Committee Investigation Report: Aviation Safety Oversight, December 2020
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
"In April of 2019, weeks after the second of two tragic crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation staff began receiving information from
whistleblowers detailing numerous concerns related to aviation safety. Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker directed staff to begin an oversight investigation. The scope and breadth of the investigation quickly expanded beyond the first allegations inspired by the 737 MAX tragedies. Information received from fifty-seven whistleblowers revealed common themes among the allegations including insufficient training, improper certification, FAA management acting favorably toward operators, and management undermining of frontline inspectors. The investigation revealed that these trends were often accompanied by retaliation against those who report safety violations and a lack of effective oversight, resulting in a failed FAA safety management culture. In support of the committee’s investigation, Chairman Wicker sent seven letters, which included thirty specific requests for information to the FAA. To date more than half of the requested information remains unanswered or incomplete. Committee staff have reviewed approximately 13,000 pages of documents over the course of the investigation. Some of the correspondence in response to the Chairman’s letters appeared to be contradictory and misleading. As a result of the slow response to document requests, Chairman Wicker requested twenty-one FAA employees be made available for interview by committee staff. Over the twenty month investigation, committee staff were permitted to interview less than half of the employees requested. The documents received and the FAA employee interviews conducted produced inconsistencies, contradictions, and in one case possible lack of candor. |
This report details a number of significant lapses in aviation safety oversight and failed leadership in the FAA. The committee is in receipt of many more examples and continues to receive new information from new whistleblowers regularly. Some of the most significant findings include:
See full original report here. |
Chairmen Sam Graves and Garret Graves Statements from FAA Reauthorization Hearing on Aerospace Workforce
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
"First off, I want to commend Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Cohen for holding these hearings in advance of the upcoming FAA reauthorization bill.
I think it's fitting that we kicked off our series of hearings with safety, which underpins our entire aviation system, and that we’re concluding today by focusing on the aerospace workforce. The men and women who keep the cogs turning in factories, repair facilities, cockpits, and air traffic control towers across the country are not only instrumental to ensuring the safety of the traveling public, but also to ensuring the global competitiveness of the American aerospace industry. Now is the time to examine the challenges the aviation industry faces so we can build and fly the advanced aircraft of the future. As a professional pilot, I think about how pilot training has remained static over the years, except for the adoption of the 1,500 flight-hour rule. We heard at our first hearing how we’ve established the gold standard here in the United States, but it’s also true that many other countries have very safe systems. And none of them have achieved their safety record by matching our 1,500 flight-hour first officer requirement. In our system, pilots with around 250 hours – typically very structured hours – come out of flight school and are left to bridge the gap to 1,500 hours. Only a few of those hours have any kind of requirements associated with them, and even then, they can almost all be logged on sunny, clear days. I’m not convinced that taking kids out of flight school and telling them to tow banners, train students, or bore holes in the sky while racking up debt produces the best pilots. We all know what the FAA found – that the number of flight hours you have are not a reflection of what kind of pilot you are. I know some of the pilot groups like to point out that we haven’t had an accident in the last 10 years. So, I want to go back through and examine those accidents because they point to the fact that they are not |
a result of the 1,500 flight-hour rule. If you look at the accidents prior to 2010, not a single one had anything to do with 1,500 hours.
You can classify accidents in two categories. You can classify them as mechanical failure, which the FAA determines is unrecoverable due to something happening to the aircraft. Or you can classify them as pilot error. If you go back to 2004, Pinnacle, what we saw was a severe lack of professionalism where the pilot in command had 7,000 hours, and he pushed the envelope during a ferry flight – and he did that intentionally – having fun. And it led to a loss of both engines. In 2004, a Corporate Airlines pilot failed to properly execute a non-precision approach. Both crew members had in excess of 1,500 hours. Comair, 2006, pilots attempted to take off from the wrong runway. Both the crew members had well in excess of 1,500 hours. In the Colgan Air accident, the captain responded incorrectly to a stall warning that led to the loss of the airplane. Both crew members had well in excess of 1,500 hours. The captain had 3,379 hours and the first officer had 2,244 hours. It had nothing to do with the 1,500 hour rule. We have got to find better ways to train safer and better skilled pilots and give folks credit for the skill they demonstrate or the high-quality training they receive. Just look at the military. You come out of the military, and you go into combat with 300 hours. So what we’re saying is pilots who have 300 hours are qualified to fly an F15 for the Air Force or an F18 for the Navy in combat, but they can’t fly in the right seat of an airliner. They’re qualified to fly a C17 or a C130 hauling heavy cargo, but they’re not qualified to fly in the right seat of an airliner. See original press release here. |
Graves Statement on FAA Acting Administrator Billy Nolen’s Departure
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) statement regarding the announcement that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acting Administrator Billy Nolen will depart the agency this summer:
“Acting Administrator Billy Nolen has performed admirably under difficult circumstances at a time when the FAA is dealing with a number of vacancies in top positions of leadership, including the position of Administrator. In fact, based on his time leading the agency in his current position, I believe he proved that he would have made a capable Administrator had he been nominated and confirmed. I want to thank him for his service at the agency, and I wish him the |
best in any future endeavors.
“This should be a wakeup call for the President and his administration to fill the FAA’s ever-increasing leadership vacuum with highly qualified people without any further delay. Our aviation system is under stress, and with Congress actively working to reauthorize the policies and programs of the FAA, it’s critical that these vital roles within the agency do not continue to go unfilled.” See original press release here. |
Simcom's Hinson Warns of Major Challenges on Reg Front
Kerry Lynch, AIN Online
"Simcom International CEO and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) chair Eric Hinson stressed the importance of addressing “major challenges” the industry has faced on the oversight front through the upcoming FAA reauthorization bill. Speaking during GAMA's annual State of the Industry press conference yesterday, Hinson said, “The FAA has really, really struggled to provide timely and effective guidance and oversight to our industry.”
He said a key area where the industry is hoping to gain congressional support is in policy guidance and rulemaking. “The short way of describing this is basically a lot goes in and very little comes out of rulemaking policy and guidance. It just kind of goes into a black hole right now and it's very difficult for us as an industry to see where the process is breaking down.” |
Another area of concern, he added, is the “fairly significant” exodus of experienced technical personnel at the FAA. He noted many have retired or were hired directly into the industry. “The fact is that it’s a pretty new workforce and it’s really important that that workforce be trained to understand the technology.”
Hinson also said a key part of this is fostering closer collaboration between the industry and the agency. In the past, the FAA and industry worked closely together to understand what is needed to forward technology. “We want to make sure that we get back to that kind of engagement with the FAA.”" Read the original article here. |
Who's Really Flying Aircraft On U.S. Registry? DOT IG Finds Safety And Security Holes.
John Goglia, Forbes Transportation Contributor
"FAA regulations allow only aircraft owned by US citizens or resident aliens to be registered in the US and bear US markings, the so-called N number used to identify US aircraft from foreign aircraft. However, there’s a loophole that allows foreign citizens to register their aircraft in the US and carry a US designator. The loophole allows aircraft to be owned by a trust and if the trust is a US trust with an American trustee, the actual owner (beneficiary) can be of any nationality in the world. This allows non-U.S. citizens to have their aircraft registered on FAA’s Registry and bear US markings. As long as the trust meets US citizenship requirements, the FAA does not look beyond that to citizenship of the beneficiaries (e.g. foreign owners).
According to the IG’s report, the FAA’s aircraft registry “ lacks accurate and complete information needed for aviation safety and security measures. The Registry lacks information on registered aircraft, owners—including non-U.S. citizens—and their compliance with |
FAA regulations.”
The Inspector General further found: “ incomplete registrations for about 5,600 aircraft, or 54 percent, owned under trusts for non-U.S. citizens. As a result, FAA has been unable to provide information on these aircraft to foreign authorities upon request when U.S. registered aircraft are involved in accidents or incidents in foreign countries, as required by the Convention on International Aviation.” "Certainly when terrorist threats are high enough to apparently warrant the extensive security measures recently revealed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden, it would seem that the FAA would want to have accurate information on the identities of all owners and operators of US-registered aircraft, especially those owned by non-citizen trusts." Read the original article here. |
The FAA and their inability to action on Trevor Jacob and Red Bull cases.
Aviation Weekly News
"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has been under a lot of scrutiny lately due to its lack of action on two very public stunts..."
"While in both cases the FAA did all they could legally do, that is not enough to deter other pilots from doing the same stunts, in both situations multiple laws and regulations were broken without any major consequences, this must change. The U.S. is the country with |
the most General Aviation freedom and because of this freedom there
are these types of situations, but also a result of this freedom is the huge GA community in the country. Laws must change to have bigger consequences as a deterrent for these types of stunts. If not, we will have many more of these situations and this freedom will be lost." Read the original article here. |