STATEMENT OF
MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA),
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE & TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS,
ON
SAFETY AND GENERAL AVIATION,
APRIL 28, 2015.
Senator Ayotte, Senator Cantwell, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the current state of aviation safety in the national airspace system. Aviation safety is the FAA’s top priority and, while commercial aviation in the United States is holding steady at historically low accident rates, we remain focused to ensure we continue to identify and address risks to our system. Our progress over the last twenty years has been impressive. In the past, our philosophy was 100% compliance equals 100% safe but we were having accidents. We needed more than regulations. Today, we’re proactive and identify and address risk to prevent accidents.
Our success in addressing risk and improving safety in aviation over the past two decades is the result of strong safety partnerships between government and industry to pursue safety improvement collaboratively and in a proactive manner.
In 1997, the White House Commission on Safety and Security set a goal of an 80 percent reduction in the fatal accident rate within 10 years and identified the need for strong government‑industry partnerships to enhance safety and support the aviation system of the future. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission followed up with a strong recommendation that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and industry work together to develop a comprehensive, integrated safety plan to implement existing safety recommendations. The Commission recommended performance measures and milestones be developed to assess progress in meeting the safety goal. The Commission also recognized the global nature of aviation demanded that aviation safety also be addressed worldwide.
The FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and industry determined their safety advocacy work was complementary, because they all use accident data to determine top safety areas. As a result, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) was formed in 1998. The CAST model intended to use data to develop an understanding of the best actions or interventions to prevent accidents. The goal was to collaborate on identifying the top safety areas through the analysis of past accident and incident data, charter joint teams of experts to develop methods to understand the chain of events leading to accidents, identify effective interventions to address these safety areas, and remain focused on implementing these critical interventions.
The work of CAST has been extremely successful in the United States. Safety experts report that by implementing the most promising safety enhancements, along with new aircraft, improved regulations, and other activities, the fatality risk for commercial aviation in the United States was reduced by 83 percent from 1998 to 2008.
CAST is currently co-chaired by the Vice-President of Safety, Security and Environment at American Airlines and me. Members include domestic and international government and industry organizations.
Today, CAST has evolved and the group is moving beyond the “historic” approach of examining past accident data to a more proactive approach that focuses on detecting risk and implementing mitigation strategies before accidents or serious incidents occur. CAST uses a disciplined, data driven approach to analyze safety information, identify hazards and contributing factors and uses that knowledge to continually improve the aviation system. Using data from non-accident sources and voluntary reporting programs, CAST has adopted nearly 100 safety enhancements. CAST aims to further reduce the U.S. commercial fatality risk by 50 percent from 2010 to 2025.
The work of this organization has been recognized with prestigious awards, including the Robert J. Collier Trophy and the Laurel Award from Aviation Week and Space Technology respectively.
The collaboration between government and industry, at all levels, has been instrumental in the success we have achieved in the improvement in aviation safety. Our continued success in advancing aviation safety depends on these strong safety partnerships built on trust and the ability to share safety information. As the work of CAST has evolved, so has the agency’s ability to collect and analyze safety information for aviation.
In 2007, the FAA launched the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program to help transform safety analysis from a forensic approach, looking at accidents and incidents after they occurred, to a risk management approach, allowing for proactive discoveries of safety concerns before they lead to significant events.
ASIAS is a voluntary collaborative information sharing program supported by the aviation community. It collects data from broad and extensive sources of aviation safety information for the purposes of advancing safety initiatives and discovering vulnerabilities in the air transportation system. It took years to establish voluntary safety programs and build trust within the aviation community. Congress has been an important advocate in helping us protect vital safety information. These safety information protections are imperative so that we can continue to provide the environment in which personnel with safety critical responsibilities are confident in voluntarily providing safety information so that carriers and government have real-time insight into potential systemic safety issues.
ASIAS partners with CAST to monitor known risk, evaluate the effectiveness of deployed mitigations and detect emerging hazards. There are currently 46 part 121 member air carriers, nine corporate/business operators, two manufactures and two maintenance, repair and overhaul organizations participating in ASIAS. It continues to evolve, but has matured to the point that the FAA and industry can leverage voluntarily provided safety data from operators that represent 99 percent of U.S. air carrier commercial operations. ASIAS has established metrics that enable CAST to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigations. It is also expanding to support other areas in aviation.
In another related effort, the FAA is working to reduce safety challenges in general aviation (GA). Much like the CAST, the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), which was established in the mid-1990’s, established a data-driven, aviation-safety strategy to reduce general aviation fatal accidents. The FAA’s goal is to reduce the GA fatal accident rate by 10 percent over a 10-year period (2009-2018). Loss of control – mainly stalls – accounts for the most GA fatal accidents.
Through GAJSC, the general aviation community is realizing the benefits of collaboration. It is the key government-industry group working to reduce GA accidents. It is working to obtain broader data sources from the GA community to help better identify safety risks and implement enhancements to mitigate hazards. GAJSC participants include FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – as an observer- Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and National Air Transportation Association (NATA).
The group meets quarterly to review GA accident trends, establish areas for special emphasis, and share information. In the past year, the group developed 29 safety enhancements to address loss of control accidents, the most prevalent category of fatal GA accidents. For example, GAJSC efforts are making it easier to install some types of angle of attack indicators in GA aircraft, and allowing pilots to better monitor the stall margins of the aircraft they are flying. The GAJSC is also working on resources to help pilots better understand the effects of over-the-counter and prescription medication and better understand how long they should wait prior to flying after taking different types of medication. As part of its continuing work, the GAJSC is focusing its efforts on engine related accidents and is working to adopt a set of safety enhancements aimed at these events.
The concept of collaborative, voluntarily shared safety information has evolved a great deal since its inception. The FAA explored the SMS concept as a component of system safety and collaborated closely with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other international stakeholders on the development of the SMS standards.
SMS is a formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls. It includes systemic procedures, practices, and policies for managing safety risk. System safety is the application of both technical and managerial principles and skills to identify hazards and control risk. Most traditional regulations address technical issues. While these are important and have formed the basis of current successes, we’re now increasing emphasis on how these technical processes are being managed. Risk Based Decision Making (RBDM) is central to the processes of SMS.
The evolution of SMS is the RBDM strategic initiative, one of the FAA Administrator’s four strategic initiatives over the next five years. The vision for RBDM is that decisions are made with a full understanding of the safety impacts on the aerospace system. This means collecting and using data, analyzing that data and sharing it with the right people to ensure our decisions are better informed and take into account who they will impact and how. We will use RBDM and our other safety management activities to focus around high risk areas, leveraging our resources around those high-risk areas. We must take steps now to make sure that we are paying attention to the most important things first.
In order to realize our vision for RBDM, we have activities focused on ensuring that decision makers have the information regarding safety risk necessary to make well-informed decisions. These activities are necessary to increase data collection, sharing, and analysis to support decision makers. We are developing processes and tools to support decision makers and enable them to make better safety-informed decisions. We will also ensure that the information is properly aligned with and incorporated into FAA governance structures and processes through which decisions are made. Finally, there is an initiative focused on the FAA oversight model and implementation of SMS in industry. This initiative will complete the picture to ensure that FAA decisions affecting industry are made with safety risk fully considered and that oversight models are properly aligned with SMS in industry organizations.
Once we complete the activities that make up the RBDM strategic initiative, we will have instituted the approach within our SMS that will improve how we make decisions based on safety risk. The SMS will further provide the structure to make and manage those decisions.
A challenge we faced with SMS was our collaboration with stakeholders. We needed to evolve beyond the perception that the FAA was an enforcer of safety or the “Aviation Police.” While enforcement is a tool to ensure compliance, it is not a panacea. Enforcement, by itself, can and does in many situations inhibit the open exchange of information. This in turn leads to ineffective solutions to safety problems. We must use our resources for oversight activities as effectively as possible, and need to change our oversight approach as we are limited in our ability to catch all safety hazards in the system. For carriers that want to operate at the highest level of safety, they know they will be able to get there more effectively with SMS. Commercial operators have an incentive to invest in SMS because, by addressing root causes of hazards before they occur, carriers can avoid the stigma and financial consequences of accidents. In all cases, though, we want to be sure that safety problems are fully addressed in the most effective manner. We feel that this is best addressed through coordinated and cooperative efforts on the part of both FAA and industry.
The FAA recognizes our role in assuring the public of a safe system, and we will not hesitate to use strict enforcement where necessary. As a safety oversight organization, stakeholders that are unwilling or unable to comply with our safety standards and pose an unmitigated safety risk cannot be overlooked under the assumption that collaboration should control in all circumstances. Regulations cover broad areas of risk that are common to all aviation operations or large sectors of these operations in the NAS. However, the product or service providers are also faced with risks that are unique to their individual situations and operational environments. Their safety management systems, whether formally mandated in regulations or not, must develop and implement approaches to identify hazards and control both types of risks.
SMS is ubiquitous, it is a safety policy that brings benefits to the aviation industry because it requires safety promotion to be put in place and requires safety assurance measures, as well as risk management application to succeed. While the vast majority of part 121 carriers voluntarily complied with SMS concepts, in January, FAA issued a final rule that required all part 121 operators to develop and implement SMS. This was done in response to Congressional direction, and we appreciate that you agree that the concept is yielding the desired results. As safety management systems mature and are implemented, our reliance on sound safety analysis to identify risks to the aviation system, mitigate hazards and track safety enhancements, will be the core to sustaining a safe and efficient national airspace system. This type of capability is achieved only through sustained safety partnerships and the reporting of critical safety information among aviation stakeholders. We must collaborate on safety analysis and best practices, and monitor safety performance and implementation of mitigation strategies. SMS, RBDM, and collaborative transparent information sharing between the FAA and industry will be the cornerstone for future FAA oversight and industry’s management of the safety risks that affect their operations.
The FAA SMS Executive Council is responsible for setting the strategic direction for SMS implementation across the FAA. It provides executive-level guidance for FAA SMS-related issues. The FAA SMS Committee reports to the FAA SMS Executive Council and implements the Executive Council’s strategic direction and guidance. As key milestones are met in the RBDM strategic initiative, the FAA SMS Executive Council and the FAA SMS Committee will incorporate RBDM outputs into the agency’s safety management activities.
I understand that the series of hearings this Committee has been having are in support of your drafting a bill reauthorizing FAA’s programs, which expire at the end of the fiscal year. I appreciate the opportunity the FAA has been given to offer our views on the various hearing topics. We look forward to working with your staff to provide any assistance as you proceed to the drafting process.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any of your questions at this time.
STATEMENT OF
DENNIS J. DEVANY,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF AVIATION ANALYSIS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
before the
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 4, 2014
Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Introduction
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the technical aspects of the Department’s role in setting intra-Alaska mainline mail rates. The Department has performed this role for many years at the direction of Congress. For intra-Alaska mail rates, 49 U.S.C. Section 41901 requires the Department to:
“Prescribe and publish after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, reasonable prices to be paid by the Postal Service for the transportation of mail, and the services related to the transportation of mail…”
The Department’s role has nothing to do with the price that a shipper pays to the Postal Service for stamps. Rather, the Department’s set the rates the Postal Service pays airlines to carry intra-Alaska mail, including “bypass” mail. In addition, the Department’s role is limited to intra-Alaska mail rates; the Department plays no role with respect to mail that either begins or ends outside of Alaska.
Overview of the Intra-Alaska Mail System
When Congress deregulated the airline industry in 1978, an exception was made for intra-Alaska mail rates. The mail system in Alaska comprises both what is considered “regular” mail and “bypass” mail. Regular mail in Alaska is treated the same as it is in the rest of the country, i.e., the shipper delivers the goods to the Postal Service, pays the postage, and the Postal Service takes possession of the shipment and ensures its delivery. Bypass mail, on the other hand, takes its name from the fact that the mail bypasses all physical handling by the Postal Service. When a shipper wants mail to be transported to a destination, the shipper contacts the Postal Service and the Postal Service instructs the shipper to deliver the mail to a specific air carrier. Bypass mail is a subcategory of nonpriority mail. Approximately 85 percent of the nonpriority mail is bypass, and the remaining 15 percent is referred to as “in-house nonpriority.” In-house mail is delivered directly to a Postal Service facility, which physically handles it and disburses the mail to a carrier.
While the focus of my testimony is on mainline mail carried on mainline aircraft, the Department also sets mail rates carried by bush aircraft, known as the bush rates. Mainline aircraft are defined as having a payload exceeding 7,500 pounds while bush aircraft payloads are 7,500 pounds or less.
The mainline mail rate comprises two elements -- the linehaul rate and the terminal rate The linehaul rate varies with the distance that the airlines fly the mail and is expressed as dollars per revenue ton of mail, and the Postal Service pays the airlines on the basis of how many revenue ton miles of mail they carry.
The terminal rate relates to the cost of loading mail onto an aircraft, irrespective of distance, and is typically expressed in dollars per ton of mail enplaned. The Postal Service, in fact, pays the airlines on the basis of mail tons enplaned.
Methodology
In establishing the current mail-rate structure, the Department conducted an exhaustive investigation to determine the actual costs incurred by airlines in carrying the mail. While Congress intended the system to promote an integrated passenger, freight, and mail system, the Department is tasked solely with determining the cost of moving the intra-Alaska mail, and setting the rates accordingly. The Department determined the cost drivers of carrying the mail, by way of a formal hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge, which included exhibits submitted by stakeholders. The Department addressed myriad issues such as the directionality of mail, the fact that mail can displace cargo if the aircraft is full, debt/equity ratios and returns on both debt and equity, mark-up for income taxes, circuity etc. At the end of the process, the Department issued an order setting what it still refers to as the “base rates.”
Subsequently, the Department has updated the base rates in much the same way that other rates are indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Rather than using the CPI, the Department has used the changes in unit costs of Alaska mainline carriers to adjust the rates up or down. Specifically, for the linehaul rate, the Department compiles all the costs of the Alaska mainline carriers associated with flying the aircraft -- fuel, pilots, maintenance, lease costs, etc. -- and divide by total capacity, defined as available ton miles (ATMs), commonly referred to as the cost per ATM. The Department takes the result and compare it to the base year’s results and weight each carrier’s unit costs by the amount of intra-Alaska mail that each airline carries. In other words, if there are two carriers of the same size but one carries twice as much intra-Alaska mail as the other one, it would be weighted double.
The Department then derives an aggregate change in unit cost per ATM. Simply put, if the total cost per ATM increases two percent, the Department increase the linehaul rate by two percent. As a final adjustment, the Department recognizes that it is setting rates for a future period based on historical data. Therefore, the Department runs a regression to determine what the long-term (10-year) trend has been in unit costs and adjust the historical data accordingly to project the new rate at the midpoint of the future rate period.
This methodology includes measuring the change in unit costs of all traffic -- passengers, freight and mail. The underlying assumption is that, as the airlines’ unit costs change due to newer, more fuel-efficient equipment, different labor contracts, insurance rates etc., those changes apply equally to passengers, mail and freight.
The Department follows the same methodology with the terminal rate by examining the total costs of loading traffic onto the airplanes and then divide by total tons enplaned.
The most recent refinement the Department made to the mail-rate system was the introduction of a fuel surcharge in 1999, primarily at the request of the carriers because, at that time, fuel prices were rapidly increasing. It is important to note that, even without the quarterly fuel updates, airlines would ultimately be made whole for the fuel price increases. However, with only annual updates and the lag in getting data, it would have taken a year or more for the carriers to recoup rapidly increasing fuel costs. The quarterly adjustments make the rates more responsive to actual fluctuations in costs.
In addition, the Department sets a separate priority and non-priority rate for the linehaul and terminal elements. These rates were established in our original base-rate investigation and they rise or fall together based on the changes in unit costs. Priority rates are significantly higher than nonpriority, and reflect the greater costs of carrying mail on a flight-specific, more time-definite basis; nonpriority rates are lower because they provide the carrier with more flexibility to determine when the mail will move, thus allowing the carrier to efficiently utilize aircraft payload and human resources.
Below is a chart showing all of the current mail rates set by the Department, both mainline and bush. All mainline bypass mail moves on a nonpriority basis.
[CHART NOT FOUND]
Statewide Class Rates
The different mail rates in the classes above are calculated by the Department and applied by the Postal Service on a statewide basis. The Department uses the class rate concept to ensure that the carriers have incentives to control their costs. Under the class rate concept, a single class rate is developed for all of the members of that class of carriers. For mainline carriers the Department currently includes the costs of five carriers – Alaska Airlines, Era Aviation, Everts Air Cargo, a/k/a Tatonduk, Lynden Air Cargo, and Northern Air Cargo. If an airline’s costs are above the average of the class, its profits are reduced. If an airline’s costs are below the average of the class, then it enjoys additional profits.
Process
Once a year, the Department issues a show-cause order fully laying out all our calculations and rational for the rates that the Department is proposing. That order takes the publicly available Form 41 financial and T-100 traffic information provided by the carriers, calculates a “tentative” rate and directs the parties to show cause, within approximately two weeks why the Department should not make those rates final. Any party may comment on any aspect of the order or object to the show-cause order, raising any issue that it believes should be handled differently. Other parties then have an opportunity to respond to the comments submitted in the record by stakeholders. After considering all the comments, the Department then issues a final order establishing the new mail rates for a new year. Of course, if no parties object to the show-cause order, that order is simply made final.
The data supplied by the carriers – Form 41 and T-100 traffic -- are not special data, but are the same data that all large certificated carriers are required to provide. Thus, there is no additional reporting requirement on the carriers. As with all air carriers, the mainline carriers are required to certify that their data are true and accurate, and the data are periodically reviewed by Department staff.
Transparency
The Department emphasizes transparency in the administration of the intra-Alaska mail rate system. The Department has sought to minimize the administrative costs of the program to the carriers and the Postal Service by using a fully public process in setting the mail rates, while also encouraging all parties to submit comments on the record. While any party can at any time request a full oral evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, no party has chosen to do so. The Department believes this reflects the fairness of the system, the accuracy of the rates, and the recognition of that fact by stakeholders.
Conclusion
I hope that I have helped bring some clarity to the Departments’ role in setting intra-Alaska mail rates.
Chairman Farenthold, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the rate-setting methodology DOT uses in establishing intra-Alaska mail rates.
STATEMENT OF
BENITO DE LEON,
ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,
ON
AIRPORT FINANCING AND DEVELOPMENT,
ON JUNE 18, 2014.
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) role in developing our nation’s airport infrastructure. This is my first time testifying before the Subcommittee as I recently assumed the position of Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports. I am succeeding Kate Lang, who I am sure many of you know well. I also am currently serving as Acting Associate Administrator for Airports as the agency looks forward to Eduardo Angeles coming onboard as the newly appointed Associate Administrator for Airports. It will be my pleasure to get to know you as I serve in these positions.
The FAA is committed to continuing to ensure that we have a safe and efficient national airport system. Airports require extensive high-precision infrastructure, which in return requires careful attention to engineering and construction standards. Airfield, terminal, landside facilities and supporting infrastructure like drainage and utility systems all require constant vigilance as well as periodic rehabilitation and reconstruction. These processes take years of careful planning so that the work does not compromise airport safety or capacity, or cause congestion that may be reasonably avoided.
For FY 2014, the FAA will issue approximately $3.2 billion in grants-in-aid to state and local airport sponsors through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). These investments will facilitate eligible airport improvements in the core areas of safety, capacity and delay reduction, security, and environmental sustainability, and will contribute to addressing the most pressing needs of the national airport system. I would like to update the Subcommittee on how we assess the airport system’s needs, the specific areas where we have focused to address those needs, and where we see opportunity to improve flexibility that would enable investment to be more effectively targeted to meet the needs of the system and its users.
The AIP program supports a network of airports of all sizes, throughout the country, which provide critical functions to our national economy while serving the needs of regional and local communities. They are the backbone of an aviation system that plays a key role in the success, strength, and growth of the U.S. economy. The integrated system of airports also provides a crucial safety net. Aircraft of all sizes and types, commercial and non-commercial, have to make unexpected landings due to passenger medical emergencies, mechanical issues, or other reasons. The nationwide network of airports is fundamental to the safety and efficiency of the national air transportation system.
In addition to the airports that serve commercial air carrier transportation, the AIP program supports the safety and capacity of airports that serve general aviation (GA) needs. This includes flight training, emergency preparedness and response, aeromedical flights, agricultural support, and a host of other functions that cannot easily be accommodated at larger, commercial service airports. Collaboration with the full range of stakeholders is vital to the success of our airport planning and strategic investments. We work closely with aviation users as well as local communities. We also carefully consider reports and recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and other organizations, and consistently review system performance to measure success and identify areas for improvement.
The principal planning tool the FAA uses for assessing system-wide development needs is the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), which the FAA publishes every 2 years. The NPIAS details the projected 5-year capital needs of airports of all sizes that are identified as significant to the air transportation system. The NPIAS cost estimate reflects only AIP-eligible improvements and provides a consistent framework within which to evaluate proposed projects.
We most recently published the NPIAS in September 2012. The report addressed the development needs of more than 500 commercial service airports and approximately 2,800 general aviation airports for the five-year period from FY 2013 through 2017. For FY 2013- 2017, the report found the average annual AIP-eligible development need to be about $8.3 billion. The FAA will publish an updated NPIAS report for FY 2015-2019 later this year. The update will also reflect our ongoing coordinated efforts with members of the aviation community to assess the role that GA airports play in our national airport system, as reported in the May 2012 General Aviation Airports: A National Asset (ASSET) report and a March 2014 follow-up report.
All development projects identified in the NPIAS report are eligible for AIP funding. However, demand for AIP grant funds consistently exceeds availability. Each year, funds appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund are distributed between formula grants (entitlements) and discretionary grants. We review all requests for AIP funding with a careful focus on demonstrated aeronautical need, including both actual and reasonably forecast aviation activity levels. When we consider projects for AIP discretionary funding, investment decisions are made using structured selection criteria that helps identify critical development needs that can be supported within associated AIP funding levels. Our bottom line is to ensure the most critical needs of the airport system are met. Even after we issue a grant to an airport sponsor, we continuously review airport layout plans and monitor the airport sponsor’s compliance with grant assurances to ensure the project is carried out to benefit the system, and the airport maintains and operates their facility in a safe and efficient manner.
AIP grants are just one source of funding that airports use to fund capital investment. Other funding sources include passenger facility charges (PFCs), state and local grants, bond proceeds, airport-generated funds (landing and terminal fees, parking, and concession revenues), and tenant and third-party financing. Qualified airports may collect a PFC in an amount up to the statutory cap of $4.50 on each paying passenger boarding an aircraft. PFCs are local funds rather than federal but, like AIP grants, the PFC is a federally approved source of funding. The FAA still reviews proposed projects for PFC funding, and that review process includes seeking public and airline industry comments on both the collection amounts and the specific projects. PFC collections total approximately $2.8 billion each year.
There are 3,330 airports out of the approximately 19,000 landing facilities in the U.S. and its territories included in the NPIAS. What we’ve found is that the availability of funding sources and their adequacy to meet these airport’s needs varies with type of airport and level of activity. For larger commercial airports with significant numbers of passengers, PFC revenues are a more flexible capital funding source that does not depend upon annual appropriations. Moreover, airports with strong passenger volumes can generally issue bonds backed by future PFC revenues. As a result, larger airports are generally less reliant upon AIP grants, while smaller airports, generally with markedly less access to other funding sources, may be much more heavily reliant on AIP funding. Yet, many of those smaller airports are also very important to the overall system, either for access or to relieve pressure on larger commercial airports.
Without them, the larger commercial service airports would need to accommodate far more smaller and slower aircraft, which could reduce capacity and exacerbate delays. A proper balance is critical to the efficiency of the system. The users of the large airports depend upon some of the smaller airports for overall system capacity and efficiency. The President’s FY 2015 budget proposal for the AIP program is based in part on focusing AIP resources on the smaller commercial and general aviation airports while providing larger airports with additional PFC resources. By focusing federal grants on supporting smaller commercial and general aviation airports that do not have access to additional revenue or other outside sources of capital, the proposal allows larger airports to increase non-federal passenger facility charges, thereby giving larger airports greater flexibility to generate their own revenue.
Safety is the FAA’s top priority, while planning for capacity and delay reduction is also critical to the future of the airport system. I would like to highlight where the FAA has placed its focus regarding these two core AIP priorities. The AIP program is delivering measurable benefits, some of which I will also share.
SAFETY
The FAA has made runway safety a focus. The Office of Airports works closely with other FAA program offices, including the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and the Aviation Safety Organization, to ensure a comprehensive and cohesive runway safety strategy. Investments through AIP grants are funding runway safety area improvements (RSA); reducing the risk of runway incursions; and contributing to the state of good repair of critical facilities, including runways.
The FAA is on-track to meet its key safety initiative to accelerate and make all practicable improvements to runway safety areas (RSA) at certificated airports. Standards for RSAs are designed to minimize damage to aircraft and injuries to occupants when an aircraft loses braking or directional control or otherwise overruns, undershoots, or strays from the runway during a landing or aborted takeoff. The RSA standards provide an area around the runway, free of structures or significant grade changes, which can provide an extra margin of safety to ensure the consequences of incidents are less likely or severe. We continue to support the installation of Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) at airports that do not have enough space for standard RSAs. These EMAS systems have already safely stopped nine overrunning aircraft with no fatalities or serious injuries and little damage to the aircraft.
Objects that are required to be in the RSA because of their function, such as runway lights or signs, must be able to break away easily if struck by a passing aircraft. By the end of calendar year 2015, through collaborative efforts of the FAA with the nation’s certificated airports, we expect all RSAs at certificated airports will meet standards to the extent practicable.
Additionally, a reduction in the number and severity of runway incursions remains one of the FAA’s top priorities. Many airport sponsors have received AIP grants to make improvements that help reduce runway incursions caused by vehicle and pedestrian deviations, or by pilot error due to confusing geometry. This includes certain ground surveillance systems technology to increase pilot situational awareness. A key FAA initiative is to mitigate the risk of runway incursions by reconfiguring confusing or non-standard taxiways and installing perimeter service roads to reduce the number of runway crossings needed.
Maintaining facilities, including runways and taxiways, systems, and equipment in a state of good repair, is also critical to the safety of the airport system. We are constantly working with airport operators to preserve existing infrastructure. Through the use of AIP grants, we ensure that 93 percent of runways at more than 3,300 airports in the NPIAS are in fair, good, or excellent condition. As of FY 2013, over 97 percent of the runways met the criteria.
CAPACITY
Runways and taxiways must be adequate to handle anticipated aircraft operations safely and efficiently. Over the last 15 years, AIP supported projects have included 16 new runways, 3 major taxiways, 1 major runway extension, and 2 major airfield reconfigurations at 22 of the busiest 35 commercial service airports in the United States. Those projects and others have provided these airports with the potential to accommodate more than 2 million annual operations, and decrease average delay per operation at these airports by about 5 minutes. This may sound minor in isolation, but because delays propagate throughout the system, that degree of improvement is very significant. The total cost of these projects is about $8.5 billion, of which about $3 billion was AIP funded. These investments have been highly successful at achieving their operational goals, but some of the busiest airports remain highly congested and delay- prone, and those delays drive up operational costs and environmental impacts for the entire system.
We routinely assess system performance and capacity needs, and have developed an ongoing series of reports, known as Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT) report, to assess the future capacity of the Nation’s airports and metropolitan areas. The FAA is currently in the final stages of a third FACT assessment (FACT 3), developed in conjunction with airport operators, MITRE, and multiple FAA offices including NextGen and ATO. The study will identify airports that are expected to be congested by 2020 or 2030, taking into consideration the capacity improvements since FACT 2, including anticipated airfield capacity improvements. We expect to release the FACT 3 report by fall 2014.
In summary, investment in our nation’s airport infrastructure remains crucial to maintaining the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. The Airport Improvement Program has evolved over the decades into a vital and carefully targeted capital funding source that works effectively with other funding sources to support the nation’s airport infrastructure. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide an update on the FAA’s recent efforts to provide leadership in planning and developing a safe and efficient national airport system. I look forward to working with you as we move forward, and I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.
STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
ON
AN UPDATE: THE AGENCY’S CALL TO ACTION ON
AIRLINE SAFETY AND PILOT TRAINING.
FEBRUARY 4, 2010.
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to provide you with an update on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Call to Action on airline safety and pilot training. There is no question that the FAA’s job is to ensure that we have the safest aviation system in the world. The aviation safety record in the United States reflects the dedication of safety-minded aviation professionals in all parts of our industry, including the FAA’s inspector workforce. In an agency dedicated to aviation safety, any failure in the system, especially one that causes loss of life, is keenly felt. When accidents do happen, they reveal risks, including the tragic Colgan Air accident. Consequently, it is incumbent on all parties in the system to identify the risks in order to eliminate or mitigate them. As I noted when I appeared before you in September, history has shown that we are able to implement safety improvements far more quickly and effectively when the FAA, industry, and labor work together on agreed upon solutions. The fastest way to implement a solution is for it to be done voluntarily, and that is what the Call to Action was intended to facilitate. On January 27, the FAA issued a report that describes the progress made toward fulfilling commitments made in the Call to Action, and offers recommendations for additional steps to enhance aviation safety. So, I would like to run down the issues I identified in September and let you know where we stand on them.
Pilot Flight Time, Rest and Fatigue: When I was last here I told you that the aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) I convened for the purpose of making recommendations on flight time, rest and fatigue, consisting of representatives from the FAA, industry and labor organizations, provided me with recommendations for a science-based approach to fatigue management in early September. While I was extremely pleased with the product provided to me, the ARC did not reach a consensus agreement on all areas and was not charged with doing any type of economic analysis. Consequently, in spite of my direction for a very aggressive timeline in which to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), my hope that a rulemaking proposal could have been issued by the end of last year did not happen. The complexities involved with these issues are part of the reason why the FAA has struggled to finalize proposed regulations on fatigue and duty time that were issued in the mid-1990s. However, with my continued emphasis on this topic, we hope to issue an NPRM this spring. Although this is slightly later that I originally hoped, it is still an extremely expedited schedule and I can assure you the FAA team working on this is committed to meeting the target.
One of the issues contributing to fatigue that I know is of interest to many Members of Congress is that of pilots who commute by air to their job. I would like to acknowledge some of the emails and letters I have been receiving on the issue of commuting from pilots who choose to commute by air to their job. As you can imagine, those pilots who commute responsibly are understandably concerned that they could be forced to relocate because of the irresponsible actions of a few. Should some sort of hard and fast commuting rule be imposed, it could result in families being separated, people being forced to sell homes at a loss, or even people being forced to violate child custody agreements. I understand that, to people not familiar with the airline industry, the issue of living in one city and working hundreds of miles away in another does not make sense. But in the airline industry, this is not only a common practice, it is one airline employees have come to rely on. So I want to emphasize these issues are complex and, depending on how they are addressed, could have significant impacts on people’s lives.
Focused Inspection Initiative: From June 24, 2009 to September 30, 2009, FAA inspectors conducted a two-part, focused review of air carrier flight crewmember training, qualification, and management practices. The FAA inspected 85 air carriers to determine if they had systems to provide remedial training for pilots. The FAA did not inspect the 14 carriers that have FAA-approved Advanced Qualification Programs (AQP) because AQP includes such a system. Seventy-six air carriers, including AQP carriers, have systems to comply with remedial training requirements. An additional 15 air carriers had some part of a remedial training system. There were eight air carriers that lacked any component of a remedial training program that received additional scrutiny and have since instituted some component of a remedial training system. Consequently, currently all carriers have some component of a remedial training program. The FAA inspectors observed 2,419 training and checking events during its evaluation.
Training Program Review Guidance: The FAA issued a rulemaking proposal in January 2009 to enhance training programs by requiring the use of simulation devices for pilots. More than 3,000 pages of comments were received. The FAA is now developing a supplemental proposal that will be issued in the coming months to allow the public to comment on the revisions that were made based on the comments that were submitted.
Based on the information from last summer’s inspections, the FAA is drafting a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) with guidance material on how to conduct a comprehensive training program review in the context of a safety management system (SMS). A complementary Notice to FAA inspectors will provide guidance on how to conduct surveillance. SMS aims to integrate modern safety risk management and safety assurance concepts into repeatable, proactive systems. SMS programs emphasize safety management as a fundamental business process in the same manner as other aspects of business management. Now that we have completed our data evaluation, we are on track to meet our goal of having both guidance documents ready for internal coordination by the end of February.
Obtain Air Carriers’ Commitment to Most Effective Practices: To solidify oral commitments made at the Call to Action, I sent a letter to all part 121 operators and their unions and requested written commitments to adhere to the highest professional standards. Many airlines are now taking steps to ensure that their smaller partner airlines adopt the larger airline’s most effective safety practices. The Air Transport Association’s Safety Council is now including safety directors from the National Air Carrier Association and the Regional Airline Association in their quarterly meetings. The agency is encouraging periodic meetings of the larger airlines and those with whom they have contract agreements with to review flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) and Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) data and to emphasize a shared safety philosophy. I am pleased to report that all 33 carriers we asked to make this commitment have either held or plan to hold meetings with their contract partner airlines.
In addition I am pleased to say that since July 2009, after the Call to Action, the FAA approved 11 new FOQA programs, with another application pending. Also, as of last July, there were only three air carriers that had no ASAP program for any employee group. Those three carriers have now established ASAP programs. Four more air carriers have established new ASAP programs for additional employee groups. All of this supports the contention that the Call to Action did make a difference.
Professionalism and Mentoring: In February, the FAA will host a forum for labor organizations to further develop and improve professionalism and transfer of pilot experience. In the interim, these organizations have answered the Call to Action and support the establishment or professional standards and ethics committees, a code of ethics, and safety risk management meetings between the FAA and major and regional air carriers. I very much believe that the transfer of pilot experience is an important way to raise professional standards and improve cockpit discipline. We plan to ask pilot employee organizations to further explore some of the ideas raised in initial discussions, such as establishing joint strategic councils within a “family of carriers.” This approach could lead to individual, as well as corporate mentoring relationships. The use of professional standards committee safety conferences could provide opportunities for two- way mentoring – an important reminder that good ideas are not unique to larger, mainline carriers. Another concept to explore is mentoring possibilities between air carriers and university aviation programs.
Crew Training Requirements: One of the things that the Call Action has shone a light on is the issue of varying pilot experience. I am attempting to address this issue with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in which we can consider possible alternative requirements, such as an endorsement on a commercial license to indicate specific qualifications. I know some people are suggesting that simply increasing the minimum number of hours required for a pilot to fly in commercial aviation is appropriate. As I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe that simply raising quantity – the total number of hours of flying time or experience – without regard to the quality and nature of that time and experience – is an appropriate method by which to improve a pilot’s proficiency in commercial operations. The ANPRM will request public comment on other options. For example, a newly-certificated commercial pilot might be limited to certain activities until he or she could accumulate the type of experience deemed potentially necessary to serve as a first officer for an air carrier. We are looking at ways to enhance the existing process for pilot certification to identify discrete areas where an individual pilot receives and successfully completes training, thus establishing operational experience in areas such as the multi-pilot environment, exposure to icing, high altitude operations and other areas common to commercial air carrier operations.
We view this option as being more targeted than merely increasing the number of total flight hours required, because it will be obvious to the carrier what skills an individual pilot has. There is a difference between knowing a pilot has been exposed to all critical situations during training versus assuming that simply flying more hours automatically provides that exposure. I expect the ANPRM to be posted on the Federal Register’s website today.
On a related note, a former military pilot wrote a letter to the Washington Post in December on this issue. In his letter, this pilot describes his military training and how, after only 162 flight hours, he was landing his plane on an aircraft carrier. While this is certainly an extreme example, his point is valid. Based on his training and experience, his qualifications at 1,500 hours were significantly different than a pilot who received a non-military, more traditional training experience. This type of difference should be factored in to any regulatory training modification.
Pilot Records: While Congress is working to amend the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 and the FAA amends its guidance to airlines, I have asked that air carriers immediately implement a policy of asking pilot applicants to voluntarily disclose FAA records, including notices of disapproval for evaluation events. The airlines agreed to use this best practice for pilot record checks to allow for a more expansive review of records created over the course a pilot’s career. The expanded review would include all the records the FAA maintains on pilots in addition to the records airlines already receive from past employers. Of the 80 air carriers that responded to the FAA on this issue, 53 air carriers, or 66%, reported that they already require full disclosure of a pilot applicant’s FAA records. Another 15% reported that they plan to implement the same policy.
As I stated when I appeared before you in September, and as I have stated repeatedly in my conversations, both public and private, the core of many of the issues facing the air carrier industry today is professionalism. It is the duty of the flight crew to arrive for work rested and ready to perform their jobs, regardless of whether they live down the street from the airport or a thousand miles away. Professionalism is not something we can regulate, but it is something we can encourage and urge pilots and flight crews to aspire to. I think the conversations we have been having, in part because of the Call to Action, are helpful in emphasizing the importance of professionalism in aviation safety.
In conclusion, I want to say that while the Call to Action initiatives have been a major focus for me since joining the safety professionals at the FAA, their impressive work has been ongoing for years. Their work has resulted in eliminating fuel tank flammability, virtually eliminating commercial icing accidents, and drastically reducing the number of general aviation accidents in the state of Alaska, among many other things. Safety is at the core of the FAA’s mission and we will always strive to make a safe system safer. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
STATEMENT
OF
DORENDA BAKER,
DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA),
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE & TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,
ON
FAA REAUTHORIZATION: CERTIFICATION AND U.S. AVIATION MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS,
APRIL 21, 2015.
Senator Ayotte, Senator Cantwell, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) role in the aircraft certification process. As Director of the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service (AIR), I am responsible for overseeing the design, production, and continued operational safety of aircraft, engines, propellers, and articles. Efficiently and effectively managing the safe oversight of the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support the innovation of new and novel technologies is a challenge, but one that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country. The U.S. aviation manufacturing industry provides the livelihood for millions of Americans and is a dynamic and innovative industry that we are proud to oversee.
FAA certification is vital to the production of aircraft and aircraft components both domestically and internationally. Our certification means that the product was thoroughly reviewed, tested, and analyzed, and has been deemed to meet the stringent safety standards we require. Certification is a dynamic process with both industry and the FAA having important roles and responsibilities critical to success. We are constantly working to improve the process. Both in response to Congressional direction, and on our own initiative, the FAA is working closely with industry to understand and respond to their concerns in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the certification process without compromising safety. Central to the success of this effort is transparency. All parties need to know what we are doing and why, as well as what is working and what is not. I would like to share the FAA’s vision on reforming the certification process, what we have been doing in response to the 2012 FAA reauthorization, and our efforts to drive certification reform at the local, national, and international level.
Certification Reform Vision
In order to support the safest, largest, most complex aviation system in the world, the FAA must continue to make our processes as efficient and effective as possible, while also maintaining high standards of safety. The future vision of AIR, or AIR:2018, aligns with the FAA’s Strategic Initiatives and shows where we want to go and the type of work environment we want to create. Our vision is built around four key focus areas: safety, people, organizational excellence, and globalization. Certification reform is a key component of this vision. It includes initiatives in response to the requirements set forth in section 312 of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), and internally driven activities to improve several components of the current certification process.
As an organization, we are confronted with new challenges every day: limited finite number of resources, new technologies, new entrants to the marketplace, and the expanding globalization of aviation. In order to address these challenges and the expectations of our stakeholders and the general public, we are applying safety management principles and using risk-based decision making to leverage our partnerships and designees to make better decisions about where to focus FAA resources. As a result, we are creating an agile, collaborative organization that embraces technology and is a leader in developing the future of aerospace.
Section 312 Implementation
Section 312 of the Act required the FAA to work with industry to develop consensus recommendations on ways to improve efficiency and reduce costs through streamlining and reengineering the certification process without compromising safety. In response to this direction, the FAA formed the Aircraft Certification Process and Review Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which developed six recommendations that resulted in 14 initiatives. To date, the FAA has successfully completed 10 of the 14 initiatives and is making significant progress on the remaining four initiatives. Many of the initiatives are directly related to FAA’s efforts to expand the use of delegated authority and implement a risk-based systems approach to the oversight of that delegation system.
For example, as part of the FAA’s ongoing commitment to improve responsiveness to industry as it certificates new products, the FAA replaced project sequencing with a new “project prioritization” process in September 2014. The new system prioritizes projects based on their safety benefits and complexity, and allows more efficient allocation of FAA’s resources. In contrast to sequencing, project prioritization offers applicants a commitment to a response time for the review of compliance data based on the priority of the certification project. Now, applicants are able to initiate projects without delay. If an applicant is an Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) holder or is using an FAA-approved individual delegated representative, they can immediately move forward with much of the work required to certify the product.
The FAA plans to develop and track the metrics related to implementing the 14 recommended initiatives in three phases: measuring (1) the progress of implementing the initiatives throughout FAA, (2) the outcomes of each initiative, and (3) the return on investment for the FAA and industry resulting from implementing the initiatives as a whole. The metrics for phase one have been developed and are contained in the latest revision of the Section 312 Implementation Plan posted on the FAA website.[1] Transparency and accountability in FAA’s relationship with industry and a data-driven approach will make the agency more effective and efficient, and drive certification reform.
The initiatives recommended by the Section 312 ARC are helping us to identify and address national certification issues; however, we recognize that these steps may not solve the problems experienced by individual companies. Therefore, the FAA is reexamining how it conducts business and implementing internally driven initiatives at the local, national, and international levels.
Local Efforts
ODAs and individual designees play a vital role in the effort to streamline the certification process. AIR currently oversees 71 ODAs and more than 2,900 individual designees. The FAA is working with individual companies to establish short- and long-term goals to help them reach their vision of full utilization of ODA by reinvigorating the Partnership for Safety Plans. These safety plans outline operating norms, define a process for issue resolution, and identify certification priorities; they are our foundation for setting common expectations when working with a company and ensure that both sides are held accountable. Revitalizing the safety plans will be a catalyst to drive positive change, reinforce expectations for the highest levels of regulatory performance, and reestablish the spirit of partnership for our mutual long-term success.
In collaboration with the Aerospace Industries Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, we are also creating an ODA scorecard that will collect qualitative and quantitative data related to safety, FAA involvement, and ODA holder compliance. The scorecard will facilitate constructive dialogue between FAA management and ODA holders about compliance, timeliness, and any performance improvement enhancements that may be needed. Once individual goals are established through the reinvigoration of the safety plans, AIR will monitor how ODAs are progressing towards individual company goals. A national rollup of the scorecard data will also track progress by measuring the overall efficiency and effectiveness of all ODAs.
National Efforts
As the commercial aviation safety rate indicates, FAA continually strives to improve its performance in all areas, including certification. The Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) is an ISO 9000 registered organization and requires a quarterly review of Quality Management System (QMS) measures to gauge the overall health of AVS. The QMS measures also monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the certification process. Our goal is to efficiently certify products that meet the safety requirements that the world recognizes as a gold standard. QMS measures are designed to quantify our efforts to maximize efficiency and minimize risk areas associated with the issuance of domestic Type Certificates, Supplemental Type Certificates, and Production Certificates.
The FAA is committed to continuous improvement, applying safety management systems principles and using risk-based decision making to determine the level of rigor necessary in each certification. For example, in support of the FAA’s NextGen implementation goals, the agency issued a policy memo in March allowing ODA holders to conduct certain certification projects without notifying the FAA in advance. The policy contains criteria that, when met, alleviates the need for a Project Notification Letter (PNL). Relieving industry from the PNL requirement will result in time and cost savings to their design, manufacturing, and production processes.
AIR also updated its training curriculum to improve training for personnel assigned to oversee ODAs in October 2014. The enhanced training includes an emphasis on auditing the ODAs to ensure they are compliant with their agreed upon procedures. While expanding the number of ODA holders is critical to the industry’s view of how to streamline certification, in order for FAA’s staff to expand delegation, the agency must be able to show that industry is compliant with its regulatory responsibilities.
International Efforts
The FAA is a global leader in safety and efficiency. The global transportation network is changing, however, and the growth of the U.S aviation industry is expanding to global suppliers. We recognize the importance of working across geopolitical boundaries and have adapted our international efforts to maintain and enhance our leadership position.
In FY 2014, the FAA launched the Asia Pacific training initiative at the Singapore Aviation Academy to deliver targeted training to the regional civil aviation authorities and industry with the delivery of two courses – Cabin Safety Workshop and Changed Product Rule. This regional training initiative is an efficient way of using the FAA’s resources while promoting the FAA’s policies and procedures globally. The training initiative helps achieve a consistent level of safety across geopolitical borders and facilitates the export of U.S. products and articles.
We are also working with our global partners to leverage our bilateral agreements. This year we are working with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) toward mutual recognition of European Technical Standard Order Authorizations (TSOA) and FAA TSOAs, and to accept classification of basic Supplemental Type Certificates without further review. This will allow manufacturers of TSOA articles to sell their products in Europe without further approval by EASA. The agreement is expected to be finalized at the end of this year and will eliminate duplicative processes, reducing costs through time savings for both industry and the FAA.
The FAA also signed agreements with Transport Canada Civil Aviation and EASA to promote rulemaking cooperation. The activities between the U.S. and Canada under the Regulatory Cooperation Council encourage the sharing of rulemaking experiences to promote cooperation and align rulemaking requirements.
The FAA is working to enhance global manufacturing by working with our global partners to provide reciprocal assistance in overseeing manufacturing facilities. For example, the FAA and the Mexican Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (DGAC) are finalizing a Special Arrangement to allow the Mexican DGAC to perform certain types of certificate management activities on behalf of the FAA. A successful Special Arrangement is already in place in Brazil. The FAA will continue to leverage these arrangements as globalization of the aviation industry creates more complex business partnerships.
Section 313 Implementation
The FAA is also making progress in response to section 313 of the Act, which focused on the consistency and standardization of regulatory interpretation. In an effort to remain transparent with our stakeholders, the FAA posted an implementation plan for section 313 on the FAA website.[2] We have taken several steps to implement the recommendations and we have closed two of the six initiatives in the plan with the support of industry.
The highest priority initiative is to develop a single master source for guidance organized by regulation. We are making progress in reviewing our existing databases to assure the information is up to date. In January, I participated in a demonstration of the proof of concept for a tool that will link documents from multiple sources. I was impressed with the system’s capabilities; it will link the regulatory material not only by regulation as requested by industry, but also by concept in case the user does not know the regulatory citation.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
The FAA is also working tirelessly to safely integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The 2012 Act established the framework for this effort and tasked the FAA with safely integrating civil UAS into the system by September 2015. We have worked together with government partners and industry stakeholders to complete milestones put forward by the Act. This includes long-term planning for the future integration, collaborative research and development with interagency partners and industry, and the establishment of test sites and airspace for UAS research and development and testing. As of April 9, the FAA has issued 137 exemptions under section 333 of the Act and is working to decrease processing time for future exemptions.
In February, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would allow routine use of certain small UAS in the NAS. The proposed rule would cover many potential small UAS operations and would offer a flexible framework for the safe use of small unmanned aircraft, while accommodating future innovation in the industry. Under the new authority provided in section 333, it contains operational limitations that will allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid airworthiness certification and be subject to the least burdensome level of regulation that is necessary to protect the safety and security of the NAS. As proposed, the United States would have one of the most flexible UAS regulatory frameworks in the world.
The FAA has successfully issued four UAS type certificates using existing FAA certification processes and is currently working with five other companies to type certificate their UAS using the FAA certification process available for Special Class aircraft. This process has sufficient flexibility to evaluate designs of aircraft of various size, speed, intended use, and area of operation. The same process is utilized for the certification of airships, gliders, and very light aircraft, and enables the FAA and applicants to collaborate together on appropriate certification requirements. It utilizes a risk-based classification and certification approach to identify the expected level of safety to determine FAA involvement and oversight. The FAA is currently developing advisory material to assist applicants, industry stakeholders, and the general public in understanding this process. As the FAA gains experience in certificating UAS products, it will continue to mature its policies and procedures to balance the needs of our applicants and UAS owners and operators with its responsibility to maintain safety in the NAS.
Conclusion
The FAA has made significant progress in implementing the requirements in section 312 of the Act and the initiatives recommended by the ARC to expand the use of delegated authority and establish a risk-based, systems approach to safety oversight. The FAA shares the Subcommittee’s desire to streamline aircraft certification and will continue to implement internally driven reform activities at the local, national, and international levels.
To become more effective and efficient while maintaining and improving aviation safety, the FAA must collaborate with industry and improve transparency with stakeholders. When it comes to working together with industry, we need to respect each other’s goals. For the FAA, the goal is a product that is compliant with the regulations. Industry wants to find ways to get new and safer products to market efficiently. For both of us, the safety of the aviation system is paramount. We are working to find ways to be more sensitive and responsive to industry’s schedules without sacrificing compliance.
The FAA is tracking the progress of implementing the initiatives, and will develop means to measure the performance outcomes and the global return on investment for the FAA and industry as a whole. The FAA will continue efforts to develop meaningful metrics and a data-driven approach that promotes open, constructive dialogue, facilitates positive change, and keeps both sides accountable for certification reform.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.
STATEMENT OF
DORENDA BAKER,
DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ON
FAA REAUTHORIZATION: REFORMING AND STREAMLINING THE
FAA’S REGULATORY CERTIFICATION PROCESS
JANUARY 21, 2015
Chairman Shuster, Congressman DeFazio, Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. As Director of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service (AIR), I am responsible for oversight of the design and production of aircraft, engines, propellers, and articles. AIR monitors the production and continued operational safety of all the products it certifies for the life of those products. In that respect, we are responsible for an ever expanding range of products. Effectively managing the safe oversight of the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support the innovation of new products and technologies is a challenge, but one that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country. The U.S. aviation manufacturing industry provides the livelihood for millions of Americans and is a dynamic and innovative industry that we are proud to oversee.
FAA certification is vital to the production of aircraft and aircraft components both domestically and internationally. Our certification means that the product was thoroughly reviewed, tested, and analyzed, and has been deemed to meet the stringent safety standards we require. Certification is a dynamic process with both industry and the FAA having important roles and responsibilities critical to success. We are constantly working to improve the process. Both in response to Congressional direction, and on our own initiative, the FAA is working closely with industry to understand and respond to their concerns in order to improve the efficiency of the process without compromising the safety of the product. Central to the success of this effort is transparency. All parties need to know what we are doing and why, as well as what is working and what is not. I would like to share what we have been doing in response to the reauthorization Congress passed in 2012, and our efforts to drive certification reform at the local, national, and international level.
Certification Reform Vision
In order to support the safest, largest, most complex aviation system in the world, the FAA must continue to strive to make our processes as efficient and effective as possible, while also maintaining high standards of safety. Certification reform includes responding to requirements in Section 312 of The Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), addressing the recommendations from the Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARC), and reviewing the FAA’s activities to improve several components of the current certification process.
Numerous external forces are affecting our existing certification process: the globalization of aviation, advances in technology, a high velocity of change, and heightened expectations from our stakeholders and the general public. In order to address these issues and expectations, we are applying safety management principles and using risk-based decision making to leverage our partnerships and make better decisions about where we need to focus FAA resources.
Section 312 Implementation
Section 312 of the Act required the FAA to work with industry to develop consensus recommendations on ways to reduce the time and cost of certification without compromising safety. In response to this direction, the FAA formed the ARC, which developed six recommendations that resulted in 14 specific FAA initiatives. To date, FAA has completed 10 of the 14 initiatives, many of which are directly related to FAA’s efforts to expand the use of delegated authority and to implement a risk-based systems approach to the oversight of that delegation system.
For example, as part of the FAA’s ongoing efforts to improve its responsiveness to industry as it certificates new products, in September 2014, the FAA replaced project sequencing with a new “project prioritization” process. The new system prioritizes projects based on their safety benefits and complexity, and allows more efficient allocation of FAA’s resources. In contrast to sequencing, project prioritization offers applicants a commitment to a response time for the review of compliance data based on the priority of the certification project. Now, applicants will be able to initiate projects without delay. If they have an Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) or are using an FAA-approved individual delegated engineering representative, they can immediately move forward with much of the work required to certify the product.
The FAA is working diligently to address the initiatives recommended by the Section 312 ARC. These initiatives are helping us to identify and address national certification issues; however, we recognize that may not solve the problems experienced by individual companies. To reform certification, the FAA must also implement activities that address issues and expectations at each level. Therefore, the FAA is reexamining how it conducts business and implementing internally driven initiatives at three levels.
Local Efforts
The FAA is working with individual companies to establish short and long-term goals to help them reach their vision of full utilization of ODA by reinvigorating the Partnership for Safety Plans. These safety plans outline operating norms, define a process for issue resolution, and identify certification priorities; they are our foundation for setting common expectations when working with a company and ensure that both sides are held accountable. Revitalizing the safety plans will be a catalyst to drive positive change, reinforce expectations for the highest levels of regulatory performance, and reestablish the spirit of partnership for our mutual long-term success.
In collaboration with the Aerospace Industries Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, we are also creating an ODA scorecard that will collect qualitative and quantitative data related to safety, FAA involvement, and ODA holder compliance. The scorecard will support constructive dialogue between FAA management and ODA holders about compliance, timeliness, and any performance improvement enhancements that may be needed. Once a baseline and individual goals are established through the reinvigoration of the safety plans, AIR will monitor how ODAs are progressing towards individual company goals. The national rollup of the scorecard will also track progress by monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of all ODAs, help differentiate between national and local issues, and point to areas where policy improvement may be needed.
National Efforts
As the commercial aviation safety rate indicates, FAA continually strives to improve its performance in all areas, including certification. The Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) requires a quarterly review of Quality Management System (QMS) measures that measure the overall health of AVS. In addition, the QMS measures monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the certification process. Our goal is to efficiently certify products that meet the safety requirements that the world recognizes as a gold standard. QMS measures are designed to quantify our efforts to maximize efficiency and minimize risk areas associated with the issuance of domestic Type Certificates, Supplemental Type Certificates, and Production Certificates.
Supplementing the QMS data, my office is also working to track improvements to the time it takes to bring products to market, a fundamental goal of industry. Determining success in this area must also take into account the increasing complexity of the products being certified and industry’s accountability to a compliance culture.
In addition, a new policy is in development that will help define the projected level of FAA’s involvement in the process and clarify what companies can do to reduce that involvement. This safety management system approach uses risk-based decision making to determine the level of rigor necessary in each certification. Risk-based decision making proactively addresses emerging safety risks by using consistent, data-informed approaches to make informed, system-level decisions. We expect to complete this policy in spring of this year.
ODA holders will play a vital role in any effort to streamline the certification process. There are currently 81 ODAs, with more than 4,700 individual designees. In addition to the efforts noted above, I have personally held nine teleconferences with AIR managers to ensure that all offices receive a consistent and timely message on the importance of certification reform to the future vision of aviation certification. AIR updated its training curriculum to improve training for personnel assigned to oversee ODAs in October 2014. The enhanced training includes an emphasis on auditing the ODAs to ensure they are compliant with their agreed upon procedures. While expanding the number of ODA holders is critical to the industry’s view of how to streamline certification, in order for FAA’s staff to expand delegation, the agency must be able to show that industry is compliant with its regulatory responsibilities.
The FAA also understands industry’s desire for timely certification. Consequently, we are working collaboratively to develop performance metrics and goals for streamlining certification while simultaneously ensuring compliance with safety regulations. The data gathered from these metrics will begin to capture the larger picture of certification reform, defining the global return on investment for FAA and industry. We have made progress and will continue to work to build consensus with industry on these performance metrics.
International Efforts
The FAA has been the leading model for safety and efficiency around the world. However, the global transportation network is changing and the growth of the U.S. industry is expanding to global suppliers. We recognize the importance of working across geopolitical boundaries and have adapted our international efforts to maintain and enhance our leadership position.
In FY 2014, the FAA launched the Asia Pacific training initiative at the Singapore Aviation Academy to deliver targeted training to the regional civil aviation authorities and industry with the delivery of two courses – Cabin Safety Workshop and Changed Product Rule. This regional training initiative is an efficient way of using the FAA’s resources while promoting the FAA’s policies and procedures globally. The training initiative helps achieve uniformity and facilitates the seamless transfer of U.S. industry products overseas.
We are also working with our global partners to leverage our bilateral agreements this year. We committed to work with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) towards mutual acceptance of European Technical Standard Order Authorizations and FAA Technical Standard Order Authorizations, and to accept classifications of basic or non-basic Supplemental Type Certificates without further review during initial validation. This will allow our manufacturers of TSOA articles to sell their product in Europe without further approval by EASA. This mutual acceptance model will result in a time savings for both industry and the FAA, and industry will realize cost savings as a result of eliminating duplicative processes. We also committed to implement a post-validation audit program to ensure that the process is providing the expected result.
The FAA also signed agreements with Transport Canada Civil Aviation and EASA to promote rulemaking cooperation. The activities between the U.S. and Canada under the Regulatory Cooperation Council encourage the sharing of rulemaking experiences to promote cooperation and aligning of rulemaking requirements.
Conclusion
The FAA has made significant progress in implementing the requirements in Section 312 of the Act and the recommendations in the Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform ARC to expand the use of delegated authority and establish a risk-based, systems approach to safety oversight. The FAA shares the Committees’ desire to streamline aircraft certification, and will also continue to implement internally developed improvement activities at a local, national, and international level to supplement the initiatives of Section 312.
To become more effective and efficient while maintaining and improving aviation safety, the FAA must also improve accountability and transparency with stakeholders. When it comes to working together with industry, we need to respect each other’s goals. We both have an interest in maintaining the safety of the aviation system. For the FAA, the goal is a product that is compliant with the regulations. For industry a major concern is finding ways to get new and safer products to market efficiently. Both of these goals are paramount to safety. We need to find ways to be more sensitive and responsive to industry’s schedules without sacrificing compliance.
The FAA is tracking the progress of implementing the initiatives, the performance outcomes, and the global return on investment for the FAA and industry resulting from the initiatives as a whole to increase accountability in the certification reform process. The FAA will continue efforts to develop meaningful metrics and a data-driven approach that promotes open, constructive dialogue, facilitates positive change, and keeps both sides accountable for certification reform.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
