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. ***