Aviation Safety
Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots' Background Information Gao ID: GAO-02-722 August 30, 2002The Pilot Records Improvement Act, enacted on October 9, 1996, responded to seven fatal commercial air carrier accidents that were attributed, in part, to errors by pilots who had been hired without background checks. The act, which took effect on February 6, 1997, requires air carriers, before making final hiring decisions, to obtain information for the past 5 years on a pilot applicant's performance, qualifications, and training from the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), employers, and the National Driver Register (NDR). The act also includes provisions to protect pilots' rights. FAA oversees compliance with the act and has broad responsibility for overseeing aviation safety. According to GAO's analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers' responses to GAO's surveys, compliance with the act has generally increased since it went into effect, but compliance is not always complete or timely. The available data are not adequate to determine industrywide compliance. According to their responses to GAO's surveys, carriers are not always aware of the act's requirements for protecting pilots' rights. FAA has taken limited steps to oversee compliance with PRIA. Under the act and its broad responsibility for aviation safety, FAA can issue implementing regulations, develop guidance, conduct inspections to monitor carriers' compliance, and initiate enforcement actions when it finds evidence of noncompliance. FAA has not issued regulations because it regards the act as self-implementing and believes that its regulatory resources should be reserved for higher agency priorities. Although FAA provided guidance for carriers, it was slow to update the guidance after the act was amended. Although they generally found records useful in making hiring decisions, carriers were divided in their opinions on whether the records were worth the cost. However, both groups of carriers found information from other sources, such as the job interview, the carrier's flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the carrier's training program, more helpful.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-02-722, Aviation Safety: Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots' Background Information
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-722
entitled 'Aviation Safety: Better Guidance and Training Needed on
Providing Files on Pilots' Background Information' which was released
on September 30, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on
Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives:
August 2002:
AVIATION SAFETY:
Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots‘
Background Information:
GAO-02-722:
Highlights:
August 2002:
AVIATION SAFETY:
Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots‘
Background Information:
Highlights of GAO-02-722, a report to the Chairman and Ranking
Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1996, Congress enacted the Pilot Records Improvement Act
to keep unsafe pilots out of the cockpits of commercial aircraft.
GAO did this study to determine (1) whether air carriers have
complied with the act by requesting and receiving key documents
about pilots‘ qualifications, performance, and training from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Driver
Register (NDR), and other carriers and whether these documents
have been provided on time; (2) whether carriers are aware of
requirements for protecting pilots‘ rights; (3) what FAA has done
to oversee compliance with the act; and (4) whether carriers
believe the act has helped them make pilot-hiring decisions.
What GAO Found:
GAO found, from analyzing FAA and NDR databases and from surveying
air carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot
records, that compliance has increased since the act took effect
in 1997, but noncompliance is also occurring. For example, hiring
carriers requested and received records less often from other
carriers than from FAA and NDR, and other carriers provided records
with more delays than the agencies. (See figure below.) Until they
receive the required records, hiring carriers are not allowed to
use pilots to fly passengers or cargo.
Carriers are not always aware of the act‘s requirements for protecting
pilots‘ rights, especially of those for notifying pilots of requests
for their records and for allowing them to review and submit written
corrections before final hiring decisions are made. Pilots also lacked
awareness that they could request copies of their records from current
as well as former employers. However, if the records are inaccurate,
the opportunity for pilots to submit corrections does not come until
after hiring carriers have already received the records.
To oversee compliance with the act, FAA developed guidance but was
slow to update it after the act was amended and has not included
information on the act in the agency‘s training or handbooks for
inspectors. As a result, carriers and pilots lack awareness of
some provisions, and FAA inspectors are not prepared or prompted
to review compliance. FAA‘s ability to enforce compliance is limited
because carriers are not required to retain the files on pilots
hired that FAA needs to monitor and enforce compliance.
While finding pilot records helpful, carriers found them less helpful
than information from other sources, such as job interviews, flight
evaluations, and training programs. The carriers were divided in their
opinions on whether the records were worth the cost.
What GAO Recommends:
To promote greater awareness of and compliance with the act, GAO
recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA
Administrator to develop clarifying guidance for carriers on the
contents of pilot records and on retaining the files of pilots hired,
post information on pilots‘ rights on FAA‘s Web site, and incorporate
the act‘s requirements into FAA inspectors‘ training and handbooks.
FAA agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
This is a test for developing highlights for a GAO report. The full
report, including GAO‘s objectives, scope, methodology, and analysis,
is available at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-02-722. For additional
information about the report, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202)
512-3650. To provide comments on this test highlights, contact Keith
Fultz (202-512-3200) or e-mail HighlightsTest@gao.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
Background:
Results in Brief:
Principal Findings:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Chapter 1: Introduction:
PRIA Requires Air Carriers to Conduct Background Checks on Pilot Job
Applicants:
PRIA Requires FAA to Provide Periodic Reports and Three Studies :
Congress Amended PRIA Twice:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Chapter 2: Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements are
Increasing, but Compliance is Not Always Complete or Timely:
Required Requests for Pilot Records Increased, but Available Data Are
Not Adequate to Determine the Extent of Compliance:
Hiring Carriers Requested the Most Records from FAA and Made the Fewest
Requests to Other Carriers:
Carriers Said They Generally Receive Records on Time from FAA and NDR
but Still Have Some Problems Obtaining Records from Other Carriers:
Chapter 3: Air Carriers Have Not Consistently Followed PRIA‘s
Requirements for Protecting Pilots‘ Rights:
Some Carriers Said They Are Unaware of PRIA‘s Requirements for
Protecting Pilots‘ Rights:
Some PRIA Files Contained Inappropriate Information That Should Have
Been Excluded:
The Opportunity for Pilots to Correct Their Records May Come Too Late:
Chapter 4: FAA Oversight of PRIA Implementation Has Been Limited:
FAA Has Specific Responsibilities under PRIA as Well as Broad
Responsibility for Aviation Safety:
FAA Has Developed Guidance on PRIA:
Several Factors May Hamper FAA‘s Operations Inspection Ability to
Monitor Compliance with PRIA:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Chapter 5: Most Carriers Found PRIA Records Helpful but Were Divided
on Whether They Were Worth the Cost:
Carriers Generally Found PRIA Records Helpful in Making Hiring
Decisions but Less Helpful than Information from Other
Sources:
Carriers Differed on Whether PRIA Is Worth the Cost:
Most Carriers Favored Changes That Would Make Additional Information
Available under PRIA:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Fatal Aviation Accidents That Involved Pilots with Prior
Safety Problems were Cited in Passing PRIA Legislation:
Appendix II: Methodology
Mail Surveys of Carriers:
Database Analyses:
Pilot Interviews:
Appendix III: Survey of Part 121s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:
Appendix IV: Survey of the 135s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:
Appendix V: Chart of Items Needing Clarification by FAA:
Appendix VI: Overview of FAA Form 8060-11:
Appendix VII: Air Carriers‘s Cost to Comply with PRIA in 2000:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Information Air Carriers Must Request and Review under PRIA:
Table 2: Aviation Operators with Active Part 121 and/or Part 135
Certificates as of April 13, 2001:
Table 3: Key Changes to PRIA from Amendments:
Table 4: Carriers That Made at Least One Request to FAA for Pilot
Background Records, July 1998 through April 2001:
Table 5: Requests for FAA Records and NDR Driver Information Records,
1997 through 2001:
Table 6: Records Releasable under PRIA and FOIA from PRIA‘s
Implementation on February 6, 1997, through January 11, 2002:
Table 7: Percentage of Carriers That Supported Including Additional FAA
Information in Response to PRIA Requests:
Table 8: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
22:
Table 9: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 6:
Table 10: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
9:
Table 11: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
21:
Table 12: Summary of Survey Returns for Carriers That Made PRIA
Requests
to FAA:
Table 13: Databases Used in GAO Analyses:
Figures :
Figure 1: Carriers‘ Requests to FAA for PRIA Background Checks on
Pilots, February 1997 through December 2001:
Figure 2: Carriers‘ and Pilots‘ Requests for Information on Pilots‘ NDR
Information, February 1997 through December 2001:
Figure 3: Number of Reported Requests for Pilot Records Received by
Part
121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers, 1997 through 2000:
Figure 4: Percentage of Carriers That Reported Requesting PRIA Records
in 2000:
Figure 5: Percentage of Carriers Reporting the Receipt of PRIA Records
in 2000:
Figure 6: Part 121 Carriers‘ Reported Awareness of Seven of PRIA‘s
Requirements for Carriers When Hiring Pilots:
Figure 7: Part 121 Carriers‘ Reported Awareness of PRIA‘s Requirements
for Carriers Responding to PRIA Requests:
Figure 8: Percentage of Part 121 Carriers That Identified a Great or
Very Great Need for Clarification of How to Proceed in Certain
Situations:
Figure 9: Views of Part 121 Carriers on the Helpfulness of PRIA
Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
Figure 10: Views of Sampled Part 135 Carriers on the Helpfulness of
PRIA
Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
Figure 11: Extent to Which Part 121 Carriers Reported That PRIA Records
Were a Factor in Decisions Not to Hire a Pilot:
Figure 12: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on
the Helpfulness of PRIA Records in Making Hiring Decisions:
Figure 13: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on
the Helpfulness of Non-PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
Abbreviations:
AOPA: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:
ATOS: Air Transportation Oversight System:
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act:
NDR: National Driver Register:
NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board:
PRIA: Pilot Records Improvement Act:
[End of Section]
Letter August 30, 2002:
The Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman
The Honorable William O. Lipinski
Ranking Democratic Member
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
In response to your request, this report discusses the implementation
of the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996. This report contains
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter.
At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Transportation; and the Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please call me at (202) 512-3650 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VIII.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham:
[End of section]
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
The Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA), enacted on October 9, 1996,
responded to seven fatal commercial air carrier accidents that were
attributed, in part, to errors by pilots who had been hired without
background checks. Subsequent reviews of these pilots‘ records revealed
prior safety violations or training problems. PRIA, which took effect
on February 6, 1997, requires air carriers (carriers), before making
final hiring decisions, to obtain information for the past 5 years on a
pilot applicant‘s performance, qualifications, and training from the
Department of Transportation‘s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
employers (often other carriers), and the National Driver Register
(NDR).[Footnote 1] The act also includes provisions to protect pilots‘
rights. FAA oversees compliance with the act and has broad
responsibility for overseeing aviation safety.
Interested in how effective PRIA has been, the Chairman and Ranking
Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to determine (1) whether
hiring carriers have complied with the act by requesting pilots‘
records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers and whether these records
were provided in a timely manner; (2) whether carriers, NDR, and FAA
have complied with the act‘s requirements for protecting pilots‘
rights; (3) what FAA has done to oversee compliance with the act; and
(4) whether carriers believe the act has been helpful to them in making
pilot-hiring decisions and is worth the cost.
Background:
PRIA applies to the vast majority of U.S. commercial air carriers that
transport paying passengers or cargo. These include carriers operating
interstate (1) under Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations, using
largely jet aircraft with more than nine passenger seats, and (2) under
Part 135, using primarily other types of aircraft with nine or fewer
seats. A few carriers have dual certificates to operate under both Part
121 and Part 135.
To accomplish its objectives, in part, GAO conducted two nationwide,
anonymous mail surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers that had made
at least one request to FAA for information under the act. This
population included 124, or 86 percent, of the 144 carriers that
operate under Part 121 or have dual operating certificates and 1,144,
or 39 percent, of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers that had made at least
one request to FAA for information. GAO mailed surveys to all 124 Part
121 or dual-certificate carriers and to a random sample of 350 Part 135
carriers. While the responses of the Part 121 carriers are
representative of all such carriers, the responses of the Part 135
carriers are, subject to sampling error, representative of those Part
135 carriers that made at least one request to FAA but may not be
representative of all Part 135 carriers.
Results in Brief:
According to GAO‘s analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers‘
responses to GAO‘s surveys, compliance with the act has generally
increased since it went into effect, but compliance is not always
complete or timely. The available data are not adequate to determine
industrywide compliance. Nevertheless, hiring carriers have
increasingly requested and received pilot records from FAA, NDR, and
other carriers, as required, and the agencies and other carriers have
increasingly provided the required records within 30 days, as required.
FAA, in particular, has accelerated its response time by developing a
centralized database that enables the agency to generate up-to-date
pilot records within minutes. However, hiring carriers have requested
widely varying numbers of records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers,
even though they are generally required to request records from all
three sources for each pilot hired. Specifically, GAO‘s database
analyses show that hiring carriers requested about 30,000 more records
from FAA than from NDR from 1997 through 2001. During the same period,
according to the survey responses, hiring carriers requested thousands
fewer records from other carriers than from either agency. These large
discrepancies in the number of requests indicate some degree of
noncompliance--an indication consistent with data gathered by FAA
inspectors at GAO‘s request, which show that hundreds of pilots were
hired by Part 135 carriers that either requested no pilot records from
FAA or requested records for fewer pilots than they hired.
Additionally, a few carriers responding to GAO‘s surveys self-reported
noncompliance, indicating that they had requested records from all
three required sources for half or fewer of the pilots they hired.
Finally, hiring carriers reported receiving pilot records less often
from other carriers than from FAA and NDR and, in a few cases, reported
never receiving the records. According to the hiring carriers, other
carriers were also less likely than FAA and NDR to provide the records
on time. Delays in providing the records can be costly for both
carriers and pilots because, although a hiring carrier is allowed to
make a conditional offer to a pilot and begin training the pilot before
receiving the required records, the carrier is not allowed to make a
final hiring decision and use the pilot to fly passengers or cargo
until the records have been received.
According to their responses to GAO‘s surveys, carriers are not always
aware of PRIA‘s requirements for protecting pilots‘ rights. For
example, many carriers said they were unaware of requirements for
notifying pilots of requests for their records and for giving them
opportunities to review their records and to submit written comments to
correct any inaccuracies before final hiring decisions are made. Pilots
also lacked awareness that they could request copies of their records
from current as well as former employers, according to officials from
the Airline Owners and Pilots Association and several pilots that GAO
interviewed. Additionally, carrier officials and pilots told GAO that
some files contain records that, under the act, should be excluded to
protect pilots‘ rights. In reviewing a limited number of PRIA files,
GAO identified some inappropriate records, including ones that were
more than 5 years old, were unrelated to a pilot‘s performance as a
pilot or a driver, or reported disciplinary actions that had been
overturned. Removing inappropriate records or correcting inaccuracies
is problematic because, although PRIA allows a pilot to review the
records maintained by a current or former employer, the act does not
establish procedures for removing any inappropriate records or
correcting any inaccuracies, and it does not provide for the pilot to
submit comments to correct any inaccuracies until the records have been
sent to the hiring carrier--too late to prevent the carrier from seeing
any potentially damaging information.
FAA has taken limited steps to oversee compliance with PRIA. Under the
act and its broad responsibility for aviation safety, FAA can issue
implementing regulations, develop guidance, conduct inspections to
monitor carriers‘ compliance, and initiate enforcement actions when it
finds evidence of noncompliance. FAA has not issued regulations because
it regards the act as self-implementing and believes that its
regulatory resources should be reserved for higher agency priorities.
Although FAA provided guidance for carriers, it was slow to update the
guidance after the act was amended. In addition, FAA e-mailed
information on PRIA to its own staff, but it has not included this
information in its training for inspectors or revised its inspection
handbooks to include the act‘s requirements. Without information on the
act in their training and inspection handbooks, FAA inspectors are not
prepared or prompted to review carriers‘ compliance with the act. FAA‘s
ability to oversee compliance with the act is also limited, since the
act does not require carriers to retain the records FAA needs to
monitor and enforce compliance. This report contains recommendations
designed to strengthen FAA‘s ability to oversee compliance with the
act. FAA officials agreed with these recommendations.
While generally finding PRIA records useful in making hiring decisions,
carriers were divided in their opinions on whether the records were
worth the cost. Nearly three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and
about three-fifths of the Part 135 carriers that GAO surveyed found
PRIA records helpful. However, both groups of carriers found
information from other sources, such as the job interview, the
carrier‘s flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the
carrier‘s training program, more helpful. About half of the Part 121
carriers and about one-third of the Part 135 carriers considered the
PRIA information they received in 2000 worth the cost.
Principal Findings:
Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements Are Increasing,
but Compliance Is Not Always Complete or Timely:
From PRIA‘s implementation in 1997 through 2001, carriers requested
PRIA records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers for thousands of pilots.
The number of requests generally increased each year until 2001, when
the economic recession and September 11 terrorist attacks depressed the
demand for air travel and slowed pilot hiring.
Although the available data are not adequate to determine overall
compliance rates, carriers made varying numbers of requests for records
to FAA, NDR, and other carriers. According to FAA and NDR data,
carriers requested thousands more records from FAA than from NDR each
year from 1997 through 2001. In addition, carriers responding to GAO‘s
surveys reported receiving thousands fewer requests each year than FAA
and NDR reported. Some carriers also reported requesting fewer records
from other carriers than from FAA or NDR.
According to industry representatives and carrier hiring officials,
most carriers received PRIA records from FAA and NDR, and carriers
generally reported receiving these records on time. Although FAA
initially had difficulty providing the records within 30 days, its
Aviation Data Systems Branch consolidated three separate databases in
1998, and the agency is now generally able to generate a response
letter for a carrier within minutes. Hiring carriers reported receiving
records from other carriers less frequently, and a few said they never
received the records. Hiring carriers also reported more delays in
receiving records from other carriers. Without complete PRIA
information, carriers are not allowed to use pilots to fly passengers
or cargo, and delays in receiving records can be costly to both
carriers and pilots.
Carriers Reportedly Were Not Always Aware of and Did Not Always Follow
PRIA‘s Requirements for Protecting Pilots‘ Rights:
Carriers varied considerably in their awareness of PRIA‘s requirements
for protecting pilots‘ rights, according to their responses to GAO‘s
surveys. In general, their responses indicated more awareness of
requirements that are applicable when hiring than of requirements that
are applicable when responding to requests from other carriers. Hiring
carriers were least often aware that they must give pilot applicants an
opportunity to submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies in
their PRIA records before making final hiring decisions, and responding
carriers were least often aware that they must allow current or former
pilot employees to review their records within 30 days of making a
written request.
According to carrier officials, pilots, and GAO‘s review of a limited
number of PRIA files, pilot records sometimes include outdated or
inappropriate information, such as records of overturned disciplinary
actions. If pilots are aware that PRIA gives them the right to review
the records maintained by a current or former employer and if they
exercise that right, they can determine whether any of the information
in their records is inappropriate or inaccurate, and they may be able
to persuade the employer to remove or correct the information. However,
PRIA does not establish procedures for removing inappropriate or
inaccurate information, and it does not give pilots an opportunity to
submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies until after the
records have been sent to the hiring carrier--too late to prevent the
carrier from receiving information that may jeopardize the pilot‘s
chances of being hired. Several carrier officials told GAO that they
did not know how to remove records that they believed were unfair.
Finally, when carriers and pilots disagree over PRIA records, there are
no procedures for resolving their differences.
FAA Has Provided Limited Oversight of Compliance with PRIA:
To promote compliance with PRIA, FAA issued an advisory circular for
carriers in May 1997, but it did not revise the circular until
September 2001, even though the law was amended in December 1997 and
April 2000. In addition, the revised circular includes a sample form
that requires pilots to waive two provisions of the law designed to
protect pilots‘ rights and inappropriately shifts the responsibility
for notifying the pilot of a request for records from the responding
carrier to the hiring carrier. These changes are not in conformance
with the act.
Although FAA has e-mailed guidance on PRIA to its own staff, it has not
yet incorporated this guidance into its training classes for inspectors
or into the handbooks that they use to monitor carriers. FAA inspectors
have reported few violations of PRIA, and the agency has opened 10
enforcement cases against carriers, 7 of which resulted in warning
letters or were closed with no action. This level of inspection and
enforcement activity seems low compared with the indications of
potential noncompliance that GAO identified during its review. Without
information about PRIA in their training classes or inspection
handbooks, FAA inspectors have no reminders to check for compliance
with the act. Although FAA maintains that it monitors carriers‘
processes and procedures for complying with the law, FAA cannot
determine whether carriers follow these processes and procedures unless
it performs at least some spot checks. FAA‘s ability to enforce PRIA is
also hampered by the absence of a requirement for carriers to maintain
copies of the PRIA records they receive for pilots they hire.
Carriers Generally Found PRIA Helpful, but Were Divided on Whether It
Is Worth the Cost:
The majority of both the Part 121 and Part 135 carriers responding to
GAO‘s surveys reported that PRIA records were helpful in making hiring
decisions. In their view, FAA information on enforcement actions closed
during the past 5 years was most helpful, and FAA‘s verification of the
pilot‘s medical record and the pilot‘s NDR information were least
helpful. The carriers also indicated that information from other
sources, such as the job interview, the carrier‘s flight evaluation of
the pilot, or the results of the carrier‘s training program, was more
helpful than PRIA information.
The total costs of implementing PRIA, most of which are borne by
carriers, are difficult to estimate, primarily because they often are
not tracked separately from other costs. For 2000, the Part 121
carriers estimated spending $7,000, on average, to implement the act,
while the Part 135 carriers estimated spending $1,000, on average.
About half of the Part 121 carriers and about one-third of the Part 135
carriers believed their PRIA costs for 2000 were justified by the
usefulness of the information received. The remaining carriers did not
believe their PRIA costs were justified.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA
Administrator to develop guidance for carriers on the information that
is to be included in and excluded from PRIA files; have carriers put in
place a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance
with all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot
background checks have been completed for pilots hired; revise the
sample form for hiring carriers to conform with the act‘s provisions;
post information on pilots‘ rights under the act on FAA‘s Web site; and
incorporate information on PRIA into the training classes and
inspection handbooks for FAA inspectors.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of our draft
report for review and comment. In our draft report, we recommended that
FAA develop a regulation requiring that carriers maintain records of
background checks on the pilots they hire for as long as the pilots
remain in their employ. FAA agreed that carriers need to maintain these
records so that it can monitor and enforce their compliance with the
law, but it proposed a change in its administrative guidance rather
than a regulation to achieve this goal. We agreed that such a change
could accomplish the intent of our initial recommendation and revised
the recommendation accordingly. FAA concurred with all other
recommendations in our draft report.
[End of section]
Chapter 1 Introduction:
Between 1987 and 1994, errors by pilots whose backgrounds had not been
checked prior to hiring were identified as contributing factors in
seven crashes of scheduled carriers involving 111 fatalities. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigated these
crashes, found that each of the pilots involved had been hired despite
a poor performance history, prior safety violations, or both. In each
case, NTSB reported, the carrier had lacked access to, or had failed to
obtain, the pilot‘s records with previous employers before hiring.
Accordingly, on four separate occasions between September 1988 and
October 1995, NTSB recommended that carriers obtain information from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and previous employers on a
pilot‘s training, performance, and safety history before
hiring.[Footnote 2] NTSB later also recommended that information about
the pilot‘s driving record be checked with the National Driver Register
(NDR).[Footnote 3] In June 1988, we likewise recommended, after
surveying carriers‘ pilot-hiring practices, that FAA encourage carriers
to review a pilot‘s safety history before making a hiring
decision.[Footnote 4]
On October 9, 1996, Congress enacted the Pilot Records Improvement Act
(PRIA) to help ensure that fatal crashes would not again occur because,
in part, carriers had not investigated the backgrounds of the pilots
they hired.[Footnote 5] The act, which took effect on February 6, 1997,
requires that air carriers conduct background checks on all pilot
applicants. The vast majority of commercial carriers carrying paying
passengers or transporting cargo are classified as air carriers because
these carriers meet specific statutory requirements that are discussed
in more detail later in this chapter. These carriers are, therefore,
subject to the act. Besides requiring that carriers obtain key records
from FAA, past or current employers for whom the applicant worked as a
pilot, and NDR, PRIA includes provisions to protect pilots‘ rights and
to protect those furnishing records from liability for providing the
information.
PRIA also gives FAA responsibility for overseeing compliance with the
act, by stating that FAA may prescribe regulations as necessary to
ensure compliance with the requesting and receiving of pilot records,
protect the personal privacy of anyone whose records are requested as
well as the confidentiality of those records, and preclude further
dissemination of those records by the person requesting them.
Furthermore, as the agency responsible for aviation safety, FAA has a
broader responsibility to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for the
aviation industry.[Footnote 6] To carry out this responsibility, FAA
issues regulations and develops guidance. FAA also performs inspections
to ensure compliance with federal statutes and regulations and has the
authority to take enforcement actions against violators. Specifically,
FAA regulates and monitors the safety of air transportation and air
commerce through its safety programs, which provide the initial
certification, periodic surveillance, and inspection of airlines,
airports, repair stations, and other aviation entities, including
pilots. These inspections are intended to primarily detect actual
violations of statutes or regulations. When safety inspectors identify
violations, FAA guidance requires that such violations be investigated,
appropriately addressed, and reported.
The Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked
us to review the status of PRIA since its enactment in October 1996.
Specifically, they asked us to determine the following:
* whether (1) hiring air carriers have complied with the act by
requesting and receiving key documents about pilot applicants before
making final hiring decisions and (2) FAA, NDR, and other carriers have
complied with the act by providing these documents in a timely manner;
* whether air carriers are aware of PRIA‘s requirements for protecting
pilots‘ rights;
* what FAA has done to oversee compliance with the act; and:
* whether air carriers believe PRIA has been helpful to them in making
pilot-hiring decisions and is worth the cost.
Until recently, pilot hiring was expected to keep pace over the next
decade with projected growth in air traffic and anticipated pilot
retirements. With the economic downturn in 2001 and the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, however, the demand for air travel declined.
As a result of the September 11 attacks, concerns about aviation safety
and security are likely to remain central, and pilot background checks,
such as those required by PRIA, may assume even greater importance.
PRIA Requires Air Carriers to Conduct Background Checks on Pilot Job
Applicants:
PRIA requires that air carriers conduct background checks on a pilot
job applicant. Specifically, PRIA requires them to request, from FAA,
previous air carrier and other employers, and NDR, and review
information about the applicant‘s qualifications, performance, and
training over the past 5 years. This information is to be provided
within 30 days, and a reasonable fee may be charged to the requesting
carrier for the service. Table 1 identifies the information required
from each source.
Table 1: Information Air Carriers Must Request and Review under PRIA:
Source: FAA; Pilot information required: Certificate(s), medical
certificate, aircraft type ratings with any limitations, and a summary
of any legal enforcement action resulting in a violation that was not
subsequently overturned.[A].
Source: Air carriers and other previous employers; Pilot information
required: Records related to employment; training, qualifications,
proficiency, or professional competency (including comments and
evaluations by a check airman);[B] any disciplinary actions (that have
not been overturned); any release from employment; and any other
records related to the individual‘s performance as a pilot that are
maintained by the employer, except records pertaining to flight time,
duty time, or rest time..
Source: NDR[C]; Pilot information required: Driver identification
information from states for probable matches with a pilot whose license
has been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied or who has been
convicted of certain serious traffic-related violations, such as
driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. Carriers are to then
contact the state(s) involved for detailed violation information and to
ensure that the information is for the pilot..
[A] FAA maintains this information in three databases: (1) the
Comprehensive Airmen Information System contains information on all
FAA-certificated pilots and can be used to verify a pilot‘s certificate
and type rating, thereby verifying a pilot‘s qualification for flying a
specific type of aircraft; (2) the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute‘s
database contains information about the class of medical certificate
held by the pilot, the date of issuance, and any limitations or
restrictions that are based on a medical condition; and (3) the
Enforcement Information System contains information on FAA‘s
enforcement proceedings against a pilot, including warnings,
certificate actions, and monetary penalties.
[B] Regulations require that a pilot‘s flying skills be tested during
periodic ’check rides“ either by an FAA inspector or by a carrier‘s
designated representative, called a check airman.
[C] Carriers usually obtain driver identification information from the
chief driver-licensing official of a state. NDR is maintained by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within the Department of
Transportation.
Source: GAO presentation of information from FAA and NDR.
[End of table]
PRIA Applies to Air Carriers:
PRIA‘s definition of an air carrier is based on several statutes. An
air carrier subject to PRIA:
* is operated by a U.S. citizen[Footnote 7] who directly or indirectly
provides air transportation;
* provides interstate air transportation--that is, transports
passengers or property across state lines by aircraft as a common
carrier for compensation, or transports mail by aircraft; and:
* operates as a common carrier--that is, advertises to the public to
carry persons, property, or mail for hire.
To operate as an air carrier, a carrier must have an air carrier
certificate issued by FAA under Part 119 of Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). FAA issues a number of operating
certificates under various parts of the CFR. FAA may require an
aviation operator to have several of these certificates, depending on
the number of passengers carried, the weight of the aircraft, and
whether the aircraft is used to fly out of state or carry mail. For
example, Part 121 certificates are generally issued to major carriers
who operate turbojet-powered airplanes or airplanes with more than nine
passenger seats, excluding crew members‘ seats, or airplanes having a
payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds. Part 135 certificates are
generally issued to small carriers operating other than turbojet-
powered airplanes having no more than nine passenger seats and a
payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less. The criteria for issuing
certificates under Parts 121 and 135 have changed since the late 1980s
and early 1990s, when the seven fatal accidents that led to PRIA‘s
enactment occurred. At that time, all seven carriers operated under
Part 135 certificates; however, under the new criteria, all of these
carriers would operate under Part 121 certificates.[Footnote 8]
As of April 13, 2001, FAA had identified 3,059 operators with active
certificates to operate under Parts 121 and 135 or with dual
certificates to operate under both. The vast majority of these
operators are air carriers and thus are subject to PRIA. (See table
2.):
Table 2: Aviation Operators with Active Part 121 and/or Part 135
Certificates as of April 13, 2001:
Certificate: Part 121; Number of operators: 117.
Certificate: Part 135; Number of operators: 2,915.
Certificate: Part 121/135[A]; Number of operators: 27.
Certificate: Total; Number of operators: 3,059.
[A] These operators have dual certificates to operate under both Parts
121 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Source: FAA analysis of data in the Flight Standards Operations
Specifications database.
[End of table]
PRIA Includes Provisions to Protect Pilots‘ Rights:
PRIA includes several provisions to protect the privacy of a pilot‘s
records during the hiring process and indicates how a pilot can obtain
and comment on the records contained in PRIA files. First, PRIA
specifies that, generally, only information covering a 5-year period
preceding the date of the employment application or the date of the
request is to be forwarded to the hiring air carrier. Second, to help
ensure that a pilot‘s records are not requested without permission, a
carrier must obtain the pilot‘s written consent before requesting the
release of records from FAA, NDR, and current or former employers. PRIA
also includes provisions to protect air carriers from liability for
providing a pilot‘s records and requires that they not provide records
without first ensuring that the pilot‘s consent has been obtained.
Finally, PRIA limits access to a pilot‘s records to those individuals
directly involved in the hiring process and restricts the use of those
records to assessing the pilot‘s qualifications as part of making a
hiring decision. To further protect a pilot‘s privacy, a carrier must
protect the confidentiality of these records.
PRIA also provides a pilot with access to his/her PRIA records.
Whenever a request is received, a carrier, employer, or agency has 20
days to notify the pilot of the request and of the pilot‘s right to
receive a copy of the PRIA file. If requested in writing by a pilot, a
copy of the PRIA file must be provided within 30 days of the pilot‘s
request. Under PRIA, a pilot has the right to submit written comments
to correct inaccuracies in the records before a final hiring decision
is made. To further protect the rights of pilots under PRIA, FAA may
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to protect the personal
privacy of any pilots whose records are requested, preclude the further
dissemination of records received, and ensure prompt compliance with
requests for PRIA records.
PRIA Requires FAA to Provide Periodic Reports and Three Studies:
PRIA required FAA to provide a written report to Congress on the act‘s
implementation 18 months after the act was passed and at least once
every 3 years thereafter on proposed changes to FAA‘s records,
carriers‘ records, and other employers‘ records. If FAA does not
recommend changes to PRIA, the act also requires the agency to give
reasons for its position. FAA provided Congress with two reports that
were issued in October 2000 and April 2002. Neither report recommends
any change to (1) the agency‘s current system of collecting and
maintaining certificate records on airmen or on legal enforcement
actions and (2) air carrier and other records required to be furnished
under PRIA. FAA did not recommend any change because it thought that
the existing records and system were effective and met PRIA‘s
requirements.
PRIA also required FAA to conduct three studies related to carriers‘
procedures for hiring pilots--two jointly with representatives of the
aviation industry. The three studies that FAA transmitted to
Congress[Footnote 9] recommended additional research on, rather than
changes to, carriers‘ pilot-hiring practices, but FAA has not yet begun
any of the recommended research. According to officials in the Air
Transportation Division, FAA has not pursued any of the proposed
research because it has not yet heard whether Congress agrees with the
studies‘ findings.
Congress Amended PRIA Twice:
To clarify some of PRIA‘s requirements and to lessen the act‘s burden
on smaller carriers, Congress passed amendments in December 1997 and
April 2000 that narrowed and clarified PRIA‘s scope and provided some
relief in areas that had proven burdensome to some carriers. The April
2000 amendment also directed FAA to carry out certain actions related
to PRIA. Table 3 summarizes the major changes resulting from these
amendments.
Table 3: Key Changes to PRIA from Amendments:
Amendments: P.L. 105-142; Date: 12/05/1997; Key changes: * Changed the
timing of when carriers must request and receive PRIA information from
before hiring the pilot to before allowing the pilot to begin service.;
* Narrowed the requirement for background checks from all previous
employers to just those who had employed the individual as a pilot of a
civilian or public aircraft.; * Established that carriers must maintain
their own training and other records on pilots at least 5 years to
bring that requirement in accordance with the time frame during which
PRIA records may be requested.; * Specified that copies of records be
provided to pilots no later than 30 days following the receipt of a
written request.; * Allowed an exception to the requirement for
obtaining background information when the former employer no longer
exists, as long as the carrier can document a good-faith attempt to
obtain such information.; * Permitted some small operators, before
receiving requested records, to allow a pilot to begin transporting
passengers for a period of 90 days if the pilot would be flying
nonscheduled operations.[A].
Amendments: P.L. 106-181; Date: 4/5/2000; Key changes: * Excluded the
U.S. Armed Forces, the National Guard, or a reserve component of the
U.S. Armed Forces from the sources from which a carrier must request
and obtain a pilot‘s flight records.; * Limited the types of records to
be provided to those pertaining to an individual‘s competency and
performance as a pilot.; * Expanded the good-faith exception to allow
carriers to begin using pilots whose records are sought from a foreign
government or entity.; * Directed FAA to provide carriers with
electronic access to FAA records to make access to background
information on pilots more efficient and timely and to develop
regulations as necessary to protect the pilots‘ privacy..
[A] This exception applies to operators of aircraft with a payload
capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, or of helicopters, on flights that
are not scheduled operations.
Source: GAO summary of PRIA amendments.
[End of table]
The December 1997 amendment made a key change that allows a carrier to
request and review a PRIA file after hiring an applicant as long as the
carrier completes the background check before allowing the pilot to fly
an aircraft with passengers or cargo. Initially, the act required all
carriers to request and review a pilot‘s records from FAA, NDR, and
previous employers before hiring the pilot. This requirement caused
delays in hiring decisions because, at the time of the amendment‘s
enactment, FAA and some carriers could not meet the 30-day deadline. As
a result, Congress amended the act to permit a carrier to perform these
background checks after the pilot was hired as long as they were
completed before the carrier used the pilot to fly passengers or cargo-
-a step often referred to as the final hiring decision. In essence,
this amendment gives carriers the option to use PRIA information not as
part of a pilot‘s initial screening process but as a last check before
the pilot is put into the cockpit.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To meet our objectives, we gathered quantitative and qualitative
information from a variety of sources for the period from PRIA‘s
implementation in February 1997 through July 2002. Our primary method
for addressing the four objectives was two nationwide, anonymous mail
surveys--one for Part 121 carriers and one for Part 135 carriers.
Carriers with dual certificates, that is, authorized to operate under
both Part 121 and Part 135, received the Part 121 survey, and we
include the responses of these carriers with the Part 121 responses
throughout this report. The surveys, conducted from June through
September 2001, provided data on the carriers‘:
* compliance with the act, including the timeliness with which they
received records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers;
* use of information to hire pilots;
* costs incurred because of the act‘s requirements;
* awareness of actions to protect pilots‘ rights;
* views on PRIA‘s usefulness;
* opinions on which aspects of PRIA require more clarification or
guidance; and:
* recommendations for improving PRIA.
The survey population included the Part 121 and Part 135 air carriers
that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information from
July 1998, when FAA began tracking such requests electronically,
through April 30, 2001. This population includes 124, or 86 percent, of
the 144 carriers that operate under Part 121 or have dual certificates
to operate under both Parts 121 and 135. All 124 of these carriers
received the survey. However, the survey population covers only 1,144,
or 39 percent, of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers. Of these 1,144 carriers,
we randomly selected 350 to receive the survey. Although we would have
preferred to survey a representative sample of all Part 135 carriers,
we were unable to do so in a manner that would produce reliable data
because we were unable to identify and pretest carriers that were out
of compliance with the requirement to request documents from FAA. Thus,
we cannot discuss the opinions and experiences of the 1,771 Part 135
carriers that did not submit requests to FAA for PRIA information. The
surveys requested historical data from PRIA‘s implementation in
February 1997 through December 2000 for those questions to which
carriers said during pretesting that they could provide more complete
information. Where this was not the case, we requested that carriers
provide data for calendar year 2000 to offer the most current and
reliable perspective on carriers‘ compliance with the act. We did not
verify the information provided in our surveys. (See app. II for a more
detailed discussion of our methodology.)[Footnote 10]
Besides analyzing our survey responses, we used other methods to
address the first objective on the extent to which carriers have
complied with the act by obtaining key documents about pilot applicants
before making final hiring decisions and whether FAA, NDR, and carriers
have provided these documents in a timely manner. Specifically, we
interviewed carrier officials who were responsible for requesting and
reviewing PRIA information as part of their hiring decisions. We also
analyzed FAA and NDR data on carriers‘ PRIA requests. We performed
limited internal testing of the database that FAA uses to respond to
PRIA requests, but we did not independently review the validity of the
data it derives from three other FAA databases. We also did not
independently review the validity of the NDR database that states use
to provide information to carriers about pilots‘ driving records. To
obtain further information on compliance with PRIA by Part 135
carriers, FAA, at our request, asked its principal operations
inspectors
[Footnote 11] in April 2001 for information on which Part 135 carriers
should have made requests to FAA for PRIA records in calendar year
2000.
Specifically, FAA asked these inspectors to determine how many pilots
each
of these Part 135 carriers had hired that year and how many of the
carriers
operated only intrastate and thus might be exempt from PRIA‘s
requirements.
FAA received information on about 842 of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers in
operation, 798 of which were interstate carriers subject to PRIA. We
analyzed
the information about hiring and certification to operate interstate
operations and compared it with requests for PRIA information made to
FAA
by these same carriers in 2000 to determine whether these 798 carriers
had
requested information from FAA for at least as many pilots as they had
hired.
To help determine our second objective of whether FAA, NDR, and
carriers were aware of PRIA‘s requirements to protect pilots‘ rights,
we also interviewed officials from these two federal agencies, carrier
hiring officials, aviation associations, representatives of a major
pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand how well PRIA
has been working, including the effectiveness of measures to protect
pilots‘ rights. To understand pilots‘ views of PRIA, we interviewed a
sample of 20 pilots at hiring fairs and carriers. We also interviewed
and reviewed the PRIA files of 27 pilots whom we identified as having
reported experiencing problems with their PRIA records because they had
contacted FAA, congressional staff, or our office.
To determine our third objective of what FAA has done to oversee
compliance with PRIA, we reviewed the agency‘s policies, guidance, and
internal documents about implementation as well as the reports and
studies to Congress that FAA generated in response to the act. We also
interviewed program officials at the Department of Transportation
(DOT), FAA headquarters, and FAA field offices responsible for
responding to PRIA requests from carriers, generating the data needed
for these responses, and overseeing the program‘s implementation. We
also reviewed enforcement cases initiated by FAA against carriers that
had violated PRIA‘s requirements.
To address our fourth objective on the extent to which carriers believe
the act has helped them make better pilot-hiring decisions, we surveyed
Part 121 and Part 135 carriers, as previously stated. We also
interviewed officials from aviation associations, representatives from
a major pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand the
impact of PRIA on making better pilot-hiring decisions. In addition, to
obtain information on the act‘s costs to FAA, NDR, carriers, and
pilots, we reviewed FAA‘s submissions on costs to the Office of
Management and Budget, which are required under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. We discussed the costs of PRIA with officials from all of these
organizations as well as with officials from state motor vehicle
agencies that process the vast majority of carriers‘ PRIA requests for
pilots‘ NDR information.
We conducted our work from August 2000 through July 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Chapter 2 Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements Are
Increasing, but Compliance Is Not Always Complete or Timely:
Efforts to comply with PRIA have increased since the act took effect in
February 1997, but compliance is not always complete or timely.
Although available data are not adequate to determine the extent of
industrywide compliance, our analyses indicate that hiring carriers
have requested and agencies and other carriers have provided background
checks on increasing numbers of pilots. However, our analyses also
suggest greater compliance with some PRIA requirements than with
others. Both FAA and NDR databases and carriers‘ responses to our
surveys indicate that hiring carriers requested the required records
more often from FAA than from NDR, even though the carriers are
required to request records from both organizations for all prospective
pilots. The survey responses further indicate that hiring carriers
requested the required records still less frequently from other
carriers. In general, the hiring carriers reported receiving the
requested records on time more frequently from FAA and NDR than from
other carriers. Delays in receiving these records can negatively affect
both pilots and carriers.
Required Requests for Pilot Records Increased, but Available Data Are
Not Adequate to Determine the Extent of Compliance:
As discussed in chapter 1, PRIA, as amended, requires hiring carriers
to request and review information for the past 5 years on a pilot
applicant‘s qualifications, performance, and training. This
information is to be obtained from FAA, NDR, and carriers and other
employers, apart from the military, who employed the applicant to fly
passengers or cargo. While FAA and NDR maintain data on the requests
for PRIA records that they receive, there are no centralized data on
requests between carriers.
According to our analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers‘
responses to our surveys, the number of requests for background checks
increased steadily from 1997 through 2000. However, requests did fall
in 2001, reflecting the downturn in air traffic resulting from the
economic recession and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Although
this generally steady growth in the number of requests suggests
increasing compliance with PRIA‘s requirements for requesting records,
we could not assess carriers‘ compliance because data are not available
on how many and which pilots were hired each year by each carrier that
is subject to PRIA and whether each subject carrier requested records
from all three required sources for each pilot hired. When we began our
review, FAA did not know which carriers were subject to PRIA, but
following discussions with us, FAA agreed to analyze its Operations
Specification database to make this determination.[Footnote 12]
Information
regarding carriers‘ requests for records from the three required
sources
is not available because federal laws and regulations do not require
that
carriers report it to FAA or that FAA maintain it. FAA does not believe
that the costs of gathering and maintaining these data would be worth
the
benefits to aviation safety.
Requests for FAA Background Checks Increased:
According to FAA data, the number of requests for background checks
nearly doubled from 14,938 in 1997 to 27,104 in 2000. With the
recession and the terrorist attacks, the number dropped to 21,047 in
2001. From February 1997, when PRIA was implemented, through December
2001, carriers requested background checks on 111,552 pilots from FAA.
(See fig. 1.) The required records include a pilot applicant‘s flight
certificate, medical certificate, and enforcement history.
Figure 1: Carriers‘ Requests to FAA for PRIA Background Checks on
Pilots, February 1997 through December 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
[End of Figure]
Although the number of requests to FAA for background checks increased,
not all carriers requested records. According to our analysis of FAA‘s
records, fewer than half of the 3,059 carriers in operation as of April
13, 2001, requested PRIA background checks from FAA on at least one
pilot from July 1998, when FAA began tracking PRIA requests by
carrier,[Footnote 13] through April 2001. Without data on how many
pilots were hired or on how many carriers hired at least one pilot
during the period of our review, we could not determine how many
carriers should have requested records.
In addition, the Part 135 carriers were less likely than the Part 121
carriers to request records. According to our analysis of the available
automated data for July 1998 through April 2001, 39 percent of the Part
135 carriers requested PRIA records from FAA at least once, compared
with 86 percent of the Part 121 carriers. (See table 4.) Again, data
were not available to determine whether or to what extent the lower
percentage for Part 135 carriers was related to compliance. On the one
hand, information provided by FAA indicated that over 900 Part 135
carriers have only one pilot, making it unlikely, FAA officials said,
that they hired any pilots during this period. Furthermore, 4 percent
of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed--all of whom had made at least one
request to FAA for PRIA records--reported that they did not hire any
pilots from 1997 through 2000. On the other hand, as discussed later in
this chapter, we found evidence of Part 135 carriers that hired pilots
but may not have complied fully with PRIA‘s background check
requirements.
Table 4: Carriers That Made at Least One Request to FAA for Pilot
Background Records, July 1998 through April 2001:
Type of certificate: Part 121[A]; Number in operation: 144; Number that
made at least one request: 124; 86.
Type of certificate: Part 135; Number in operation: 2,915; Number that
made at least one request: 1,144; 39.
Type of certificate: Total; Number in operation: 3,059; Number that
made at least one request: 1,268; 41.
[A] For survey purposes, the responses of carriers that hold dual
certificates as Part 121/135 carriers are combined with the responses
of Part 121 carriers. As of April 13, 2001, there were 27 Part 121/135
carriers in operation and 117 Part 121 carriers. We deleted 5 Part 121
carriers because they subsequently went out of business and were not
available to respond to the survey. :
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
[End of table]
Requests for NDR Information Increased:
The number of requests for NDR driver information records,[Footnote 14]
primarily from carriers but occasionally from pilots,[Footnote 15] also
increased, although NDR data, like FAA data, show a drop in 2001 in
response to the recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Specifically, the number of requests increased from 9,549 in 1997 to
23,104 in 2000, but dropped to 18,175 in 2001. (See fig. 2.) According
to NDR data, carriers and pilots made 81,509 requests for driver
information from PRIA‘s implementation through December 2001. The NDR
information required for PRIA purposes includes records of revocations
or suspensions of a driver‘s license for such serious offenses as
reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, or drug convictions.
Figure 2: Carriers‘ and Pilots‘ Requests for Information on Pilots‘ NDR
Information, February 1997 through December 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NDR data.
[End of figure]
Carriers Reported Increased Requests for Pilot Records:
The carriers we surveyed reported receiving increased numbers of
requests for pilot records from hiring carriers for each year from
PRIA‘s implementation through 2000, the last year covered by our
survey. These requested records include information about a pilot‘s
training and performance as well as the results of drug and alcohol
testing. For the period from 1997 through 2000, the Part 121 carriers
reported that the number of requests received nearly tripled, and the
Part 135 carriers reported that the number of requests nearly doubled.
(See fig. 3.) The number of Part 121 carriers that reported receiving
such requests rose from 67 in 1997 to 91 in 2000, and we estimate that
the number of Part 135 carriers receiving such requests increased from
461 to 931 during this period.
Figure 3: Number of Reported Requests for Pilot Records Received by
Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers, 1997 through 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note 1: As discussed in chapter 1 and appendix II, we surveyed only
those carriers that made at least one request to FAA for pilot
background checks.
Note 2: Numbers of records are reported for those carriers that said
they had requested PRIA records for all or almost all pilots they
hired.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers and Part 135
carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot background
checks.
[End of figure]
Hiring Carriers Requested the Most Records from FAA and Made the Fewest
Requests to Other Carriers:
Under PRIA, carriers that hire pilots should make the same number of
requests to FAA and NDR, and they may be required to make more or fewer
requests to other carriers, depending on how many employers their pilot
applicants had in the preceding 5 years and whether records are
required from those employers. According to our analysis of data from
FAA and NDR and from our surveys of carriers, FAA received thousands
more requests for records than NDR and carriers, and both FAA and NDR
received thousands more requests than carriers.
Requests for FAA Records Far Exceeded Requests for NDR Information:
According to FAA and NDR data, from 1997 through 2001, carriers
requested records for about 30,000 more pilots from FAA than from NDR,
and in each of those years, carriers made thousands more requests to
FAA than to NDR. (See table 5.):
Table 5: Requests for FAA Records and NDR Driver Information Records,
1997 through 2001:
Year: 1997; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 14,938; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 9,549; 5,389.
Year: 1998; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 23,584; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 13,333; 10,251.
Year: 1999; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 24,879; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 17,220; 7,659.
Year: 2000; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 27,104; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 23,104; 4,000.
Year: 2001; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 21,047; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 18,175; 2,872.
Year: Total; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 111,552; Requests for NDR
information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 81,509; 30,043.
[A] Yearly totals are based on the number of notification letters to
pilots whose PRIA records were sent to carriers by FAA.
[B] Yearly totals include requests for NDR information by carriers to
state motor vehicle agencies, by carriers directly to NDR, and by
pilots directly to NDR under the Privacy Act when pilots indicated that
they were requesting this information as required by PRIA.
Source: GAO analysis of FAA and NDR data on PRIA requests.
[End of table]
Although disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some
degree of noncompliance with the requirement to request driver
information from NDR, FAA and NDR data cannot readily be compared.
First, NDR does not track its data by carrier or by pilot, as FAA does.
Therefore, the two agencies‘ data cannot be matched to verify that a
carrier has requested background checks on a pilot from both federal
agencies. Second, NDR data are, to some extent, understated, partly
because NDR cannot always identify requests from pilots for NDR
information as PRIA requests and partly because NDR did not include
known PRIA requests made by pilots under the Privacy Act in its PRIA
database until 1999.[Footnote 16] Although requests from carriers for
NDR information are readily identifiable as PRIA requests, carriers
sometimes delegate their responsibility for obtaining NDR information
to pilot applicants, even though PRIA requires that a carrier receive
the records directly from NDR or the state agency. Pilots‘ requests for
NDR information--whether made directly to NDR under the Privacy Act or
to state motor vehicle agencies--are not identifiable as PRIA requests
unless the pilots specify as much. From 1999, when NDR began tracking
pilots‘ requests separately from other Privacy Act requests, through
2001, pilots made 1,187 (2 percent) of 58,627 requests to NDR for
background checks under PRIA.
Carriers‘ delegation of their responsibility for obtaining NDR
information to pilot applicants raises issues beyond how to account
accurately for the number of PRIA requests made for NDR information.
First, PRIA directs carriers to obtain the NDR information on each
pilot with the pilot‘s consent. Although PRIA allows carriers to have a
pilot applicant request that either NDR or a state motor vehicle agency
provide the NDR information directly to the carrier, PRIA does not
allow the pilot to obtain the information and then provide it to the
carrier. This practice, which gives the pilot custody of the
information, potentially compromises the reliability of the
information. According to NDR officials, at least one major Part 121
carrier requires pilot applicants to obtain NDR information under the
Privacy Act and bring it with them to an interview--a procedure that
violates PRIA.
Reported Requests to Other Carriers Fell Short of Requests to FAA and
NDR, but Records from Some Carriers Are Not Required:
The carriers responding to our surveys reported receiving substantially
fewer requests for background checks each year than did FAA and NDR.
From 1997 through 2000, the last year covered by our surveys, the
carriers reported receiving about 44,000 requests, compared with about
91,000 requests to FAA and about 63,000 requests to NDR. Again,
disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some degree of
noncompliance, but our analysis also identified other possible reasons
for differences. First, carriers estimated the number of requests they
received each year, whereas FAA and NDR tracked their requests
electronically. Second, as previously explained, our survey covered
only those carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot
records. Some carriers might have requested records from other carriers
or NDR, but not from FAA. Finally, under PRIA, as amended, carriers do
not need to request records from the military, from employers for whom
pilot applicants worked in jobs unrelated to flying, or from certain
types of aviation operators. Eighty-eight percent of the Part 121
carriers and 46 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported
hiring at least some pilots with military flight experience in 2000. In
addition, many smaller Part 135 carriers may hire pilots whose recent
experience includes working for an aviation operator that is not
required to maintain the kinds of information on training and
performance included in PRIA records, such as a private flight school
or an operator that provides agricultural crop dusting, banner towing,
travel by corporate jet, or aerial surveying. Furthermore, PRIA
requires only that carriers make a ’good-faith“ attempt to obtain
records from foreign employers or bankrupt carriers.
Even though there are several reasons why carriers may have reported
receiving fewer requests than FAA and NDR received, carriers‘ survey
responses pointed to greater noncompliance with the requirement to
request records from other carriers or employers than with the
requirements to request records from FAA or NDR. For example, 57
percent of the Part 121 carriers reported requesting records from other
carriers for all or almost all pilots they hired in 2000, compared with
97 percent for FAA and 95 percent for NDR. Similar percentages of the
Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported requesting records from each of
the three sources. (See fig. 4.):
Figure 4: Percentage of Carriers That Reported Requesting PRIA Records
in 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note 1: As discussed in chapter 1 and appendix II, we surveyed only
those carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot
background checks.
Note 2: Percentages for other carriers reflect those carriers that
reported requesting PRIA records for all or almost all of the pilots
they hired.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.
[End of figure]
Additional Evidence Suggests That Recent Compliance by Some Carriers Is
Not Complete:
Two types of evidence we gathered suggest that some carriers,
especially some Part 135 carriers, may not have complied fully with
requirements to complete background checks on pilots they hired in
2000. First, our analysis of hiring data gathered by FAA inspectors
showed that hundreds of pilots were hired by Part 135 carriers that
either had not requested PRIA records from FAA or had requested records
for fewer pilots than they had hired. To better understand why many
Part 135 carriers had not requested records, we asked FAA to have its
inspectors determine how many pilots were hired in 2000 by Part 135
carriers that operate interstate and therefore are subject to PRIA‘s
requirements. Data generated by the inspectors raised questions about
the compliance of 227 (28 percent) of the 798 Part 135 carriers for
which the inspectors obtained information. These 227 carriers had
requested records for 318 pilots but had hired 1,078. While the
carriers that hired some of the remaining 760 pilots might have
complied with PRIA if the pilots were not placed in service in 2000 or
if the pilots‘ records were requested at the end of 1999 or at the
beginning of 2001, it is unlikely that these circumstances applied to
all 760 pilots. According to FAA, its Office of Flight Standards
Service has asked the regions responsible for overseeing these 227
carriers to review their compliance with PRIA.
Second, to obtain a snapshot of carriers‘ compliance with PRIA‘s
requirements for obtaining background information, we asked our survey
respondents about the records they requested for pilots hired in 2000.
A few carriers self-reported significant noncompliance with PRIA‘s
requirements for requesting records. Of the Part 121 carriers, 1
percent reported requesting FAA records less than half the time for the
pilots hired in 2000, 3 percent reported requesting NDR information
less than half the time for the pilots hired, and 6 percent reported
requesting other employers‘ records for half or fewer of the pilots
hired. The percentages for Part 135 carriers were generally comparable.
Carriers Said They Generally Receive Records on Time from FAA and NDR
but Still Have Some Problems Obtaining Records from Other Carriers:
PRIA requires FAA, NDR, and carriers to provide PRIA records to a
hiring carrier within 30 days of receiving a written request. The act
also requires hiring carriers to receive the records from all three
sources for each pilot applicant before making a final hiring decision-
-that is, before using the pilot to fly passengers or cargo.
According to industry representatives and carrier hiring officials we
surveyed or interviewed, most carriers received PRIA records from FAA
and NDR, and, in the majority of instances, they reported receiving the
records within 30 days, as required. However, in a few cases, carriers
reported never receiving the required records. Furthermore, carriers
said they sometimes needed more time to follow up with state motor
vehicle agencies on the initial NDR information they received. Carriers
reported more problems in receiving records on time from other carriers
and, in a few cases, reported never receiving the required information.
Without complete information, a carrier is not allowed to use a pilot
to fly passengers or cargo, and delays in receiving the required
information can be costly to both the carrier and the pilot.
FAA Has Largely Overcome Initial Delays in Providing PRIA Records to
Carriers:
During the first 6 months after PRIA was implemented, FAA said it was
not always able to respond to requests for background checks within 30
days. FAA said it did not have enough staff to keep up with the volume
of requests it received. In addition, the agency needed to gather the
required records--pilot‘s flight certificates, medical certificates,
and enforcement histories--from three separate databases maintained in
three different offices. As a result, FAA‘s responses sometimes took
months, delaying carriers‘ hiring of pilots.
To reduce the delays in responding to requests for records, Congress
amended PRIA and FAA modified its procedures. Noting that delays in
receiving records presented a particular burden to small aviation
businesses, Congress amended PRIA in December 1997 to provide relief to
the on-demand air carriers[Footnote 17] by allowing them to use pilots
to fly passengers for up to 90 days before receiving their PRIA
records.[Footnote 18] In the summer of 1997, FAA transferred the
responsibility for responding to PRIA requests from its Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute to its Aviation Data Systems Branch in the Office of
Flight Standards, which had more staff available to respond to
requests. In addition, in July 1998, FAA developed a centralized
database that is automatically updated each night with new information
from the three databases that contain FAA‘s flight, medical, and
enforcement records. We observed FAA staff using this database and saw
that they can, within minutes, generate a response letter for a carrier
and a copy for a pilot.
Our review of FAA‘s response times for the 27,104 requests received in
2000 showed that FAA generally provided PRIA information in less than 2
work days after receiving a carrier‘s request. According to FAA staff
responsible for responding to PRIA requests, delays can occur if
information such as a pilot‘s name or certificate number is incorrect
or illegible. In these instances, the staff said, they usually call the
carrier to obtain the correct information so that they can process the
requests on time. They further noted that some carriers reduce response
times by transmitting requests to FAA by fax or Express Mail.
In responding to our surveys, carriers also indicated that FAA
generally provides records and provides them on time. Ninety percent of
the Part 121 carriers reported receiving the required records from FAA
for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000. Of these carriers, 71
percent reported receiving almost all records on time, and 4 percent
reported receiving the records on time less than half the time. Of the
Part 135 carriers we surveyed, 74 percent reported receiving almost all
FAA records on time, and 12 percent reported receiving these records on
time less than half the time.
Most Carriers Said They Received NDR Information on Time, but Following
Up on Information Can Be Time Consuming and Burdensome:
Initially, NDR processed carriers‘ PRIA requests directly in
Washington, D.C., because state motor vehicle agencies‘ computer
systems were not yet set up to handle the requests electronically.
Until December 31, 1997, carriers could submit PRIA requests directly
to NDR for processing. Beginning in January 1998, state agencies
largely assumed this responsibility, and in 2000, the state agencies
processed 92 percent of carriers‘ 22,201 requests, while NDR processed
8 percent on an emergency basis. Six states now process over three-
quarters of the requests for NDR information,[Footnote 19] including
most of the requests for residents of four states and the District of
Columbia that do not process any requests because computer testing has
not yet been completed to ensure the reliability of the NDR search
process for those entities.
To gain perspective on recent NDR activity in response to carriers‘
PRIA requests, we asked carriers whether they had received the NDR
information they had requested and whether they had received the
information within 30 days. Those responding to our surveys generally
reported receiving NDR information from state motor vehicle agencies in
response to their requests. Specifically, 85 percent of the Part 121
carriers reported receiving NDR information for all or almost all
pilots hired in 2000, as did 77 percent of the Part 135 carriers.
Smaller percentages of carriers reported receiving the NDR information
on time: 67 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 69 percent of the Part
135 carriers reported receiving all or almost all records on time.
Furthermore, some carriers reported problems with timeliness: 4 percent
of the Part 121 carriers and 18 percent of the Part 135 carriers
reported receiving the records on time less than half the time.
If a driver‘s license has been revoked or suspended for violations, the
process of following up with the motor vehicle agency in each state
where violations occurred can take much longer, particularly if the NDR
information provided by a state motor vehicle agency does not include
identifiers, such as the driver‘s Social Security number, height,
weight, and eye color. Without such identifying information, the
carrier must take additional steps to determine whether the pilot
applicant or someone else committed the violation. Furthermore, when a
state motor vehicle agency fails to provide the NDR information
required under PRIA, a carrier cannot legally hire a pilot. The good-
faith exception that Congress established for instances when carriers
cannot obtain PRIA information from foreign carriers or from domestic
carriers that have gone out of business does not apply to instances
when carriers cannot obtain NDR information.
Smaller Percentages of Hiring Carriers Reported Receiving Records from
Other Carriers Than from FAA and NDR:
Over two-thirds of the carriers responding to our surveys reported
receiving the PRIA records required from other carriers for all or
almost all pilots hired in 2000, but the percentages that said they
received these records were smaller than the percentages that said they
received the records required from FAA and NDR. (See fig. 5.) Of the
carriers that said they did not receive the required records from other
carriers for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000, 2 percent of the
Part 121 carriers and 10 percent of the Part 135 carriers reported
receiving the records from other carriers for few or none of the pilots
hired.
Figure 5: Percentage of Carriers Reporting the Receipt of PRIA Records
in 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.
[End of figure]
The responses to our surveys also indicated that carriers had more
problems with receiving records on time from other carriers than from
FAA or NDR. The Part 121 carriers reported that they were more likely
to receive records within 30 days, as required, from major, regional,
and commuter carriers than from small cargo or on-demand carriers. The
information on timeliness reported by the Part 135 carriers was similar
to the information reported by the Part 121 carriers, although the Part
135 carriers reported more problems with the timeliness of records from
large cargo carriers than did the Part 121 carriers.
Many of the carrier hiring officials, aviation association officials,
and pilots we interviewed voiced concerns about problems in obtaining
PRIA records on time or at all from other carriers. Several of the
carrier officials said they often need to follow up with additional
telephone calls and letters when these records are not received within
30 days. Of the 400 comments about PRIA that the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA) has received from its members since PRIA‘s
implementation in February 1997, the most common ones were that past
employers did not send the requested records to the hiring carrier at
all or did not send them in a timely fashion and that no one was
enforcing the 30-day mandate. Several of the pilots we interviewed also
maintained that it took months to get current and former carrier
employers to forward PRIA records to prospective employers.
Delays in Providing PRIA Records Can Negatively Affect Carriers and
Pilots:
Not providing PRIA records to hiring carriers or providing them late
can adversely affect both carriers and pilots. In a few cases, carriers
reported that they never received the required information. Hiring
carriers are not allowed to use pilots to transport passengers or cargo
until all PRIA records have been obtained and reviewed, except in the
on-demand air charter industry, which allows carriers to use pilots for
up to 90 days while completing background checks. Hiring officials at
two carriers told us they had to let pilots go after providing
expensive training. One Part 121 carrier official told us that the
carrier had waited over 5 months for one pilot‘s records. In the
interim, the carrier said it put this pilot through 70 days of training
and then sent him back for more simulator training, since it could not
use him for transporting passengers or cargo. Until this matter was
settled, the carrier said it paid the pilot a weekly training salary of
$200 instead of a much higher salary as a crew member. The carrier said
it did not want to release the pilot because he was good and because it
had spent more than $25,000 on his training. Although PRIA‘s good-faith
exception covers instances when a hiring carrier cannot obtain records
from a bankrupt or foreign carrier, this exception does not apply when
an operating U.S. carrier fails to provide records.
Not providing a PRIA file or delays in providing it can also cost a
pilot an opportunity for career advancement to a larger carrier. With
delays, a pilot can lose a job offer or receive a lower seniority
number, which in turn limits job security, choice of flights, and pay.
For example, according to one pilot, delays by his former employer in
forwarding his PRIA file postponed his training by 2 months, caused him
to receive a less desirable seniority number, gave him less choice in
assignments, and delayed his promotion to captain by 4 months. He said
this delay in promotion alone cost him nearly $7,500. See chapter 4 for
our analysis of how FAA could help to improve compliance with PRIA‘s
requirements for providing pilot records within 30 days.
[End of section]
Chapter 3 Air Carriers Have Not Consistently Followed PRIA‘s
Requirements for Protecting Pilots‘ Rights:
Some carriers indicated that they are not aware of some of PRIA‘s
requirements to protect pilots‘ rights. For example, many carriers said
they were unaware of requirements for notifying pilots and for giving
them opportunities to review and submit corrections to their records.
In addition, state motor vehicle agencies sometimes provided records to
carriers that they should not have provided. As a result, hiring
carriers sometimes received PRIA files that contained information that
was outdated or was not related to an individual‘s performance as a
pilot. While PRIA gives pilots an opportunity to submit written
comments to correct records before final hiring decisions are made,
this opportunity comes too late to prevent hiring carriers from seeing
inappropriate information that could potentially jeopardize pilots‘
chances of being hired.
Some Carriers Said They Are Unaware of PRIA‘s Requirements for
Protecting Pilots‘ Rights:
Carriers‘ reported awareness of PRIA‘s requirements for protecting
pilots‘ rights varied considerably. In general, carriers said they were
more aware of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is hiring
than they were of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is
responding to a PRIA request. Nearly all of the Part 121 hiring
carriers we surveyed said they were aware of PRIA‘s requirements to
obtain a pilot‘s consent before seeking records from other carriers,
NDR, and FAA and to keep those records confidential, as shown in figure
6. The carriers were somewhat less aware of requirements to limit
access to those records and to use them only during the hiring process.
They were least aware of the requirement to give the pilot an
opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a
final hiring decision. Specifically, 31 percent of the Part 121
carriers said they were unaware of the requirement to give the pilot an
opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a
final hiring decision, whereas 44 percent of the Part 135 carriers said
they were unaware of this requirement.
Figure 6: Part 121 Carriers‘ Reported Awareness of Seven of PRIA‘s
Requirements for Carriers When Hiring Pilots:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.
[End of figure]
When responding to PRIA requests, as figure 7 shows, 88 percent of the
Part 121 carriers responding to our survey said they were aware of
PRIA‘s requirement that, within 30 days of receiving a pilot‘s written
request, they provide the pilot with a copy of the PRIA records that
they sent to a prospective employer. However, 80 percent of the Part
121 carriers were unaware of a requirement that gives a pilot the right
to review the PRIA records kept by a current or former employer at any
time. In addition, about half of the carriers were unaware of two
notification requirements designed to let the pilot know that a
prospective employer had requested his or her records and to give the
pilot an opportunity to review those records for accuracy and
completeness. Under these requirements, a carrier must notify a pilot
within 20 days of (1) a prospective employer‘s request for PRIA records
and (2) the pilot‘s right to request a copy of the records that were
sent. These notification requirements are especially important if a
pilot‘s application and signed PRIA consent form have been on file with
a carrier in a pool of possible candidates. The Part 135 carriers that
we surveyed indicated similar levels of awareness of these provisions.
Figure 7: Part 121 Carriers‘ Reported Awareness of PRIA‘s Requirements
for Carriers Responding to PRIA Requests:
[See PDF for image]
[A] This requirement allows a pilot to obtain a copy of the records
that the current or former employer actually sent to the hiring
carrier.
[B] In 1997, Congress amended the law to require former employers, as
well as current employers, to allow a pilot to review PRIA records at
any time and to provide the opportunity to do so within 30 days of a
written request.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.
[End of figure]
According to AOPA officials and several of the pilots we interviewed,
many pilots as well as carriers were unaware of the PRIA provisions
giving pilots opportunities to review their records. AOPA found that
one of the most common questions raised by the 400 pilots who inquired
about PRIA was how to obtain copies of their records. Several of the
pilots who contacted us with concerns about their PRIA records also
said they were uncertain about how to obtain copies of their records
from their current and former employers. Some added that they had tried
unsuccessfully to obtain their records.
Some PRIA Files Contained Inappropriate Information That Should Have
Been Excluded:
Several of the PRIA files that we reviewed contained information that
should have been excluded, and carrier officials and pilots we
interviewed also cited examples of inappropriate information in these
files. To protect pilots‘ rights, PRIA specifies what records should
and should not be included in pilot files. Although FAA met these
criteria in the records it forwarded, NDR and other carriers did not
consistently follow these criteria.
Both carrier officials and pilots we interviewed told us of instances
in which outdated records were included in pilots‘ files. Officials at
a Part 121 carrier explained that deleting older records can be
difficult, especially if the records are part of computerized training
reports that may cover much longer periods of time. How widespread the
inclusion of outdated records in PRIA files may be is unknown; however,
this practice raises concerns because there is no mechanism for a pilot
to have them deleted until after the hiring carrier has seen them.
Outdated driver information may also sometimes be included in pilot
files. According to the chief of NDR‘s Driver Register and Traffic
Records Division, a number of states provide a driver‘s complete record
rather than limit the information to 5 years. The Vice President of the
Aviation Services Department at AOPA also noted that the inclusion of
old driving information has been a problem with PRIA files. One pilot
who contacted us complained that his driving record still showed a
violation from about 20 years earlier for having unopened beer in his
car when he was 18. NDR officials explained that if a pilot requests
driver information directly from NDR or through a state motor vehicle
agency without specifying that the information is needed for PRIA, the
information provided may include information older than the 5 years
required by this law.
Although an amendment to PRIA in April 2000 limits the records to be
provided by a former employer to those directly related to a pilot‘s
performance as a pilot, we found limited evidence that at least three
carriers had forwarded unrelated records to hiring carriers. In
reviewing the PRIA files of the 27 pilots who contacted us, we found
one file that contained the pilot‘s personal bankruptcy papers. Another
file contained copies of documents from a dispute between the pilot and
the carrier about unemployment compensation. A third file included
court records of a carrier‘s suit against a pilot for failing to repay
training funds but excluded the judge‘s ruling that the pilot did not
have to repay those funds. These court documents were unrelated to the
pilot‘s flying abilities. About 29 percent of the Part 121 carriers we
surveyed indicated a great need for clarification of which records are
related to an individual‘s performance as a pilot and thus should be
included in the files forwarded to hiring carriers. The Part 135
carriers we surveyed indicated a similar need for clarification.
Information unrelated to a pilot‘s driving record is also sometimes
included in the files NDR and states send to hiring carriers, according
to the Chief of NDR‘s Driver Register and Traffic Records Division. For
example, he said that some states have included information on
nonmoving violations, such as parking tickets, as well as on tax liens,
nonpayment of child support, and unpaid library fines. Such information
can appear in PRIA files because NDR gives the states some flexibility
in determining what information they submit to its computerized
registry. NDR requires the states to submit the names of persons whose
driver licenses have been denied, canceled, revoked, or suspended for
cause as well as of those who have been convicted of certain serious
traffic offenses, such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other
drugs. However, NDR also allows the states to submit information on
convictions and withdrawals of licenses for other offenses. While NDR
limits the information provided in response to a PRIA request to the
most recent 5 years, it does not otherwise screen the information
provided. In contrast, when FAA reviews a pilot‘s fitness to hold a
medical certificate to fly, it obtains driver information from NDR that
is screened to include only certain serious moving violations and drug-
and alcohol-related convictions over a 3-year period. FAA must then
obtain detailed information about the pilot‘s driving record from any
states where violations occurred.
Some of the PRIA files we reviewed included records of disciplinary
actions that were subsequently overturned. Although PRIA requires
carriers to include records of disciplinary actions that were not
overturned, carrier officials, aviation attorneys, and one pilot who
contacted us raised concerns about including records of overturned
disciplinary actions. For example, the file for one pilot showed he was
suspended briefly for departing late, but did not show that his
suspension was later overturned and he was paid in full after providing
copies of air traffic control tapes showing that he had departed on
time. But because a copy of the final ruling that cleared him was not
included in his file, the prospective employer did not hire him,
according to the pilot. This example shows how any reference in a
pilot‘s file to a past problem, even a problem that has been resolved
in the pilot‘s favor, can be damaging to the pilot‘s chances of being
hired.
In another case, one of the pilots who contacted us with concerns about
PRIA said that his current employer had provided inconsistent records
to carriers to which he had applied. Our review of his records sent to
a major carrier indicated that he had tested positive on a required
drug or alcohol test, while his records sent to a small Part 135
carrier indicated that he had submitted to and passed all such tests.
In such a case, inaccurate information could potentially cause a
carrier to unfairly reject a competent pilot whose record is clean or
to unknowingly hire a pilot who has tested positive. One aviation
attorney we interviewed also told us that carriers have provided
inconsistent PRIA records for the same pilot to different hiring
carriers.
The Opportunity for Pilots to Correct Their Records May Come Too Late:
Though enacted to keep unsafe pilots from being hired to fly commercial
flights, PRIA may have some unintended negative effects. While PRIA
allows pilots to review their records at any time, it does not require
that they have an opportunity to submit written comments to correct
their records before a hiring carrier receives their file. Thus,
corrections, if submitted, may come too late to prevent the hiring
carrier from seeing inaccuracies; information that should not, under
PRIA, have been included in the files; or disputed information
presented only from the carrier‘s perspective.
The timing of the opportunity to correct records can create problems
for both pilots and carriers. Several of the pilots we interviewed said
that after successfully completing interviews, simulator testing, or
other screening procedures, carriers declined to hire them because of
incorrect records in their PRIA records. Some of these pilots said they
were unaware of the incorrect information in their PRIA records and had
no opportunity to correct it before the hiring carrier turned them
down. The potential costs to both the pilot and the hiring carrier are
even greater if the pilot has already accepted a position with the
carrier, begun training, and given up a previous job before the PRIA
records are reviewed. Eighty-two percent of the Part 121 carriers and
73 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported that they do
not have the PRIA records to review until after the pilot has accepted
a conditional job offer and/or begun training.
In addition to the timing of the opportunity to correct records, PRIA
does not indicate, and FAA has provided no guidance on, how to submit
corrections to PRIA records. As a result, even when carrier officials
concur with a pilot and are willing to remove or correct a record, some
said they are unsure whether the act allows them to do so. Several
carrier officials said they were unsure how to remove records that they
believed were unfair. For example, the president, attorney, and chief
pilot for one Part 121 carrier fully concurred with a pilot that the
record of a failed check ride should be removed from the pilot‘s file
because the training manager who had administered this and other check
rides had subsequently been fired for being sexist and racist. The
carrier consulted with FAA and aviation attorneys but could not
determine whether it could remove the questionable training record.
Instead, the carrier said it included a cover memorandum explaining why
the training manager was fired, affirming the pilot‘s skills, and
describing an emergency evacuation in which the pilot saved the lives
of two other pilots.
Moreover, PRIA does not establish any procedures for arbitrating
disagreements between a pilot and a current or former employer over
PRIA records. Several of the pilots who contacted us described problems
they had experienced in getting explanations or rebuttals to specific
records included in their files. Six of these pilots knew of the
incorrect information but said that they had little success in removing
or rebutting disputed records. PRIA establishes no remedy for wrong or
unjust entries in a pilot‘s records or for failing to provide an
opportunity for record correction, if the carrier obtained a release of
liability.
According to a law review article,[Footnote 20] several carrier
officials and private aviation attorneys we interviewed, and some of
the pilots who contacted us with concerns about the law, another
unintended consequence of PRIA is that it can be used in ways that can
diminish safety. Specifically, the weight that the act gives to records
from current and former employers can be used as leverage in disputes
between pilots and carriers over safety issues. According to the
previously mentioned law review article, disagreements over ’how much
safety is enough against the background of economic competition,“ can
pit pilots against managers ’who also happen to hold the trump card of
the pilot‘s job in their hands.“ In these instances, the article argues
that pilots may feel compelled to subordinate their concerns about
safety to their employers‘ economic interests to avoid having negative
information placed in their PRIA files.
In addition, we found some limited indication that PRIA could be used
in ways that could potentially reduce aviation safety, rather than
enhance it as intended. Several of the pilots who contacted us said
they had been threatened with having negative records placed in their
PRIA files if they did not take actions that violated FAA‘s safety
regulations. Although we could not corroborate them, largely because
discussing them with the carriers could have further jeopardized these
pilots‘ careers, we raised them with FAA because these allegations
involve potentially serious safety issues. For example, one pilot said
he was pressured to fly an aircraft with serious maintenance problems,
including an inoperable radar and autopilot, during bad weather. This
pilot and another pilot who flew for the same carrier also said they
had been pressured to identify mechanical problems informally on post-
it notes instead of recording the problems in the aircraft‘s
maintenance log, as FAA requires. We provided FAA with information
about the carriers involved that were still in business, but FAA was
unable to substantiate the allegations, and the carriers denied them.
Finally, according to the previously cited law review article, the
inclusion of negative information in a PRIA file effectively negates
the pilot‘s ability to quit and go elsewhere. Several of the pilots who
contacted us said they had been threatened with negative records in
their PRIA files if they did not repay the costs of their training
before leaving. Some carriers require that pilots sign training
contracts and remain with the carriers for a prescribed period of
months or years, after which time the cost of training is considered
paid in full. According to the pilots, these contracts make it
difficult to leave a carrier, especially if the carrier does not
prorate the cost of training, because if a pilot departs early, he or
she will owe all or a disproportionate amount of the total cost.
Contract disputes about training costs were included in several PRIA
files that we reviewed. For example, one pilot earning an annual salary
of $15,000 said he quit after being pressured to commit safety
violations. He offered in writing to repay a prorated portion of the
$4,000 remaining on his training contract, but the carrier sued him.
The judge ruled that the training costs did not have to be repaid.
Although the broken training contract was not related to the pilot‘s
professional competence and the carrier lost the case, the carrier
included a record of the lawsuit in the pilot‘s file without reference
to the judge‘s ruling in the pilot‘s favor. See chapter 4 for our
analysis of how FAA could help to improve carriers‘ awareness of PRIA‘s
requirements for protecting pilots‘ rights and better inform pilots of
their options for obtaining, reviewing, and correcting their records.
[End of section]
Chapter 4 FAA Oversight of PRIA Implementation Has Been Limited:
FAA has taken limited steps to oversee PRIA implementation and to
monitor this program as part of its broader responsibility for aviation
safety. To promote compliance with PRIA, FAA developed some guidance
for carriers and its own staff, but the advisory circular that it
issued for carriers in 1997 was soon outdated. A revised circular,
which FAA produced in September 2001, addressed some of the issues on
which carriers had sought clarification. FAA‘s guidance also includes a
new form for carriers that inappropriately (1) requires a pilot
applicant to waive the rights provided by PRIA to be notified about
requests and (2) changes the party PRIA makes responsible for notifying
the pilot of a request for records. Although FAA has periodically
provided its own inspectors with updated information on PRIA, it has
not revised its handbooks or training for operations inspectors to
incorporate PRIA‘s requirements. To date, few inspections have
identified problems with carriers‘ implementation of PRIA, even though
FAA‘s inspectors at our request identified hundreds of Part 135
carriers that had hired pilots but did not request PRIA records from
FAA. FAA has seldom initiated enforcement actions against carriers for
PRIA violations.
FAA Has Specific Responsibilities under PRIA as Well as Broad
Responsibility for Aviation Safety:
Congress gave FAA exclusive authority to oversee the implementation of
PRIA by authorizing FAA to issue regulations to (1) protect the
personal privacy of the pilots whose records are disseminated and the
confidentiality of those records, (2) preclude the further
dissemination of PRIA records, and (3) ensure prompt compliance with
any request for records. Congress gave FAA discretion in deciding
whether to use this authority to issue regulations. To date, FAA has
not used this authority. According to FAA‘s Deputy Associate
Administrator for Regulation and Certification, the agency views PRIA
as self-implementing because it places the responsibility for
collecting pilot records on the carriers, not on the government. In
addition, FAA has not issued PRIA regulations because it has allocated
its regulatory resources to other priorities.
In addition to the specific responsibilities given to FAA by PRIA, FAA
has broad oversight responsibility and authority for aviation safety.
This broad responsibility and authority apply to PRIA as well as to
other aviation safety programs. Specifically, in carrying out its
mission to ensure a safe and efficient national air space system, FAA
is responsible for issuing regulations and developing implementation
guidance. FAA also performs inspections to ensure compliance with
federal statutes such as PRIA and under FAA‘s general civil penalty
authority in 49 U.S.C. 46301 has the authority to take enforcement
action against violators.
FAA Has Developed Guidance on PRIA:
FAA issued guidance for carriers in the form of an advisory circular.
FAA issued this circular in May 1997, 3 months after PRIA went into
effect, and revised the circular in September 2001. The revised
circular incorporates information on the December 1997 and April 2000
amendments to PRIA, which Congress enacted, in part, to clarify aspects
of the law. For example, the revised circular includes a copy of the
law, as amended; provides sample forms that hiring carriers may use in
requesting pilot records; and discusses each of the key changes to PRIA
made in the 1997 and 2000 amendments. (See table 3.):
Revised Advisory Circular Addresses Some Issues on Which Carriers
Sought Clarification:
In our survey, which we sent to carriers before FAA issued its revised
advisory circular, we asked which aspects of PRIA‘s hiring requirements
carriers thought needed further clarification. Hiring carriers we
contacted had preliminarily identified 17 key issues that they thought
warranted further clarification. However, a majority of the Part 121
and Part 135 carriers indicated little or no need for clarification on
the majority of these issues, including whether they were subject to
PRIA, which records they were required to maintain, how long they were
required to maintain the records, how they should store the records,
who should be allowed to see the records, and whether the carriers
could charge a fee for supplying the records. In contrast, many
carriers indicated a great or very great need for clarification on how
to proceed when the hiring carrier cannot obtain requested records and
how to handle situations involving disciplinary actions taken against a
pilot. (App. V presents complete information on which of the 17 key
issues carrier hiring officials view as most in need of clarification.)
FAA‘s revised advisory circular addresses some, but not all, of
carriers‘ issues related to the need for clarification.
Many carriers said there was a great need for clarification on how to
proceed in four situations when they are unable to obtain records from
other carriers. These situations and the percentages of Part 121
carriers identifying them as greatly needing clarification are shown in
figure 8. Similar percentages of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed
expressed a great need to clarify how to proceed in these four
situations. FAA‘s revised circular explains how to proceed in two of
these situations--when a hiring carrier cannot obtain a pilot‘s records
from a carrier that has gone out of business or from a foreign entity-
-both of which were outlined in good-faith exceptions in the 1997 and
2000 amendments, respectively. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor
the revised advisory circular offers guidance on how carriers should
proceed when they are unable to obtain records from other carriers that
are still in business or driving records from a state.
Figure 8: Percentage of Part 121 Carriers That Identified a Great or
Very Great Need for Clarification of How to Proceed in Certain
Situations:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA records.
[End of Figure]
Many carriers also sought clarification on handling situations
involving disciplinary actions taken against a pilot by another
carrier. Of the Part 121 carriers, 43 percent identified a great or
very great need to clarify which disciplinary actions are related to an
individual‘s performance as a pilot and therefore should be provided to
carriers interested in hiring their current and former employees. In
addition, 39 percent of the Part 121 carriers identified a great or
very great need to clarify how carriers should handle pilot records
when a disciplinary action is resolved through a negotiated settlement.
Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers sought clarification on the
handling of these situations. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor
FAA‘s revised advisory circular defines disciplinary actions, specifies
which ones should be considered relevant and documented in PRIA
records, or discusses how to remove records of disciplinary actions
that have been resolved through a negotiated settlement.
Resolving carriers‘ questions about how to proceed when other carriers
do not provide required records and how to determine what information
about disciplinary actions should be provided to hiring carriers is
important because such questions, if unresolved, can delay or preclude
final hiring decisions.
FAA‘s Revised Circular Includes a Sample Form That Requires Pilot
Applicants to Waive Some Protections and Alters Notification Provisions
Required in the Law:
FAA‘s guidance to carriers on PRIA includes a new sample form that
requires a pilot applicant to waive certain rights provided by PRIA.
The form also changes the party responsible for notifying the pilot of
a request for records. In September 2001, FAA revised its advisory
circular on PRIA and included the sample form for hiring carriers to
use when requesting records from current and former employers. (App. VI
includes a copy of FAA Form 8060-11, Air Carrier and Other Records
Request (PRIA)--Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996.) Part III of the
form requires the pilot to waive PRIA‘s requirement that the current or
former employer receiving the request for records notify the pilot
within 20 days of the request and of the pilot‘s right to receive a
copy of the records. The form does, however, provide information on the
pilot‘s right to receive a copy of the records within 30 days of
requesting them in writing. FAA made these changes in the form to
simplify and expedite the hiring process, according to the official in
the Air Transportation Division who is responsible for overseeing
policy decisions related to PRIA.
In addition to violating provisions in the act, part III of form 8060-
11 is problematic for several reasons and could reduce a pilot‘s
chances of knowing when records are actually forwarded to hiring
carriers and of receiving a copy of the records. First, the form makes
the hiring carrier responsible for notifying a pilot of a request
rather than the current or former employer as PRIA specifies.[Footnote
21]
Shifting responsibility for notifying the pilot does not follow the
process
outlined in the law, which requires the current or former employer to
provide this notification. Second, as we learned in interviewing pilots
and hiring officials, forms completed at the time of application
sometimes
remain on file for months or years before being activated and submitted
to
current and former employers, particularly when the hiring carrier is a
major carrier. Officials in FAA‘s Aviation Data Systems Branch
confirmed that the pilot often signs these forms months or even years
before the hiring carrier submits them. In such cases, a pilot might
not know whether and when the hiring carrier actually submits the
request to the current and former employer. Furthermore, the revised
form no longer includes a place for the pilot‘s address, which makes it
more difficult for former employers to obtain correct mailing
information to notify the pilot of the hiring carrier‘s request and to
provide a copy of the records to the pilot, if requested.
FAA Has Developed Some Guidance on PRIA for Its Own Staff but Has Not
Incorporated the Guidance into Its Handbooks and Training Classes:
FAA has developed some additional guidance for its own staff. For
example, the agency prepared draft guidance for its staff before PRIA
took effect in February 1997, even though it did not issue the original
advisory circular until May 1997. In addition, FAA has used E-mails and
memorandums to its regional and field offices to further clarify PRIA‘s
requirements. Finally, FAA has assigned responsibility for responding
to PRIA requests from carriers to staff in the Aviation Data Systems
Branch and primary responsibility for answering policy questions about
PRIA to the Air Transportation Division, both of which are within FAA‘s
Office of Flight Standards.
FAA‘s efforts to disseminate guidance on PRIA to its staff have not yet
extended to revisions of the handbook that its operations inspectors
are to use to monitor carriers‘ training and use of pilots.[Footnote
22] Furthermore, the agency has not yet incorporated information on
PRIA into its training classes for operations inspectors. FAA uses its
handbooks and training classes to familiarize inspectors with laws,
regulations, and inspection protocols and to enhance their oversight
and monitoring of carriers‘ compliance with aviation laws and
regulations. Without such information, inspectors may be unaware of
PRIA and amendments to the law. FAA officials said they believe
information on PRIA should be included in the handbooks and training,
but they are awaiting the publication of our report to ensure that all
relevant information is included. In the meantime, inspectors have been
addressing their questions about PRIA to staff in the Aviation Data
Systems Branch.
On March 22, 2002, FAA activated a new Web site with information about
PRIA for carriers and pilots. The site provides brief answers to
frequently asked questions about how PRIA works, which records must be
provided, and what protections are afforded to pilots under the law. It
also includes links to a copy of the law, to FAA‘s advisory circular
that provides guidance on PRIA, and to forms used by carriers to
request records. As of May 1, 2002, FAA had not linked the PRIA Web
site to the agency‘s home site or to the Web information that FAA
maintains for carriers and pilots. Linking these sites would enhance
the accessibility of the PRIA information.
In the spring of 2000, FAA began drafting guidance on which penalties
are appropriate when carriers violate PRIA‘s requirements, according to
attorneys in FAA‘s Office of Chief Counsel. They said that this effort
has become part of a larger one to revise penalty guidance in the
agency‘s enforcement handbook, which is being coordinated with other
FAA offices. However, this coordination stopped after September 11,
2001, because of uncertainty about FAA‘s future role in aviation and
airport security. These officials said the coordination would proceed
once this issue is resolved.
We reviewed the draft guidance that had been completed and determined
that it covers most PRIA provisions and should provide inspectors with
a clearer basis for identifying and, where appropriate, for taking
enforcement actions against carriers for violations of PRIA‘s
requirements. The draft guidance proposes penalties when a carrier
fails to:
* obtain the pilot‘s consent to release records,
* provide the records within 30 days of a request,
* provide a copy of the records to the pilot, and:
* provide the pilot with an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in
those records before making a final hiring decision.
Several Factors May Hamper FAA‘s Operations Inspection Ability to
Monitor Compliance with PRIA:
Several factors may explain why FAA‘s operations inspectors, who
conduct many thousands of inspections on carriers each year, have noted
few problems with carriers‘ compliance with PRIA. First, information on
PRIA is not incorporated into the inspection handbooks and training
classes, consequently these inspectors have no reminders to check for
compliance with PRIA. Second, FAA lacks the information needed to
assess compliance with PRIA‘s requirements for requesting records
because PRIA does not require that this information be reported (see
ch. 2). Thus FAA may lack evidence that carriers have obtained the
required records before making final hiring decisions because PRIA does
not require carriers to retain the records they have received.
As of July 3, 2001, FAA‘s Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS)
database,[Footnote 23] which tracks inspections of the nation‘s 10
major passenger carriers, showed no entries related to PRIA. FAA‘s
older Program Reporting and Tracking Subsystem database, which tracks
some limited information on the 10 major carriers, as well as the
results of inspections on all other carriers, contained 76 inspection
entries related to PRIA since the law‘s implementation in 1997. Two of
these entries identified possible noncompliance with PRIA and led to
the opening of enforcement cases, while the remaining 74 noted that the
inspectors had provided information on PRIA to the carriers but did not
identify any noncompliance. One additional entry, dated June 15, 1999,
identified noncompliance but did not lead to the opening of an
enforcement case. According to the entry, a random inspection of the
records of 169 pilots with a large Part 121 carrier revealed
noncompliance with PRIA, which the inspector reported to the carrier‘s
Vice President of Operations and to the responsible Principal
Operations Inspector at FAA.
Since PRIA‘s implementation in February 1997, FAA has initiated 10
enforcement cases against six carriers. In the 3 most serious cases,
which resulted in fines ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, the carriers
failed to request PRIA background checks for 12 pilots they hired and,
in 1 case, the carrier falsified documents related to providing PRIA
checks. The remaining 7 cases resulted either in warning letters or
were closed with no action.
Although the number of inspection findings and enforcement actions
could be indicative of widespread compliance with the act, our analyses
of carriers‘ requests for PRIA records and of carriers‘ awareness of
PRIA‘s requirements for protecting pilots‘ rights indicate that
carriers are not always requesting the required records, especially
from other carriers, and are not always sufficiently aware of the
pilots‘ rights protections to comply with them (see chs. 2 and 3).
Alternatively, FAA inspectors may not be regularly reviewing carriers‘
compliance. Without information on PRIA in their inspection handbooks
and training classes, these inspectors have no reminders to check for
compliance with PRIA. According to FAA‘s Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Regulation and Certification, FAA‘s monitoring
focuses on a carrier‘s processes and procedures for complying with
PRIA, not on checks of records for individual pilots. Although we
concur with the importance of checking carriers‘ processes and
procedures for complying with laws, FAA cannot determine whether a
carrier actually follows its processes and procedures without
performing at least limited spot checks. This system safety approach
with compliance checks is the basis for the new ATOS inspection system
that FAA uses to oversee the nation‘s 10 major air carriers.
Regardless of whether FAA operations inspectors attempt to monitor
carriers‘ compliance with PRIA, they may not have sufficient evidence
to do so. Just as FAA lacks information needed to assess compliance
with PRIA‘s requirements for requesting records because PRIA does not
require that this information be reported (see ch. 2), FAA also may
lack evidence that carriers have obtained the required records before
making final hiring decisions because PRIA does not require carriers to
retain the records they have received. According to an attorney from
FAA‘s Office of Chief Counsel, nothing in the PRIA statute requires
carriers to maintain the pilot records they receive from FAA, NDR, or
other carriers. The statute requires carriers to maintain the records
they generate on their pilot employees for 5 years, but it does not
require them to store or maintain the PRIA records they receive when
they hire pilots. Without these records, he noted, it is very difficult
for FAA to determine a carrier‘s compliance with PRIA. According to
another official in FAA‘s Air Transportation Division, carriers have an
incentive to dispose of these records to avoid any liability resulting
from their hiring decisions. Nonetheless, he observed that some
carriers still keep these records, and he agreed that it would be
almost impossible to complete an enforcement action against a carrier
without them. Requiring carriers to maintain the PRIA records they
receive could, however, be costly, especially for smaller carriers,
according to the Deputy Associate Administrator, and these costs would
not be warranted by the safety benefits achieved. According to FAA, it
has not identified pilot performance during past training events as a
high-risk area because of the extensive training, testing, and checking
required for pilots.
We believe it is important for FAA to be able to enforce the law. As
previously discussed, FAA is responsible for overseeing PRIA‘s
implementation and has the authority to issue regulations or establish
procedures for carriers to maintain the records needed for FAA to
monitor and enforce compliance with the act. FAA has not issued
regulations on PRIA because it believes that carriers, not the
government, are responsible for collecting PRIA information.
Furthermore, FAA believes that it should focus its regulatory resources
on higher aviation-safety priorities. FAA officials agreed, however,
that it was important for carriers to maintain records of background
checks on pilots they hire to enable both the carriers and FAA to
monitor PRIA‘s implementation.
Conclusions:
By making information about pilots‘ qualifications, performance, and
training available to hiring carriers, PRIA improves carriers‘ ability
to screen pilots and may help keep unsafe pilots out of the cockpits of
commercial aircraft. However, FAA‘s limited oversight of the act‘s
implementation, together with carriers‘ incomplete compliance with the
requirements of the law, may have prevented PRIA from being as
effective or as protective of pilots‘ rights as it could be. For
example:
* Unresolved procedural issues--such as how to correct errors in pilot
records, especially before hiring carriers see inaccurate information;
how to remove inappropriate records; and how to handle disputes between
pilots and carriers--effectively limit pilots‘ rights. As individuals,
pilots have less power than carriers, and without procedures for
resolving these issues, they cannot compel carriers to correct or
remove inaccurate records or settle disputes. Moreover, even when
carriers are willing to make changes, they may not know how to do so.
Inaccurate or inappropriate information may jeopardize a pilot‘s
chances of being hired.
* FAA has not taken advantage of its Web site to make information about
pilots‘ rights readily available. Because the act does not mandate when
pilots are to be given an opportunity to correct their records, except
that it come before the final hiring decision, many pilots do not seek
to correct their records until after the records have been sent to the
hiring carrier. It is critical that FAA do what it can to make pilots
aware of their rights to review and correct the records maintained by
their current employer at any time. With knowledge of their rights,
pilots can take responsibility for reviewing the accuracy of their
records before the records are sent to hiring carriers.
* The sample form that FAA designed for hiring carriers and included in
its revised guidance for carriers, though intended to streamline the
hiring process, weakens pilots‘ rights and inappropriately shifts the
responsibility for notifying pilots of requests for their records from
current or former employers to hiring carriers. If carriers follow the
procedures set forth in the sample form, they will not be in compliance
with PRIA‘s notification provision, and pilots may not know when
records are sent to hiring carriers.
* Although FAA has updated its information on PRIA for carriers, it has
not yet included this information in key guidance for its own staff.
Until the agency incorporates its guidance on the act into its
inspector handbooks and provides its inspectors with appropriate
training, the inspectors may not be sufficiently aware of PRIA‘s
provisions to review carriers‘ compliance. We do not know whether the
limited number of inspection findings related to PRIA is indicative of
widespread compliance, infrequent compliance reviews, or a lack of
evidence to determine compliance. However, there is sufficient
evidence--from the discrepancies in the number of records requested
from FAA, NDR, and carriers; from the reviews of 798 Part 135 carriers
conducted by FAA inspectors at our request; and from carriers‘
responses to our survey questions about their requests for records in
2000--to suggest that noncompliance is occurring.
* The number of enforcement actions taken is also difficult to
evaluate, given the number of inspection findings. However, FAA has
said that it cannot enforce compliance because carriers are not
required to retain the records that would demonstrate their compliance.
We agree. Unless carriers retain the records they receive on pilots
they hire, FAA cannot monitor or enforce their compliance with PRIA‘s
background check requirements. As the agency with exclusive
responsibility for overseeing PRIA‘s implementation, FAA has the
authority and, we believe the obligation, to ensure that carriers have
a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with
all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot background
checks have been completed for pilots hired.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To assist FAA in overseeing the implementation of PRIA and to enable
FAA to determine whether carriers have conducted the required
background checks on pilots before making final hiring decisions on
pilots, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
FAA Administrator to:
* update FAA‘s advisory circular on PRIA to (1) clarify which records
to include in PRIA files that are forwarded to hiring carriers and
which records to exclude and (2) have carriers put in place a system
that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with all PRIA
requirements, especially whether required pilot background checks have
been completed for pilots hired;
* incorporate information on PRIA‘s Web site that informs pilots of
their rights, including the right to review and correct their records
under PRIA;
* revise the Air Carrier and Other Records Request form (FAA Form 8060-
11) to conform with the law‘s provisions for notification, review, and
correction of records by pilots; and:
* incorporate information on PRIA into the handbooks, inspection
guidance, and training for FAA‘s operations inspectors.
Agency Comments:
We provided DOT with a copy of our draft report for review and comment.
In our draft report, we recommended that FAA develop a regulation
requiring that carriers maintain records of background checks on the
pilots they hire for as long as the pilots remain in their employ.
While FAA agreed that carriers need to maintain the records for the
agency to monitor and enforce their compliance with the law, FAA
proposed a change in its administrative guidance rather than a
regulation to achieve this goal. We agreed that such a change could
accomplish the intent of our initial recommendation and revised the
recommendation accordingly. FAA concurred with all other
recommendations in our draft report and suggested technical changes
that we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
[End of section]
Chapter 5 Most Carriers Found PRIA Records Helpful but Were Divided on
Whether They Were Worth the Cost:
Most carriers found PRIA records at least somewhat helpful, but they
were divided on whether the records were worth the cost. The majority
of the carriers favored changes that would make additional information
available. Nearly three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about
three-fifths of the Part 135 carriers that had made at least one
request to FAA for PRIA information found PRIA records to be helpful in
making their hiring decisions. Both groups of carriers found
information from other sources, such as the job interview, the
carrier‘s flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the
carrier‘s training program, more helpful. Since PRIA‘s costs are
difficult to determine, Part 121 and Part 135 carriers were divided on
whether the PRIA information they received in 2000 was worth the cost.
Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us
they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain
additional information (1) from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents
and on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases and (2) from the
Department of Defense on military pilots‘ histories.
Carriers Generally Found PRIA Records Helpful in Making Hiring
Decisions but Less Helpful than Information from Other Sources:
Seventy-three percent of the Part 121 carriers found PRIA records at
least somewhat helpful in making hiring decisions, and 27 percent said
these records were not very helpful, as shown in figure 9. Among the
Part 121 carriers, those with more than 1,000 pilots were more likely
than smaller carriers to say that PRIA records were helpful in making
hiring decisions, and 61 percent of these larger carriers rated PRIA as
very helpful.
Figure 9: Views of Part 121 Carriers on the Helpfulness of PRIA
Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.
[End of figure]
Compared with Part 121 carriers, Part 135 carriers found PRIA less
helpful in making hiring decisions: 59 percent of the Part 135 carriers
found PRIA at least somewhat helpful, and 41 percent said that PRIA was
not very helpful. (See fig. 10.):
Figure 10: Views of Sampled Part 135 Carriers on the Helpfulness of
PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 135 carriers that had
requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.
[End of figure]
The Part 121 carriers found PRIA more useful in encouraging pilots to
be honest about their background and experiences than did the Part 135
carriers we surveyed. Sixty-eight percent of the Part 121 carriers
rated PRIA as moderately or very useful in this regard, compared with
49 percent of the Part 135 carriers. Because PRIA records allow
carriers to verify pilots‘ statements, receiving the records increases
the likelihood that carriers will detect false statements. Nonetheless,
11 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 25 percent of the Part 135
carriers indicated that PRIA was not very useful in encouraging pilots
to be honest.
According to carriers‘ responses to our surveys, PRIA information
played a greater role in decisions not to hire pilots for Part 121
carriers than for Part 135 carriers. In 2000, 43 percent of the Part
121 carriers said they decided not to hire pilots because of PRIA
information, compared with 9 percent of the Part 135 carriers we
surveyed. The Part 121 carriers said they decided not to hire 156
pilots in 2000 because of PRIA information, while we estimate that the
far more numerous Part 135 carriers decided not to hire 162 pilots.
About two-thirds of the Part 121 carriers that said they did not hire a
pilot because PRIA information indicated that the circumstances
surrounding the pilot‘s departure from a previous employer and the
pilot‘s training records were major or moderate factors that influenced
their decisions. About half of these carriers identified the pilot‘s
driving records or enforcement history as a factor, as shown in figure
11. Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers reported being influenced
by the circumstances surrounding a pilot‘s departure and by a pilot‘s
training records. Evidence of falsification, employers‘ records of
comments and evaluations, and driving records were, however, much less
influential for the few Part 135 carriers that did not hire pilots
because of PRIA information than they were for the Part 121 carriers,
and such evidence played a smaller role in their hiring decisions than
did the pilot‘s enforcement history.
Figure 11: Extent to Which Part 121 Carriers Reported That PRIA Records
Were a Factor in Decisions Not to Hire a Pilot:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.
[End of figure]
Both the Part 121 carriers and the Part 135 carriers we surveyed
reported that they found some PRIA records more helpful in making their
hiring decisions than others. Specifically, as shown in figure 12, they
found FAA information on closed enforcement actions during the past 5
years the most helpful and FAA‘s verification of the pilot‘s medical
record and the pilot‘s NDR information the least helpful.
Figure 12: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on
the Helpfulness of PRIA Records in Making Hiring Decisions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers and Part 135
carriers that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.
[End of figure]
According to the Part 121 carriers, the information not required by
PRIA was generally far more helpful than PRIA records in making final
hiring decisions. Virtually all of the Part 121 carriers reported that
they found the results of job interviews, their own training programs,
evaluations of a pilot‘s flying skills, and recommendations from other
pilots at least somewhat helpful in making these decisions. (See fig.
13.) This seems reasonable, given that most carriers make a conditional
job offer to, and begin training, a pilot on the basis of non-PRIA
information and have made their hiring decision by the time they
receive and review PRIA files. According to our survey results, 82
percent of the Part 121 carriers had PRIA records available for review
after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or begun training.
Moreover, some carrier officials said, in survey comments and
interviews, that they view training and performance records from other
carriers as subjective. They said that PRIA information rarely changes
their hiring decision unless they see multiple problems in a pilot‘s
file.
Figure 13: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on
the Helpfulness of Non-PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Because few Part 135 carriers review military pilot logbooks, we
excluded this question from our survey of these carriers.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.
[End of figure]
Similarly, in making their final hiring decisions, the Part 135
carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA generally reported
finding information not required by PRIA to be more helpful than PRIA
records. At least 94 percent of these Part 135 carriers said they found
the results of job interviews, their own evaluations of a pilot‘s
flying skills, and recommendations from other pilots at least somewhat
helpful in making these decisions. About 73 percent of the Part 135
carriers said they had PRIA records available for review late in the
hiring process--after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or
begun training.
Carriers Differed on Whether PRIA Is Worth the Cost:
Although the total costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to
estimate, carriers bear the largest portion of these costs. According
to our survey results, the Part 121 carriers spent substantially more,
on average, than the Part 135 carriers to comply with PRIA in 2000, and
the Part 121 carriers were more likely to view their costs as justified
by the usefulness of the information received.
Costs of Implementing PRIA Are Difficult to Determine:
The costs of implementing PRIA--to carriers, pilots, and federal and
state agencies--are difficult to determine. In December 2000, FAA
estimated $5.3 million in implementation costs, including the costs to
carriers, pilots, and the agency itself; however, this estimate did not
include a number of costs to these entities and individuals, and it did
not include the costs of providing and obtaining NDR information. For
carriers, the full costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to
determine because they often are not tracked separately from other
hiring and record-keeping costs. For FAA and NDR, the costs are also
difficult to determine because complete data are not available.
FAA estimated that carriers, in requesting and responding to requests
for PRIA records, incurred $4.6 million, or about 86 percent, of the
estimated $5.3 million in total implementation costs. This estimate
covered the costs of:
* staff time to obtain a pilot‘s signatures on release forms, to
request the records, and to follow up on records that do not arrive
within 30 days;
* staff time to review and evaluate an applicant‘s file once it is
received;
* staff time needed to prepare, copy, review the contents of, and mail
PRIA records; and:
* the maintenance of records related to PRIA‘s requirements.
FAA‘s estimate did not include the fees that hiring carriers pay to
background investigation companies and to those carrier employers and
state motor vehicle agencies that charge a fee for providing records.
About 46 percent of the Part 121 carriers and about 26 percent of the
Part 135 carriers responding to our survey reported hiring background
investigation companies to obtain at least some PRIA records. Most
carriers--81 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 94 percent of the
Part 135 carriers we surveyed--said they do not charge a fee for
providing records. Two of the six[Footnote 24] state motor vehicle
agencies that respond to the vast majority of carriers‘ requests for
NDR information charge for this service.
In responding to our survey, the Part 121 carriers indicated that they
spent an average of $7,000 to comply with PRIA in 2000. The Part 135
carriers said they spent an average of $1,000 or less. The total costs
for individual Part 121 carriers ranged from $1,000 or less to $100,001
to $1 million. The total costs for individual Part 135 carriers ranged
from $1,000 or less to $10,001 to $50,000. (For more detailed cost
information, see app. VII.):
Carrier officials told us that the costs for PRIA are difficult to
distinguish from other hiring costs, partly because most carriers do
not have staff dedicated to carrying out PRIA requirements and use the
same staff to perform both PRIA and other responsibilities. In
addition, the fees that background investigation companies charge to
obtain PRIA information may not be billed separately from their fees
for performing other services that are not required by PRIA, such as
consumer credit or criminal records checks.
For 2000, FAA estimated that pilots whose PRIA files were requested
incurred total costs of nearly $436,000, or about 8 percent of the
estimated $5.3 million total cost. This estimate did not include the
pilots‘ costs to obtain copies of their employment and training records
from carriers for review and to obtain copies of their driving records.
Complete data are not available on the costs to FAA, NDR, and state
motor vehicle agencies of implementing PRIA. For fiscal year 2000, when
FAA provided a more complete estimate of its PRIA costs than it had
developed in previous years, the agency estimated its own costs at
about $312,000, or about 6 percent of the $5.3 million total estimate.
However, according to staff in FAA‘s Aviation Data Systems Branch, this
estimate did not include about $40,000 that FAA spent in fiscal year
2000 for the initial development and maintenance of its automated
system for responding to PRIA requests. NDR officials reported spending
$318 to complete 17,000 requests from carriers in 1999, but this figure
did not include any portion of the $1 million that NDR spends annually
to maintain its computer system or of the costs that NDR incurs to
hand-process pilots‘ requests for driver information under the Privacy
Act. None of the six state motor vehicle agencies that respond to most
carriers‘ requests for NDR information could identify the costs of
providing the information, according to responsible state officials.
Carriers Were Divided on Whether PRIA‘s Costs Were Justified:
Compared with the Part 135 carriers we surveyed, the Part 121 carriers
were more persuaded that the PRIA information they received was worth
the cost, but even the Part 121 carriers were split in their views.
Specifically, 52 percent of the Part 121 carriers believed that their
PRIA costs in 2000 were justified by the usefulness of the information
received, while 48 percent did not. Conversely, nearly two-thirds of
the Part 135 carriers did not believe that their PRIA costs were
justified, whereas about one-third did.
Most Carriers Favored Changes That Would Make Additional Information
Available under PRIA:
Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us
they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain
additional information from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents and
on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases. Carriers can obtain
this information from FAA under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request, but pilots are not informed of FOIA requests and are not
provided copies of the FOIA files that are sent to potential employers.
FOIA records also have not undergone as much legal review as PRIA
records. The majority of Part 121 carriers also told us they would
support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain flight records
from the military. Such records are not available through FOIA
requests.
Carriers Can Request More Safety Information on Pilots under FOIA Than
under PRIA:
Currently, carriers can obtain more extensive information on a pilot‘s
safety history from FAA under a FOIA request than under a PRIA request.
In responding to a FOIA request, FAA can release information on all
open, closed, and pending enforcement cases from which the pilot‘s
identity has not been expunged, even if those cases are more than 5
years old. In responding to a PRIA request, however, FAA is precluded
by the act from releasing any records more than 5 years old. In
addition, as a matter of law, FAA provides information only on those
accidents and incidents that have resulted in a legal enforcement
action. Under PRIA, FAA is not required to provide other records that
it maintains on aviation accidents and incidents as well as on open,
pending, and reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA‘s analysis,
nearly 20,000 more records were available in response to FOIA requests
than to PRIA requests as of January 10, 2002. (See table 6.) These
include 9,885 records of enforcement cases that have been closed but
from which the pilot‘s name has not been expunged as well as of open,
pending, or reopened enforcement cases. The remaining records that FAA
could provide were of accidents and incidents.
Table 6: Records Releasable under PRIA and FOIA from PRIA‘s
Implementation on February 6, 1997, through January 11, 2002:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of table]
According to an analysis done by staff in FAA‘s Aviation Data Systems
Branch, fewer than one-quarter of the 1,726 carriers that requested
PRIA records between February 6, 1997, when the law went into effect,
and January 11, 2002, requested additional safety information under
FOIA. The analysis concluded that the majority of carriers are unaware
that they are receiving incomplete safety records from FAA under PRIA.
Additionally, the report noted that, under FOIA, there are no
requirements to notify a pilot of a request for records, to obtain the
pilot‘s consent for the release of those records, or to provide the
pilot with a copy of the records that were released.
FAA does not support for a variety of reasons a change in the law that
would provide carriers with more complete safety information on pilot
applicants if it released its records of accidents; incidents; and
open, pending, or reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA‘s Office
of Chief Counsel, using the reports of accidents and incidents in FAA‘s
data system to evaluate pilots‘ performance could be unfair because
these reports may not involve pilot error. Moreover, even if they do,
pilots identified in accident and incident reports do not receive the
same due process protections that pilots receive when they are subject
to legal enforcement actions. Additionally, enforcement actions that
have not been closed have not been fully reviewed by FAA, NTSB, and
perhaps a U.S. Court of Appeals. These cases could eventually be
dropped or dismissed.
Carriers Favored Receiving Additional Information in Response to PRIA
Requests:
Over three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about two-thirds of
the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported having FAA include
additional information on accidents and incidents and on open, pending,
and reopened enforcement cases in response to PRIA requests. However,
the carriers were much less supportive of including enforcement
information over 5 years old. (See table 7.):
Table 7: Percentage of Carriers That Supported Including Additional FAA
Information in Response to PRIA Requests:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of table]
Although Congress excluded military flight records from the sources of
PRIA information in April 2000, 62 percent of the Part 121 carriers and
56 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported a change in
the law that would enable them to receive these records. Currently,
carriers can review a military pilot‘s logbook to obtain information on
the pilot‘s flight hours, types of equipment flown, and rate of
progress in mastering new aircraft as well as any flight-related
disciplinary actions. While substantial majorities of both Part 121 and
Part 135 carriers that had hired military pilots found the military
logbook helpful in making their hiring decision, the carriers
nevertheless favored receiving flight records directly from the
military.
Military records are important to carriers because they hire many
pilots with military flight experience. Eighty-eight percent of the
Part 121 carriers reported hiring at least some pilots with military
flight experience in 2000, and the largest Part 121 carriers, with more
than 1,000 pilots, reported that about 40 percent of the pilots they
hired in 2000 had military experience. Forty-six percent of the Part
135 carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA hired pilots with
military flying experience in 2000.
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I Fatal Aviation Accidents That Involved Pilots with Prior
Safety Problems Were Cited in Passing PRIA Legislation:
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: Flight and
location: Fatalities: [Empty].
11/15/1987; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-88-09[A]; Flight and location: Continental Air Carriers 1713;
Denver, Colorado; Fatalities: 28; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: The
plane crashed on takeoff due to the captain‘s failure to have it deiced
a second time after a delay before takeoff. This resulted in a loss of
control during rapid takeoff rotation by the first officer. The first
officer had shown significant shortcomings during his training. The
carrier was unaware that a previous employer had discharged the first
officer for inability to pass a flight check ride..
1/19/1988; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-94-05; Flight and location: Trans-Colorado Air Carriers 2286
(Continental Express); Bayfield, Colorado; Fatalities: 9; [Empty];
Cause and pilot history: The plane went below minimum descent altitude
then struck terrain. The captain had used cocaine prior to this flight.
The first officer‘s record prior to his employment with this carrier
and during his training indicated deficiencies in performing instrument
procedures. Records of both pilots revealed prior traffic violations
and accidents and a previous aircraft accident for the captain. The
carrier was unaware that both pilots had received warning letters from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)..
2/19/1988; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-88-16; Flight and location: Air Virginia, Inc. (American
Eagle); Cary, North Carolina; Fatalities: 12; [Empty]; Cause and pilot
history: The plane crashed shortly after takeoff because of the pilots‘
failure to maintain a proper flight path because of the first officer‘s
inappropriate instrument scan, the captain‘s inadequate monitoring of
the flight, and the crew‘s response to a perceived fault in the
airplane‘s stall avoidance system. Company records showed instances of
substandard performance by the copilot, who was flying the plane at the
time of the accident..
10/28/89; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-90-05[A]; Flight and location: Aloha Island Air 1712; Molokai,
Hawaii; Fatalities: 20; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: The captain
continued flight under visual flight rules at night into instrument
meteorological conditions that obscured rising mountainous terrain. The
captain‘s FAA records showed one previous incident attributed to a
brake malfunction and the suspension of his commercial pilot
certificate for 180 days for not meeting required flight-time
requirements and tests..
4/22/92; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-93-01[A]; Flight and location: Tomy International 22 (Scenic
Air Tours);; Maui, Hawaii; Fatalities: 9; [Empty]; Cause and pilot
history: The captain decided to continue visual flight into instrument
meteorological conditions that obscured rising mountainous terrain and
failed to properly use available navigational equipment to remain clear
of the Island of Maui. The carrier was unaware that the captain had
been dismissed by five previous carriers for misrepresentation of
qualifications and experience, failure to report for duty, disciplinary
action, poor training performance, and work performance below
standards..
12/1/1993; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-89-01; Flight and location: Express II 5719; Hibbing,
Minnesota; Fatalities: 18; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: An
excessively steep landing approach, a lack of proper crew coordination,
and a loss of altitude awareness contributed to the plane‘s descending
short of the runway at night. The carrier did not adequately address
previously identified deficiencies in the captain‘s airmanship and crew
resource management. Deficiencies included multiple check ride
failures, difficulties during transition and upgrade training, letters
of complaint and reprimand for his behavior toward company employees,
allegation of sexual harassment toward female employees, and a
reputation among first officers as an intimidating captain..
12/13/1994; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number:
NTSB/AAR-95-07[A]; Flight and location: Flagship Air Carriers (American
Eagle 3379); Morrisville, North Carolina; Fatalities: 15; [Empty];
Cause and pilot history: The plane crashed short of the runway during
an instrument-landing approach. The captain improperly assumed that the
engine had failed and subsequently failed to follow approved procedures
for engine failure, single-engine approach and go-around, and stall
recovery. The carrier did not identify, document, monitor, or remedy
deficiencies in the pilot‘s performance and training at the previous
carrier..
[A] NTSB reports that included recommendations for pilot background
checks.
Source: GAO summary of accident report data from NTSB.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Methodology:
This appendix provides additional information on the design and
implementation of our mail surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers on
their experiences of hiring pilots under the Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 (PRIA). It also discusses database analyses we performed
for our review; an electronic survey done by FAA of its principal
operating inspectors to obtain information on pilot hiring by some Part
135 carriers in 2000; and interviews we conducted with pilots on their
hiring experiences, especially their experiences with PRIA background
checks.
Mail Surveys of Carriers:
To support our responses to the four research questions asked by the
Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, we conducted two separate nationwide mail surveys of
Part 121 and Part 135 carriers from June through September, 2001. The
surveys provided data on carriers‘ compliance with PRIA, the types of
information carriers use in hiring pilots, the costs they have
incurred, and their awareness of the pilots‘ rights set forth in PRIA.
In addition, the surveys provided data on carriers‘ views on the need
for clarifying some of those rights, PRIA‘s usefulness in the pilot-
hiring process, FAA‘s oversight of compliance with the law, aspects of
PRIA that require more clarification or guidance, and ways of improving
PRIA.
We obtained data from FAA on Part 121 carriers, Part 135 carriers,
those carriers that have dual certificates to operate as either Part
121 or Part 135 carriers, and those carriers that made requests to FAA
for PRIA records. FAA data from November 13, 2000, identified 120 Part
121, 23 Part 121/135, and 2,717 Part 135 carriers. Our review of FAA‘s
Civil Aviation Registry found that 5 of these Part 121 carriers were no
longer operating. We were unable to identify all of the active Part 135
carriers at that time because FAA did not maintain that information in
its database. Our analysis of FAA‘s PRIA request data identified
individual carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA
records from July 1998, when FAA‘s automated system began tracking
these requests by carrier, through April 30, 2001. We used this
information in creating our mailing lists for the two surveys. We
combined the lists of Part 121 carriers and of Part 121/135 carriers to
create a list of 124 carriers that had made at least one PRIA request
to FAA. We sent the Part 121 carrier survey to all 124 of these
carriers. Of the 2,717 Part 135 carriers, 1,144 (39 percent) had made
at least one PRIA request to FAA. We selected a random sample of 350 of
these carriers and sent the Part 135 survey to them.
During pretesting, we found that we needed procedures to guarantee the
anonymity of survey respondents because of the sensitive nature of some
questions on carriers‘ awareness of and implementation of certain PRIA
requirements. To guarantee anonymity, we retained no means of
identifying the respondent on the survey booklet or the return
envelope. This procedure precluded our knowing the identity of any
respondent for the surveys mailed to us in Washington, D.C. The use of
a separate return postcard, which was to be detached from the survey by
the respondent and sent to our Seattle, Wash., office for follow-up,
allowed us to track which respondents did and did not mail back a
survey response. The response rates were 81 percent for the Part 121
survey and 75 percent for the Part 135 survey. Tabulated copies of the
surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers appear in appendixes III and
IV, respectively.
We randomly selected the sample used for this study on the basis of a
probability procedure. As a result, our sample is only one of a large
number of samples that we might have drawn from the total population of
1,144 Part 135 air carriers that had made at least one PRIA request to
FAA. If different samples had been taken from the same population, it
is likely that the results (i.e., the estimates) would be different. We
therefore express our confidence in our particular sample‘s results as
95 percent confidence intervals--bounded by lower and upper confidence
limits. These are intervals that would contain the actual population
values for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result,
we can say we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence
intervals presented in this report includes the true values in the
study population.
The responses for the survey of Part 135 carriers involve sampling
errors. The sampling error (confidence limits) for all percentages
(except those shown for questions 22 and 25) does not exceed plus or
minus 7 percentage points. The confidence limits for the percentage
estimates for question 22 are shown in parentheses in table 8. These
sampling errors are shown separately because the number of respondents
is much smaller for this item than for all other items; and therefore,
the confidence intervals are larger. The sampling error for all
percentage estimates for question 25 does not exceed plus or minus 10
percentage points. The confidence limits for the median estimates for
questions 6, 9, and 21 are shown in tables 9, 10, and 11 respectively.
Table 8: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
22:
a.; Reasons for termination: FAA‘s records showed that the pilot had
falsified information during the job application process. N=16;
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 19%; (6%, 42%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 6%; (1%, 27%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 0%; (0%, 18%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate
(confidence limit): Not a reason: 69%; (45%, 87%); Percentage estimate
(confidence limit): 6%; (1%, 27%).
b.; Reasons for termination: The employer‘s records showed that the
pilot had falsified information during the job application process.
N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 13%; (3%,
37%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 0%; (0%,
19%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%,
29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 67%; (42%, 86%); Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): 13%; (3%, 37%).
c.; Reasons for termination: The pilot‘s FAA records showed enforcement
actions against the pilot that made the pilot unacceptable for our air
carrier. N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason:
27%; (10%, 52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate
reason: 20%; (6%, 45%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor
reason: 0%; (0%, 19%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty];
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 47%; (24%, 70%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).
d.; Reasons for termination: The employer‘s records of comments and
evaluations, including those by a check airman, raised concerns about
the pilot‘s competency. N=14; Percentage estimate (confidence limit):
Major reason: 7%; (1%, 31%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit):
Moderate reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence
limit): Minor reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence
limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason:
29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 31%).
e.; Reasons for termination: The pilot‘s training records showed a
pattern of poor performance. N=14; Percentage estimate (confidence
limit): Major reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence
limit): Moderate reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate
(confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%, 31%); Percentage estimate
(confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate (confidence limit):
Not a reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit):
7%; (1%, 31%).
f.; Reasons for termination: The pilot‘s records included disciplinary
actions that made the pilot undesirable for employment. N=15;
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 20%; (6%, 45%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 27%; (10%,
52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%,
29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 40%; (19%, 64%); Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).
g.; Reasons for termination: The records showed circumstances of the
pilot‘s departure from the former job that raised concerns. N=17;
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 35%; (17%, 59%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 29%; (13%,
53%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 18%; (5%,
40%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 12%; (3%, 33%); Percentage
estimate (confidence limit): 6%; (1%, 26%).
h.; Reasons for termination: The pilot‘s driving records raised
concerns. N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason:
7%; (1%, 29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason:
27%; (10%, 52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason:
7%; (1%, 29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty];
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 53%; (30%, 76%);
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).
i.; Reasons for termination: You may list other reasons below. N=18;
Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 6% of the
respondents listed one or more reasons. The 95% confidence interval for
this estimate ranges from 1% to 25%..
[End of table]
Table 9: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 6:
Question 6 (total); N: 253; Median: 9% (7, 11).
Question 6 x 2000; N: 252; Median: 3 % (2, 3).
Question 6 x 1999; N: 232; Median: 2 % (2, 3).
Question 6 x 1998; N: 216; Median: 2 % (2, 3).
Question 6 x 1997; N: 208; Median: 2 % (2, 3).
[End of table]
Table 10: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
9:
Question 9 (total); 252; Median: 7% (5, 8).
Question 9A (2000); 250; Median: 3% (2, 3).
Question 9B (1999); 233; Median: 2% (2, 3).
Question 9C (1998); 214; Median: 2% (1, 2).
Question 9D (1997); 200; Median: 1% (0, 2).
[End of table]
Table 11: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question
21:
Question 21; N: 208; Median: 0% (0, 0).
[End of table]
Our two 20-page surveys were identical except for two questions. First,
during pretests, Part 121 carriers told us that responses to the
question on the number of new pilots hired from 1997 through 2000 could
identify certain major Part 121 carriers and might lead to their not
completing our survey. Because of concerns about maintaining anonymity
for Part 121 carriers, we omitted the question from our survey of these
carriers. However, we included the question in our survey of Part 135
carriers because they did not express concern about its effects on
their anonymity during pretesting. (See app. IV, question 6.) Second,
for question 3 in both surveys, on the relative helpfulness of non-PRIA
information to an air carrier‘s hiring decisions, we did not include
one item--“The pilot‘s own record of military flying“--in the Part 135
survey because we were told that few Part 135 carriers hire military
pilots.
Early in designing our surveys, we interviewed three carriers to help
determine the appropriate topics for the surveys. Next, we met with 14
air carriers to pretest the surveys. We selected a wide variety of
carriers for these meetings, including cargo and passenger carriers;
carriers located around the nation; and small, medium, and large
carriers. In the pretests, a printed survey, which was similar in
appearance to our final product, was filled out by one or more
representatives selected by each carrier for their knowledge of and
work with the pilot background checks required by PRIA. The carrier
representative(s) filled out the questionnaire in the presence of two
GAO observers. The observers then interviewed the carrier
representative(s) to ensure that (1) the questions were readable and
clear, (2) the terms were precise, (3) the survey did not place an
undue burden on carriers that would discourage their participation, and
(4) the survey appeared independent and unbiased in its point of view.
We revised the final survey to reflect the results of the pretests.
Besides pretesting the surveys, we interviewed and obtained reviews of
them from industry trade representatives for small, medium, and large
carriers. These representatives included AOPA, the Airline Industrial
Relations Conference, the National Air Carrier Association, the
National Air Transportation Association, the National Business Aviation
Association, and the Regional Airline Association. We also met with FAA
officials involved in implementing FAA‘s PRIA requirements. We
incorporated comments from these reviews as appropriate.
To increase our survey response rates, we mailed a prenotification
letter to the respondents 1 week before mailing the surveys themselves.
We mailed the Part 121 surveys on June 8, 2001, and the Part 135
surveys on June 21, 2001. We then mailed (1) reminder postcards 1 week
after mailing each of the surveys and (2) reminder letters 10 days
after mailing the reminder postcards to those carriers that had not yet
responded. To ensure a better response from the Part 121 carriers, we
telephoned about 40 carriers to ensure that they had received the
survey instead of mailing reminder letters to them. Finally, 10 days
after mailing the reminder letters, we again mailed the surveys to
those carriers that had not yet responded. We received the last surveys
included in our analysis on September 6, 2001.
We received responses to our surveys from 101 Part 121 carriers and 261
Part 135 carriers for response rates of 81 percent and 75 percent,
respectively. Table 12 summarizes the survey returns.
Table 12: Summary of Survey Returns for Carriers That Made PRIA
Requests to FAA:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of table]
Database Analyses:
To determine whether carriers had complied with PRIA‘s requirements to
request and review background information on pilots, we analyzed data
from three DOT databases. These include the Airline Certification, NDR,
and PRIA databases. (See table 13.):
Table 13: Databases Used in GAO Analyses:
Database: Airline Certification; Office responsible for the database:
FAA‘s Office of Flight Standards Service; Purpose of the database:
Provides information on the type of operation authorized for the
carrier..
Database: NDR; Office responsible for the database: NDR in DOT‘s
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Purpose of the
database: Tracks and maintains driver traffic violation indicators
reported by the states and territories to a national database..
Database: PRIA; Office responsible for the database: Aviation Data
Systems Branch in FAA‘s Office of Flight Standards Service; Purpose of
the database: Tracks carriers‘ requests to FAA and provides pilots‘
certificate and medical information as well as any closed enforcement
actions for findings of violation..
Sources: FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[End of table]
To assess the reliability of the database that FAA uses to respond to
carriers‘ PRIA requests, we interviewed officials from FAA‘s Aviation
Data Systems Branch, which is responsible for the development,
maintenance, and operation of this database, and the branch‘s
contractors. We also obtained data on PRIA requests to FAA from the
initiation of the agency‘s automated tracking system in July 1998
through June 2001. For 1998 through early April 2001, this system
included about 79,350 requests. We examined these data for consistency
and completeness. When we found that the requesting carrier‘s
certificate designation or Part designation was missing, we requested
this information from FAA. In addition, FAA determined for us whether a
carrier had requested PRIA information directly or through a third
party. We tested the reliability of FAA‘s data at selected sites and
performed our own electronic data testing. The data elements that we
selected for testing were, in our opinion, sufficiently complete and
consistent to fairly characterize the types and extent of the PRIA
requests to which FAA responded during the period of our review. We did
not independently review the validity of the three databases from which
the PRIA database derives its data. Because the Airline Certification
and NDR databases contain information available only from these
sources, we were unable to verify the quality of their data.
Using these databases, we performed several analyses to determine which
carriers are subject to PRIA and how many requests each had made for
PRIA background checks. To identify those carriers that are air
carriers and are therefore required to conduct background checks on
pilots under PRIA, we analyzed FAA data on which Part 121 and Part 135
carriers have certificates to fly interstate and are subject to PRIA.
We analyzed trends in the number of requests made by carriers from
PRIA‘s implementation in February 1997 through April 2001. To determine
the number of requests made by each carrier, we analyzed data on
requests made by carriers since the initiation of FAA‘s automated PRIA
database in July 1998 through April 2001. FAA does not have automated
data on requests by individual carriers for the first year of PRIA‘s
implementation.
We analyzed available information on pilot hiring to gain insight into
the extent to which Part 135 carriers have implemented PRIA by
requesting background check information from FAA for pilots hired in
2000. In April 2001, we briefed FAA on the percentage of Part 135
carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information
in 2000. Because only 39 percent had made at least one request, FAA, in
April 2001, asked its principal operations inspectors, who are
responsible for overseeing Part 135 carriers, to provide information on
how many pilots these carriers had hired in 2000 and whether the
carriers operated only intrastate and thus were potentially not subject
to PRIA. By June 1, 2001, FAA had received responses from 83 inspectors
responsible for overseeing 842 Part 135 carriers. FAA provided us with
copies of their responses for analysis. Using data from the inspectors‘
responses and the PRIA database, we eliminated those 44 carriers that
operate only intrastate and compared data on the number of pilots hired
in 2000 by each of the remaining 798 carriers with the number of PRIA
requests made by that carrier that year.
To gain perspective on the safety histories of carrier pilots, we
obtained relevant accident reports from NTSB, reviewed a 1988 GAO
report[Footnote 25] on pilot hiring, and asked FAA to provide updated
data on pilots qualified to fly commercial aircraft. FAA provided
updated data from its Civil Aviation Registry, Accident and Incident
Data System, and Enforcement Information System databases, including
(1) how many pilots are qualified to fly for commercial carriers; (2)
how many of these pilots have been involved in aviation accidents or
incidents; (3) how many have had their certificates revoked or
suspended or have received fines; and (4) how many enforcement cases
that are open, pending, reopened, or expunged involved these pilots.
We met with FAA program managers to discuss the results of our surveys
and database analyses and to obtain their insights on the findings.
Pilot Interviews:
To understand the perspectives of pilots involved in hiring under PRIA,
we interviewed a sample of 20 pilots at hiring fairs and carriers. We
also interviewed 27 pilots whom we identified as having reported
experiencing problems with their PRIA records because they had
contacted FAA, congressional staff, or our office. Most of these 27
pilots provided copies of the PRIA records prepared by their current or
former employers for our review and analysis.
[End of section]
Appendix III Survey of Part 121s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of section]
Appendix IV Survey of Part 135s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Section]
Appendix V Chart on Items Needing Clarification by FAA:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.
[End of Figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI Overview of FAA Form 8060-11:
9/20/01 AC 120-68A Appendix 3:
APPENDIX 3. OVERVIEW OF FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS
REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996:
NOTICE: Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I
through III are completed as specified in the instructions for the
form.
1. Part I - Records Request (PRIA). Part I is used by the air carrier
to request certain records of the pilot from any air carrier or other
person that has employed the individual at any time during the 5-year
period preceding the date of the employment application of the
individual, or from the trustee in bankruptcy for such air carrier or
other person. The records that must be provided are identified in 49
U.S.C. § 44936 f(1)(B).
2. Part II - Airman Consent to Release of Records. Part II is used by
the air carrier to obtain written consent to the release of the records
from the airman who is the subject of the records requested.
3. Part III - Airman Notice and Right To Receive Copy.
a. Part III is used by the air carrier or other person(s) to:
(1) Notify the airman that he/she is the subject of a request; and:
(2) Notify the airman of his/her right to receive a copy of any such
records:
furnished.
b. Part III is used by the airman to:
(1) Waive the requirement that the air carrier or person(s) providing
the records also provide separate notification of the request and the
airman‘s right to receive a copy of all records furnished in response
to the request; and:
(2) Notify the air carrier or other person(s) whether the airman
desires a copy of any record furnished.
4. Furnishing Records. A person who receives a request for records
under 49 U.S.C.
§ 44936(f) shall furnish a copy of all such requested records
maintained by the person not later than 30 days after receiving the
request.
5. Reasonable Charges. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(7) allows for reasonable
charges for processing requests and furnishing copies of requested
records.
Page 1 (and 2):
9/20/01 AC 120-68A Appendix 3:
FIGURE 1. FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST
(PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996 (FRONT):
AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS.
f400[0] IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996.
U.S. Department Title 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f), Records of Employment of
Pilot Applicants, As Amended.
of Transportation.
NOTICE: Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I
through III are completed as specified.
Federal Aviationin the instructions.
Administration.
PART I: RECORDS REQUEST (PRIA).
To:.
hereby requests.
(Air Carrier Name) (Air Carrier Certificate #).
copies of records as required under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(1)(B), as
amended, pertaining to the airman consenting in Part II below..
Name: Title:.
(Print-Air Carrier Representative) (Print --Title of Air Carrier
Representative).
Signature: Date:.
(Air Carrier Representative).
Mail Records To:.
Telephone: FAX:.
PART 11: AIRMAN CONSENT TO RELEASE OF RECORDS.
I, consent to and authorize my current or previous employer.
(Print-Airman‘s First, Middle, and Last Name).
to release records.
(Print --Employer Name).
pertaining to me as required under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(1)(B) to the
air carrier named in Part I above..
Airman Certificate Number(s):.
Signature: Date:.
(Not valid unless signed and dated).
PART III: AIRMAN NOTICE AND RIGHT TO RECEIVE COPY.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6), you are hereby notified of the
foregoing Air Carrier and Other Records Request (PRIA) and that.
you are entitled to a copy of any and all records furnished in response
to the request made in Part I above. My signature below.
serves to waive the requirement under 49 USC § 44936(f)(6) that the
person(s) identified in Part I above, which is a person receiving.
the PRIA request, also provide me with notification of the request and
of my right to receive a copy of all records furnished in.
response to that request. I may request a copy of such records by
checking the appropriate box below..
YES, I want a copy of the furnished records. NO, I do not want a copy
of the furnished records..
Signature: Date:.
(Not valid unless signed and dated).
FAA Form 8060-11 (Revised 09/2001) Previous editions are obsolete OMB
No. 2120-0607.
[End of table]
Page 3:
AC 120-68A 9/20/01 Appendix 3:
FIGURE 1 (CONTINUED). FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS
REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996 (BACK):
INSTRUCTIONS: FAA Form 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST
(PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996, TITLE 49 U.S.C §
44936(f), Records of Employment of Pilot Applicants.
Air carriers should use this form to request records from current and/
or past employers as contemplated under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f).
NOTICE:
Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I through III
are completed as specified below.
A person who receives a request for records under 49 U.S.C. §
44936(f)(1) shall furnish a copy of all such requested records
maintained by the person not later than 30 days after receiving the
request (see 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(5)).
This form may be photocopied for use.
This form is available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/
afshome.htm. Click on the Flight Standards Forms link. A separate form
must be used for each airman whose records are requested.
DO NOT use this form to request Pilot Records from the Federal Aviation
Administration.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT. 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C.) §
44936(f), Records of Employment of Pilot Applicants, as amended,
requires all air carriers to request FAA records and Air Carrier and
Other Records concerning an individual before allowing that individual
to begin service as a pilot. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(8) requires the FAA
Administrator to promulgate standard forms to request records. The
information entered on the standard forms will be used to facilitate
search and retrieval of the required records. It is estimated that the
average burden per respondent associated with the collection of Air
Carrier and Other Records (this collection] is 30 minutes. If you wish
to comment on the accuracy of that estimate or submit suggestions for
reducing the burden, you may write to: Federal Aviation Administration,
Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20591. The requirement to collect background information
on the pilots before allowing the pilot to begin service is mandatory;
the use of this form is not. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The control
number assigned to this collection is 2120-0607.
Part I: To be completed by the Air Carrier.
1. All entries, except for signature, must be either type written or
printed legibly with black or dark blue ink.
2. The name, title, and signature of the person making the request on
behalf of the air carrier must be legibly entered.
3. A complete mailing address must be furnished to facilitate
processing the request.
Part II: To be completed by Airman/Applicant.
1. All entries, except for signature, must be either type written or
printed legibly with black or dark blue ink.
2. In the first blank, type or print your name as it is shown on your
airman certificate(s).
3. Sign the Consent portion of the form in ink using your legal
signature.
4. Type or print your certificate number(s) in the blank provided. In
parentheses after the Certificate number, indicate the type of
certificate by using S for Student, P for Private, C for Commercial, F
for Flight Instructor, G for Ground Instructor, or A for Airline
Transport Pilot. If you have multiple certificates that use the same
certificate number, list the certificate number once and indicate the
types of certificates in parenthesis. For example, if you hold an Air
Line Transport Pilot Certificate as well as Flight Instructor and
Ground Instructor Certificates using the same number, you should
indicate as follows: Certificate No. 456231234 (A,F,G):
Part III: To be completed by Airman/Applicant.
1. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6) requires the person receiving a records
request to notify the airman of the request, and further entitles the
airman signing FAA Form 8060-11 the right to receive a complete copy of
all records furnished in response to a request made by an air carrier.
Because FAA Form 8060-11 provides the airman with this notification, a
separate notification from the person or air carrier providing the
records would be redundant. The airman‘s signature on Part III waives
the requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6) that the person(s) or air
carrier(s) receiving the records request also provide separate
notification of the request and the airman‘s right to receive a copy of
all records furnished in response to the request.
2. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether you DO or DO NOT want
a copy of the records, date & sign in ink using your legal signature.
An address for mailing the records must be provided; or, furnish
appropriate handling instructions.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VII Air Carriers‘ Costs to Comply with PRIA in 2000:
Cost: $0; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 0; Part 121 carriers:
Percentage: 0; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Carriers: 17; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Percentage: 7.
Cost: $1 - $1,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 15; Part 121 carriers:
Percentage: 16; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Carriers: 164; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Percentage: 65.
Cost: $1,001 - $5,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 18; Part 121
carriers: Percentage: 20; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 51; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Percentage: 20.
Cost: $5,001 - $10,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 18; Part 121
carriers: Percentage: 20; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 10; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Percentage: 4.
Cost: $10,001 - $50,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 20; Part 121
carriers: Percentage: 22; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 9; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA
files from FAA: Percentage: 4.
Cost: $50,001 - $100,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 12; Part 121
carriers: Percentage: 13; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested
PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 0; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA
files from FAA: Percentage: 0.
Cost: $100,001 - $1 million; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 8; Part 121
carriers: Percentage: 9; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA
files from FAA: Carriers: 0; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA
files from FAA: Percentage: 0.
Cost: Total; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 91; Part 121 carriers:
Percentage: 100; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Carriers: 251; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files
from FAA: Percentage: 100.
Source: GAO analyses of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
that had requested PRIA files from FAA.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-3650
Tammy Conquest (202) 512-5234
Bonnie A. Beckett, Ph.D. (202) 512-6525:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Alan Belkin, Nancy Boardman, Jeanine
Brady, Stephen Brown, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Fran Featherston, Curtis
Groves, David Hooper, Julian King, and Colleen Phillips made
significant contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] NDR is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which is within the Department of Transportation.
[2] See appendix I for a list of NTSB reports that recommended pilot
background checks following four crashes.
[3] NDR is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Safety: Air Carriers
Should Check Pilot Applicants‘ Safety History, GAO/RCED-88-154
(Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1988).
[5] None of NTSB‘s reports on commercial airplane crashes from January
1995 through July 2001 cite inadequate background checks on pilots as a
contributing factor.
[6] 49 U.S.C. 44701.
[7] The term ’U.S. citizen“ refers in this context to a person,
partnership, or corporation.
[8] In 1996, FAA issued a final rule requiring that commuter operations
conducted in airplanes with 10 to 30 passenger seats be conducted under
Part 121 of title 14 of the CFR. Previously, scheduled passenger-
carrying operations in airplanes with over 30 seats or a payload
capacity of more than 7,500 pounds were conducted under Part 121, and
operations in airplanes with 30 or fewer seats and a payload capacity
of 7,500 pounds or less were conducted under Part 135. Part 121, which
provides the safety requirements for all major air carriers, was
generally considered to have more restrictive requirements than Part
135. This change in the criteria was in response to several Part 135
commuter accidents that had occurred in previous years and the need to
bring most passenger operations under one level of safety.
[9] Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: Pilot Pay-for-
Training Study (Washington, D.C.: February 1998); Report to Congress:
Pilot Minimum Flight Time Requirements Study (Washington, D.C.: March
1998); and Report to Congress: Air Carrier Pilot Pre-Employment
Screening Standards and Study Criteria (Washington, D.C.: March 2000).
[10] Data results from our surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers
are reported differently for the body of our report and for the two
survey appendixes (see apps. III and IV). Survey results cited in this
report may combine several individual questionnaire categories. For
example, in asking about the degree that some non-PRIA information
helped carriers make pilot-hiring decisions, we report percentages that
are based on responses ranging from ’very helpful“ or ’moderately
helpful“ to ’not very helpful.“ Categories such as ’other,“
’uncertain,“ and ’did not do this“ and missing responses are not
included in these percentage calculations for the body of this report.
This approach presents in the body the views of carriers that expressed
an opinion on each question. In the survey appendixes, we do include
these categories in the data reported, when they are present, in order
to report the complete range of information generated. Their inclusion
can cause a difference in the percentage calculations for those
questions affected in the survey appendixes, as compared with the
percentages for the same questions in the body of this report.
Throughout this report, we include data on Part 121 carriers‘ responses
to our surveys. If Part 135 carriers‘ responses were within the
sampling error (plus or minus 7 percentage points for most survey
questions), we note that the responses were similar and do not report
them separately.
[11] Principal operations inspectors lead teams of FAA inspectors that
conduct inspections of such items as pilots‘ certification and
performance, flight crews‘ training, and in-flight record keeping.
[12] Specifically, FAA determined that all 138 carriers with Part 121
or dual operating certificates and 2,550 Part 135 carriers are subject
to PRIA because they are authorized to conduct interstate operations
and therefore fit the act‘s definition of an ’air carrier.“
Furthermore, according to FAA‘s analysis, only a handful of the
remaining Part 135 carriers carry mail and are also subject to the act.
[13] Although FAA maintains data on the number of PRIA requests it has
received since the act‘s implementation in February 1997, the agency
did not begin automated tracking of requests by carrier until July
1998. Consequently, we were not able to determine how many carriers
made PRIA requests during the first 16 months of the program or whether
the requesting carriers were Part 121 or Part 135 carriers.
[14] Throughout this report, we use the term ’NDR information“ to refer
to NDR driver information records provided in response to PRIA
requests, both by NDR and by state motor vehicle agencies, which
largely assumed this responsibility in 1998.
[15] Although carriers are required to receive NDR information from NDR
or a state motor vehicle agency, carriers sometimes ask pilot
applicants to request the information. If the pilots identify
themselves in their requests to NDR as pilots or specify that they are
requesting the NDR information for PRIA purposes, NDR includes their
requests in its PRIA database. Furthermore, indicating that the request
is for NDR information ensures that the information provided includes
records of convictions or suspensions in all 50 states, not just those
in the state that supplies the information.
[16] Under the Privacy Act, an individual may make a written, notarized
request directly to NDR for a file search to determine whether NDR has
provided the individual‘s driver information records to a third party.
[17] On-demand carriers include carriers that operate under Part 135
for compensation, including (1) operations as a public charter with
negotiated time and location of departure, (2) scheduled operations
with limited frequency of operations, and (3) small all-cargo
operations with a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less.
[18] Clarifications to the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, H.
Rpt. 105-372, House of Representatives, October 31, 1997.
[19] The states are Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.
[20] John J. Nance and Charles David Thompson, ’The Pilot Records
Improvement Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences,“ Journal of Air Law
and Commerce, Southern Methodist University School of Law (Summer
2001).
[21] 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44936 (f)(6).
[22] Operations inspectors conduct inspections of such items as pilots‘
certification and performance, flight crews‘ training, and in-flight
record keeping.
[23] In October 1998, FAA began using ATOS, a new approach to
overseeing the nation‘s 10 largest passenger air carriers--Alaska,
America West, American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, Trans
World, United, and US Airways. Trans World subsequently merged with
American.
[24] Florida and Texas charge for providing NDR information, while
Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah do not.
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Safety: Airlines Should
Check Pilot Applicants‘ Safety History, GAO/RCED-88-154 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 21, 1988).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
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. General Accounting 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
