Aviation Safety: FAA Management Practices for Technical Training
Mostly Effective; Further Actions Could Enhance Results
(07-SEP-05, GAO-05-728).
One key way that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes
air travel safer is to inspect the manufacture, operation, and
maintenance of aircraft that fly in the United States. To better
direct its resources, FAA is shifting from an inspection process
that relied on spot-checks of compliance with regulations to one
that evaluates operating procedures and analyzes inspection data
to identify areas that pose the most risk to safety (called
system safety). While FAA believes the new approach requires some
technical knowledge of aircraft, Congress and GAO have
long-standing concerns over whether FAA inspectors have enough
technical knowledge to effectively identify risks. GAO reviewed
the extent that FAA follows effective management practices in
ensuring that inspectors receive up-to-date technical training.
In addition, GAO is reporting on technical training that the
aviation industry provides to FAA.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-728
ACCNO: A35898
TITLE: Aviation Safety: FAA Management Practices for Technical
Training Mostly Effective; Further Actions Could Enhance Results
DATE: 09/07/2005
SUBJECT: Aircraft
Employee training
Inspection
Safety regulation
Safety standards
Training utilization
Agency missions
Strategic planning
Policy evaluation
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** 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-05-728
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
September 2005
AVIATION SAFETY
FAA Management Practices for Technical Training Mostly Effective; Further
Actions Could Enhance Results
a
GAO-05-728
[IMG]
September 2005
AVIATION SAFETY
FAA Management Practices for Technical Training Mostly Effective; Further
Actions Could Enhance Results
What GAO Found
For its technical training, FAA follows many of the effective management
practices for training that GAO has advocated and is improving its efforts
in others. (See below.) In planning, FAA has linked technical training
efforts to its goal of safer air travel and has identified technical
proficiencies needed to improve safety inspectors' performance in meeting
this goal. It plans to better relate training to job tasks and is in the
early stages of developing an approach to set priorities for new courses
and course revisions.
FAA Mostly Follows Effective Management Practices for Its Technical
Training Element Extent followed
Practices in planning training efforts Mostly
Practices in developing training curriculum and courses Mostly
Practices in delivering training Partially
Practices in evaluating training efforts Mostly
Source: GAO.
In developing technical courses, FAA has a structured process aimed at
ensuring that courses meet performance objectives. It allows inspectors
and others to identify the need for new training courses and to aid in
developing courses. FAA is developing an initiative to systematically
identify specific technical competencies and training requirements for
inspectors.
In delivering courses, FAA offers a wide array of technical courses from
which inspectors can select to meet job needs. From GAO's survey of FAA's
inspectors, we estimate that only about half think that they have the
technical knowledge needed for their jobs. FAA officials told us that
inspectors' negative views stem from their wanting to acquire
proficiencies that are not as crucial in a system safety environment. GAO
also estimates that 28 percent of inspectors believe that they get the
technical training that they request. However, FAA's records show that FAA
approves about 90 percent of these requests, and inspectors are making
good progress in receiving training. Over half of the inspectors have
completed at least 75 percent of technical training that FAA considers
essential.
In evaluating courses, FAA continuously assesses technical training
through end-of-course evaluations and surveys of inspectors and
supervisors. FAA is developing an approach to measure the impact of
training on FAA's mission goals, such as reducing accidents. This is a
difficult task.
Technical and Other Training Enables FAA to Inspect a Wide Variety of
Aircraft
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Strategic Planning Activities Generally Reflect Effective Practices
and Focus on Reducing a Large Gap in System Safety
Knowledge
FAA Follows Effective Management Practices in Developing
Individual Courses but Recognizes the Need to Develop a Unified
Curriculum
FAA Provides Extensive Support for Delivering Training; However,
Many Inspectors Believe Improvements Could Help Them Do
Their Jobs More Effectively
Although FAA Uses Several Approaches to Evaluate Technical
Training Provided, Assessing Impact on Performance Remains to
Be Done
Industry Provides Much of FAA's Technical Training; Additional
Safeguards Needed to Prevent Real or Appearances of Conflicts
of Interest
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1 4 8
14
18
26
43
49 57 59 60
Appendixes
Appendix I: Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Training 62
Appendix II: Additional Details on Training Data and Selected Inspector
Survey Responses 65
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 77
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82
Related GAO Products 83
FAA Safety Inspector Training 83
Human Capital 84
Related FAA Training 85
Tables Table 1: Types of Inspectors, Responsibilities, and Numbers, as of
April 2005 9
Table 2: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management
Practices in Planning for Training 15
Contents
Table 3: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management
Practices in Developing Courses 19
Table 4: Extent That FAA Follows Effective Management Practices
in Delivering Technical Training 26
Table 5: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Technical
Courses 39
Table 6: Average Number of Technical and Nontechnical Training
Courses Taken, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 40
Table 7: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management
Practices in Evaluating Its Training Program 44
Table 8: Number of Memoranda of Understanding and Fleets
Enrolled as Part of the Aircrew Designated Examiner
Program and Agreements with Training Centers 52
Table 9: Numbers of Inspectors Trained under Aircrew Designated
Examiner Program and Agreements with Training Centers,
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 53
Table 10: Percent of Essential Courses That Are Technical in
Nature 66
Table 11: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Courses 66
Table 12: Average Number of Technical Training Courses Taken
Outside of Requirements, Fiscal Years 2002 through
2004 67
Table 13: Inspectors' Views on Extent to Which They Currently Have
Enough Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs 67
Table 14: Inspectors' Views on Extent to Which Requested Technical
Training Is Approved 68
Table 15: Inspectors' Views on Whether Availability of Courses
Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested
Technical Training 69
Table 16: Inspectors' Views on Whether Availability of Funds Helped
or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical
Training 70
Table 17: Inspectors' Views on Whether Management's
Determination of Need Helped or Hindered Their Ability to
Take Requested Technical Training 71
Table 18: Inspectors' Views on Whether Inspection Workload Helped
or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical
Training 72
Table 19: Inspectors' Views on the Degree to Which Technical
Training Is Delivered in a Timely Manner 73
Contents
Table 20: Inspectors' Views on the Extent That They Receive
Technical Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight
Activities 74 Table 21: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry
as
Reported by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 75 Table 22: Inspectors'
Views on the Extent to Which Technical
Training Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work
Location 76 Table 23: Experts Consulted for Our Work 78
Figures Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3: Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9:
FAA's Safety Inspections Cover a Wide Range of
Activities
FAA Safety Inspector Training Roles and
Responsibilities
FAA's Structured Approach for Course Development
FAA Inspectors Receiving Training in a Classroom
Setting
Inspectors Responding that to a Great or Very Great
Extent They Currently Have Enough Technical
Knowledge to Do Their Jobs
Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is
Approved
Inspectors' Views on Factors Hindering Their Ability to
Take Requested Technical Training
Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which Technical
Training Is Delivered in a Timely Manner
Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which They Received
Technical Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight
Activities
11
13 22
24
31 36 38 41
42 50
63
64
Figure 10: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as Reported
by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004
Figure 11: Number of Weeks Inspectors Reported Spending on Travel for
Technical Training within the Past 12 Months
Figure 12: Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training
Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work Location
Contents
Abbreviations
FAA Federal Aviation Administration ATOS Air Transportation Oversight
System
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
September 7, 2005
The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye,
Co-Chairman Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation U.S. Senate
The Honorable Don Young, Chairman The Honorable James L. Oberstar, Ranking
Member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of
Representatives
FAA's overarching goal for technical training is to improve aviation
safety. One key way that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes
air travel safe for the public and the movement of goods is to inspect the
manufacture, operation, and maintenance of aircraft that fly in the United
States. To do so, about 3,700 FAA inspectors perform hundreds of thousands
of inspections annually.1 Carrying out these inspections has become more
challenging with the rapid growth in the number and type of aircraft in
use and their increasing technical sophistication.
Concerns about the quality of inspections heightened after the
investigation of the 1996 crash of ValuJet flight 592 revealed
deficiencies in FAA's inspection system. In response, FAA began to make
fundamental changes in its approach to inspections. Traditionally, FAA
aviation safety inspectors relied on their expertise to conduct
inspections that spotchecked manufacturing processes, aircraft operations,
and aircraft maintenance for compliance with regulations. FAA is
transitioning to a risk-based system safety approach to inspections that
requires inspectors to apply data analysis and auditing skills to
identify, analyze, assess, and
1In addition, FAA delegates about 90 percent of its safety inspection
activities to about 13,600 private persons and organizations, known as
designees. The designees augment FAA's inspection workforce by allowing
inspectors to concentrate on what FAA considers to be the most critical
safety areas. For example, while designees conduct routine functions, such
as approvals of aircraft technologies that the agency and designees have
had previously experience with, FAA inspectors focus on new and complex
aircraft designs or design changes. For an assessment of the designee
programs, see GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to Strengthen the Management
of Its Designee Programs, GAO-05-40 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2004).
control the potential hazards and risks of flying and to prevent
accidents.2 While we have endorsed FAA's move toward a system safety
approach to inspections, congressional oversight committees and we have
had longstanding concerns over whether FAA inspectors have sufficient
knowledge of increasingly complex aircraft, aircraft parts, and systems to
effectively identify safety risks.
The Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, enacted in
December 2003, requires that we report on FAA's actions to ensure that
inspectors receive up-to-date training on the latest technologies. We call
this technical training, although this use of the term "technical" differs
somewhat from FAA's use of the term.3 Consistent with the act, this report
focuses on the extent to which FAA follows effective management practices
for (1) planning, (2) developing, and (3) delivering up-to-date technical
training, and (4) ensuring that technical training for inspectors
contributes to improved performance and results. It also discusses the
degree to which the aviation industry provides technical training to FAA
safety inspectors and discusses the safeguards in place to help preclude
the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest when inspectors
receive certain kinds of training from a regulated entity. Finally, as
required by the act, the report provides information on the amount of
travel required of inspectors in receiving technical training. (See app.
I.)
2System safety is a multidisciplinary, integrated, and comprehensive
regulatory approach using engineering and management principles, criteria,
and techniques to identify and mitigate high-risk areas. When FAA uses it
in the oversight of airlines, the system safety approach covers every
aspect of an airline's operations, from the design of the hardware to the
culture and attitudes of the airline's personnel. The approach calls for a
systematic review of an airline's policies and procedures to ensure that
they incorporate such basic safety principles as clear lines of
responsibility and written documentation. According to FAA, the approach
allows it to concentrate and target inspector resources where there is the
greatest safety risk. The success of a system safety approach to
regulation depends on comprehensive safety data, sophisticated analysis
tools, and a workforce well trained in risk assessment, auditing, systems
thinking, and communications.
3In addition to training involving aviation technologies (such as use of
new materials in aircraft and aircraft electronic systems), FAA includes
in its definition of technical training, topics such as inspector job
skills, risk analysis, data analysis and training in software packages,
such as spreadsheets. Our use of the term "technical" is limited to
aviation technologies.
This report focuses on how FAA ensures that its inspectors possess the
technical proficiency they need to do their jobs through following
effective management practices and whether inspectors are receiving the
technical training that FAA has determined is essential for its
inspectors.4 We did not attempt to assess the technical proficiency that
FAA's workforce requires (and will require in the near future) and compare
it with the proficiency that currently exists. Because of the diversity
and size of the inspector workforce and the wide variety of aircraft
technologies that FAA is responsible for overseeing, this type of
assessment would have been a massive undertaking and would be more
properly done by FAA. We also did not attempt to compare the technical
training received by inspectors with the tasks and activities that
inspectors perform. FAA's inspector activity database contains tens of
thousands of task and activity records, and the manner in which these
records are stored did not allow us to electronically sort and analyze the
data. However, to provide some insight into these two issues, we did
discuss these issues with FAA officials and surveyed FAA's inspectors on
their views, as described below.
To assess whether FAA follows effective management practices regarding
technical training, we compared FAA's management of its inspector
technical training efforts with effective management practices outlined in
our 2004 guide for assessing strategic training activities in the federal
government and determined the extent to which FAA followed the relevant
elements of this guidance.5 In addition, we analyzed FAA documents
pertaining to planning, developing, delivering, and evaluating inspector
training and discussed these activities with FAA officials involved in
inspector training and the management of inspection programs at FAA
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the FAA Training Academy in Oklahoma
City. To examine the training provided, including technical training, we
analyzed FAA data on training courses taken by inspectors from 2002
through 2004 and FAA's evaluation of technical training courses during
that period. We discussed technical training with safety inspectors
4We considered all training that FAA classifies as either mandatory,
position essential, or continuing development as essential training.
Mandatory is training that is required for all newly hired inspectors and
previous experience may not be substituted for this training. Position
essential is training or a skill that is required based on an inspector's
current position (e.g., training required for maintenance inspectors). To
determine which courses were technical, we reviewed the description for
each course taken from 2002 through 2004 and determined whether it was
primarily technical in nature, within our use of the term.
5GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).
and their supervisors at 7 of FAA's approximately 130 field locations. The
locations were chosen to represent the range of FAA inspection
responsibilities. We also conducted a self-administered electronic survey
posted on the World Wide Web to a stratified random sample of FAA safety
inspectors to obtain their views about their technical proficiency and the
technical training they receive. We received useable responses from 79
percent of the inspectors surveyed. This report does not contain all the
results from the survey. The survey and a complete tabulation of the
overall results (excluding results by type of inspector, which are too
voluminous to present) can be viewed at GAO-05-704SP. Finally, we obtained
further perspective on FAA's training curriculum through semistructured
interviews with 16 experts from the aviation industry and the field of
aviation education who were selected on the basis of having extensive
background and knowledge of the technical areas covered by FAA
inspections. As part of our review, we assessed internal controls and the
reliability of FAA's data on the amounts and types of training received
that are pertinent to this effort. We determined that the data elements
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from
March 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. (See app. III for additional information on
our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief FAA has made training an integral part of its safety
inspection system, which in recent years has emphasized risk analysis
techniques over individual inspector technical knowledge of aircraft,
aircraft parts, and systems. FAA has generally followed several effective
management practices for planning, developing, delivering, and assessing
the impact of its technical training for its aviation safety inspectors,
although some practices have yet to be fully implemented. Regarding
planning for technical training, for example, FAA's training efforts for
the most part follow effective management practices and are intended to
support its goals for improving aviation safety, and they largely focus on
effectively implementing a system safety approach to inspections.
According to FAA, it has identified gaps in several of the competencies
required to conduct system safety inspection, including risk assessment,
data analysis, auditing, and systems thinking, and the agency is currently
working to address these gaps. In FAA's view-although it recognizes the
importance of inspectors staying up to date with changes in aviation
technology-the competencies needed for system safety inspections are the
most critical for inspectors, and the gaps in these competencies are much
larger than gaps in technical skills and competencies relating to the
production, operation, and
maintenance of aircraft. In addition, FAA Office of Aviation Safety
officials said that inspectors do not need a substantial amount of
technical training because inspectors are hired with a high degree of
technical knowledge of aircraft and aircraft systems, and they can
sufficiently keep abreast of many of the changes in aviation technology
through FAA and industry training courses and on-the-job training.
Nevertheless, FAA plans to identify specific technical competencies and
training requirements as part of a process intended to better relate
training to the job tasks of each inspector specialty.6
FAA also for the most part follows effective management practices for
developing its inspector technical training curriculum. For example, FAA
integrates the development of courses with overall strategies to improve
performance and to meet emerging demands. In this regard, FAA develops
courses that support changes in inspection procedures resulting from
regulatory changes or agency initiatives, such as the implementation of
the system safety approach to inspections. FAA will also consider
developing training courses that are requested by inspectors and managers.
FAA also works to match the training delivery approach with the nature of
the material presented to best meet inspector and agency needs-such as
delivery at a central location in FAA's Training Academy in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; in multiple locations closer to field offices; or through
computer-based instruction. While following many effective practices in
this area, FAA has not systematically identified the technical skills and
competencies each type of inspector needs to effectively perform
inspections. As a result, technical courses are developed on an ad hoc
basis rather than as part of an overall curriculum for each inspector
specialty. FAA has recognized this problem and is developing an initiative
that will systematically assess whether the complete array of training for
each inspector specialty meets performance requirements.
In delivering technical courses, FAA has followed effective management
practices to differing degrees. For example, FAA has established clear
accountability for ensuring that inspectors have access to technical
training, developed a way for inspectors to choose courses that meet job
needs and further professional development, and offers a wide array of
6FAA inspectors specialize in conducting inspections of various aspects of
the aviation system, such as aircraft and parts manufacturing, aircraft
operations, aircraft airworthiness, and cabin safety. See the background
section of this report for more information on inspector specialization.
technical and other courses. However, inspectors are for the most part
dissatisfied with the technical training they receive. From an analysis of
the survey, we estimate that only about half of FAA's inspectors think
that they have the technical knowledge needed to do their jobs,7 only
about one-third are satisfied with the technical training they have
recently received, and less than half believe that they get to take the
technical training that they request. However, our analysis of FAA
training data indicates that FAA has approved about 90 percent of the
technical courses requested by inspectors, and inspectors in general are
making good progress in completing the technical training essential for
their positions (77 percent of the inspectors have completed at least half
of their essential courses, and 46 percent have completed at least 80
percent of their essential courses). In addition, according to the survey,
we estimate that only 23 percent of FAA's inspectors think that they
receive technical training in time to do their current job. FAA's records
do not allow us to assess the timeliness of training. FAA officials told
us that inspectors' negative views on their technical knowledge and the
training they received stem from their not accepting FAA's move to a
system safety approach. That is, the inspectors are concerned about
acquiring individual technical proficiency that is not as crucial in a
system safety/risk management environment. Given that it has not completed
assessing whether training for each inspector specialty meets performance
requirements, FAA is not in a position to make definitive conclusions
concerning the adequacy of inspector technical training.
FAA for the most part follows several effective management practices in
evaluating individual technical training courses. For example, it
continuously assesses technical training through participant end-of-course
evaluations and surveys of inspectors and supervisors that focus on the
application of skills and knowledge to the job. FAA also requires that
each
7Because of the statistical survey techniques we employed in surveying
FAA's inspectors, we are 95 percent confident that the results we present
are within 4.6 percentage points of the results that we would have
obtained if we had surveyed all 3,000 front-line inspectors. That is, we
are 95 percent confident that had we surveyed all inspectors, between 48
and 57 percent of them would have told us that, to a great or very great
extent, they have the technical knowledge to do their jobs. All percentage
estimates from the survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6
percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.
Throughout the survey we used a 5-point scale (very great, great,
moderate, some, and no extent). For the most part, we report on the degree
to which inspectors expressed their views to a very great or great extent
because we believe that "a moderate extent" does not represent a strong
positive or negative view and does not represent a level of performance to
which a high-performing organization should aspire.
training course receive a systematic evaluation every 3 years to determine
if the course is up to date and relevant to inspectors' jobs, although
training officials noted that many courses have yet to undergo such an
evaluation. However, FAA has taken limited action to evaluate the overall
impact of its technical training on inspector performance in achieving
mission goals, such as reducing accidents. Although FAA surveys its
employees on their attitudes regarding many aspects of their employment,
including the extent to which they were able to apply agency training to
their jobs and perform their jobs effectively, it is not able to isolate
inspectors' responses from those of its other employees. Moreover, the
survey does not ask employees to differentiate between the types of
training they receive, such as technical and nontechnical training.
Experts on training in government agencies emphasize the importance of
using an approach to evaluating training that goes beyond individual
course evaluations and includes such indicators as the amount of learning
that occurs from training programs and their organizational impact.
However, training experts acknowledge that isolating performance
improvements resulting from training programs is difficult for any
organization.
FAA has increasingly relied on the aviation industry to provide technical
training in fiscal years 2002 through 2004. In fiscal year 2004 (latest
data available), industry delivered nearly half of FAA's technical
training. Although FAA pays for most of the technical training that
industry provides, from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 about, 17 percent
of industryprovided technical training was supplied to FAA in exchange for
an in-kind service, such as delegating authority to conduct inspections,
(called quid pro quo arrangements) with some apparently limited additional
training supplied at no cost to the agency. To a large degree, FAA has
established safeguards to help preclude actual or appearances of a
conflict of interest, such as executing agreements with aviation industry
training providers it regulates outlining the conditions under which it
will accept training for inkind service or at no cost. However, FAA has
not included provisions covering its enforcement and oversight authority
in all agreements with aviation industry training providers. In addition,
two regional officials said that their regions accept free training on a
limited basis outside the formal agreements with the training providers;
one of these officials identified 57 instances over the past 5 years in
which inspectors received free training from aircraft manufacturers or
operators. Because these opportunities generally arise at the local office
level, whether such an offer is reviewed by legal counsel is dependent on
the office manager, the manager's understanding of the FAA policy, and a
judgment about whether a specific
training opportunity raises any concern that should be reviewed by legal
counsel.
Although FAA has followed effective management practices in many areas in
providing technical training to its safety inspectors, we are making
several recommendations aimed at, among other things, improving FAA's
identification of gaps in inspectors' technical knowledge that relate to
their jobs, better aligning the timeliness of training to when inspectors
need the training to do their jobs, gaining inspectors' acceptance for
changes made or planned to their training, and ensuring that the
acceptance of training from aviation industry providers does not limit
FAA's enforcement authority or pose a real or potential conflict of
interest.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Transportation
generally agreed with the information that we presented and agreed to
consider our recommendations. However, the department expressed the view
that we should have considered, as positive responses, the views of
inspectors who responded to survey questions as "moderate extent," along
with those who responded to a "great extent" or "very great extent." The
extent scale that we used in our survey represents a unidirectional scale.
As such, it is possible to interpret any point along that scale, other
than "no extent," as positive, depending upon how a question is worded.
Generally, we presented information in the report with both "very great
extent" and "great extent" combined to represent the clearly most positive
responses.
Background Ensuring the safety of the nation's aviation system is the
shared responsibility of FAA and the aviation industry. Aircraft
manufacturers are responsible for building safe aircraft. Aircraft
operators are responsible for the safe maintenance and operation of
aircraft. FAA is responsible for, among other things, certifying that the
manufacture of aircraft and aircraft parts meets FAA standards,
encouraging the development of new aviation technologies, and conducting
periodic inspections to ensure continued compliance with safety
regulations. Within FAA, the Office of Aviation Safety (1) directs and
manages aviation safety through inspection (called surveillance by FAA)
and oversight programs; (2) creates and amends standards and policies; and
(3) certifies that aircraft, manufacturers, maintenance services, and
individuals who operate aircraft meet FAA safety standards before they
carry out their activities (called certification).
FAA's 3,700 inspectors are located in more than 130 offices throughout the
world. About 3,000 of these are front-line inspectors. These inspectors
specialize in conducting inspections of various aspects of the aviation
system, such as aircraft and parts manufacturing, aircraft operation,
aircraft airworthiness, and cabin safety. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Types of Inspectors, Responsibilities, and Numbers, as of April 2005
Inspector type Areas of responsibility Number
Air carrier operations Responsible for evaluating airmen (pilots,
aviators, or aviation technicians) for initial and continuing
qualifications, airmen training programs, equipment, and facilities, and
aircraft operations for adequacy of facilities, equipment, and procedures
to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Air carrier inspectors are
responsible for evaluating pilots, dispatchers, air carriers, and similar
operators.
Air carrier maintenance Focuses on evaluating mechanics and repair
stations for initial and continuing certification and mechanic training
programs. Examines the overall aircraft maintenance program, including the
development of maintenance manuals and the procedures for repairing
aircraft and their components. Inspects aircraft and related equipment for
airworthiness. Air carrier inspectors evaluate maintenance programs of air
carriers and similar operators.
General aviation operations Duties are similar to air carrier operations
inspectors, with the exception that general aviation operations inspectors
are responsible for evaluating pilots, flight instructors, air taxis, and
similar operators.
General aviation maintenance Duties are similar to air carrier maintenance
inspectors, with the exception that general aviation maintenance
inspectors evaluate maintenance programs of air taxis and similar
operators.
Air carrier avionics Responsible for inspecting aircraft electronics and
related systems for airworthiness, evaluates avionics technicians, repair
stations, and technician training programs. Air carrier inspectors conduct
surveillance and oversight of air carriers and similar operators.
Aircraft certification Administers and enforces safety regulations and
standards for the production and/or modification of aircraft. Evaluates
and oversees the plants that build or assemble aircraft. Inspects
prototype or modified aircraft, aircraft parts, and avionics for
conformity with design specifications and safety standards. Issues
certificates for all civil aircraft.
General aviation avionics Duties are similar to air carrier avionics
inspectors, with the exception that general aviation avionics inspectors
conduct surveillance and oversight of air taxis, travel clubs, and similar
operators.
Cabin safety Serves as a resource and technical authority on cabin 60
safety requirements, such as
verifying that emergency equipment is onboard the
aircraft, as they relate to
activities affecting civil aviation.
Total 3,714
Source: GAO summary of FAA information.
Some inspectors, such as operations and airworthiness inspectors, further
specialize according to the type of aircraft and aircraft operators they
oversee. Other inspectors, such as general aviation inspectors, are
responsible for inspecting a wide range of aircraft, such as those used
for agriculture, air taxi service, industry, and pleasure. (See fig. 1.)
In addition, they inspect flight instructors. Some air carrier inspectors
are assigned to one of the 16 carriers that are currently subject to the
Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) program, which is intended to
identify safety problems through risk analysis;8 while other air carrier
inspectors are responsible for overseeing the operations of several
smaller carriers in a geographic area.
8The goal of ATOS is to identify safety trends in order to spot and
correct problems at their root cause before an accident occurs. This
program allows FAA inspectors to now look at an airline as a whole, to see
how the many elements of its operations-from aircraft to pilots to
maintenance facilities to flight dispatch to cabin safety-interact to meet
federal standards. The program will ultimately encompass all of the
approximately 120 American airlines that operate in the United States, at
any given time.
Figure 1: FAA's Safety Inspections Cover a Wide Range of Activities
Source: FAA.
Note: As a workforce, FAA inspectors conduct a wide variety of
inspections, including ensuring that pilots are qualified to operate air
carrier and general aviation aircraft and inspecting air carrier and
general aviation aircraft for safety.
FAA requires that candidates for safety inspector positions have extensive
technical qualifications and experience, which is usually gained during
careers in the aviation industry. For example, prospective manufacturing
inspectors need experience in and knowledge of industrial technologies.
Similarly, operations inspectors need pilot licenses to fly specific makes
and models of aircraft; maintenance inspectors need to have certifications
to repair the aircraft's airframe and power plant; cabin safety inspectors
need extensive experience in aircraft cabin safety procedures; and
avionics inspectors need extensive experience in servicing an aircraft's
avionics system, which includes radar and other electrical systems.
To supplement the skills inspectors bring with them from their previous
careers in the aviation industry, FAA provides inspectors with extensive
training in federal aviation regulations; inspection and investigative
techniques; and technical skills, such as flight training required for
operations inspectors. The services within FAA's Office of Aviation Safety
that are responsible for conducting inspections of aircraft operators and
aircraft repair stations9 (Flight Standards) and manufacturers (Aircraft
Certification) have each established training units that develop curricula
and specific courses for inspectors. Most of the regulatory, inspection,
and investigative courses are taught by FAA instructors at the FAA
Training Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Much of the technical
training (training that enhances skills concerning the production,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft, aircraft parts, airworthiness, and
systems) is contracted out to vendors, such as flight schools. (App. I
provides information on the amount of inspector training provided by FAA
and vendors.) FAA is also making increased use of nonclassroom training
delivery methods, such as computer-based instruction, Web-based training,
interactive video training, and correspondence courses. Inspectors also
receive extensive on-the-job training, particularly when they are first
hired. FAA has spent an average of $43 million per year on inspector
training activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and plans to spend
$41 million in fiscal year 2005.
The Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification training divisions have
training priorities, which are set by the Associate Administrator for
Aviation Safety. Determining training needs is based on the inspectors'
job. Acquiring training is a shared responsibility between inspectors and
their supervisors. (See fig. 2.) Each year inspectors and their
supervisors meet to decide which training inspectors will request in the
coming year. The inspectors are expected to choose training that will
fulfill their mandatory training requirements in areas such as basic
aircraft accident investigation, air carrier airworthiness, aviation
safety inspector job functions, and data analysis and related skills
needed to perform system safety inspections. Inspectors can also request
training that they believe will further their
9A repair station is an FAA-certified maintenance facility that is
authorized to perform maintenance or alterations on U.S.-registered
aircraft.
professional development. FAA's directorate, regional, and headquarters
offices then compile and fund the training requests. Headquarters training
officials coordinate with the FAA academy and other training vendors to
deliver the training. Inspectors provide feedback to headquarters and
academy officials through surveys and course evaluations.
Figure 2: FAA Safety Inspector Training Roles and Responsibilities
Source: GAO presentation of FAA information.
FAA's transition to the ATOS system safety concept represents a major
change in the way the agency operates as it shifts the oversight emphasis
from the traditional methods of inspection to identifying and assessing
risks to safety. Under the traditional or compliance approach, inspectors
rely upon random inspection activities, such as observing aircraft parked
at departure gates. When applying the system safety approach inspectors
develop comprehensive surveillance plans for each air carrier. Developing
the plans requires using existing safety data, risk indicators and the
inspector's knowledge of the operations to determine the priority and
frequency of inspection activities. The resulting comprehensive
surveillance plan includes a series of inspection tasks to determine
whether an airline has systems in place to ensure safety and a second
series of inspections to verify that the airline is actually using those
systems.
FAA has taken steps to introduce concepts used in ATOS into its
traditional oversight process for the air carriers not in the ATOS
program. In November 1999, FAA instructed its inspectors to begin
adjusting planned inspections for new air carriers, on the basis of
evaluation of areas of
potential safety risks.10 In 2002, inspectors were instructed to perform
safety risk evaluations of all other non-ATOS carriers using ATOS risk
assessment principles as part of their inspections. However, the
inspections of the non-ATOS carriers are still based on a determination of
whether air carriers are complying with regulations rather than whether
air carriers' systems are operating effectively.11 According to FAA, in
the transition to the system safety concept, safety inspectors are
learning new skills, such as data analysis, risk assessment, computer
operations, auditing, systems thinking, and interpersonal skills.
Inspectors will continue to need technical expertise in avionics, cabin
safety, operations, maintenance, and aircraft production and design, and
may need training in composites, basic accident investigation, and
nondestructive inspections courses. FAA has concluded that it will take a
significant training effort to develop and maintain both the system safety
approach as well as the technical competencies.
Strategic Planning Activities Generally Reflect Effective Practices and
Focus on Reducing a Large Gap in System Safety Knowledge
FAA's strategic planning acknowledges the central importance of aviation
safety inspectors and defines their role as mission critical. In its
planning activities for training, FAA has, for the most part, followed
effective management practices by developing strategic approaches to
training that have established broad training priorities for inspectors,
among other things. (See table 2.)
10Air carriers are considered new entrants (or new air carriers) for their
first 5 years of operation.
11We will issue a report on FAA's oversight of non-ATOS carriers later
this year.
Table 2: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in
Planning for Training
Effective management practice Extent followed
Ensures training goals and related performance measures and targets are
consistent with overall Fully mission and goals
Ensures human capital professionals work in partnership with agency
leadership in addressing Fully agency priorities, including training, in
strategic and annual performance planning processes
Determines skills and competencies its workforce needs to achieve current
and emerging agency Mostly goals and identifies gaps-including those
training strategies can help address
Identifies appropriate level of investment for training and prioritizes
funding so that the most Partially important training needs are addressed
first
Ensures agency strategic and tactical changes are promptly incorporated
into training efforts Fully
Source: GAO.
Establishing training goals and performance measures that further overall
agency goals. One of the goals of the inspector training program is to
provide the training required to support inspectors in the FAA transition
to a system safety approach for meeting its goal of increased safety. Both
Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have developed training
initiatives to support this training goal. Flight Standards also has eight
training initiatives focused on improving aviation safety in general, each
of which has related performance measurements or targets along with
strategies, time lines, and resource estimates.12 In addition, to support
the FAA safety goal, the Office of Aviation Safety, which contains both
the Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification services, measures what
the services have done to prepare their workforce to operate in a system
safety environment. This measurement includes information on how the
services have developed and delivered training, redesigned existing
courses, and validated inspector competencies.
12In addition, Flight Standards has recently moved forward with a
curriculum transformation strategy that will fundamentally change how its
training program is managed. Acknowledging that its training activities
tend to be fragmented, sometimes working at cross purposes, and sometimes
leaving major gaps, Flight Standards' transformation strategy calls for a
transition from the current course management structure to one that is
curriculum based. The new structure will integrate individual training
courses into a logical curriculum for each type of inspector that
incorporates the specialty needs of inspectors. Flight Standards believes
this new approach will cover inspectors' technical training needs,
including their training on current technologies. Under this
transformation strategy, training curriculum oversight teams will be
formed for each inspector specialty to ensure that those inspectors
receive the appropriate technical training.
Human capital professionals partnering with agency leadership. In June
2003 Flight Standards established a human capital council which brings
senior managers together with training officials to oversee all human
capital efforts to, among other things, establish priorities that will
both maintain existing inspector technical competencies as well as new and
emerging system safety competencies. In Aircraft Certification, the
manager responsible for training programs is involved in the service's
annual planning process and also participates in weekly meetings of senior
level managers. The training manager keeps the training development staff
informed of new or changing priorities that could affect the training
program.
Determining gaps in workforce skills and competencies. Both Flight
Standards and Aircraft Certification conducted human capital analysis for
their aviation safety inspectors that revealed significant gaps in their
needed competencies and skills as FAA continues its implementation of a
more risk assessment-based system approach to safety oversight. In Flight
Standards the analysis involved a team of FAA senior managers and FAA
subject-matter experts.13 The team reviewed the existing competency
requirements for inspectors and then determined which competencies should
be modified or added over the next 5 years. The list of competencies
compiled was then reviewed by another group of subject-matter experts,
primarily program managers, who estimated the relative importance of the
competencies (existing and new) in the next 5 years as well as the gaps
between the current workforce's actual and needed level for each
competency. The largest critical competency gaps for the inspectors in
Flight Standards included (1) risk assessment, (2) data analysis, (3)
systems thinking, and (4) designee and industry oversight.14 Technical
proficiency training was the only competency that Flight Standards did not
identify as having a critical competency gap, and the list of competencies
for Flight Standards field inspectors issued in February 2005 does not
include technical proficiency. FAA Office of Aviation Safety officials
said that inspectors do not need a substantial amount of technical
training courses because inspectors are hired with a high degree of
technical knowledge of aircraft and aircraft systems, and they can
sufficiently keep abreast of many of the changes in aviation technology
through FAA and
13We did not attempt to assess how Flight Standards conducted its analysis
because it could not locate documentation associated with it.
14Flight Standards officials said that the office is validating the
inspector competencies.
industry training courses and on-the-job training. Flight Standards
officials said that the list of competencies contains items that cut
across all inspection specialties and that it will be the role of
individual curriculum oversight teams to identify the technical skills and
competencies for each inspector specialty. Flight Standards officials said
they will establish these teams as part of an effort to develop specific
curriculums for each inspector specialty (see the following section on
developing training activities).
Aircraft Certification subject-matter experts who manage inspectors
identified four similar critical competency gaps for the implementation of
system safety for its manufacturing inspectors. The gaps included (1)
business and management, (2) data analysis/risk assessment, (3) system
thinking skills, and (4) designee oversight. Aircraft Certification
officials noted that these are skills that its inspectors need to perform
their primary inspection function, which is ensuring that manufacturers
meet design specifications for aircraft parts and components. Inspectors
do this by inspecting the processes and quality assurance systems involved
in aircraft and parts manufacturing.
Prioritizing funding for training activities. Currently in Flight
Standards, requests for course development projects come from the
operational policy divisions to the training division. The training
division then works closely with these individual policy divisions (such
as the Air Transportation Division or the Aircraft Maintenance Division)
to develop or revise the courses they request. However, the existing
process does not explicitly consider which course development projects are
most critical. During fiscal year 2005, Flight Standards plans to develop
an approach that will consider the organizational factors necessary to
prioritize requests for new courses and revision of current courses,
including exploring ways to engage senior management. According to FAA
officials, a curriculum oversight steering committee will provide
strategic direction and prioritization for the service's training needs.
Aircraft Certification already employs a process that prioritizes training
activities on the basis of three factors: impact on aviation safety,
inspector job functions, and the needs of the customer. Training division
officials meet each year to establish training priorities and to determine
the resources needed to meet these priorities. According to these
officials, they are guided by FAA strategic plans and direction they
receive from operational program managers.
Promptly incorporating strategic and tactical changes into training and
development. Flight Standards has recognized the need to quickly
deploy its training in order to reduce the time lag between the
identification of training needs and its delivery as inspector performance
requirements change. Currently Flight Standards has quarterly and
semiannual training program reviews between the training division, the
Flight Standards organizations which sponsor the training, and the FAA
academy to discuss the sponsoring organizations' training needs. It is
also the responsibility of staff who oversee individual courses, known as
course mentors, to ensure courses reflect changes in FAA policies and
procedures or new developments in aviation technologies. In Aircraft
Certification an executive-level mentor is selected from its management
team for each course and is responsible for managing the development of
new courses and the updating of existing courses to respond to changes in
FAA policies and priorities. We did not attempt to assess the extent to
which FAA incorporates strategic and tactical changes into its inspector
training curriculum.
FAA Follows Effective Management Practices in Developing Individual
Courses but Recognizes the Need to Develop a Unified Curriculum
FAA has for the most part followed effective management practices for
developing individual safety inspector courses. (See table 3.) These
practices, such as establishing guidelines that call for the formation of
course development teams for each new course and that require each team to
follow a series of progressive course development steps, are aimed at
enhancing course quality and ensuring that the content of the course meets
the intended course goals and performance objectives. However, FAA has not
systematically identified technical training needs because it develops
courses on a course-by-course basis rather than as part of an overall
curriculum framework.
Table 3: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in
Developing Courses
Effective management practice Extent followed
New courses developed to meet emerging demands and improve performance
Fully
Course development teams enable stakeholders to provide input Fully
Guidelines provide progressive course development steps with ongoing
evaluation at each step Fully
Merits of different course delivery methods are considered Fully
Criteria used for decisions regarding outside training providers Fully
Analysis of training needs and course development linked to overall
curriculum approacha Partially
Source: GAO.
aThis management practice is not specifically identified in our assessment
guide. However, a management approach that assesses training needs
holistically rather than on a course-by-course basis can provide for a
more systematic assessment of whether and how training will help meet
organizational needs.
FAA Follows Many Effective Management Practices for Developing Technical
Courses
FAA follows many effective management practices for developing technical
training courses for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification safety
inspectors.
Ensuring new courses meet emerging demands and improve performance. At the
very beginning of any new course development effort, Flight Standards and
Aircraft Certification validate the need for new aviation safety inspector
training by discussing (1) the facts that indicate the need for training,
(2) the desired outcome of the training in terms of performance, and (3)
the target audience of inspectors who will receive the training. Before
any substantial course development activities occur, Flight Standards and
Aircraft Certification training guidelines require that a task analysis be
conducted. The purpose of the task analysis is to identify essential
tasks, knowledge, and skills needed for effective safety inspector job
performance. FAA then uses this task analysis as the basis for determining
the scope, content, and sequencing of training topics for each new course.
Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have also created different
ways for field and headquarters personnel to request the development of
new aviation safety inspector training courses when a new training need
has emerged. Field personnel who see a need for safety inspectors to
perform a new task or acquire new knowledge can submit training
development requests. In addition, officials in Flight Standards and
Aircraft Certification can propose new training courses for inspectors
when regulatory changes
occur or when new FAA initiatives, such as the system safety approach for
aviation safety inspectors, create a need for additional inspector
knowledge and skills. Those proposing new courses must describe how the
proposed course will contribute to FAA's mission, explain the inspector
knowledge and skills that will be acquired by taking the course, define
the target audience for the proposed course, and describe the impact on
the inspector workforce if the course is not developed.
Enabling qualified personnel to participate as stakeholders. When Flight
Standards and Aircraft Certification begin to develop a new course, a
training development team is formed and different policy, technical, and
training personnel participate in team activities throughout new course
development. As a result, each member of the course development team has
different skills and unique perspectives that he or she can contribute to
course development. Each course development team has a course mentor whose
role is to work with other team members through all course development
stages to ensure that the content of the course meets the intended course
goals and performance objectives. In addition, Flight Standards and
Aircraft Certification also encourage course development teams to have
subject-matter experts. According to FAA, these subjectmatter experts, who
can be FAA employees or even outside consultants, can improve the quality
and accuracy of the new course because they have specific knowledge and
experience in one or more course topics. For example, Flight Standards is
now developing a new course for the advanced avionics "glass cockpit"
displays that are increasingly being used by air carrier and general
aviation operators. (See sidebar.) The expertise and knowledge of the
course development team for the new advanced avionics glass cockpit
display course were significantly enhanced by subject-matter experts who
were assigned to the team and had experience approving aircraft equipped
with these advanced avionics displays.
Besides the course mentor and subject-matter experts, other key team
members on course development teams include instructional systems
designers who provide expertise in training design and course developers
who write the actual lesson plans for the new course.
Experts outside of FAA can also provide input on course development in
many technical subjects. For example, FAA established a partnership with
universities and affiliated industry associations and businesses
throughout the country to form Centers of Excellence, which conduct
aviation research in a number of areas including advanced materials,
aircraft emissions, and airworthiness. The General Aviation Center of
Excellence,
formed in 2001, has conducted research on aircraft seat-restraint systems,
increasing aircraft landing safety, and aircraft de-icing. In addition to
their technical expertise, many universities and private sector companies
in the aviation industry have substantial experience conducting aviation
training and education programs. For example, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University, which is the lead university for the General Aviation Center
of Excellence, has been in the aviation training industry since 1926; and
in addition to pilot and maintenance training, it offers more than 30
degree programs, including programs in engineering, aviation management,
and aviation safety science. FAA already contracts with Embry-Riddle for
some inspector flight training and recently expanded the number of
training locations with another General Aviation Center of Excellence
program. Airlines also have substantial experience offering pilot, crew,
and maintenance training. FAA receives input from training providers like
Embry-Riddle on course development as part of contracted training courses.
FAA officials who work with Centers of Excellence said that there could be
more opportunities for the agency to utilize the technical and aviation
training expertise of the Centers of Excellence in developing its
inspector training program.
Using a structured approach for course development. Flight Standards and
Aircraft Certification both use a structured course development approach
that calls for progressive course development steps and ongoing evaluation
of the training at each step. This approach provides course development
teams with a description of activities that should occur at each step,
which helps to ensure that lesson plans, course materials, and course
delivery methods enable the student to meet course objectives and increase
job performance. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: FAA's Structured Approach for Course Development
Source: GAO presentation of FAA information.
Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification have also built quality
controls into their course development guidelines by requiring evaluation
at each of these course development steps. Generally, after each stage in
the course development process described in figure 3, the course
development team reviews the work that occurred up to that point. For
example, once the course developer has created lesson plans and any course
materials, all members of the course development team review and make
suggestions for revising them. Both Flight Standards and Aircraft
Certification evaluate and test newly developed training in the final
stages of course development. For example, Flight Standards conducts an
operational tryout to see how effective the course is, with actual course
instructors teaching the new course lesson plans and team members acting
as observers. New FAA courses are tested again in the final prototype
stage when instructors, with observers, teach the course in front of
students from the course's planned target audience. These students provide
feedback on each lesson in the course in such areas as clarity of
objectives, appropriateness of the level of instruction, and the
usefulness of training materials. These quality checks are aimed at
ensuring that lesson plans flow smoothly and support the course
objectives.
Considering different approaches for presenting courses. Flight Standards
and Aircraft Certification generally make decisions on the delivery
approach or method to use for aviation safety inspector courses in
the initial stages of course development. For example, the course
development team will consider factors such as the complexity of the
topic, how soon the course is needed, and how many students will need the
training. In the case of training a large number of inspectors on a
relatively simple topic or a quick refresher course, a short self-paced
computer-based or Web-based training course might be selected. Because the
course development process can take months to complete, self-paced
training can also be used when the knowledge or information needs to be
conveyed quickly to a large number of students.
However, when a course requires interaction and hands-on learning and it
covers a lengthy or complex topic, the course development team could
decide that a classroom format followed by practical exercises is the most
suitable delivery method. (See fig. 4.) For example, in developing the
glass cockpit course discussed above, the course development team
considered several factors, including the complexity and the rapid growth
of the technology and the fact that relatively few students have had a
chance to become familiar with glass cockpit systems. The course
development team then decided to use a combination of classroom and
practical exercises as the primary delivery methods. Under this course
format, students participate in classroom lecture and discussion sessions
for the introductory lesson on glass cockpit technology. The students then
have practical exercises on flight simulators with glass cockpit displays
to integrate and reinforce the knowledge gained in the classroom.
Figure 4: FAA Inspectors Receiving Training in a Classroom Setting
Source: FAA.
Note: When covering a technical or complex subject FAA will often use a
classroom format that allows for group interaction and practical
exercises.
Using criteria for decisions on outside training providers. Flight
Standards and Aircraft Certification have developed and apply criteria for
deciding whether to use outside training providers for their new aviation
safety inspector courses. For example, one criterion is whether FAA or an
outside training provider has more technical expertise. Generally, FAA
will use its own instructors to teach many of the introductory courses
that inspectors receive when they first join FAA. This is because many of
these courses provide the new safety inspector with a familiarization of
inspector responsibilities and job functions and a description of aviation
regulations, and FAA is usually the most appropriate training provider to
cover these topics. However, in a given aviation technology area, some
private sector companies that concentrate in a technology will have more
expertise than FAA. For example, because an outside training provider has
more specialized technical knowledge in composite materials,15 Flight
Standards
15Composite materials are materials that when combined are stronger than
the individual materials by themselves. The benefits of using composite
materials in aviation include light weight, durability, and corrosion
resistance.
contracts with this provider to deliver composites and composites repair
training.
FAA Plans to More Systematically Identify Technical Training Needs in
Developing Its Inspector Training Curriculum
As discussed above, FAA's course development activities follow many
effective management practices for developing individual courses, but it
has not yet systematically identified its inspectors' overall training
needs to ensure that the curriculum addresses the unique training needs of
each type of inspector. However, FAA is developing a specific training
curriculum for each type of inspector.
Flight Standards recognizes that it manages courses as individual
components and that it needs to develop courses and address training needs
for each of its inspector specialties as part of an overall curriculum. In
addition, our survey indicates that only 27 percent of inspectors said
that the current set of FAA recommended training courses for each
inspector type captures the training needed to do their jobs to a great or
very great extent.16 Flight Standards recognizes that for curriculum
transformation to work effectively, a strategy for curriculum management,
as opposed to course management, needs to be clearly articulated. In
response, Flight Standards is developing a new performance-based training
initiative with the goal of systematically assessing the complete array of
training to ensure it meets the performance requirements of the many
specialties, disciplines, and positions in Flight Standard's ranks. In an
effort to implement a more curriculum-based approach that addresses
different inspector training needs, the curriculum transformation plan
recommends creating curriculum oversight teams for each type of inspector
made up of representative inspectors from the field and from headquarters.
Rather than the current approach, in which course development teams focus
on individual courses, these curriculum oversight teams would be
responsible for the overall curriculum for each type of inspector,
including defining training requirements and ensuring that curriculum and
course content are current and consistent with Flight Standards policy and
practices in the field. The Flight Standards steering committee is
responsible for chartering these curriculum oversight teams and approving
the curriculum they develop for each inspector type. Flight Standards
estimates that it will complete implementation of its curriculum
transformation plan in 2008. If effectively implemented, we believe that
these approaches would allow
16The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 23 to 32
percent.
Flight Standards to develop a more systematic method for identifying
training needs and provide a curriculum that is more relevant to different
types of inspectors and their needs.
While Flight Standards is in the first stages of implementing its new
curriculum-based approach to training, Aircraft Certification has recently
taken steps to revise existing courses and develop new courses within an
overall curriculum approach. For example, it formed a curriculum study
team and completed a proposed curriculum for its manufacturing aviation
safety inspectors and has revised inspector courses and other aspects of
training according to its new curriculum plan. Aircraft Certification has
only one type of aviation safety inspector; Flight Standards has avionics,
maintenance, and operations inspectors for both general aviation and air
carriers as well as other inspectors, such as cabin safety inspectors.
Because Aircraft Certification has only one type of safety inspector, a
permanent curriculum study team may not be absolutely necessary.
FAA Provides Extensive Support for Delivering Training; However, Many
Inspectors Believe Improvements Could Help Them Do Their Jobs More
Effectively
FAA recognizes that effective delivery of quality inspector training is
crucial to the success of the agency's mission to obtain industry
compliance with safety standards and promote the continuing safety of air
travel. FAA has generally followed effective management practices for
training deployment to help ensure effective delivery of training, but
improvements could be made. (See table 4.) Experts from the aviation and
academic communities whom we consulted generally agreed that, for the most
part, the courses FAA offers meet current and emerging technical needs.
However, many inspectors question whether the training they receive is
sufficient to provide them with the technical knowledge needed to perform
their jobs.
Table 4: Extent That FAA Follows Effective Management Practices in
Delivering Technical Training
Effective management practice Extent followed
Clearly delineates accountability for achieving agency training goals
Fully
Uses a suitable and timely process for selecting inspectors for technical
training given inspectors' Partially current duties and existing skills
Fosters an environment that is conducive to learning Fully
Takes steps to encourage employee buy-in to goals and priorities of
technical training Partially
Source: GAO.
FAA Generally Follows Several Effective Management Practices for
Delivering Technical Training
FAA generally follows several of the effective management practices that
are important for delivering technical training.
Clearly delineating accountability for ensuring access to technical
training. According to FAA officials, FAA program and training officials
have developed a list of mandatory and recommended courses for each
inspector position. These training lists contain some technical courses
but focus mainly on courses involving the fundamentals of the inspection
process (such as courses covering inspection of automation systems,
compliance and enforcement procedures, and system safety concepts) and job
tasks for each safety inspector specialty. FAA inspection program managers
note that the recommended course lists are not more prescriptive for
technical training because the need for technical training depends on the
specific types of aircraft and equipment with which inspectors work. Thus,
decisions on technical training needs are mainly the responsibility of the
individual inspectors and their immediate supervisors, in accordance with
FAA guidance that provides decision-tree criteria for approving training
requests. After inspectors and their supervisors agree on inspectors'
technical training requests, regional, headquarters, and academy training
executives determine which courses will be taught. From there, FAA
training divisions work with the FAA academy to implement the training by
developing course schedules and inspector quota allocations.
Using a suitable process for selecting inspectors for technical training.
FAA's automated training request process provides inspectors with the
opportunity to plan for, request, and be selected for the technical
training necessary for their positions. The Flight Standards and Aircraft
Certification lists of technical and other courses essential for each
inspector position, as well as other courses that are available to further
inspectors' professional development, are available for review and
planning by the inspectors and their supervisors.17 The training system
contains information on all the training courses previously completed by
the inspectors and outlines their progress toward meeting training
requirements. With the supervisor's guidance and approval, each year
inspectors request training courses reflecting training needs related to
the inspector's position, office inspection activity, and succession
planning. However, both FAA and its inspectors recognize the need for more
timely
17About 34 percent of all essential courses are technical and range from 0
percent for Air Certification inspectors to 50 percent for air carrier
avionics inspectors. See table 10 in appendix II for additional results.
selection of inspectors for technical training, another aspect of
technical training. This topic is discussed later in this report.
Fostering an environment conducive to learning. FAA has provided many of
the elements necessary to promote inspectors' learning of technical
material, including allowing them time away from work to receive classroom
or computer-based training. FAA also has invested in technologies such as
computer-based and interactive-video training that help meet the demand
for technical and other training. Similarly, FAA has moved some training
closer to the inspector duty locations to facilitate and encourage
training attendance and has begun experimenting with bringing training to
the duty locations when appropriate. FAA's on-the-job training program
also gives inspectors hands-on experience with the aircraft and components
for which they are responsible. In addition, FAA streamlined the process
for acquiring training opportunities that arise on short notice, such as
when inspectors are assigned a new aircraft type to inspect. Finally,
FAA's training management system allows inspectors to schedule available
technical training courses tailored to their individual needs.
Acting to obtain inspector buy-in for training goals and priorities.
While believing that its inspectors have sufficient technical knowledge to
perform inspections, FAA has recognized the need to facilitate
communication between inspectors and management in order to gain inspector
buy-in for a training program emphasizing system safety over technical
courses. Currently, FAA primarily depends on its local office managers
(the inspectors' supervisors) to communicate training goals and priorities
to the inspectors, mostly during the annual training planning process.
According to FAA training officials, this information is also disseminated
to inspectors in strategic training plans and other guidance on training.
FAA officials further note that inspectors have opportunities to
communicate their views on training in course evaluations and employee
surveys.
Nevertheless, FAA recognizes the need to increase communication between
inspectors and management with respect to the training program. Flight
Standards recognizes that without inspector buy-in the safety inspectors
will not be able to effectively execute system safety oversight and thus
this buy-in is recognized as critical to Flight Standards success. FAA is
concerned that inspectors have not fully bought into the system safety
approach to inspections. In an attempt to gain support for and
understanding of the system safety approach and the ways in which
inspectors will be affected by the change, Flight Standards plans to host
focus groups with management and inspectors, conduct individual interviews
with all Flight Standards employees, and create an outreach and
communication team to foster better understanding between FAA management
and the inspectors. Similarly, Aircraft Certification has planned a number
of steps to increase communication between management and the inspector
workforce, including facilitated focus groups, individual interviews, and
more effective employee feedback mechanisms. These actions may well be
needed because, as discussed in the following section, inspectors are
generally dissatisfied with the technical training that they receive.
Inspectors Are Generally Dissatisfied with the Technical Training That
They Receive
Although FAA has followed or is taking steps to follow many of the
effective management practices in planning, developing, and delivering
technical training, inspectors expressed widespread dissatisfaction with
this training. Inspector dissatisfaction covered three areas: (1) having
insufficient technical knowledge to do their jobs, (2) not being able to
take training they say they needed, and (3) not receiving training in time
to do their jobs.
One possible explanation for this seeming contradiction is that, although
FAA generally employs sound approaches for putting its technical training
in place, its actual delivery falls short-the latter being the view of the
bulk of its inspector workforce. We were not able to assess this possible
explanation because, as discussed at the beginning of this report, we had
no practical way to assess the amount of training necessary for inspector
proficiency or the timeliness of the training provided. Another possible
explanation is that the technical training that FAA provides meets the
current and future needs of the agency to a large degree and its
inspectors have unrealistic expectations about technical training. This is
the view of FAA, and its reasons are discussed later in this section.
Having Sufficient Technical Knowledge and Training
On the basis of our survey, we estimate that only about half of FAA
inspectors believe, to a great or very great extent, that their technical
knowledge is sufficient to enable them to do their jobs properly.18 (See
fig. 5.) This belief varies somewhat among inspector specialties. Some
inspectors-such as those who specialize in cabin safety and aircraft
certification-told us that, to a great or very great extent (78 percent
and 68 percent, respectively), they have enough technical knowledge to do
their jobs.19 On the other hand, only a third of air carrier avionics
inspectors told us that they currently have sufficient technical knowledge
to do their jobs.20
18The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 48 to 57
percent.
19The 95 percent confidence interval for the cabin safety inspector
responses is from 62 to 94 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for
the aircraft certification inspector responses is from 51 to 85 percent.
20The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 22 to 48
percent. The survey also asked inspectors about their knowledge of the
automated systems used in their jobs, such as ATOS or the Performance
Tracking and Reporting Subsystem, because these are important tools for
the system safety approach to inspections. We estimate that about 46
percent of inspectors believe, to a great or very great extent, that they
have enough knowledge of automated systems to do their jobs. The 95
percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 42 to 51 percent.
Figure 5: Inspectors Responding that to a Great or Very Great Extent They
Currently Have Enough Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 All Cabin Aircraft Air carrier inspectors safety certification avionics
Type of inspector
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: See table 13 in appendix II for additional results.
One reason for the disparity of views concerning technical knowledge among
inspectors of different specialties could be their perceived need for
specialized knowledge. For example, cabin safety inspectors noted that
much of their knowledge of the cabin environment comes from previous
experience with airlines and through on the job experience. Similarly,
according to FAA, Aircraft Certification inspectors bring with them a high
degree of technical knowledge, gained in previous careers in the aviation
industry; and typically these inspectors need less technical training than
other types of inspectors. Our analysis of training received confirms that
aircraft certification and cabin safety inspectors receive less technical
training than other inspector specialties. Additionally, as shown above,
they are the most satisfied of all inspector specialties that they have
the technical knowledge needed to do their jobs. Alternatively, avionics
inspectors-who were the least satisfied that they have received enough
technical training to do their jobs-indicated that they believe they
require specialized knowledge of the avionics systems they inspect.
Inspector training data shows that these inspectors receive the most
technical training of all inspector specialties. (This topic is discussed
in more detail
later in the report. See table 6.) However, from our survey, they believe
that they need more.
Our survey also indicates that most inspectors believe that the technical
training they have recently received has not greatly contributed to their
ability to perform inspections.21 Specifically, we estimate that about 35
percent of the inspectors believe that the technical training that they
received in the last 2 years helped them do their current jobs to a great
or very great extent.22 The results ranged from a high of 39 percent for
air carrier operations inspectors to a low of 23 percent for general
aviation avionics inspectors.23 The higher percentage for operations
inspectors could be attributed to the fact that they are required to take
flight training on an annual basis, whereas other inspector specialties
such as avionics, maintenance, and cabin safety do not have similar
requirements for annual training. In comments included with their surveys,
inspectors expressed opinions on whether they have sufficient training to
do their jobs. Of the 240 inspectors who took the time to write narrative
responses about the sufficiency of training, 31 offered positive comments,
105 were strongly negative, and another 119 had weaker negative comments.
In addition, 37
21FAA notes that its course evaluations support that 78 percent of its
employees report that training has improved their job performance.
However, its survey results are not comparable to ours. First, FAA's
results represent responses to evaluations for all courses, both technical
and nontechnical. In addition, it represents inspectors who responded that
FAA training greatly improved, improved, and somewhat improved their job
performance. In analyzing the results of our survey, we did not include
the third category, as it does not represent a strong endorsement for the
results of FAA training.
22The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 30 to 39
percent. FAA officials stressed that training occurs over the span of a
career and cautioned that asking inspectors' views about 2 years
experience would present a distorted view. According to our analysis, FAA
inspectors have been with the agency an average of 9.3 years, according to
our survey inspectors have been in their current position an average of
5.3 years. We recognize FAA's concern. However, it is not reasonable to
expect inspectors to recall their views on training received over a large
time span, as doing so could lead to unreliable results. In addition,
since this report focuses on FAA's current actions to ensure up-to-date
technical training, we believe it is more useful to measure inspectors'
views about the training that they are receiving or have recently
received.
23The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 29 to
49 percent and from 6 to 39 percent, respectively.
inspectors indicated they found themselves inspecting aircraft or
components they had not been trained on.24
Our survey also indicates that inspectors believe that most of the
technical knowledge they possess was gained in their previous careers in
the aviation industry. For inspectors who said that to a great or very
great extent they have sufficient technical knowledge to do their jobs, we
estimate that 80 percent also noted that the knowledge and skills they
brought to FAA from their previous careers contributed, to a great or very
great extent, to this technical knowledge.25 We estimated that lower
percentages of inspectors from this group rated technical training from
FAA instructors (25 percent) and aviation industry sources (41 percent) as
contributing, to a great or very great extent, to the technical knowledge
needed to perform their jobs.26 Our analysis of survey responses indicates
that the amount of time since inspectors left their careers in the
aviation industry was not a factor in inspectors' views about their
job-related technical knowledge. Newer inspectors were no more likely than
longer-tenured inspectors to say that to a great or very great extent they
have enough technical knowledge of the aircraft, systems, or operations
they inspect to do their jobs.
FAA officials indicated to us that inspectors will always believe they
need more training. In addition, FAA officials further stated that
inspectors need to have only enough technical knowledge of aircraft,
systems, and components to be effective inspectors: they need to know
enough to ask the right questions, recognize potential problems, and be
able to understand issues that arise. Full proficiency with the aircraft
and components is not necessary. However, FAA officials indicated that
inspectors believe that full or near full proficiency is necessary. An FAA
official attributed inspectors' views about the perceived insufficiency of
technical training to many of them not fully accepting the agency's
transformation to a system safety approach to inspections with its
emphasis on risk analysis over technical knowledge. The traditional
inspection system relied to a great extent on an individual inspector's
24Our survey provided the opportunity for inspectors to relate anything
they wanted us to know about technical training. Some inspectors submitted
both positive and negative comments.
25The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 76 to 84
percent.
26The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 21 to 29
percent and 36 to 45 percent, respectively.
technical expertise to identify safety problems with operations or
aircraft systems. Although the system safety approach requires inspectors
to have an understanding of aircraft and aircraft systems, it is more
important for them to have the skills to analyze data to identify
vulnerabilities in aircraft operators' and manufacturers' systems for
ensuring safety. FAA officials believe that as inspectors gain experience
with system safety, they will better understand the more limited role
technical knowledge plays in this inspection approach.
Most of the inspector training experts we consulted on the inspector
technical training curriculum generally agreed with FAA's position. Seven
of the 10 experts we contacted told us that the technical courses that FAA
offers sufficiently covered existing and emerging technical areas.27 In
particular, they noted that the flight training for operations inspectors
was adequate for performing flight checks. However, two experts were
concerned that there was not enough training in advanced aviation
technologies for maintenance and avionics inspectors. These experts
thought that maintenance and avionics inspectors should have periodic
refresher training that would allow them to become more familiar with
changes in the aircraft and systems they deal with during inspections. The
experts did not comment on whether individual inspectors receive all the
technical training necessary for their positions since this would have
required an extensive, detailed review of training records.
Most representatives from airlines we contacted were at least moderately
satisfied that FAA inspectors have sufficient technical knowledge and
training.28 On the basis of their experience with FAA inspectors, 19 of
the 23 airline representatives we consulted said that to a great extent (7
responses) or moderate extent (12 responses) FAA inspectors had the
technical knowledge to fulfill inspection responsibilities. Regarding
training, 16 of the 23 thought that to a very great extent (1 response) or
moderate extent (15 responses) FAA inspectors have the technical training
to fulfill these responsibilities.
27See appendix III for a list of these experts. Experts commented in the
area of their expertise.
28We contacted representatives from the airlines that belong to the Air
Transport Association and the Regional Airline Association to obtain their
perspectives on FAA inspector technical training.
Being Able to Take Requested Training
Also reflecting the disparity in views between inspectors and FAA
management concerning technical training, many inspectors indicate that
they are not greatly encouraged to take technical training and that to a
large extent they do not get all the technical training they request.
However, inspectors' views are not supported either by FAA training
request data or from progress made in taking training courses deemed
essential by FAA.29 On the basis of our survey, we estimate that less than
half (43 percent) of inspectors think their supervisors encourage them to
request the technical training needed to do their current jobs.30 We also
estimate that about 28 percent of FAA's inspectors believe, to a great
extent or very great extent, that they receive the technical training that
they request.31 (See fig. 6.) If we include responses citing receiving
requested training to a moderate extent, we then estimate that about 49
percent of inspectors overall believe that they receive the training they
request at least to a moderate extent.32
29See footnote 4 for how we defined essential training. 30The 95 percent
confidence interval for this estimate is from 38 to 48 percent. 31The 95
percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 23 to 32 percent.
32The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 45 to 54
percent.
Figure 6: Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is Approved
Inspectors' views FAA training data
Percent Percent
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
To a great To a To some 2003 2004 2005 2006
or very moderate or no extent
great extent extent
Source: GAO survey of FAA Source: GAO analysis
inspectors. of FAA data.
Note: See table 14 in appendix II for additional results.
Our survey also indicates that inspectors with longer tenures at FAA have
more difficulty getting technical training they request than inspectors
who have recently been hired. According to the survey, of those inspectors
with 10 or more years with FAA, we estimate that 55 percent said that
requested technical training was approved to some or no extent as compared
to an estimated 35 percent of inspectors who had been with FAA 3 years or
less.33 This may be due in part to newer inspectors' technical training
opportunities tending to be essential courses, requests likely to be
approved. In contrast, inspectors with more experience request courses
outside of FAA requirements, requests more likely to be denied. As
discussed earlier, FAA records did not allow us to assess the merits of
the inspectors' views.
33The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 47 to 64
percent and 27 to 43 percent, respectively.
FAA's data on the extent to which requested courses were taken do not
support the inspectors' contention that they do not receive requested
training. According to Flight Standards data, for fiscal years 2003
through 2005, on average FAA approved about 90 percent of requested
technical training and has approved a similar percentage for upcoming
fiscal year 2006. (See fig. 6.) FAA officials note that these data do not
include late course cancellations that occur after the training schedule
for the year is set. Though we were unable to obtain similar data from
Aircraft Certification data on course cancellations or denials, these
courses occasionally get cancelled or changed. In fiscal year 2005, one
course was cancelled by Aircraft Certification. Officials told us that if
a training course essential for an inspector to perform their job is
cancelled, the inspector will be placed in the next available course.
Aircraft Certification inspectors represent about 5 percent of the
inspector workforce (excluding supervisors, managers, and others in the
aviation safety inspector job series who do not perform front-line
inspections).
According to FAA, the agency tries to accommodate inspectors' requests for
technical training to the extent possible. However, an inspector's request
for technical training may be denied because (1) the inspector's need for
the course was not adequately justified based on the inspector's current
position, (2) the inspector had already completed a similar course, or (3)
insufficient funding was available. Officials also said that,
infrequently, a technical course requested by an inspector may be
cancelled due to low enrollment or because its content is outdated.
According to the officials, when a requested course is cancelled,
inspectors can request it the next time it is offered, and in the meantime
they can choose a replacement course from the list of courses for their
position. Inspectors' views on why they did not get training that they
requested corresponded somewhat with the reasons that FAA cited. We
estimate that about 54 percent of the inspectors believe that lack of
funds hindered or greatly hindered their ability to get requested
technical training.34 (See fig. 7.) Inspectors cited other reasons
somewhat less frequently: about 36 percent cited availability of courses,
28 percent cited impact on their workload, and 27 percent cited
management's determination about the need for them to attend the course as
hindering or greatly hindering their ability to receive
34The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 50 to 59
percent.
the training they requested.35 Because it was impractical to investigate
the reasons why thousands of training requests were granted or denied, we
were not able to reconcile inspectors' views with FAA data.
Figure 7: Inspectors' Views on Factors Hindering Their Ability to Take
Requested Technical Training
Percent
Availability of funds
Availability of courses
Impact on workload
Management input
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: See tables 15 through 18 in appendix II for additional results.
In addition to receiving most of the technical training they request, our
analysis of inspectors' training records indicates that most are making
good progress in taking the technical training FAA considers essential for
their jobs. Our analysis of FAA training data36 indicates that over half
of the inspectors have completed at least 75 percent of their essential
technical
35The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 32 to 41
percent, 23 to 32 percent, and 23 to 31 percent, respectively.
36We analyzed the training records for FAA's approximately 3,000
front-line inspectors only. The analysis did not include supervisors,
managers, and others in the aviation safety inspector job series who do
not perform front-line inspections.
training courses for their positions.37 (See table 5.) In addition, more
than three-quarters have finished at least half of these essential
technical courses. However, only 20 percent of air carrier avionics
inspectors have completed 75 percent of their technical courses. Avionics
inspectors have the most technical training requirements, due to the
complexity of the aircraft components they inspect.
Table 5: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Technical Courses
Percent of Percent of
inspectors inspectors
completing at least completing at least
75 50
percent of technical percent of technical
Type of inspector courses courses
Air carrier avionics 20
Air carrier maintenance 46
Air carrier operations 36
Cabin safety 59
General aviation avionics 52
General aviation 53
maintenance
General aviation operations 69
Aircraft certificationa N/A N/A
All inspectors 46
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Note: N/A = nonapplicable.
aAircraft certification inspectors have no essential technical courses
according to the definition of technical training used in this report.
Aircraft Certification considers all training related to the inspection
process as technical training.
There are several reasons that may explain why inspectors have not
completed most or all of their essential training-technical and other.
First, a significant portion of the inspector workforce is relatively new
to the agency and would thus not be expected to have completed the
essential training. In fact, FAA data show that 28 percent of the
inspectors have been employed by FAA for less than 5 years. Second,
inspectors change
37About 81 percent of the inspectors have completed at least half of their
essential courses, both technical and nontechnical. (See table 11 in app.
II.) In addition to the essential courses, most inspectors were also able
to take other technical training courses that they, their supervisors, and
FAA management have determined are related to their jobs. Inspectors
averaged 1.7 technical courses outside of their list of essential courses
over the past 3 fiscal years. (See table 12 in app. II.)
specialties, which can affect their training requirements. Third, FAA
allows inspectors to substitute prior experience for some essential
technical training courses, and such substitutions are not always
reflected in inspector training records. Finally, because the lists of
essential training courses have been developed only within the past few
years, some inspectors may not have had time to complete new essential
courses. FAA officials emphasized that, especially in Flight Standards,
training is carried out over the course of an inspector's career rather
than occurring primarily at the beginning of the career. According to
Aircraft Certification officials, although their service's inspectors
receive training over the course of their careers, they receive the
majority of their training within the first year on the job. This early
training emphasizes the skills needed to perform inspections.
Overall, according to our analysis, inspectors have taken an average of
3.4 technical training courses from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, or
about one per year. (See table 6.) Avionics and maintenance inspectors
have taken more technical training on average. Generally, these avionics
and maintenance inspectors require more technical training than other
inspector specialties because they often inspect several different models
of aircraft.
Table 6: Average Number of Technical and Nontechnical Training Courses
Taken, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004
Technical Nontechnical
Type of inspector courses courses
Air carrier avionics 4.8
Air carrier maintenance 3.9
Air carrier operations 2.6
Cabin safety 1.2
General aviation avionics 4.0 8.8
General aviation maintenance 4.0 9.9
General aviation operations 3.1 9.6
Aircraft certification 1.2 5.4
All inspectors 3.4 9.4
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Receiving Training in a Timely With the rapid development of aircraft and
aircraft components, especially Manner aircraft avionics, a training
delivery mechanism that is responsive to these
changes is critical. For the most part, FAA inspectors are dissatisfied
with receiving the technical training they need in time to do their jobs.
We estimate that only 20 percent of inspectors believe to a great or very
great extent that they have received technical training in time to do
their jobs.38 (See fig. 8.) No more than one-third of any type of
inspector thought that technical training was timely to a great or very
great extent, and none of the general aviation avionics inspectors who
responded to our survey thought that this was so.39 Avionics are the most
rapidly changing technological components of aircraft, which could account
for this result. As discussed at the beginning of this report, FAA's
records did not allow us to assess the extent to which inspectors received
training before they conducted inspection activities related to that
training.
Figure 8: Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training Is
Delivered in a Timely Manner
Percent
To a great or very great extent To a moderate extent To some or no extent
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: See table 19 in appendix II for additional details.
38The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 16 to 24
percent.
39The maximum value for the upper end of the 95 percent confidence
interval for all other inspectors is 49 percent. The 95 percent confidence
interval for general aviation avionics inspectors is between 0 and 13
percent.
Similarly, we estimate that only about 23 percent of all inspectors
indicated that they always or frequently received technical training on
the equipment they were to inspect prior to scheduled inspection
activities.40 (See fig. 9.) No more than 35 percent of inspectors in any
specialty responded this way. In comments supplied with their surveys,
many inspectors expressed the view that FAA is slow to react to changes in
industry technology and slow to develop courses in response to the
changes.
Figure 9: Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which They Received Technical
Training Prior to Scheduled Oversight Activities
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Always or Occasionally Rarely or frequently never
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: Approximately 4 percent of inspectors responded that they had no
basis to judge or did not know. See table 20 in appendix II for additional
details.
40The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 19 to 26
percent. Inspector dissatisfaction with the timeliness of training
delivery is not limited to technical training. Inspectors also expressed
concern about the timeliness of automation training. According to our
survey, about 29 percent of inspectors indicated, to a great or very great
extent, that this type of training was received in time to do their
current job. The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from
24 to 33 percent.
FAA has recognized the need to provide training on a timelier basis and
has taken some actions that have yet to be fully implemented. One of the
goals of Flight Standards is to establish a way to ensure that training is
current and well designed, can be tailored to the needs of the individual
employees, and is administered in a fast and flexible way in response to
changing needs. Flight Standards plans to improve training delivery by
taking advantage of new delivery mechanisms, increasing utilization of
vendors where appropriate, and streamlining training programming and
scheduling to reduce the lag time between the identification of training
needs and the delivery of training. In addition, Flight Standards recently
instituted a process to continuously monitor courses and to update their
content when changes in FAA policy or aviation technology warrant doing
so. Ensuring that course content is up to date and that courses are
available when needed is an important aspect of delivering timely
training. In fiscal year 2005,41 Flight Standards developed 5 new courses,
revised 16 existing courses, and completed 13 course evaluations.42
Similarly, Aircraft Certification officials indicated that they have been
evolving toward a more integrated approach to training delivery, mixing
classroom training with Web-based technologies, on-the-job training and
adding additional job aids, in part, for providing more timely training.
These officials also noted that Aircraft Certification has a long history
of providing just-in-time training when new work processes or job-related
information needs to be disseminated to inspectors quickly.
Although FAA Uses Several Approaches to Evaluate Technical Training
Provided, Assessing Impact on Performance Remains to Be Done
For the most part, FAA has followed-or has begun to implement- effective
management practices in evaluating its efforts to provide technical
training to inspectors and ensuring that this training leads to improved
performance and results. (See table 7.) For example, it continuously
assesses technical training through participant end-of-course evaluations
and surveys of inspectors and supervisors that focus on the application of
skills and knowledge to the job. While FAA's evaluation efforts provide
information about these areas, these assessments have not measured the
impact of training on FAA's mission goals, such as reducing accidents.
Isolating improvements in mission performance that are a result of
training programs is difficult for any agency.
41As of June 2005.
42Flight Standards estimates that in addition it will develop 7 new
courses, revise 9 existing courses, and complete 9 course evaluations by
the end of fiscal year 2005.
Table 7: Extent That FAA Followed Effective Management Practices in
Evaluating Its Training Program
Effective management practice Extent followed
Systematically plans for and evaluates the effectiveness of training and
development efforts Mostly
Uses the appropriate analytical approaches to assess its training and
development programs Mostly
Uses appropriate performance data (including qualitative and quantitative
measures) to assess the results Partially achieved through training and
development efforts
Incorporates evaluation feedback into the planning, design, and
implementation of its training and Fully development efforts
Incorporates different perspectives (including those of line managers and
staff, customers, and experts Mostly
in areas such as financial, information, and human capital management) in
assessing the impact of
training on performance
Assesses the benefits achieved through training and development programs
Partially
Source: GAO.
FAA Mostly Follows Several Effective Practices for Evaluating Technical
Training
FAA has taken several actions to evaluate the effectiveness of its
technical training efforts. Collectively, the actions generally cover the
effective management practices cited in table 7 by continuously and
systematically evaluating the technical courses FAA provides for
inspectors. In performing these evaluations, FAA has focused primarily on
obtaining inspectors' and, to some extent, their supervisors' views on
individual courses. FAA requires that participant evaluations be
distributed after each training course for inspectors. The evaluations ask
participants to rate the extent to which the course and course material
(e.g., workbooks, slides, labs, and tests) met objectives as well as the
extent to which the instructor provided assistance. According to FAA,
participants return the evaluations 95 percent of the time. FAA also sends
surveys to inspectors and their supervisors 90 to 180 days after course
completion to obtain their perspectives on whether the course was needed
and the extent to which the inspector is applying new skills and knowledge
to the job. FAA reports that since the inception of post-course surveys,
the return rate from inspectors and supervisors has ranged from 49 to 50
percent. The postcourse survey results from the six most highly attended
technical courses in the last 2 years reflected generally positive
responses. These findings suggest that survey respondents generally think
that the individual technical courses they received helped them in their
jobs. Results from both the participant course evaluations and post-course
surveys are automated and are available to training officials. In
addition, according to Flight Standards training officials, they assess
all complaints concerning a
course and discuss the issues identified with the Flight Standards office
that sponsors the course.
According to FAA, it is the responsibility of the mentor for each training
course to use the information from the participant evaluations and
postcourse surveys as well as other tools to determine if courses are
meeting their objectives and enhancing inspectors' ability to do their
jobs. In February 2005, Flight Standards established a policy that its
course mentors evaluate each course for which they are responsible at
least every 3 years using a standardized approach. According to the
policy, course mentors should review the results of participant
evaluations and postcourse surveys as well as personally sit in the course
to determine if a course is still current and is meeting objectives.
Flight Standards has a performance plan initiative to track the completion
of planned course evaluations. Flight Standards began training mentors on
these and other mentor responsibilities and procedures in April 2005, and
some course mentors have already begun thorough evaluations of their
courses. Prior to this date, Flight Standards officials said that
participant evaluations and post-course surveys were used by its Quality
Assurance Branch in its annual course reviews and were routinely reviewed
by FAA academy course managers and their supervisors to update or improve
courses. However, because Flight Standards had not assigned specific
individuals to be responsible for a particular course, some requests for
updates were not tracked. According to Flight Standards officials, with
the implementation of the course mentor program, each course will now have
a point of contact for all course improvements and updates.
Aircraft Certification is implementing a new approach for evaluating
courses that officials believe will provide course mentors and other
training officials more comprehensive information on technical courses
sponsored by each office. The approach is based on the work of Dr. Robert
O. Brinkerhoff, in particular his Success Case Method and High Impact
Learning approach.43 This approach helps to increase and demonstrate
organizational results from learning. With the Success Case Method,
postcourse surveys are used to gauge the extent of reported application of
learning and are then validated through personal interviews with selected
43Robert O. Brinkerhoff and Anne M. Apking, High Impact Learning:
Strategies for Leveraging Business Results from Training, (Cambridge:
Perseus, 2001) and Robert O. Brinkerhoff, The Success Case Method, (San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2003).
course participants. Using such interviews, Aircraft Certification seeks
to determine whether and how much training was actually transferred to the
job and if there was an impact on the organization as a result of the
training. The High Impact Learning methodology allows for up-front
evaluation prior to development or revision of courses to ensure that the
objectives of the proposed training will lead to organizational impact
through "impact mapping" of course objectives to organizational goals.
Results of Success Case Method learning evaluations will be available to
the course mentor, course managers at FAA's Training Academy, and program
officials at FAA headquarters. Aircraft Certification began implementing
the evaluation tool in spring 2005 and has thus far prototyped it with one
course and plans to have it applied to all its technical courses within 2
years.
FAA has also surveyed employees for their views on training in general,
and one of these surveys will lead to revisions to the overall inspector
curriculum, according to FAA. Every 2 years, FAA surveys all of its
employees about many aspects of their employment, including the training
they receive. This employee attitude survey asked employees about the
extent to which they received the training they needed to effectively
perform their jobs and whether or not they have been able to apply that
training. However, the survey does not ask employees to differentiate
between the types of training they receive, such as that relating to
inspection processes or technical skills. In addition, although FAA
isolates responses according to employee's work location-such as
headquarters and Flight Standards and Air Certification field offices-it
does not ask respondents their position, so inspectors' responses cannot
be identified. As a result, although the survey can be useful for FAA's
workforce as a whole, it is not as useful for isolating safety inspectors'
attitudes about their technical training.
In order to obtain information on inspector training in particular, in
August 2004, Flight Standards conducted a separate survey of 51 field
inspectors and 8 field and 3 headquarters inspection program managers that
revealed inspector dissatisfaction about several aspects of training.
Because of its limited nature, Flight Standards recognizes that the survey
does not necessarily represent the views of the entire inspector
workforce. Of the 51 field inspectors who agreed or strongly agreed with
certain statements- the only large group surveyed-21 percent indicated
they received the training they needed, 10 percent said training is
current and technically up to date, and less than 20 percent indicated
training supports current or
future job requirements in Flight Standards.44 Flight Standards officials
expressed concern about inspectors' negative views toward the training
they receive. Officials said that as part of their plans for a curriculum
for inspectors, they will identify and implement measures necessary to
monitor course satisfaction and content currency, and the data they gather
from monitoring the course will provide the basis for continuous course
improvement. According to Aircraft Certification officials, their office
has not undertaken any similar surveys to field inspectors.
FAA officials said that they also encourage inspectors to submit
suggestions for revising existing courses or adding new courses to provide
training in the technical skills not covered in the current curriculum.
According to Flight Standards training program officials, inspector
suggestions for new courses are placed in a pool of potential new courses,
which are reviewed by program staff on the basis of need and the
availability of funds. Suggestions for course revisions are now reviewed
by course mentors as part of the course evaluation process.45
Although FAA has a process for inspectors to make recommendations
regarding technical courses, our survey indicated that many inspectors are
either not aware of or do not take advantage of this process. According to
our survey, we estimate that 55 percent of the inspectors believe they
have had an opportunity to recommend new courses for their position to
some or no extent.46 In addition, 49 percent thought they had an
opportunity to recommend new content in existing courses for their
position to some or no extent.47
44We do not present the results of the 8 field and 3 headquarters managers
because of the small numbers, and some did not answer all questions.
45According to data provided by Flight Standards, there have been over 60
requests for revised, updated, or new courses to be developed since 2000,
with more than 33 of them submitted since 2003 (plus a possible 11 more
that were undated requests). Of all that have been submitted, 23 were
technical.
46The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 50 to 60
percent.
47The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 44 to 54
percent.
FAA Lacks Comprehensive Data on How Technical Training Contributes to
Improved Performance and Results
The analytical approach FAA employed for evaluating technical training
programs emphasized individual course evaluations and employee surveys
that collect useful, but limited, information on the effectiveness of
technical training courses. According to experts on training in
government, agencies should adopt a balanced, multilevel approach to
evaluating their training and development efforts. One commonly accepted
model is the Kirkpatrick model, which consists of five levels of
assessment.48 The first level measures the training participants' reaction
to, and satisfaction with, the training program or planned actions to use
new or enhanced competencies. The second level measures the extent to
which learning has occurred because of the training effort. The third
level measures the application of this learning to the work environment
through changes in behavior that trainees exhibit on the job because of
the training or development program. The fourth level measures the impact
of the training program on the agency's program or organizational results.
Finally, the fifth level-often referred to as return on
investment-compares the benefits (quantified in dollars) with the costs of
the training and development program.
As discussed earlier, the course evaluations and surveys FAA uses to
evaluate its technical and other training programs for inspectors cover,
to some extent, the first three levels of assessment. Aircraft
Certification has taken the first steps in evaluating the impact of
training on organizational results (the fourth level) by linking course
objectives to organizational goals, and Flight Standards is in the initial
stages of implementing a process to assess the return on investment from
the courses in its training program. Experts acknowledge that isolating
performance improvements resulting from training programs and the
cost-effectiveness of these programs is difficult for any organization.
Federal agencies, such as FAA, have to consider the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of conducting these in-depth evaluations, along with
budgetary and staffing circumstances that may limit the agencies' ability
to complete such evaluations. The challenge of performing evaluations of
the impact and cost-effectiveness of its training efforts is great for
FAA. Along with undertaking these evaluations, FAA
48Donald L. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels
(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1994). Kirkpatrick
conceived a commonly recognized fourlevel model for evaluating training
and development efforts. The fourth level is sometimes split into two
levels, with the fifth level representing a comparison of costs and
benefits quantified in dollars. The fifth level, return on investment, is
attributed to Jack Phillips and is taught in education and training
seminars linking the two methodologies.
must also determine how its ongoing shift to a system safety approach to
inspections is affecting its organizational goals of reducing accidents
and increasing the overall safety of flying.
Industry Provides Much of FAA's Technical Training; Additional Safeguards
Needed to Prevent Real or Appearances of Conflicts of Interest
Over the past 3 years, the aviation industry has provided about 40 percent
of the technical training for FAA's safety inspectors. To a limited
degree, inspectors have received training from the aviation industry in
exchange for in-kind services or at no cost to FAA. Although FAA has taken
steps to address concerns over possible real or apparent conflicts of
interest resulting from receiving this training, it has not consistently
applied these policies.
FAA Contracts with the Aviation Industry for Much of the Technical
Training Provided to Inspectors
FAA provides technical training to its inspectors either through the FAA
Academy (with courses taught in Oklahoma City or at FAA regional
locations) or through contracts with the outside training providers,
including some in the aviation industry that FAA regulates under FAA's
gift authority. Technical training provided by the aviation industry
includes
o pilot training;
o aircraft maintenance training;
o training covering inspection technologies and procedures; and
o training on aircraft systems, structures, and components.
FAA has increasingly relied on industry to provide technical training to
its inspectors over the past 3 fiscal years. In fiscal year 2004 (latest
data available), industry delivered nearly half of FAA's technical
training. (See fig. 10.) Industry-provided training occurs most frequently
for air carrier and general aviation operations inspectors because it is
often more economical to have flight training provided by an outside
vendor than for FAA to maintain or lease its own aircraft for this
purpose.
Figure 10: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as Reported
by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004
Percent 100
90
80
70
60 50
40
30
20
10
0
All Air General Aircraft inspectors carrier aviation certification
Type of inspector
2002
2003
2004
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Note: Numbers reported as a percent of total FAA-and industry-provided
training for each type of inspector. See table 21 in appendix II for
additional details. Because aircraft certification inspectors receive
limited technical training, the percent of this training provided by
industry can vary widely from year to year.
Under Limited In addition to paying industry to provide technical training
for inspectors, Circumstances, FAA FAA employs two arrangements by which
inspectors obtain training from Receives Training in the aviation industry
in exchange for in-kind services. In return for
receiving training from the aviation industry, FAA delegates
certainExchange for In-Kind regulatory authority to qualified employees of
the entity being overseen Services
(called quid pro quo arrangements).49 Both programs apply to Flight
Standards operations inspectors called aircrew program managers and
training center program managers. FAA's Aircraft Certification service
does not have any equivalent arrangements by which inspectors receive
training in exchange for in-kind services.
Under the aircrew designated examiner program, there is an arrangement
between FAA and major passenger-carrying airlines, cargo-only carriers,
and regional airlines by which FAA delegates, under the supervision of FAA
inspectors, certain pilot certification authority and responsibility to
pilots of the airline.50 In exchange, FAA inspectors receive training in
the airlinespecific programs and procedures in airline-specific aircraft
or simulators at no cost to the agency. Airlines benefit from the
increased flexibility of being able to certify their own pilots and not
having to arrange and schedule certification by an FAA inspector. FAA also
benefits from this flexibility because delegating the certification
activities increases its capacity for and efficiency of its oversight and
management activities. In addition, because the training received is
airline-specific, it further enhances the inspectors' knowledge of the
specific aspects of the airlines' operations that they are responsible for
overseeing. The aircrew designated examiner program originated in 1982 as
an agreement between a single airline and FAA, stemming from FAA's
inability to meet industry's increasing demand for certification
specialists. Each agreement between FAA and the airline is governed by a
memorandum of understanding that outlines the reasons for establishing the
specific aircrew designated examiner agreement, lists the aircraft types
involved, and contains an overview of how the program requirements will be
met by both parties. This arrangement was approved by the FAA ethics
officer and was reviewed by the Department of Transportation Inspector
General.
49In addition, FAA receives a very limited amount of training for free
from aircraft manufacturers during the development and deployment of a new
or reconfigured aircraft type. FAA inspectors and representatives from the
aircraft manufacturer certify each other initially by flying in the new
aircraft. During these initial flights, the FAA inspector works closely
with a manufacturer's test pilot to learn to operate the aircraft while
also identifying requirements for special training or operation of the
aircraft that will be necessary to certify future pilots. In addition, the
criteria for pilot certification on the unique characteristics of the
aircraft are identified during this process. As this is accomplished, the
FAA inspector also learns to fly the aircraft at no cost to FAA. These
instances account for less than 10 training sessions per year for FAA
inspectors, according to FAA.
50These qualified pilots become designated check airmen who are then
permitted to conduct flight checks or instruction in an airplane for the
purpose of certifying other air carrier pilots to ensure they are properly
trained and able to fly the aircraft.
FAA does not keep central records of training received through these
arrangements, and it was not practical for us to gather the data from over
100 FAA field locations. Therefore, we asked FAA's nine regional office
officials to contact their respective flight standards district offices
and certificate management offices to compile these data. Some data was
provided to us with incomplete information, sometimes without names or
specific dates. Because of the many remote locations that gathered this
information for us, it was not practical for us to independently verify
the completeness or accuracy of these data.
Overall, FAA regional office-supplied data indicate that FAA has memoranda
of understanding with 61 airlines and 42 training centers under the two
programs, encompassing about 300 fleets in total. (See table 8.)
Table 8: Number of Memoranda of Understanding and Fleets Enrolled as Part
of the Aircrew Designated Examiner Program and Agreements with Training
Centers
Number of memoranda of understanding Number of fleets
Aircrew designated examiner
program 61 141
Training centers 42 162
Total 103 303
Source: GAO analysis of FAA supplied data.
Note: This information may not be complete and was not independently
verified. (See text.)
For the aircrew designated examiner program, FAA regional officials
indicated that the agency has memoranda of understanding with 61 of the
134 airlines, and these agreements cover 141 aircraft fleets. More than
175 training activities took place per year, on average, from fiscal years
2002 through 2004, representing nearly 30 percent of all technical
training received by air carrier operations inspectors. (See table 9.)
Table 9: Numbers of Inspectors Trained under Aircrew Designated Examiner
Program and Agreements with Training Centers, Fiscal Years 2002 through
2004
Average 2002 2003 2004 per year
Aircrew designated examiners
Number of inspectors trained 111 114 155 127
Number of training activities 155 170 200 175
Training centers
Number of inspectors trained 43 45 59
Number of training activities 51 52 73
Source: GAO analysis of FAA supplied data.
Note: This information may not be complete and was not independently
verified. (See text.)
Similar to the aircrew designated examiner program, FAA's Flight Standards
office also employs memoranda of understanding with private, FAA-certified
training centers that provide training, testing, and pilot certification
services to commercial and private pilots throughout the United States.
Under these agreements, certain training center employees may be certified
by FAA to serve as designees provided they meet FAA requirements. On
behalf of FAA, these training center designees certify commercial and
private pilots as qualified to operate an aircraft. FAA assigns one or
more inspectors to each training center. The inspector is responsible for
FAA regulatory management and oversight of the training center through
periodic inspections of training center equipment, training courses,
course materials, and instructors. As part of the agreement granting
designee authority to the employee of the training center, the FAA
inspector receives aircraft-specific training from the training center at
no cost to the agency. This training benefits FAA by increasing inspector
knowledge and familiarization with the actual equipment being inspected,
thereby providing more effective oversight of the training center. In
addition, FAA does not have to utilize inspectors to certify the
individual pilots. The training center benefits from having its own
employees authorized to certify the pilots attending training at the
center, rather than having to schedule and wait for FAA inspectors to
accomplish the certifications.
According to FAA regional officials, FAA has agreements with 42 of the
approximately 50 training centers across the United States that include
162 aircraft simulator fleets. From the data FAA regional offices
supplied, we determined that an average of 59 instances of training per
year occurred
under these arrangements from fiscal years 2002 through 2004. (See tables
8 and 9.)
In total, the technical training provided by industry sources in exchange
for in-kind services through these two sets of arrangements accounts for
approximately 17 percent of all industry-provided training and
approximately 7 percent of all technical training provided to inspectors.
The memoranda of understanding described above were formalized, in part,
to eliminate actual or appearances of a conflict of interest. The U.S.
Government Standards of Ethical Conduct precludes federal employees from
accepting gifts, including training, from those whom they regulate. An
exception includes anything that is paid for or secured by the government
under contract. FAA considers the granting of check airmen authority to
designated examiners to be payment in-kind for the training received by
FAA inspectors. The purpose of the memoranda of understanding for the two
arrangements discussed above is to outline the nature of the payment
in-kind that FAA will provide to eliminate the appearance that FAA is
receiving a service for free. The memoranda of understanding address the
conflict-of-interest issue by explicitly outlining the duties and
responsibilities of both FAA and the operator employees who are party to
the agreement, and they also outline the specific nature of the in-kind
exchange.
For the aircrew designated examiner program, a sample memorandum of
understanding was written into FAA guidance in 1989. In 1997, a Department
of Transportation Office of the Inspector General report expressed
concerns that the aircrew designated examiner program might entail a
conflict of interest by precluding FAA from enforcing its safety
regulations.51 As a result, FAA altered the memoranda of understanding by
eliminating any language that could be construed as limiting FAA's
oversight authority and by specifically adding language to the contrary.
Unlike the memoranda of understanding for the aircrew designated examiner
program, the memoranda of understanding between FAA and training centers
do not contain a provision stating that FAA will take enforcement action
against any individual who violates any regulation.
51U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Free
Industry Flight Training of Inspectors: Federal Aviation Administration,
AV-1998-042 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 1997).
When we brought this to their attention, FAA officials indicated that the
absence of this enforcement language in the training center memoranda of
understanding was most likely the result of a simple oversight. As a
result of our inquiry, FAA officials told us that they are revising their
guidance to incorporate this enforcement language for future arrangements
under a memorandum of understanding. Although this action will address any
concerns about future arrangements, it does not make enforcement authority
explicit under existing arrangements.
Some Inspectors Receive Free Training without Getting Approval from FAA
Legal Counsel
Some safety inspectors have received training opportunities from aircraft
manufacturers or operators that they regulate at no cost to FAA and
without providing an in-kind service in exchange. FAA requires that any
such free training opportunities be reviewed by FAA legal counsel, at the
regional or headquarters level, to determine propriety of accepting the
training. However, some Flight Standards inspectors have received free
training for which FAA gave them training credit in the absence of prior
approval from legal counsel. According to Aircraft Certification
officials, its inspectors do not receive training credit for free training
offered by aircraft manufacturers, although both Aircraft Certification
and Flight Standards inspectors often audit classes, at no charge to FAA,
without receiving credit.
As mentioned above, U.S. Government Standards of Ethical Conduct generally
preclude federal employees from accepting gifts, including training, from
those they regulate. FAA generally does not accept offers of gifts unless
there is some recognized need, or if acceptance will result in cost
savings or other benefits in carrying out its work. FAA is allowed,
however, to receive free training from the aviation industry in limited
circumstances as a gift under the FAA Administrator's gift acceptance
authority. Under this authority, the FAA Administrator can accept any gift
of services in carrying out aviation duties and powers. FAA's Chief
Counsel concluded in 1988 that FAA may accept free training if the session
is necessary for the employee to perform his or her responsibilities, with
respect to the provider's projects, and the information cannot be obtained
from another source. Before inspectors can receive free training, they
must obtain approval from FAA legal counsel, either at the regional or
national level.
Because FAA does not keep central records of free training received, and
gathering this data was not practical, we asked FAA's nine regional
offices to request and compile this information for us. In response, two
of the nine
regions indicated that they accept free training on a limited basis. One
region cited 57 instances, over the past 4 years, of training accepted and
credited to inspectors' personnel records that was provided free of
charge. We were able to independently verify only 12 of these instances
because some of the data lacked specific dates, some lacked inspector
names, and some of the training was presented as completed but with no
specific information at all. For the second region, although it could not
identify specific records of such training, an official indicated that
perhaps five instances of free training were accepted over the past 3
years.
FAA's policy regarding acceptance of free training is not well known or
uniformly applied by its regional offices. Though some regions indicated
that the acceptance of free training of any type is not allowed under any
circumstances, other regions were unsure how the policy for acceptance of
this type of training is applied. Regarding the two regions that told us
they had accepted free training, an official from the first region
indicated that sometimes the regional legal counsel's office was asked to
comment on the propriety of the training and sometimes not. In cases where
legal counsel determined the training was improper, according to the
official, the training was not accepted. An official from the second
region indicated that free training opportunities were taken advantage of
when normal FAA channels for obtaining the same training were often slow
or difficult; therefore, accepting this training became necessary if
inspectors were to receive it at all. Similar to the official from the
first region where free training is routinely accepted, this official
indicated that legal counsel was sometimes contacted for an opinion on the
propriety of accepting a specific instance of training, and sometimes not.
Because these opportunities generally arise at the local office level,
whether such an offer is reviewed by legal counsel is dependent on the
office manager, the manager's understanding of the FAA policy, and a
judgment about whether a specific training opportunity raises any concern
that should be reviewed by legal counsel.
Both the government standards of ethical conduct and FAA policy address
the propriety of accepting gifts and free training, but FAA has not
clearly communicated this policy and the processes for accepting free
training to its regional offices. None of the regions we contacted were
able to cite any specific, relevant policy guidance governing this issue.
Several of the FAA officials we interviewed cited "verbal policy" from FAA
headquarters and a general, long-standing understanding that acceptance of
such training is not allowed. Other regional officials indicated that
although acceptance of free training is generally to be avoided due to
conflict-of-interest considerations, they would treat each occurrence
separately and likely consult with the regional legal counsel for an
opinion on the propriety of accepting free training. In fact, one region
supplied us with an opinion from the regional legal counsel, stating that
as a general rule, FAA has long held that the agency must pay for its own
training. The document goes on to say that it is permissible to accept
such an opportunity to audit the class but warns that an inspector is not
to consider it formal training. Many regional and headquarters officials
we spoke with indicated that it is common practice for FAA inspectors to
audit training in this manner, for informational purposes and not for
formal FAA training credit. On the basis of our survey, about 37 percent
of inspectors indicated that, in the past 2 years, they have attended or
inspected a technical training course offered by an airline or
manufacturer for which they did not receive credit.52
FAA headquarters officials agreed that the FAA order governing the
acceptance of gifts and the government's standards of ethical conduct
address the broad issue of gift acceptance. However, our work indicates
that these policies may not be clearly and uniformly understood by the FAA
regional offices.
Conclusions In providing training to its inspectors, FAA follows many of
the effective management practices we have outlined in our guide for
assessing training and development efforts in the federal government. In
doing so, FAA has put in place thoughtful, structured processes for
linking training to strategic goals, identifying and developing courses to
improve individual and agency performance, actively encouraging and
supporting technical training, ensuring that inspectors have opportunities
to receive this technical training, and obtaining inspectors' and their
supervisors' views on
52The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 33 to 42
percent.
the extent to which technical training affects job performance. FAA also
recognizes the need for improvements, including (1) systematically
assessing inspectors' needs for technical and other training, (2) better
timing of technical training so that inspectors receive it when it is
needed to perform their jobs, and (3) better linking the training provided
to achieving agency goals of improving aviation safety. FAA has begun to
act in these areas, and we believe that, if effectively implemented, the
actions should improve the delivery of training and ultimately help lead
to fewer aviation accidents, fatalities, and injuries. Therefore, it is
important for FAA to follow through with its efforts.
FAA's plans for inspector training are premised on the assumption that
inspectors currently have enough technical proficiency overall and that
future training efforts should be geared toward closing gaps in
proficiencies that the agency has determined inspectors require for system
safety inspections, such as risk assessment and data analysis. However,
FAA has not convinced inspectors of the merits of its approach nor has it
systematically identified inspectors' training needs for conducting system
safety inspections. Inspectors instead believe that they are not receiving
all the training they need to stay current with rapidly changing aviation
technologies. Many inspectors spoke out strongly on this issue-it is
clearly a hot-button topic for them. Therefore, it is essential that as
FAA continues to implement a system safety inspection process, it works
closely with inspectors to demonstrate the benefits of the system safety
approach, how inspectors' technical and other training needs will be met,
and how aviation safety will benefit from a system safety approach.
Finally, FAA has recognized that the manufacturers and operators of
aircraft and aircraft systems can be the best source of much of the
technical training for its inspectors. While FAA pays for most of the
training its inspectors receive from aviation sources, some of this
training is provided at no cost or in exchange for in-kind services.
However, because FAA keeps only scattered records on the extent to which
such training occurs, we cannot tell how widespread it is or whether FAA
legal counsel reviewed each training activity for propriety. FAA has not
communicated its policy on the acceptance of training without charge; and,
as a result, some FAA regions have accepted training that has not been
approved and could pose conflict-of-interest issues-or the appearance of
such a conflict-for the agency.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making five recommendations, three involving technical training and
two involving industry provided training. Regarding technical training, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA
Administrator to complete the following two actions that are either
planned or are in early stages of development or implementation:
o To ensure that inspector technical training needs are identified and
met in a timely manner, the Administrator should systematically assess
inspectors' technical training needs, increase inspector involvement in
the decision-making process for assessing the need for courses, including
the need for more training for maintenance and avionics inspectors to
familiarize them with recent changes in aviation technology, and ensure
the technical curriculum meets those needs. The Administrator should also
take the actions needed, including developing guidelines for inspectors,
supervisors, and training managers, to ensure that technical training is
requested and delivered closer to the time it is needed to help inspectors
perform their jobs.
o With a view toward maximizing the contributions of training to
furthering FAA's safety mission, FAA's training organizations should
determine the feasibility of developing measures of the impact of
inspector training, including technical training, on achieving
organizational goals.
Third, to gain better acceptance from the inspector workforce for changes
being made and planned for the inspector training curriculum, we recommend
that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to
increase the focus of its training efforts on how system safety/risk
management will improve inspections and aviation safety.
Fourth, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA
Administrator to ensure that all existing and future memoranda of
understanding pertaining to training received in exchange for in-kind
services contain language stating that the agreement does not preclude FAA
from fulfilling its oversight and enforcement role.
Finally, to preclude situations where the provision of free training by
the aviation industry may create a conflict of interest or result in the
appearance of such a conflict, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to review its policies on the
acceptance of free training accepted from the aviation industry to ensure
they are understood by inspectors, supervisors, managers, and regional
counsel; implement a process for monitoring field office compliance with
these policies; and follow up on any noncompliance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation and
received comments from FAA officials, including its Deputy Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety. FAA generally agreed with the report's
findings and agreed to consider our recommendations. The FAA
representatives appreciated the report's positive recognition of its
efforts to provide safety inspectors with the technical training they need
to effectively accomplish their mission.
FAA officials suggested that we modify how we grouped our presentation of
findings from our survey of inspectors. Specifically, they maintained that
our analysis of results should have included "moderate extent" along with
"very great" and "great extent" as a positive response because the
inspectors would have viewed a "moderate extent" response as a positive
response. Thus, in FAA's view, combining the "moderate extent" responses
with "great extent" and "very great extent" responses would more
accurately reflect the respondents' intent. The extent scale that we used
in our survey represents a unidirectional scale. As such, it is possible
to interpret any point along that scale, other than "no extent," as
positive, depending upon how a question is worded. Generally, we presented
information in the report with both "very great extent" and "great extent"
combined to represent the clearly most positive responses. The combination
of "very great extent" and "great extent" responses was intended to give
FAA a clearer understanding of inspectors' perceptions and guidance as to
where the application of its efforts is likely to have the greatest
effect. Although this approach served our purposes best, there are
naturally multiple ways in which one might combine response categories. As
such, we have provided detailed results showing responses for each
question by each response category in appendix II and the e-supplement to
this report.
The officials also noted that we defined technical training for the
purpose of this report differently from what FAA considers to be technical
training for inspectors. While these officials appreciated the recognition
of the differences in the two definitions in our report, they said that
the different definitions account for some disparity between what FAA
considers the percentage of training achieved and that shown in the draft
report. For example, the department considers the use of computer
automation tools
as a critical element of an inspector's ability to provide effective and
efficient safety oversight. Because the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act required that we focus on training in the latest
aviation technologies-which we termed technical training-we did not
include courses such as the use of computer tools in our assessment.
Nevertheless, our draft and final reports acknowledge the importance of
other training provided to inspectors, particularly training in skills
relating to system safety and risk assessment.
The department also provided several clarifying comments and technical
corrections, which we have incorporated in this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and
subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation safety issues; the
Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. This report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
5122834 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed
in appendix IV.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I
Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Training
The Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act required that we
report on the amount of travel required of Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) inspectors in receiving training. To attempt to accomplish this
requirement, we asked FAA to provide us with information on the number of
times each inspector was in travel status for training, the location of
the training, and the duration of the trips. FAA was not able to readily
provide this information, citing limitations of its databases that track
inspector travel. FAA told us that it is able to access and review
individual inspector travel records, but its information systems are not
set up to compile and analyze travel data for inspectors' travel for
training, as a whole. In part, this information is not readily available
because the data are stored in multiple databases, and the information is
recorded differently, depending on how the training is arranged and
budgeted. Further, FAA officials told us that (1) these data would be
extremely time consuming to collect and compile and (2) a manual search
for location of training would be necessary in some cases. On the basis of
our inquiries, we concluded that it was not unreasonable for FAA to lack
an easily accessible, comprehensive set of travel data.
Thus to obtain information on inspectors' travel for training we used our
survey of aviation safety inspectors (conducted in late 2004). We asked
inspectors to tell us how many weeks they were on travel status for
technical training in the past 12 months. On the basis of our survey, we
estimate that inspectors spend an average of about 3.1 weeks per year on
travel status for technical training.1 (See fig. 11.) We found that an
estimated 54 percent of inspectors were on travel status for 1 to 3 weeks,
and 27 percent spent 4 weeks or more on travel for technical training.2
About 19 percent of inspectors spent no time on travel status for
technical training in the past year.3
1The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 2.7 to 3.5
weeks.
2The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 50 to 59
percent and 22 to 31 percent, respectively.
3The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 15 to 23
percent.
Appendix I Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Training
Figure 11: Number of Weeks Inspectors Reported Spending on Travel for
Technical
Training within the Past 12 Months
Percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
01234 5 678910 or
more Number of weeks
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
On average, Flight Standards inspectors spent more time on travel for
technical training than did Aircraft Certification inspectors, according
to our analysis of survey responses. Flight Standards inspectors spent an
average of approximately 3.2 weeks over the past year, and Aircraft
Certification inspectors were on travel for training for approximately 2
weeks.4
The Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act contained a
"Sense of the House" that stated that, if possible, FAA inspectors should
be allowed to take training at the location most convenient for the
inspector. As part of our survey, we asked the inspectors the extent to
which there are opportunities for FAA to offer or contract for technical
training closer to the inspectors' work location. According to our survey,
we estimate that approximately 13 percent of inspectors indicated, to a
great or very great
4The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are from 2.8 to
3.6 weeks and 1.0 to 3.0 weeks, respectively.
Appendix I Inspector-Reported Travel for Technical Training
extent, that such opportunities existed.5 (See fig. 12.) However, more
than one-third of inspectors indicated they did not know if such training
opportunities existed.6 We did not attempt to verify inspectors' views on
opportunities for nearby technical training.
Figure 12: Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training
Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work Location
Percent To a great or very great extent
To a moderate extent
To some or no extent
Don't know
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: See table 22 in appendix II for additional details.
5The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 9 to 16
percent. 6The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 32
to 41 percent.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and Selected Inspector Survey
Responses
Tables 10 through 22 provide additional inspector training data as well as
additional detail on inspectors' views on FAA technical training, as
discussed earlier in this report. The survey results, exclusive of
inspector specialty breakouts, can be found at GAO-05-704SP.
The stratified random sample of FAA inspectors was designed to have an
overall margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points at a 95
percent level of confidence. Due to nonresponse, the actual overall margin
of error is plus or minus 4.6 percentage points. The individual types of
FAA inspectors represent strata in the sample. The precision for results
within each stratum is less than the overall precision for population
level estimates. Estimates for each individual type of safety inspector
(stratum level) have margins of error greater than 4.6 percentage points.
Estimates are more accurate for strata that have a larger number of
responding inspectors than for those with fewer inspectors in them.
For tables in this appendix that provide results of our survey of safety
inspectors, we present both the estimated percentage of those responding
in a certain way to each question and the confidence interval associated
with that estimate. For example, in table 13, we report on the percentage
of general aviation inspectors who responded to a great extent that they
have enough technical knowledge to do their job as 39 (31 - 46). This
means that we estimate that 39 percent of all general aviation inspectors
believe this to a great extent. Had we surveyed the population of all
general aviation inspectors, we are 95 percent confident that the
percentage point responding "to a great extent" for this survey question
would lie between 31 and 46 percentage points. The confidence interval
reflects the sampling error that corresponds to the estimate of 39
percent. The tables associated with our survey in this appendix provide
the number of respondents within each row. In some cases, the numbers are
small because FAA has relatively few of these types of inspectors. See
appendix III for more information on how we conducted our survey.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 10: Percent of Essential Courses That Are Technical in Nature
Number of Number of Percent of
essential essential essential
courses
Type of inspector technical courses overall that are
courses technical
Air carrier avionics 14 28
Air carrier 8 22
maintenance
Air carrier 1 10
operations
Cabin safety 3 12
General aviation 12 26
avionics
General aviation
maintenance 8 23
General aviation
operations 2 13
Aircraft 0 7
certification
All inspectors 48 141
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Table 11: Percent of Inspectors Completing Essential Courses
Percent of inspectors Percent of inspectors
completing at least 75 completing at least 50
percent of essential percent of essential
Type of inspector courses courses
Air carrier avionics 13
Air carrier maintenance 25
Air carrier operations 30
Cabin safety 73
General aviation avionics 30 81
General aviation maintenance 36 86
General aviation operations 47 88
Aircraft certification 9 94
All inspectors 30 84
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. Note: See text for a discussion of why
inspectors may not have completed essential courses.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 12: Average Number of Technical Training Courses Taken Outside of
Requirements, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004
Average number of Type of inspector technical courses
Air carrier avionics
Air carrier maintenance
Air carrier operations
Cabin safety
General aviation avionics
General aviation maintenance
General aviation operations
Aircraft certification
All inspectors
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Table 13: Inspectors' Views on Extent to Which They Currently Have Enough
Technical Knowledge to Do Their Jobs
Percent (confidence interval)
Unweighted
Type of sample size Very Great Moderate Some None
inspector great
Air carrier 231 13 40 33 (27-39) 12 (9-17) 1
(9-18) (34-46) (0-4)
Air carrier 46 7 (2-17) 28 37 (24-52) 28 0
avionics (17-42) (17-42) (0-6)
Air carrier 88 44 3
maintenance 8 (3-15) (35-54) 35 (26-45) 9 (4-17) (1-9)
Air carrier operations 79 20 (13-30) 41 (31-51) 30 (21-40) 9 (4-16) 0
(0-4) Cabin safety 18 28 (11-50) 51 (30-71) 11 (2-31) 11 (2-31) 0 (0-15)
General aviation 132 10 (6-16) 39 (31-46) 36 (29-44) 15 (10-22) 0 (0-2)
General aviation avionics 22 0 (0-13) 45 (25-67) 36 (18-58) 18 (6-39) 0
(0-13) General aviation maintenance 56 13 (6-23) 41 (29-53) 36 (24-49) 11
(4-21) 0 (0-5) General aviation operations 54 11 (4-22) 33 (22-47) 37
(25-49) 19 (10-31) 0 (0-5) Aircraft certification 25 20 (7-39) 48 (29-67)
28 (13-48) 4 (0-19) 0 (0-11) All inspectors 388 12 (9-16) 40 (35-45) 34
(29-38) 13 (10-16) 1 (0-2)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "To what extent do you currently have enough
technical knowledge about the aircraft, systems, or operations you inspect
to do your present job?" For more detail about the estimates and the
corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see
the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages
will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 5 for visual
illustration.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 14: Inspectors' Views on Extent to Which Requested Technical Training Is
Approved
Percent (confidence interval)
Unweighted
Type of sample size Very Great Moderate Some None Don't
inspector great know
Air carrier 231 8 23 24 28 13 4
(5-12) (18-28) (19-30) (22-33) (9-18) (2-7)
Air carrier 46 4 22 24 37 9 4
avionics (1-14) (12-35) (13-38) (24-51) (3-19) (1-14)
Air carrier 88 3 (1-9) 24 27 28 11 6
maintenance (16-33) (19-37) (20-38) (6-19) (2-12)
Air carrier 80 14 21 21 24 17 2
operations (7-23) (13-31) (13-31) (15-34) (10-27) (0-8)
Cabin safety 17 12 34 24 18 6 5
(2-33) (17-54) (8-47) (6-40) (0-25) (0-22)
General 132 5 (2-9) 19 17 30 24 6
aviation (13-26) (12-24) (22-37) (17-31) (3-11)
General 5 5 18 36 27 9
aviation 22 (0-22) (0-22) (6-39) (18-58) (11-49) (1-28)
avionics
General 7 18 20 29 20 7
aviation 56 (2-17) (9-30) (11-32) (18-41) (11-32) (2-17)
maintenance
General 26 15 28 26 4
aviation 54 2 (0-9) (15-39) (7-26) (17-41) (15-39) (1-12)
operations
Aircraft 25 4 16 28 16 28 8
certification (0-19) (5-35) (13-48) (5-35) (13-48) (1-24)
388 21 22 28 18 5
All inspectors 6 (4-9) (17-25) (18-26) (24-32) (14-21) (3-8)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "To what extent have the technical training
courses you requested been approved?" For more detail about the estimates
and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses),
please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row
percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 6
for visual illustration.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 15: Inspectors' Views on Whether Availability of Courses Helped or
Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical Training
Percent (confidence interval)
Type of inspector Unweighted sample size
Greatly helped Helped
Neither helped nor hindered Hindered
Greatly hindered
No basis to judge Don't know
Air carrier 231 4 (2-7) 24 27 30 8 5 2
(18-29) (22-33) (24-36) (5-12) (3-8) (1-4)
Air carrier 46 4 22 28 35 9 0 2
avionics (1-14) (11-35) (17-42) (22-49) (3-20) (0-6) (0-10)
Air carrier 88 3 (1-9) 27 20 34 9 2 3
maintenance (19-37) (13-30) (25-43) (4-17) (0-7) (1-9)
Air carrier 79 4 22 34 25 6 9 0
operations (1-10) (13-32) (24-44) (17-36) (2-14) (4-17) (0-4)
Cabin safety 18 6 16 28 12 17 22 0
(0-24) (5-36) (11-50) (2-31) (5-38) (8-43) (0-15)
General 131 3 (1-7) 18 34 25 9 8 2
aviation (12-26) (27-42) (18-32) (5-15) (4-14) (0-5)
General 0 10 33 29 14 14 0
aviation 21 (0-13) (1-29) (15-56) (12-51) (3-35) (3-35) (0-13)
avionics
General
aviation
maintenance 56 4 23 38 21 7 5 2
(1-12) (13-36) (26-49) (12-34) (2-17) (1-14) (0-9)
General
aviation
operations 54 4 17 31 28 9 9 2
(1-12) (8-29) (20-45) (17-41) (3-20) (3-20) (0-9)
Aircraft 25 8 20 36 4 (0-19) 20 12 0
certification (1-24) (7-39) (19-56) (7-39) (3-30) (0-11)
387 22 30 27 9 7 2
All inspectors 4 (2-6) (18-25) (26-35) (23-31) (7-12) (5-9) (1-3)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "Have the following factors helped or hindered
your ability to take the technical training you requested to do your
current job? Factor: Availability of courses." For more detail about the
estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in
parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some
of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See
figure 7 for visual illustration.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 16: Inspectors' Views on Whether Availability of Funds Helped or
Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical Training
Percent (confidence interval)
Type of inspector Unweighted sample size
Greatly helped Helped
Neither helped nor hindered Hindered
Greatly hindered
No basis to judge Don't know
Air carrier 229 4 (2-8) 10 21 28 24 7 7
(6-14) (16-26) (22-33) (18-29) (4-11) (4-10)
Air carrier 46 9 6 15 39 17 0 13
avionics (3-20) (2-16) (7-28) (26-54) (8-30) (0-6) (5-25)
Air carrier 87 3 (1-9) 16 22 24 22 6 7
maintenance (9-25) (14-31) (16-34) (14-31) (2-12) (3-14)
Air carrier 78 4 5 23 26 28 10 4
operations (1-11) (2-12) (15-33) (17-36) (19-39) (5-19) (1-10)
Cabin safety 18 0 6 17 33 28 16 0
(0-15) (0-24) (5-38) (15-56) (12-51) (5-36) (0-15)
General 131 3 (1-7) 8 16 30 29 10 5
aviation (4-13) (11-23) (22-37) (22-36) (6-16) (2-9)
General
aviation
avionics 22 0 9 18 18 36 14 5
(0-13) (1-28) (6-39) (6-39) (18-58) (3-34) (0-22)
General
aviation
maintenance 56 2 (0-9) 11 13 32 30 5 7
(4-21) (6-23) (21-45) (19-43) (1-14) (2-17)
General
aviation
operations 53 6 4 19 32 25 13 2
(1-15) (1-12) (10-31) (21-46) (14-37) (6-25) (0-9)
Aircraft 25 12 4 8 (1-24) 28 28 12 8
certification (3-30) (0-19) (13-48) (13-48) (3-30) (1-24)
385 9 18 29 26 8 6
All inspectors 4 (3-7) (6-12) (15-22) (24-33) (22-30) (6-11) (4-9)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "Have the following factors helped or hindered
your ability to take the technical training you requested to do your
current job? Factor: Availability of funds." For more detail about the
estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in
appendix), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of
the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See
figure 7 for visual illustration.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 17: Inspectors' Views on Whether Management's Determination of Need
Helped or Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical Training
Percent (confidence interval)
Type of inspector Unweighted sample size
Greatly helped Helped
Neither helped nor hindered Hindered
Greatly hindered
No basis to judge Don't know
Air carrier 230 7 29 33 15 7 6 3
(4-11) (23-34) (27-39) (11-20) (4-11) (4-10) (1-6)
Air carrier 46 4 37 30 15 6 2 4
avionics (1-14) (25-51) (19-44) (7-28) (2-16) (0-11) (1-14)
Air carrier 88 7 28 38 15 7 3 2
maintenance (3-14) (20-38) (28-47) (8-23) (3-14) (1-9) (0-7)
Air carrier 79 8 25 31 15 8 10 4
operations (3-15) (17-36) (21-40) (8-24) (3-15) (5-19) (1-10)
Cabin safety 17 6 28 18 25 6 17 0
(0-25) (14-46) (6-40) (10-46) (0-25) (5-38) (0-16)
General 132 6 23 28 19 13 8 2
aviation (3-11) (17-31) (21-35) (13-26) (8-19) (4-14) (1-6)
General 0 27 14 23 18 14 5
aviation 22 (0-13) (11-49) (3-34) (8-44) (6-39) (3-34) (0-22)
avionics
General
aviation
maintenance 56 9 23 34 16 13 4 2
(3-19) (13-36) (22-47) (8-28) (6-23) (1-12) (0-9)
General
aviation
operations 54 6 22 28 20 11 11 2
(1-15) (13-35) (17-41) (11-33) (4-22) (4-22) (0-9)
Aircraft 25 4 20 20 28 12 16 0
certification (0-19) (7-39) (7-39) (13-48) (3-30) (5-35) (0-11)
387 26 30 17 9 8 3
All inspectors 6 (4-9) (22-30) (26-35) (14-21) (7-13) (5-10) (1-5)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "Have the following factors helped or hindered
your ability to take the technical training you requested to do your
current job? Factor: Management's determination of your need for the
course." For more detail about the estimates and the corresponding
confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the
beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to
100 percent due to rounding. See figure 7 for visual illustration.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 18: Inspectors' Views on Whether Inspection Workload Helped or
Hindered Their Ability to Take Requested Technical Training
Percent (confidence interval)
Type of inspector Unweighted sample size
Greatly helped Helped
Neither helped nor hindered Hindered
Greatly hindered
No basis to judge Don't know
Air carrier 231 1 (0-4) 5 (3-9) 58 21 7 6 2
(52-64) (16-25) (4-11) (4-10) (1-4)
Air carrier 46 0 (0-6) 9 63 15 9 2 2
avionics (3-20) (48-76) (7-28) (3-20) (0-10) (0-10)
Air carrier 88 2 (0-7) 7 65 15 5 6 1
maintenance (3-13) (55-74) (9-23) (1-11) (2-12) (0-6)
Air carrier 79 1 (0-6) 3 (0-9) 48 29 9 7 2
operations (38-59) (20-40) (4-17) (3-15) (0-8)
Cabin safety 18 0 0 62 17 0 22 0
(0-15) (0-15) (39-81) (5-38) (0-15) (8-43) (0-15)
General 132 2 (0-5) 6 55 18 11 8 1
aviation (3-11) (47-63) (13-25) (6-17) (4-13) (0-4)
General 0 5 59 23 9 0
aviation 22 (0-13) (0-22) (37-78) 5 (0-22) (8-44) (1-28) (0-13)
avionics
General
aviation
maintenance 56 0 (0-5) 13 57 14 7 7 2
(6-23) (45-69) (7-25) (2-17) (2-17) (0-9)
General
aviation
operations 54 4 0 (0-5) 52 28 9 7 0
(1-12) (39-64) (17-41) (3-20) (2-17) (0-5)
Aircraft 25 4 0 56 8 (1-24) 12 20 0
certification (0-19) (0-11) (36-74) (3-30) (7-39) (0-11)
388 57 19 8 7 1
All inspectors 2 (1-3) 5 (3-8) (52-62) (15-23) (6-12) (5-10) (0-3)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "Have the following factors helped or hindered
your ability to take the technical training you requested to do your
current job? Factor: The impact on your workload of the time commitment
required for the training." For more detail about the estimates and the
corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in appendix), please see the
text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages will
not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 7 for visual
representation.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 19: Inspectors' Views on the Degree to Which Technical Training Is
Delivered in a Timely Manner
Percent (confidence interval)
Unweighted
Type of sample size Very Great Moderate Some None
inspector great
Air carrier 229 1 (0-4) 20 27 38 14
(15-25) (21-32) (32-44) (10-18)
Air carrier 46 0 (0-6) 15 15 (7-28) 56 13
avionics (7-28) (43-70) (5-24)
Air carrier 87 0 (0-3) 17 37 28 18
maintenance (10-26) (27-46) (19-38) (11-28)
Air carrier 78 4 (1-10) 27 20 40 9 (4-17)
operations (18-38) (13-30) (30-50)
Cabin safety 18 0 (0-15) 6 (0-24) 44 34 16
(24-66) (16-56) (5-36)
General aviation 132 2 (1-6) 13 22 51 12
(8-19) (16-29) (43-59) (7-18)
General aviation 22 0 (0-13) 0 (0-13) 27 55 18
avionics (11-49) (33-75) (6-39)
General aviation 56 2 (0-9) 16 21 46 14
maintenance (8-28) (12-34) (34-59) (7-25)
General aviation 54 4 (1-12) 15 20 54 7 (2-17)
operations (7-26) (11-33) (41-66)
Aircraft 25 8 (1-24) 24 28 32 8 (1-24)
certification (10-44) (13-48) (16-52)
386 18 25 42 13
All inspectors 2 (1-4) (14-21) (21-29) (37-47) (10-16)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "During your FAA career, to what extent have you
received technical training in a timely manner - meaning receiving
training in time to do your current job?" For more detail about the
estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in
parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this appendix. The
number of inspectors responding "do not know" was 2 percent or less. These
results are not presented. Some of the row percentages will not add up to
100 percent due to rounding. See figure 8 for visual representation.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 20: Inspectors' Views on the Extent That They Receive Technical Training
Prior to Scheduled Oversight Activities
Percent (confidence interval)
Unweighted
Type of sample Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never No
inspector size basis
Air carrier 231 4 18 (14-23) 31 (26-37) 29 14 3
(2-8) (23-34) (10-19) (1-6)
Air carrier 46 0 7 (2-17) 26 (15-40) 61 7 0
avionics (0-6) (46-74) (2-17) (0-6)
Air carrier 88 6 11 (6-19) 35 (26-45) 22 24 2
maintenance (2-12) (14-31) (16-33) (0-7)
Air carrier 79 5 29 (20-40) 29 (20-40) 23 9 5
operations (2-12) (14-33) (4-17) (2-12)
Cabin safety 18 5 28 (12-51) 40 (21-61) 11 11 5
(0-21) (2-31) (2-31) (0-21)
General 132 2 19 (13-26) 27 (20-35) 33 11 7
aviation (1-6) (26-41) (7-17) (3-12)
General 0 36 23 18
aviation 22 (0-13) 5 (0-22) 18 (6-39) (18-58) (8-44) (6-39)
avionics
General
aviation
maintenance 56 4 20 (11-32) 27 (16-39) 32 14 4
(1-12) (21-45) (7-25) (1-12)
General 2 33 4 6
aviation 54 (0-9) 24 (14-37) 31 (20-45) (22-47) (1-12) (1-15)
operations
Aircraft 25 4 28 (13-48) 32 (16-52) 20 16 0
certification (0-19) (7-39) (5-35) (0-11)
All 388 4 30 13 4
inspectors (2-6) 19 (15-23) 30 (26-34) (26-34) (10-17) (3-7)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represent the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "In thinking about the timing of when you received
technical training during your FAA career, how often did the following
situations apply? Situation: Technical and/or equipment training was
received prior to scheduled oversight/surveillance activities." For more
detail about the estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals
(numbers in parentheses), please see the text at the beginning of this
appendix. Some of the row percentages will not add up to 100 percent due
to rounding. See figure 9 for visual representation.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 21: Percent of Technical Training Provided by Industry as Reported
by FAA, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004
2002 2003 2004 Type of inspector Number Percenta Number Percenta Number
Percenta Air carrier General aviation
Air carrier avionics 181 30 193 42 218
Air carrier maintenance 475 39 313 38 323
Air carrier operations 282 54 341 57 332
Cabin safety 9 39 7 23 6
Subtotal 947 40 854 45 879
General aviation avionics 77 24 65 33 59
General aviation maintenance 240 30 160 28 148
General aviation operations 167 41 248 56 222
Subtotal 484 32 473 39 429
Aircraft certification 28 34 27 41 3
Total 1,459 37 1,354 42 1,311
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. Note: See figure 10 for visual
representation aAs a percent of total FAA-and industry-provided training
for each type of inspector.
.
Appendix II
Additional Details on Training Data and
Selected Inspector Survey Responses
Table 22: Inspectors' Views on the Extent to Which Technical Training
Opportunities Exist Closer to Their Work Location
Percent (confidence interval)
Unweighted
Type of sample size Very Great Moderate Some None Don't
inspector great know
Air carrier 231 4 (2-7) 11 5 (3-9) 13 30 38
(7-15) (9-18) (24-35) (32-44)
Air carrier 46 2 9 2 (0-11) 24 26 37
avionics (0-10) (3-20) (13-37) (15-40) (24-52)
Air carrier 87 3 (1-9) 7 8 (4-15) 10 26 45
maintenance (3-14) (5-18) (18-36) (35-54)
Air carrier 80 5 16 4 (1-10) 11 34 30
operations (2-12) (9-25) (6-20) (24-44) (20-39)
Cabin safety 18 0 6 0 (0-15) 6 37 51
(0-15) (0-24) (0-24) (22-54) (32-70)
General 132 2 (1-6) 9 10 18 26 35
aviation (5-15) (6-16) (12-24) (19-33) (28-43)
General 5 0 14 5 23 55
aviation 22 (0-22) (0-13) (3-34) (0-22) (8-44) (33-75)
avionics
General
aviation
maintenance 56 2 (0-9) 7 11 11 27 43
(2-17) (4-21) (4-21) (16-39) (31-55)
General 15 30 26 20
aviation 54 2 (0-9) (7-26) 7 (2-17) (19-43) (15-39) (11-33)
operations
Aircraft 25 4 0 12 20 28 36
certification (0-19) (0-11) (3-30) (7-39) (13-48) (19-56)
388 10 15 28 37
All inspectors 3 (2-5) (7-13) 7 (5-10) (12-18) (24-32) (32-41)
Source: GAO survey of FAA inspectors.
Note: The data in this table represents the responses from inspectors to
the following question, "To what extent are there opportunities for FAA to
offer or contract for technical training, such as recurrency training,
closer to your work location that is currently held at a central location
far from your work location?" For more detail about the estimates and the
corresponding confidence intervals (numbers in parentheses), please see
the text at the beginning of this appendix. Some of the row percentages
will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. See figure 12 for visual
representation.
Appendix III
Scope and Methodology
To assess the extent to which FAA followed effective management practices
in planning for, developing, and delivering up-to-date technical training,
and ensuring that the technical training for inspectors contributes to
improved performance and results, we identified key elements for assessing
effective training and development efforts in the federal government using
our recent guide on this subject.1 We identified the elements of this
guidance that were most relevant to the training activities at FAA for
aviation safety inspectors and then determined the extent to which FAA
followed these practices. In determining the extent to which FAA followed
a practice, we used the following scale: "fully" indicated that in our
judgment all or virtually all aspects of the practice were followed;
"mostly" indicated that more than half were followed; "partially"
indicated that less than half were followed; and "not followed" indicated
that few or no aspects of the practice were followed. For each element, we
obtained information from FAA on its plans and activities and compared
this information with the published criteria. We discussed this
information with FAA training and program officials to gain their
perspectives. In addition to gaining an understanding of these plans, and
activities generally, we applied the elements in our training guidance to
two emerging technologies (glass cockpits and composite materials) and
determined how training needs in these areas were incorporated into
training courses for FAA inspectors.
We supplemented these activities in several ways to gain additional
perspectives of inspector technical training needs and FAA's efforts to
meet these needs. First, we collected materials from and interviewed FAA
managers, supervisors, and inspectors at 7 of approximately 130 locations
across the United States where FAA inspections take place. These efforts
illuminated a mix of FAA inspector responsibilities for air carrier and
general aviation operations and maintenance, new aircraft certifications,
and oversight of manufacturing facilities. Second, we discussed technical
training needs and FAA's actions with senior management of the
Professional Airways System Specialists, the collective bargaining unit
for air safety inspectors. Third, we sought the advice of two sets of
experts, one to provide advice on the overall design of our study and a
second to help us assess FAA's technical training curriculum and the
extent to which FAA ensures that safety inspectors receive needed
technical training. (See table 23.) We selected these experts on the basis
of their knowledge of FAA safety inspectors and aviation technologies. We
also sought the views of 23
1GAO-04-546G.
Appendix III Scope and Methodology
member airlines of the Air Transport Association and the Regional Airline
Association on the technical training of inspectors. Fourth, we visited
the FAA Training Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, to learn more about how
courses are delivered to inspectors. Fifth, we reviewed National
Transportation Safety Board recommendations concerning FAA safety
inspector technical training. Lastly, we reviewed our studies and those of
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General concerning inspector
training and human capital issues. (See the Related Products section of
this report for a list of our products.)
Table 23: Experts Consulted for Our Work Design experts Curriculum experts
Mr. Gary Kiteley, Executive Director, Council on Aviation Accreditation
Mr. Brian Finnegan, President, Professional Aviation Maintenance
Association
Mr. Kent Lovelace, Chairman and Professor, Department of Mr. David Lotterer,
Vice President of Technical Services, Regional Aviation, University of North
Dakota Airline Association
Dr. Thomas Q. Carney, Professor and Department Head, Mr. Basil Barimo,
Vice President, Operations and Safety and Mr.
Department of Aviation Technology, Purdue University Mont J. Smith,
Director, Safety; Air Transport Association of America
Mr. Anthony J. Broderick, Independent Aviation Safety Consultant Mr. David
Wright, Director of Training, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Air
Safety Foundation
Mr. Theodore Beneigh, Professor, Aeronautical Science; Mr. Charles
Westbrooks, Assistant Professor, Aeronautical Science; Mr. Fred Mirgle,
Director, Aviation and Avionics Training; Mr. Neill Fulbright, Associate
Program Coordinator, Avionics Line Maintenance; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University
Mr. Walter Desrosier, Vice President, Engineering and Maintenance; Mr.
Jens Hennig, Manager, Operations; Mr. Gregory Bowles, Manager, Engineering
and Maintenance; General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Dr. Michael Romanowski, Vice President, Civil Aviation and Mr. Ronald R.
Baker, Jr., Manager, Civil Aviation Programs; Aerospace Industries
Association
Ms. Sarah MacLeod, Executive Director and Mr. Paul Hawthorne, Vice
President, Operations; Aeronautical Repair Station Association
Source: GAO.
To determine the type and amount of technical and other training that FAA
inspectors receive, we obtained course descriptions from FAA and data from
the Flight Standards training management system database and spreadsheets
from Aircraft Certification for fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Appendix III Scope and Methodology
FAA officials indicated their belief that a study of inspector technical
training should encompass training records over the whole of the
inspectors' careers. However, because the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act asked us to study up-to-date training on the latest
technologies, we analyzed only the most recent 3 fiscal years of data. The
data that we obtained included (1) essential and recommended courses by
type of inspector; (2) training completed by each inspector; and (3)
inspector specialty, location, and date of employment. We then calculated
the amount of inspector training completed by course category and by type
of inspector. In addition, we used the training records and course
requirements to determine the extent to which inspectors have completed
essential FAA courses.
To assess the reliability of the training data, we (1) interviewed
knowledgeable agency officials about the data, (2) performed electronic
testing of relevant data fields for obvious errors in accuracy and
completeness, and (3) collected and reviewed documentation from data
system managers about the data and the systems that produced them. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
To gather information about inspectors' perspectives on the technical
training available to them, we conducted a Web-based survey of a
representative sample of FAA safety inspectors. The survey asked a
combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and close-ended
responses. We drew a stratified random probability sample of 496
inspectors from the population of 2,989 aviation safety inspectors across
the United States.2 We stratified the population into 12 groups on the
basis of the type of work the inspector performed. Each sample element was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the
members of the population.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selection, our
sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn.
Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence in the precision of our particular sample's results as
2Our population included only those inspectors who actively participate in
inspection activities as part of their regular job duties. It did not
include managers, supervisors, or inspectors detailed to headquarters or
regional offices. FAA employs a total of approximately 3,700 safety
inspectors.
Appendix III Scope and Methodology
a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 4.6 percentage
points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population
value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we
are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this
report will include the true values in the study population. The
percentage estimates for all survey respondents have a margin of error of
plus or minus 4.6 percentage points. However, the percentage estimates for
the subgroups are larger with a range of margin of error of plus or minus
between 9.7 and 20.0 percentage points. Survey estimates presented as
comparisons between groups are statistically significant when the 95
percent confidence intervals do not overlap.
The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic
questionnaires accessible on the Internet through a secure Web browser. We
sent e-mail notifications to 496 inspectors, beginning on December 4,
2004. We then sent each potential respondent a unique password and
username to ensure that only members of the target population could
participate in the survey. The initial version of the questionnaire that
was posted on December 4, 2004, did not include three questions. A revised
version was posted on December 14, 2004, before most respondents had
answered the questionnaire. Because approximately one-quarter of the
respondents did not answer these three new questions (questions 9, 20, and
25d), these results are not included in the report. To encourage
respondents to complete the questionnaire, we sent a subsequent e-mail
message to further prompt each nonrespondent approximately 2 weeks after
the initial e-mail message. We sent nonrespondents two more notices and
closed the survey on February 4, 2005. Of the 496 inspectors whom we
surveyed, we received 392 useable responses (79 percent).
In addition to these sampling errors, the practical difficulties in
conducting surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, questions may be
misinterpreted, or the respondents' answers may differ from those of the
inspectors who did not respond. We took steps to reduce these errors.
Finally, we pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with
safety inspectors at local FAA offices in Baltimore, Los Angeles, and
Seattle. During the pretests we asked the inspectors questions to
determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used
were precise, (3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the
respondents, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the
content and format of the final questionnaire on the basis of the pretest
results.
Appendix III Scope and Methodology
To determine the amount of training FAA receives from the aviation
industry, we analyzed the training records of all FAA safety inspectors.
We obtained FAA's course numbering and categorization system and used it
to determine whether individual courses were provided by FAA or by the
aviation industry. We computed the total number of technical courses
attended by FAA inspectors from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and
identified those provided by the aviation industry. We discussed our
results with FAA training officials. See the discussion above for our
actions to assess the completeness and reliability of these data.
To determine the amount of training safety inspectors received from
industry either (1) in return for in-kind services or (2) for free, we
reviewed training records and interviewed FAA headquarters officials and
regional officials about FAA policies for accepting these types of
training. We also asked about procedures used when such training is
requested, including steps taken to ensure that any real or apparent
conflict-of-interest issues are addressed. FAA does not keep separate
records of these two types of training, and these data cannot easily be
identified from the central training data files. Therefore, we instead
interviewed officials at FAA's nine regional officials and requested these
training data from them. Subsequently, we used the safety inspector
training records to validate some of these data. We relied on FAA's nine
regional office officials to contact over 100 Flight Standards and Air
Certification offices to collect these data for fiscal years 2002 through
2004. Some regions indicated that their offices did not keep full records.
Other regions provided us with incomplete data records, sometimes without
names or specific dates. Because of the large number of offices from which
the data were gathered, it was not practical for us to independently
verify the completeness or accuracy of these data. As a result, we cannot
be sure that the information FAA supplied includes all industry-provided
training received for the 3 fiscal years.
Appendix IV
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834
Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, James
Ratzenberger, Assistant Director; Carl Barden; Nancy Boardman; Brad Dubbs;
Alice Feldesman; Jim Geibel; Kim Gianopoulos; David Hooper; Michael
Krafve; Ed Laughlin; Donna Leiss; Jean McSween; Minette Richardson; and
Sandra Sokol made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products
FAA Safety Inspector Training
National Aerospace System: Reauthorizing FAA Provides Opportunities and
Options to Address Challenges. GAO-03-473T. Washington, D.C.: February 12,
2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation. GAO-03-108. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003.
Aviation Safety: FAA's New Inspection System Offers Promise, but Problems
Need to Be Addressed. GAO/RCED-99-183. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 1999.
Aviation Safety: Weaknesses in Inspection and Enforcement Limit FAA in
Identifying and Responding to Risks. GAO/RCED-98-6. Washington, D.C.:
February 27, 1998.
Aviation Safety: FAA Oversight of Repair Stations Needs Improvement.
GAO/RCED-98-21. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 1997.
Aviation Safety: Targeting and Training of FAA's Safety Inspector
Workforce. GAO/T-RCED-96-26. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1996.
FAA Technical Training. GAO/RCED-94-296R. Washington, D.C.: September 26,
1994.
FAA Budget: Important Challenges Affecting Aviation Safety, Capacity, and
Efficiency. GAO/T-RCED-93-33. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 1993.
FAA Budget: Key Issues Need to Be Addressed. GAO/T-RCED-92-51. Washington,
D.C.: April 6, 1992.
Aviation Safety: Commuter Airline Safety Would Be Enhanced with Better FAA
Oversight. GAO/T-RCED-92-40. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1992.
Aviation Safety: FAA Needs to More Aggressively Manage Its Inspection
Program. GAO/T-RCED-92-25. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 1992.
Aviation Safety: Problems Persist in FAA's Inspection Program.
GAO/RCED-92-14. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 1991.
Related GAO Products
Serious Shortcomings in FAA's Training Program Must Be Remedied.
GAO/T-RCED-90-91. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 1990.
Serious Shortcomings in FAA's Training Program Must Be Remedied.
GAO/T-RCED-90-86. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 1990.
Staffing, Training, and Funding Issues for FAA's Major Work Forces.
GAO/T-RCED-90-42. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 1990.
Aviation Training: FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors Are Not Receiving Needed
Training. GAO/RCED-89-168. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 1989.
FAA Training: Continued Improvements Needed in FAA's Controller Field
Training Program. GAO/RCED-89-83. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 1989.
FAA Staffing: Recruitment, Hiring, and Initial Training of Safety-Related
Personnel. GAO/RCED-88-189. Washington, D.C.: September 2, 1988.
Aviation Safety: Measuring How Safely Individual Airlines Operate.
GAO/RCED-88-61. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 1988.
Aviation Safety: Needed Improvements in FAA's Airline Inspection Program
Are Underway. GAO/RCED-87-62. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1987.
FAA Work Force Issues. GAO/T-RCED-87-25. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1987.
Human Capital Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government. GAO-04-546G. Washington,
D.C.: March 1, 2004.
Human Capital: Selected Agencies Experiences and Lessons Learned in
Designing Training and Developing Programs. GAO-04-291. Washington, D.C.:
January 30, 2004.
Human Capital Management: FAA's Reform Effort Requires a More Strategic
Approach. GAO-03-156. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2003.
Related GAO Products
A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. Washington,
D.C.: March 15, 2002.
Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders.
GAO/OCG-00-14G. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2000.
Human Capital: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Training at
Selected Agencies. GAO/T-GGD-00-131. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2000.
Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private Sector Organizations.
GAO/GGD-00-28. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2000.
Related FAA Training Federal Aviation Administration: Challenges for
Transforming into a High-Performing Organization. GAO-04-770T. Washington,
D.C.: May 18, 2004.
Aviation Safety: Data Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis
System. GAO/AIMD-95-27. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 1995.
Aircraft Certification: New FAA Approach Needed to Meet Challenges of
Advanced Technology. GAO/RCED-93-155. Washington, D.C.: September 16,
1993.
Aviation Safety: Progress on FAA Safety Indicators Program Slow and
Challenges Remain. GAO/IMTEC-92-57. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 1992.
Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Inspection Management System Lacks Adequate
Oversight. GAO/RCED-90-36. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 1989.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***