Aviation Safety

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued 52 emergency revocations of operating certificates between January 1987 and May 1991 on air taxi or commuter operations; five were later overturned or reduced to a lesser penalty. No major airlines were issued emergency revocation orders during this period. Many of the revoked air carriers were established companies that had been in business for years. Air taxis accounted for 73 percent of the emergency revocation orders. The most frequent violations were for operating an aircraft in violation of the air carrier's operating certificate, operating unairworthy aircraft, and falsifying compliance records. FAA often learned of violations that led to emergency revocations during accident investigations or investigations done as a result of tips from employees, competitors, or customers, rather than as a result of inspections. According to FAA inspectors, key managers and owners who committed violations that led to nine emergency revocations returned to, or remained in, a similar position with an air carrier. Some of these individuals then committed more safety violations leading to another emergency revocation. While FAA lacks a formal system to track such key managers or owners, FAA plans to issue guidance by the end of fiscal year 1992 to inspectors on tracking key managers and owners.

GAO found that: (1) between January 1987 and May 1991, FAA issued emergency orders revoking 52 commuters airlines' or air taxis' operating certificates; (2) of the 52 carriers, 67 percent operated 8 or fewer aircraft and a few carriers had fleets of 25 or more; (3) most of the carriers had been in operation for several years; (4) air taxis accounted for 73 percent of the emergency revocation orders; (5) the most frequent violations included operating an aircraft in violation of the air carrier's operating certificate, operating unairworthy aircraft, and falsifying compliance records; (6) in over 50 percent of the emergency revocation orders, FAA became aware of the violations as a result of tips from employees, competitors, or consumers, or from investigations initiated because of accidents; (7) FAA inspectors recorded the majority of inspections as satisfactory prior to issuing the emergency revocation orders and became aware of safety violations for 11 carriers only after they had been occurring for a year or more; (8) 16 carriers had previous enforcement actions taken against them for violations similar to those cited in the emergency revocation order and 13 other carriers had previous enforcement actions taken against them for violations different than those cited in the emergency revocation order; (9) FAA did not have a system to track individuals who were key managers or owners of carriers that were subject to emergency revocation orders, but planned to issue guidance to inspectors on using an existing computer database to track such managers when they apply for an air carrier operating certificate; and (10) 9 key owners or managers involved with 9 of the 52 emergency revocation cases returned to or remained in a similar position with an air carrier.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: