in 1995 (using 1993
    data) . 4 Economic impact studies for 32 states were reviewed.

    which information was available on the year( s) used in the studies and
    state- level comparable economic data. The results in tables 6 through 8
    indicate that the estimated economic impacts of general aviation on the
    states? economies are generally less than 1 percent. However, according to
    these estimates, general aviation still makes important contributions to the
    states? economies in terms of jobs, earnings, and economic output that are

    generated. Table 6 presents estimates of jobs created by general aviation.
    While the numbers of jobs created may seem small relative to total state
    employment, the earnings generated can be substantial. Table 7 illustrates
    the range of estimated earnings- for example, in 1997, Minnesota had
    estimated earnings of $7. 5 million while Arizona had estimated earnings of
    $476.4 million. Table 8 presents the estimated impact on total economic
    output. Again, while each states? general aviation output share is less than
    1

    percent of the gross state product, the total economic benefits are
    substantial, ranging from $24.4 million to about $1.5 billion.

    Table 6: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Jobs General
    aviation General

    jobs? share State Year aviation jobs State jobs

    (percent)

    Arizona b 1997 22, 239 1,977,502 1.13 Colorado 1996 8, 155 1, 873,585 0.44
    Georgia c 1992- 93 5168 3, 001,808 0.17 Idaho 1997 3, 157 509,528 0.62
    Kansas d 1997 5, 070 1, 243,093 0.41 Kentucky 1996 1, 374 1, 617,063 0.08
    Maryland 1995 3, 757 2, 145,317 0.18 Minnesota 1997 361 2,423,593 0.01
    Mississippi 1997 1, 563 1,068,747 0.15 New Jersey 1994 16, 000 3,463,345
    0.46 North Carolina 1995 2, 700 3, 431,839 0.08 Oregon 1995 5, 472 1,
    411,916 0.39 Pennsylvania 1994 5, 317 5, 054,453 0.11 Virginia 1995 3, 269
    3, 011,704 0.11 a Ratio of general aviation jobs to state jobs. b Data for
    the state based on only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study
    period was 1997 and 1998.

    c Data for the state are an average of the 2 years. d General aviation
    economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996 survey data. Source:
    GAO?s analysis based on economic impact studies by various states and
    Employment and Wages, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor.

    Table 7: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Earnings

    Dollars in millions

    General aviation share

    of total General aviation

    earnings a State Year earnings State earnings

    (percent)

    Arizona b 1997 $476. 4 $54, 685 0.87 Colorado 1996 $171. 8 $53, 433 0.32
    Georgia c 1992- 93 $103. 8 $73, 925 0.14 Idaho 1997 $60. 8 $12, 255 0.50
    Kansas d 1997 $103. 0 $31, 954 0.32 Kentucky 1996 $35. 9 $39, 557 0.09
    Maryland 1995 $102. 8 $62, 498 0.16 Minnesota 1997 $7. 5 $73, 323 0.01
    Mississippi 1997 $32. 4 $24, 793 0.13 New Jersey 1994 $450. 9 $115, 809 0.39
    North Carolina 1995 $55. 0 $83, 742 0.07 Oregon 1995 $95. 9 $36, 473 0.26
    Pennsylvania 1994 $119. 8 $136, 216 0.09 Virginia 1995 $57. 3 $80, 997 0.07
    a Ratio of general aviation earnings to state earnings. b Data for the state
    based on only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study period was
    1997 and

    1998. c Data for the state are an average of the 2 years.

    d General aviation economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996
    survey data. Source: GAO?s analysis from the economic impact studies by
    various States and Employment and Wages, Annual Averages, Bureau of Labor
    Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor.

    Table 8: General Aviation Economic Impacts in Selected States - Economic
    Output

    Dollars in millions

    General avition output General aviation

    share State Year output Gross state output

    (percent)

    Arizona b 1997 $1, 466.0 $121,200 0. 60 Colorado 1996 $555.5 $116,200 0. 22
    Georgia c 1992- 93 $333.6 $165,000 0. 10 Idaho 1997 $159.6 $29, 100 0.32
    Kansas d 1997 $296.0 $71, 700 0.22 Kentucky 1996 $124.5 $94, 500 0.06
    Maryland 1995 $348.3 $138,100 0. 11 Minnesota 1997 $24.4 $149,400 0. 01
    Mississippi 1997 $102.5 $58, 300 0.08 New Jersey 1994 $1, 300.0 $255,800 0.
    27 North Carolina 1995 $153.0 $193,600 0. 04 Oregon 1995 $422.4 $80, 700
    0.18 Pennsylvania 1994 $389.7 $296,800 0. 06 Virginia 1995 $175.1 $188,000
    0. 05 a Ratio of adjusted general aviation output to the gross state output.
    The adjusted general aviation output is based on the assumption that general
    aviation earnings are about 66% of general aviation output, which is the
    typical share of gross domestic product represented by earnings (wages and
    salaries, other labor income, and proprietor?s income) for the whole nation.
    Thus, the adjusted general aviation output equals general aviation earnings
    divided by 0.66. The adjustment is warranted because to compare general
    aviation?s output impact to gross state output, the impact measure must
    include only the value- added components. The earnings impact measure
    includes only value- added

    but the general aviation output does not. See The Economic Impact of Civil
    Aviation on the U. S. Economy - 2000, p. 6. b Data for the state based on
    only 1997 due to data limitations, although the study period was 1997 and
    1998. c Data for the state are an average of the 2 years. d General aviation
    economic impact estimates were for 1997, based on 1996 survey data.

    Source: GAO?s analysis based on information from economic impact studies by
    various States and Current Regional Studies, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.
    S. Department of Commerce.

    Transportation General aviation airports improve air transportation services
    in local

    Benefits of General communities and in the nation. The improvements in
    transportation

    services can be classified broadly as commercial, community, and other Avi
    ation

    benefits. These benefits help to increase the efficiency and productivity of
    businesses, and they enhance the well- being of individuals in the community
    and the nation at large. 5 Commercial Benefits General aviation saves time
    and reduces costs to business travelers who

    use general aviation airports instead of transportation alternatives, such
    as driving, or using a more distant airport or a congested commercial
    airport. By using general aviation airports, many businesses are able to
    increase their productivity as well as the flexibility of the schedules of
    their top business executives. For example, the headquarters for a noted
    drugstore chain is located in the middle of the Northeast United States and
    a logistical hike from almost everywhere else. This company operates over
    4,000 neighborhood drug stores in 30 states. The company uses a helicopter
    to enable its senior managers to move rapidly from door to door. The company
    estimated that it probably saves from 1 to 1. 5 staff- hours per

    passenger for every hour it flies. General aviation also facilitates
    commercial activities, including agricultural applications (such as aerial
    seeding and spraying), monitoring pipelines and utility lines, and providing
    express or just- in- time cargo and

    package delivery services. Mississippi, among other states, uses aerial
    seeding and insect spraying to enhance agricultural yields and improve crop
    quality. Minnesota is among the states that use aerial inspections of
    utilities to enable businesses to monitor their infrastructure and quickly

    locate problems. Community Benefits General aviation provides public health
    services. General aviation is a

    critical component of a community?s public health network, used for regular
    or emergency transportation of persons, medical equipment and supplies. In
    Arkansas, helicopters are used in emergency situations to transfer
    critically injured patients for treatment. Air response can save

    5 See, for example. FAA (1992), Estimating the Regional Economic
    Significance of Airports, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal
    Aviation Administration, Washington, D. C., Report DOT/ FAA/ PP- 92- 6.

    valuable time in delivering treatment that can mean the difference between
    life and death. Aviation is also used to transfer patients between hospitals
    for specialist care, transfer organs for transplant, and to transport health
    care specialists to rural areas for patient care.

    General aviation activities also assist state and federal governments in
    addressing challenges to public safety by facilitating both routine and
    emergency services, including monitoring floods, forest fires and storms,
    and providing relief to victims of natural disasters. General aviation
    airports serve as vital civil defense facilities, providing key staging
    grounds for responding to natural disasters, local police and surveillance
    work, and Civil Air Patrol and National Guard activities.

    General aviation provides recreational facilities for individuals who use
    general aviation airports for leisure activities, including skydiving,
    personal pleasure flying, flying home- built aircraft, local sightseeing,
    and tourism. For example, 436,000 tourists annually choose to visit
    Pennsylvania via

    private or corporate aircraft. These tourists spend over $28.4 million
    annually for hotels, food, retail, and other items.

    General aviation assists in aerial photography that is used for a variety of
    purposes, including mapping, surveying, and in managing environmental and
    wildlife matters. In Maryland, as elsewhere, aerial photography has become
    an indispensable tool for local developers, planners, and others who depend
    on the aerial surveys for their business operations.

    General aviation helps to aid economic development by attracting businesses
    to small- and medium- sized communities. The availability of a general
    aviation airport is one of the factors that businesses consider when they
    are contemplating relocation or expansion. 6 An April 2000 National Air
    Transportation Association (NATA) telephone survey indicated that

    between 44 and 60 percent of survey respondents believed that recruitment of
    new business and industry and retention of current business was very
    important or one of the most important benefits provided by local general
    aviation airports. An identical percentage of respondents believed that the
    airports had a positive impact on local businesses and the local economy.

    6 See, for example, Economic Impact of New Jersey?s General Aviation
    Airports, prepared for the New Jersey Division of Aeronautics, by the
    Airport Technology and Planning Group, Inc. (May 1996). Other factors
    include available labor supply, convenient highway access, tax incentives,
    and academic and cultural centers.

    Other Benefits General aviation airports relieve congestion by freeing
    operating slots at nearby busy commercial service airports. This service
    benefits commercial- air travelers by allowing the commercial airports to
    support higher passenger and cargo volumes. Between 29 and 47 percent of the
    respondents to the NATA survey believed that serving as an alternative
    airport for private aircraft to reduce air traffic at large commercial
    airports was a very important or one of the most important benefits of
    general aviation airports. General aviation airports provide flight
    instruction facilities for training new pilots in the aviation industry.
    Apart from the direct benefits to the new pilots, using public- use general
    aviation airports rather than commercial airports for flight training also
    reduces crowding at commercial airports. A majority of respondents to the
    NATA survey, between 51 and 63 percent, believed that general aviation
    airports? role in providing training services and facilities for pilots was
    very important or one of the most important benefits.

    General aviation provides the fastest means of accessing the national
    airspace system, especially for many small and medium towns and cities,
    which, in turn, provides access to other regions of the nation and the world
    at large.

    Limitations of General aviation can have a significant economic impact on
    the local Measuring Economic economies of communities served by the
    airports, of the states, and of the nation, as estimated in various studies.
    However, the estimated values Impacts and reported in these studies may not
    reflect the true or actual economic Transportation impact of general
    aviation for many reasons. The limitations of the studies

    Benefits of General on the economic impact of general aviation include the
    following major

    issues. Avi ation

    Opportunity Cost of General The studies of the economic impact of general
    aviation do not account for Aviation Activities

    the economic impact of using the funds for the general aviation activities
    in alternative projects. The economic impact methodology, therefore, assumes
    implicitly that general aviation activities do not replace other economic
    activities. But this assumption is not necessarily true. Ideally, the
    economic impact studies should measure only those activities that exist

    only because of general aviation airports. This would involve developing a
    base- case (or counterfactual) scenario that depicts a community without the
    general aviation airport. Furthermore, from a local perspective, the local
    community benefits from the direct and indirect economic impacts resulting
    from the construction and operation of a general aviation airport. However,
    from a national or regional perspective, these impacts may simply be a
    redistribution of benefits from one local area to another rather than a net
    gain.

    Measurement of the One of the categories of the total economic impact of
    general aviation is the

    Induced or Multiplier induced (or multiplier) effect from the direct and
    indirect impacts of Economic Impacts

    general aviation activities. The estimated multipliers generally tend to be
    less reliable for small areas of the national economy because there are no
    readily reliable data to use in computing them. Also, the value of the
    multiplier in local communities depends on how the region affected by the
    economic impact is defined. Another important problem is that different
    economic models are used in different studies to determine the induced

    effects, and different methodologies exist within each model, making
    comparisons of the estimates from different studies difficult. 7

    Double- Counting of There is the potential for double counting of benefits
    under the benefit- cost Economic Transactions

    methodology for evaluating general aviation airports. For instance, there is
    Under the Benefit- Cost double- counting of benefits when both the
    timesaving benefits realized by Methodology

    airport users and the fees that they pay to airport operators are counted
    because the former is reflected in the latter.

    While it is generally agreed that general aviation activities can provide
    benefits from improvements in air transportation services, there are
    significant practical problems in identifying and measuring the 7 Types of
    models include economic base models, econometric models, and input- output

    models. See, for example, Michael W. Babcock, ?The Economic Significance of
    General Aviation Airports in Rural Areas,? Journal of the Transportation
    Research Forum, vo1. 39, no. 3, Summer 2000, pp. 141- 156. The most popular
    model used is the input- output. However, different input- output multiplier
    systems have been employed. For instance, there is the AIMS (Automated
    Input- Ouptput Multiplier system), the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning)
    system, and the RIMS (Regional Input- Output Modeling System).

    transportation benefits. 8 For instance, it is difficult to estimate the
    dollar value of travel time savings to individuals whose time has different
    opportunity costs, or the value of general aviation services to an
    individual who uses the airport for leisure or recreation. Furthermore, the
    discussion

    and estimation of transportation benefits of general aviation services tend
    to ignore some important external costs and benefits, such as the costs of
    pollution and noise from aircraft, and the benefits from relieving
    congestion at nearby commercial service airports.

    General Aviation As noted above, communities realize considerable benefits
    from general

    Enjoys Community aviation airports, and general aviation receives community
    support in return. Such support was recently demonstrated in a telephone
    survey Support

    conducted by the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). Among other
    things, questions were included on perceived benefits of general aviation
    airports. Between 44 and 60 percent of survey respondents said general
    aviation airports had a positive impact on local businesses and the local
    economy. An identical percentage of respondents thought recruitment of new
    business and industry and the retention of current business was very
    important or one of the most important benefits provided by local general
    aviation airports. An even higher percentage of respondents, 51 to 63
    percent, believed it was very important that the

    general aviation airports provided training services and facilities for
    pilots. Favorable reactions were also offered for general aviation airports
    serving as an alternative for private aircraft to reduce air traffic at
    large commercial airports and as a source of jobs.

    8 See, for example, Harry P. Wolfe, ?Quantifying the Benefits of a New
    General Aviation Airport: A Return on Investment Approach,? Transportation
    Research Circular,

    Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.
    C., No. 259, July 1983, pp. 33- 38.

    Appendi x II

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment GAO Contacts Gerald L. Dillingham
    (202) 512- 2834 Christopher A. Keisling (404) 679- 1917 Staff

    Jonathan Bachman, Janet Barbee, Carolyn Boyce, Jay Cherlow, Elizabeth
    Acknowledgments Eisenstadt, Dana Greenberg, Heather Halliwell, Art James,
    John Karikari, Paul Lacey, Bert Japikse, Richard Scott, and Alwynne Wilbur
    made key contributions to this report. (348201) Lett er

    Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
    copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

    the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
    accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
    address are discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
    DC 20013

    Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
    U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

    Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

    phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
    lists.

    Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
    Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

    info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    To Report Fraud, Contact one:

    Waste, or Abuse in  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet.
    htm

    Federal Programs

     e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering
    system)

    a

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    Page i GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Contents

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Contents

    Page iii GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Contents

    Page iv GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation United States General Accounting Office

    Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    A

    August 31, 2001 Lett er

    The Honorable John L. Mica Chairman The Honorable William O. Lipinski
    Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Aviation Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure House of Representatives

    The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. House of Representatives

    In response to your request to conduct a comprehensive overview of the
    status of general aviation, especially since the passage the General
    Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), we addressed three research questions.

     What did key indicators in general aviation activity show in the years
    leading up to GARA and what have they shown since then?  What funding is
    available for general aviation airports and is it sufficient to accommodate
    planned development?

     What are the trends in general aviation accident rates and the causes of
    accidents, and how have the Federal Aviation Administration( FAA) and the
    industry attempted to improve safety?

    We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees
    and to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator of FAA; and the
    Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies
    available to others on request. If you or your staffs have any questions
    about this report or would like to discuss it further, I can be reached at
    (202) 512- 2834. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

    Gerald L. Dillingham Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

    Page 2 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 3 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 4 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 5 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 6 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 7 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 8 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Executive Summary Page 9 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 2 Post- GARA Growth Strongest in Manufacturing

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 3 Airport Infrastructure

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 47 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 48 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 49 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 50 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 51 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 52 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 53 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 54 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 55 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 56 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 57 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 58 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 59 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 60 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 61 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 62 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Chapter 4 General Aviation Safety

    Page 63 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 64 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 65 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 66 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 67 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 68 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 69 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 70 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 71 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 72 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Appendix I Economic Contributions to Local Communities and the Nation Are
    Difficult to Measure

    Page 73 GAO- 01- 916 General Aviation

    Page 74 GAO-??-?? Document Name

    Appendix II

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***