[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF FAA'S CERTIFICATION PROCESS:
ENSURING AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND
SAFE PROCESS
=======================================================================
(113-40)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-301 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin RICK LARSEN, Washington
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
STEVE DAINES, Montana CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TREY RADEL, Florida NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina (Ex Officio)
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Dorenda Baker, Director of the Aircraft Certification Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, acccompanied by John S.
Duncan, Director of the Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration........................................ 3
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 3
Jeffrey B. Guzzetti, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation
Audits, U.S. Department of Transportation...................... 3
Panel 2
Peter J. Bunce, President and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association.................................................... 19
Thomas L. Hendricks, President and CEO, National Air
Transportation Association..................................... 19
Michael Perrone, President, Professional Aviation Safety
Specialists, AFL-CIO........................................... 19
Ali Bahrami, Vice President-Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries
Association of America......................................... 19
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Dorenda Baker and John S. Duncan, joint statement................ 36
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D....................................... 46
Jeffrey B. Guzzetti.............................................. 63
Peter J. Bunce................................................... 72
Thomas L. Hendricks.............................................. 80
Michael Perrone.................................................. 85
Ali Bahrami...................................................... 95
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Thomas L. Hendricks, President and CEO, National Air
Transportation Association, response to request for information
from Hon. Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina........................................ 34
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Eric Byer, Vice President of Communications, Policy, and
Planning, Aeronautical Repair Station Association, written
statement...................................................... 103
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REVIEW OF FAA'S CERTIFICATION PROCESS:
ENSURING AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE,
AND SAFE PROCESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met pursuant to notice at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. Thank you for being here today.
Today the subcommittee will hear from the FAA and other
expert witnesses on the agency certification process. It is the
shared goal of everyone in this room to find the right balance
between maintaining the highest level of aviation safety while
achieving greater efficiencies in the FAA certification
process. As the aviation industry develops new products and
other innovations, the FAA must likewise evolve. Examples of
this creative spirit can be found throughout the industry. Many
companies I have worked with with the FAA Tech Center in my
district to develop and test new products that improve safety
and efficiency of the U.S. aviation system.
To ensure that the hard work at the Technical Center and
elsewhere in the industry, it is not needlessly delayed or
wasted altogether, it is critical that the FAA certification
processes keep pace. The Aviation Subcommittee often hears
concerns from companies, operators and other certificate
holders related to the FAA's certification processes, and
particularly long wait times, inconsistent regulatory
interpretations, and redundant or outdated processes have all
been brought to the subcommittee's attention.
In response, Congress included two important provisions in
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to improve the FAA
certification process. These provisions require the agency to
develop plans to streamline their certification processes and
address regional regulatory inconsistencies, all while
maintaining the highest level of safety. In response, the FAA
submitted reports to the committee that outlined
recommendations to improve and streamline certification and
address inconsistent regulatory interpretations.
Today we look forward to hearing what progress the FAA has
made carrying out these provisions and what recommendations
they will implement to further ensure certification processes
are effective and efficient. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and thank them for their participation.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material for the record of this hearing. Without further
objection it is so ordered. I would like now to yield to Mr.
Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling
today's hearing to review the FAA certification process.
Mr. Chairman, the ability of U.S. manufacturers to improve
our aviation system and compete successfully in the global
marketplace is tied directly to the FAA's timely review of new
products. The public relies on a skilled and dedicated FAA
workforce to work with industry and ensure that new products
and services are safe.
I certainly see firsthand how important FAA's certification
services are in my State of Washington where aviation
manufacturing is a significant economic driver. My State is
home to over 1,000 firms in the airspace cluster employing more
than 131,000 people; in the export industry in my State,
aviation accounts for $27 billion of a total $64.6 billion in
exports. So to ensure that aviation manufacturing continues to
play a critical role in our economy, Congress must provide
adequate resources for FAA certification services.
Additionally, Congress should encourage FAA to improve the
streamlining process while maintaining the highest level of
safety. Therefore, I am pleased that the most recent
reauthorization directed the FAA to assess its certification
process and address concerns about regulatory interpretation.
More specifically, section 312 of the Act requires FAA conduct
an assessment of the aircraft certification and approval
process.
One of the key recommendations that came out of the report
contained in the FAA certification report is that the agency
would more effectively use its existing delegation authority.
This authority is not new, because FAA simply does not have the
personnel to oversee every aspect of aviation certification,
though the law allows FAA to delegate certain functions to
qualified individuals and companies. And today the FAA appoints
both individual designees and grants approval of organizational
designation authorizations or ODAs. And, through ODAs, FAA
delegates responsibility for selecting individuals to perform
routine certification work to aircraft manufacturers and other
organizations.
Further, the report notes that if FAA fully utilizes the
authority to carry out these certifications, the personnel will
be free to focus on critical areas that present more risk. So
in theory this makes sense, and I support the idea of
streamlining the certification process as long as it can be
done safely.
But safety can't take a back seat to efficiency. And the
GAO reports that upwards of 90 percent of FAA's certification
activities were performed by designees. Therefore, FAA
personnel must have tools and the training to properly assess
risk so that they are involved when needed to be and are
prepared to step up their involvement and certification
activity when warranted. And when certain certification
activities present greater risk or involve new technologies,
the FAA must possess the technical expertise or readily obtain
outside expertise so it can work with industry to address
safety issues.
And in 2011 the DOT inspector general reported the FAA
needed to strengthen its risk assessment analysis capability
with respect to ODA, so the FAA personnel could better identify
safety-critical certification issues. And so I look forward to
hearing from the IG about what steps, if any of the FAA, has
taken to strengthen--the opinion that the FAA has taken to
strengthen its risk-based targeting program since the 2011
report.
And, likewise, earlier this year the GAO raised concerns
that FAA staff have not been able to keep pace with industry
changes and thus may struggle to understand the aircraft or
equipment they are tasked to certificate. So I would like to
hear from Dr. Dillingham whether he believes this is a major
concern and what steps the FAA can take or is taking to address
this concern.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in 2010 the GAO reported the FAA is
inconsistent in interpretation of its own certification and
approval regulations, has resulted in delays and higher costs
for industry, and this could lead to jurisdiction shopping or
unfair standards for different manufacturers, depending on
where they are located. For this reason, section 313 of the FAA
authorization directed the FAA to be in an advisory panel to
determine the root causes of inconsistent, regulatory
interpretation by FAA personnel. This July, the panel issued
its report to Congress, but the FAA has not yet drafted a plan
to implement the panel's recommendations.
Many of the recommendations make sense, centering on
improving training for FAA personnel and improving
communication between FAA and industry. For example, the panel
recommended that the FAA develop a consolidated master database
for regulatory policy and guidance for commercial aviation. So
I look forward to hearing the FAA's reaction to this and to
other panel recommendations.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Larsen.
I would now like to recognize our first witness of the day,
FAA Director of the Aircraft Certification Service, Ms. Dorenda
Baker, who is accompanied by Mr. John Duncan, the Director of
the Flight Standards Service. You are now recognized.
Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF DORENDA BAKER, DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT
CERTIFICATION SERVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN S. DUNCAN, DIRECTOR OF THE FLIGHT STANDARDS
SERVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; GERALD L. DILLINGHAM,
PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND JEFFREY B. GUZZETTI, ASSISTANT
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AVIATION AUDITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Baker. Thank you.
Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you
today on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration.
I am Dorenda Baker, director of the Aircraft Certification
Service. With me is John Duncan, the director of the Flight
Standards Service. Today is the first time John and I are
appearing before the subcommittee and we hope that the
information we provide will assist you in your oversight
responsibilities.
Between the Aircraft Certification Service and the Flight
Standards Service, we oversee the life cycle of an aircraft,
from design and production of new aircraft, to maintenance,
modification and repair of aircraft as they age. We also
oversee the pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, airlines and
flight schools who fly and maintain them. Throughout the life
cycle, our priority is to ensure the continued operational
safety of the civil aviation fleet.
As the aviation industry grows in response to the global
demand, each new aircraft and operator increases the FAA's
oversight responsibility. While we have been successful at
using the tools that Congress has given us, such as delegation
to leverage our resources, it is incumbent upon us to further
improve our processes to make them as efficient and effective
as possible and maintain the high standards of safety that the
public expects.
Last year Congress passed the FAA Modernization Reform Act
of 2012. Sections 312 and 313 of the Act require the FAA to
work with industry representatives to review and improve the
FAA aircraft certification process, and standardize FAA's
regulatory interpretations. In response to section 312, the FAA
collaborated with industry representatives on six
recommendations to streamline and reengineer the certification
processes. The FAA concurred with the intent of all of the
recommendations and developed an implementation plan that
mapped the recommendations to 14 agency initiatives. Since the
original release of the implementation plan in January of 2013,
the FAA has made progress on all of the initiatives.
To keep ourselves accountable and promote transparency, we
periodically post the updates on the FAA Web site. Our most
recent update was posted in July and we plan to post the next
update this coming January. Some examples of our progress
include the approval of the Part 23 Rulemaking Project,
issuance of the revised order on Organization Designation
Authorization, or ODA, initiation of a 2-year pilot program for
delegation of noise findings, the kick-off of the Part 21
Aviation Rulemaking Committee, and a revision to the Aircraft
Certification Sequencing process.
In response to section 313, the FAA reviewed and accepted
an Aviation Rulemaking Committee's six recommendations to
improve upon consistency and regulatory interpretation by
offices within AIR and AFS, as well as between our two
organizations. It is clear that long-term planning and cultural
change is essential to make the improvements sought by
industry. In order to address the recommendations as soon as
practical, the FAA's plan for section 313 identifies near, mid
and long-term priorities related to each recommendation.
The primary focus area identified by industry was a
standardized methodology, whereby all FAA guidance documents,
including legal interpretations affecting compliance with the
regulations are linked to the respective regulation. The FAA is
currently reviewing existing data systems to determine how best
to achieve this goal. As one of the near-term strategies, we
are identifying existing guidance documents used by FAA
personnel that are not catalogued in one of our electronic
databases.
We expect to identify all such documents and establish a
protocol to determine if such documents are still applicable,
in which case they will be integrated into one of our existing
electronic systems by the end of 2014. As the reports we have
submitted in our testimony indicate, the FAA is making progress
in addressing the concerns identified in the Act. We understand
the importance of the recommendations, and are committed to
following through with their implementation. Our efforts are
transparent and are being done with the support of industry.
The implementation of these improvements provides a path
forward for the FAA to meet the ongoing and future demand of a
dynamic industry that is crucial to the economic interests of
all Americans. We look forward to working with this industry
and the subcommittee to achieve these goals.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Duncan and I
will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Ms. Baker.
Our next guest witness is Dr. Gerald Dillingham, director
of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government
Accountability Office.
Dr. Dillingham, we thank you for being here. You have been
at this a number of years. I am trying to remember just how
many, but I know it is a bunch.
Dr. Dillingham. Sir, I don't remember exactly how many
times myself.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. OK. But we thank you for your expertise
and welcome your remarks.
Dr. Dillingham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Larsen, members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss FAA
certification processes and inconsistencies in regulatory
interpretation. In 2010 at the request of this committee we
conducted a study of these issues. Overall, we found that the
aviation industry views the certification and approval
processes as generally working well and making positive
contributions to the safety of the National Airspace System.
I happen to know circumstances where there are
inefficiencies. It can result in costly delays, particularly
for smaller operators. We made two recommendations to address
these inefficiencies. Section 312 and section 313 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act require the agency to work with industry to
assess the certification processes and concerns that have been
raised about the inconsistency of regulatory interpretation. My
statement today discusses FAA's response to those
recommendations that we made in 2010 and the recommendations of
two FAA-industry advisory committees regarding the
certification and approval processes.
FAA has taken sufficient action on the GAO recommendations
that allowed us to close them as implemented. The Certification
Process Committee that was established in accordance with
section 312 developed six recommendations to improve process,
efficiency and reduce cost. In response, FAA issued a detailed
implementation plan earlier this year. The plan identified many
initiatives and programs that FAA has planned and underway that
it believes will address the committee's recommendations.
However, FAA's plan lacks performance goals and measures to
track the outcomes of most of the initiatives. Without these
performance goals and measures, FAA will not be able to gather
the appropriate data to evaluate current and future
initiatives.
Additionally, FAA's response does not include an integrated
plan for achieving the desired future end-state for the
certification process. Without this plan, FAA will not have an
overall blueprint or guide for how or if the individual
initiatives fit together to achieve the desired outcome of
improving the entire certification system. Regarding
consistency of regulatory interpretation, the Regulatory
Interpretation Committee that was established in response to
section 313 identified several root causes of inconsistent
interpretation of regulations and made six recommendations to
address them.
The root causes identified by the committee were similar to
those that we also identified in our 2010 study. According to
FAA, an action plan to address the recommendations and metrics
to measure implementation is a work in progress. The estimated
date for completion of the plan is December of this year. We
would note again that measuring implementation may provide
useful information, but FAA should also develop outcome
measures which can help determine whether the actions
undertaken are having their intended effect.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen and members of the
subcommittee, as I stated earlier, problems in the
certification and approval processes can cause delays in
getting innovations and safety improvements into the National
Airspace System and have significant cost impacts on the
industry. With FAA certification and approval workload expected
to grow in the next 10 years because of the introduction of new
aircraft, including unmanned aerial systems, the increasing use
of composite materials and aircraft and the expected progress
of the NextGen initiative, continued progress in implementing
the committee's recommendation is even more critical.
To its credit, FAA has taken steps toward improving the
efficiency and consistency of the certification and approval
processes. It will be essential for FAA to follow through with
its plans for implementing the committee's recommendations and
to develop measures of effectiveness to evaluate the impact of
those initiatives before closing the recommendations. We look
forward to supporting this committee in its continued oversight
to ensure the full implementation of sections 312 and 313 and
the achievement of the intended efficiencies and streamlining
of the certification and approval processes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Doctor.
We will now turn to Mr. Jeff Guzzetti.
Mr. Guzzetti, you are recognized for your statement and Mr.
Guzzetti is the Department of Transportation assistant
inspector general for aviation audits.
Mr. Guzzetti. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on FAA's certification
processes.
As you know, certification plays an important role in FAA's
efforts to ensure the safety of the National Airspace System.
However, our work as well as joint FAA industry reports have
identified opportunities for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of FAA's certification process. My statement
today will focus on vulnerabilities in three areas of FAA
certification: Organization Designation Authorization, or ODA;
new air operators and repair stations; and NextGen
capabilities, including the integration of unmanned aircraft
systems.
First, ODA: Through ODA, FAA's Aircraft Certification
Service delegates certification tasks to aircraft and component
manufacturers and other outside companies, making it an
important resource for managing the industry's growing
certification needs. However, our previous work identified
vulnerabilities in the ODA program, including inconsistencies
in how FAA offices interpreted FAA's role in how manufacturers
selected the personnel to perform certification tasks.
In response to our 2011 report and a mandate in the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, FAA has taken steps to
improve its oversight of the ODA program. For example, in May
of this year FAA issued new and more stringent guidance for
prescreening staff prior to assigning them to an ODA. They
established procedures for tracking and removing poor
performing ODA staff and they improved training for FAA
engineers on how to enforce ODA policies. As the ODA program
continues to grow, effective oversight will remain critical to
ensure that all aircraft certification organizations are
following FAA's policies and procedures.
Now, while improvements to ODA oversight are in process, we
identified shortcomings in another area of FAA's certification,
and that is certification of new air operators and repair
stations by FAA's Flight Standards Service. Currently, more
than a thousand aircraft operators and repair stations around
the country are awaiting certification, 138 of which have been
delayed for more than 3 years. Several factors contribute to
this backlog, including the lack of an effective method to
prioritize new applicants, the lack of a standardized process
to initiate new certifications, and poor communications
regarding FAA's certification policy. According to FAA
officials, budget uncertainties have also contributed to these
backlogs. Since March 2011, FAA halted certain certification
activities several times in an effort to maintain oversight of
existing operators.
Finally, it is important to note that a growing demand for
certifying NextGen technologies and procedures, as well as
unmanned aircraft systems, will only add to FAA certification
workload and further tax its certification staff. For example,
FAA has mandated that airspace users equip with ADS-B Out
avionics by 2020 to provide more accurate satellite-based
surveillance data for reduced separation between aircraft.
However, FAA has not certified all of the needed avionics
that must be installed or developed and certified the
procedures for controlling air traffic with ADS-B. Developing
and installing these avionics may take years, and any
certification delays translate into further delays with both
user equipage and NextGen benefits.
Another certification challenge along these lines facing
FAA is its effort to safely integrate unmanned aircraft systems
into U.S. airspace, something that could further exacerbate
FAA's certification workload. While FAA successfully certified
two unmanned aircraft for civil use, the agency relied on an
older rule addressing military aircraft and only authorized
flights over water in the Arctic.
FAA has not yet developed certification standards for novel
and new civil unmanned aircraft operating over populated areas.
A wide range of safety related issues regarding unmanned
systems also remain unresolved, including standards for
certifying new systems, crewmembers and ground control
stations. Until FAA establishes a regulatory framework and
certification standards, unmanned aircraft will continue to
operate with significant limitations in the Nation's airspace.
Clearly, there is greater industry activity than FAA can
support through its current certification processes. While
continually adapting to meet industry needs is no simple task,
strategies for enhancing the management and oversight of FAA's
certification process must be developed and implemented, and
our office remains committed to oversight that will identify
areas needing attention.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
The FAA's plans to streamline and ensure consistency of
certification processes I think are a good first step. As we
move forward, what can be done by the FAA industry and Congress
to further improve certification and approval processes? For
anyone on the panel or everyone on the panel.
Dr. Dillingham. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if FAA
continues to implement the recommendations that came from 312
and 313, that's a first step, because part of that means better
utilizing some of the initiatives and some of the tools that
they currently have. I think that partnership that was
established by the industry FAA committee when they did the
committee to respond to 312 and 313 is something that needs to
be continued.
In our work we found that whenever the stakeholders are not
included early and continuously, the problem doesn't go away
easily and I think congressional oversight, as you are having
this hearing today, to get to actual implementation, oftentimes
there are plans; but, sometimes, that implementation falls
short. So I think continued oversight is also going to be
critical.
Mr. LoBiondo. Anyone else?
Mr. Guzzetti. Well, I'd like to add that in regards to the
flight standards service side of the equation, that is, the
FSDOs, the inspectors that review applicants for repair
stations, and for aircraft operators, such as crop dusters,
there's quite a big backlog, over a thousand as I indicated in
my testimony. About a quarter of those applications, about 251
of those thousand, are older than 2 years old. It's a big
workload and FAA only has a certain number of resources. But,
perhaps they can move away from their philosophy of first come,
first served, when these applicants come in. There could be a
better way to triage these applications to look at complex
operations versus simple operations and get more of the
applications rolling. A different philosophy on how they
utilize their workforce to process these applications would
stem the tide of the backlog.
Ms. Baker. I would echo Dr. Dillingham's comment in regard
to section 312. It provides a number of initiatives that will
help us streamline the process. One in particular is echoed in
the Small Airplane Revitalization Act. We are taking a relook
at Part 23 and reorganizing it so that it is more fitted for
the complexity and performance of the aircraft. That should
make it much easier for applicants to get their aircraft
certified.
Also, Part 21 is another part of the initiatives in 312. We
are going to be looking at a systems safety approach. So it
will make a difference in how the applicant can apply the rules
and we can apply our resources from a safety approach.
Mr. LoBiondo. Do you believe the use of designees is safe?
Ms. Baker. Yes, I do.
Mr. LoBiondo. Dr. Dillingham?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. And I think the
reality is there is no way that FAA can carry out all of its
responsibilities without the use of designees. I think the
critical dimension is proper oversight and accountability, and
this is something that they've been doing for decades. It's
just a matter that it still needs monitoring, and it frees up
FAA to actually work on those, to spend more time and attention
on the real safety-critical aspects of certification.
Mr. Guzzetti. Sir, I think generally, yes, although I do
think it's an open question. I absolutely agree with Dr.
Dillingham that oversight is key. ODA is yet one layer removed
of FAA direct oversight of certifying products, and FAA needs
to have the companies who know the product best help them with
taking care of all these technical aspects. But delegation,
which has been used in this Nation for decades, has always
needed strong oversight by the FAA. So as long as that's
maintained, then it will remain a safe process.
Mr. LoBiondo. For the FAA, when will the 313 implementation
plan be completed? And is it being developed with input from
the ARC members, and what role is labor taking in the process?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, first of all, we are working with the ARC
members in developing the 313 plan. The 313 plan has short-
range, mid-range and long-range goals. We are working the
short-range goals right now to include the required fix to the
rulemaking process. It would make sure that the guidance in
rules that we produce, in the preambles, that they clearly
state the purpose of the rule and the technical requirements of
the rule, as well as the intent of the rule. Also we are
evaluating the training that's required for those folks who
write the rules and later interpret the rules and what kind of
guidance should be involved. We are also evaluating the
existing IT systems that we have for the master database that
you described earlier.
Those are short-term goals, and we look to have those
completed shortly. Some are completed already. The longer range
goals are more of a challenge for us and we will continue to
work toward those goals.
Mr. LoBiondo. So no timeframe for implementation of 313?
Mr. Duncan. The timeframe for implementation of the short-
term goals and the continued evaluation for long-term goals is
this year.
Mr. LoBiondo. This year?
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. For Mr. Guzzetti, in your testimony you
mentioned the weaknesses that the IT found in the 2011 report
on organizational designation authority, in particular the
oversight by FAA. Since your 2011 report, what actions have the
FAA taken to address these concerns, and do you think they are
adequate?
Mr. Guzzetti. Thank you for the question.
We made five recommendations from that report, and FAA has
taken action on every one of them. They have concurred with a
plan to revise their policy to require a full, 2-year
transition before an ODA unit can begin to self-appoint their
own designees. They developed explicit guidance on the process
to remove an ODA unit member in a timely fashion. They are
tracking unit member appointments better.
They have concurred and are developing new training and
guidance for its certification engineers that never used to be
in the habit of being an enforcer, of taking enforcement
action. But with ODA they have to now, and we found in our
audit that the engineers weren't familiar with the enforcement
process. So FAA has instituted training and guidance in that
regard, and they also concurred with our recommendation to
improve the oversight structure for large ODA organizations by
again developing training and assessing the effectiveness of
the new oversight structure. So they have moved out and
completed just about every one of our recommendations in this
regard.
Mr. LoBiondo. My last question, Dr. Dillingham. What can be
done by the FAA now in recognizing the current situation and
new regulations or additional resources to improve its
certification and approval process.
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the first
thing is something that FAA is currently doing, that is making
the best and highest use of the tools that they have. It is
also, I think, to implement those recommendations, fully
implement those recommendations that came from 312 and 313, and
establish some accountability up and down the line from the
very top to the very bottom of actually implementing the
recommendations. Of course, it is going to be tough in terms of
the whole fiscal situation for the country, but getting more
from what you already have is a first step.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, for Mr. Guzzetti, you talked about ODA a little bit
here and guidance for the engineers. Have you assessed whether
or not FAA Aircraft Certification Engineers have enough
direction regarding which activities should be delegated and
which should not?
Mr. Guzzetti. Congressman Larsen, I think that area could
use some improvements. We addressed an aspect of that in our
2011 report, specifically in regard to a tool that FAA
developed called the risk-based resource targeting, or RBRT
tool, for engineers to use. And at the time the RBRT tool
wasn't a part of the ODA program, but we were requested to look
at it, I think now it can be a candidate for ODA.
We found some problems with that tool. RBRT is the tool
that was designed to assist FAA engineers in prioritizing how
complex a project was to give them a better feel for whether it
should be delegated or whether FAA should address it directly.
And we found a lot of problems with that tool. There were
software glitches, but also we felt that there wasn't enough
objective data feeding into the tool for its use; and there
wasn't enough training for folks to use that tool.
Additionally, even after the tool would provide guidance to the
engineer, the engineer had the option to not use the
prioritization if the engineer was biased.
We made a recommendation in that regard; and FAA responded
and they are attempting to resolve the software glitches. Right
now, I believe it's just a voluntary tool to be used, but it
would greatly enhance FAA's ability to have another objective
input to decide whether or not they should delegate an aspect
of certification or keep it close hold.
Mr. Larsen. The term ``software glitch'' up here has a
whole new meaning in the last 4 weeks. So I am trying to stay
away from--just trying to find what that is.
Can you, though, Ms. Baker, respond to Mr. Guzzetti's
comments regarding what should be and what should not be
delegated, whether there is enough guidance for engineers?
Ms. Baker. Yes, Mr. Guzzetti characterized our problems
very, very accurately. The tool was supposed to provide a
standardized methodology for all of our engineers to use, so
that it wasn't just a personal bias just from the start. But it
does allow the engineer to use engineering judgment. The idea
is to try to understand the complexity of the design,
understand the experience of the company that you are working
with, understand the clarity of the regulation.
All of these will eventually be put into the tool along
with additional data, as Jeff said. We were trying to get other
sources so that the engineer is aware of failures within the
system. So when we get that complete, we will implement it
wholly across all of our service and offices, and they'll start
using it at that time. They'll also start using it for the
ODAs. At this time they are not using it for ODAs.
Mr. Larsen. And on that last point, is that one of the
issues that is a limiting factor for the FAA on using or
delegating the full panoply of ODA authorities? Right now, some
folks aren't able to use all that is allowed through the
delegation authority. Are there limiting factors to allow that
to happen?
Ms. Baker. Yes. I wouldn't say that this tool is the
limiting factor. That tool is supposed to identify what areas
within the actual, tight certification would be delegated and
not delegated. When the companies are talking about full
authority, we believe that they are really saying that whatever
is authorized under our orders should be granted to them, which
actually goes beyond certification. So there would be quite a
few things associated with that. Issuance of certificates, for
example, if they have a production certificate under their ODA,
they would have a lot of autonomy. We are trying to get metrics
that will measure how much autonomy they should actually have.
Mr. Larsen. Dr. Dillingham, I'll finish here so the other
side is ready. You mention on page 10 of your report a couple
of issues with regard to the consistency of regulatory
interpretation, ARC and the issue of fear of retribution,
perhaps by industry players, if they are complaining. There was
a gentleman in my district office, a few weeks back I met with
on, getting the name or company, a small company in the
district.
And he talked about this issue of fear of retribution from
the regulator, from the certificator, if they even knew that he
was in my office, much less if he complained to them directly
about it. It sort of reminds me of one of the many classic
lines from the movie ``Blazing Saddles,'' where old lady
Johnson delivers a pie to Sheriff Bart and she says, ``Of
course, we have the good common sense not to mention to anybody
I was here.'' And that's kind of what I felt like this guy was
so concerned about retribution from the regulator for even
bringing these issues up to me that he didn't want to be known.
Can you assess that that's prevalent? I will give you an
opportunity to respond to this, Ms. Baker. Is that prevalent?
Is that a one-off? Have you looked at that? Can you address
that?
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
We did hear that from the stakeholders that we interviewed
when we were doing the work for this committee a few years
back. And the way it worked was that an applicant would be
concerned about raising a dispute with their specific
inspector, raising it up to the FSDO level or raising it up to
the FAA headquarters level, because even if they won, they were
concerned that that same inspector would be back to inspect
something else later on, and there might be a problem with
that.
So FAA, to its credit, has a system in place that allows
you to appeal all the way to the top, but that fear of
retribution meant that the system wasn't being used as much as
FAA thought it might be used. How widespread that problem is,
we weren't able to assess. I wouldn't say it is one-off, and
that is one of the most difficult things to do. It is the
cultural change that will be necessary, that inspectors are
willing to do something different than the way they have in the
past. And, in another way, the tool that one of the committees
recommended was to have this comprehensive database with all of
the regulations, the various interpretations that have been
made of it, so that the inspector had a ready source to go and
look and see there is another way to do this.
There have been other alternatives, so, hopefully, we are
just sort of moving towards a cultural change, putting this
comprehensive database in place that we will have or hear fewer
experiences like that. It certainly is a problem. How
widespread, we couldn't say.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Thanks.
Ms. Baker, do you want to respond to that? Or Mr. Duncan?
Yeah.
Mr. Duncan. If I may, thank you, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Sure.
Mr. Duncan. The relationship between our inspectors and the
stakeholders is a one-to-one relationship in many cases through
flight standards. It depends on a professional relationship
between the two parties. That, in some cases, is challenging
for us. We understand the perception in some cases of potential
retribution, and we are concerned about that.
Number one, we obviously do not condone any kind of
retribution. We also understand that there is a cultural
challenge in dealing with certain cases. I think this is the
case with both parties, on the part of the FAA and the part of
the stakeholders as well. We are working to try to address this
concern through several different mechanisms, including the
recommendations of 313. To have clearer and more concise
guidance is important to address these concerns. We need to
promote within our organization the attitude that we are always
looking for a consistent answer to the question. That is part
of what we are trying to do.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Bucshon?
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Baker. Hi. Over
here!
There was described there is a backlog of--you know--as
much as 3 years in the approval process. What is the rate
limiting step when you have that type of what I would prolonged
approval process? Is there a specific area within the process
that generally causes that kind of delay?
Ms. Baker. Yes. There are actually two, different
sequencing processes. I will let John handle the actual
certification of the airlines, and then I will cover the other.
Dr. Bucshon. Right. There are two. I understand.
Ms. Baker. Yes.
Dr. Bucshon. In your particular instance, what would be
the----
Ms. Baker. Yes. In 2005 we implemented a sequencing
process, because we needed to ensure that we meted in the
certification work so that we could reserve resources to work
on our main priority, which is safety, and the continued
operational safety of the aircraft that are in the fleet. The
limiting factor is just the capacity of our engineers to do the
work. We recognize that the process that we had in place was
fraught with problems. The biggest complaint was that there was
no predictability. There was a situation where the applicant
would put in their application, and they would be in the queue
for an indefinite period of time.
We took those comments on our original process, rewrote our
process completely, put that process back out for comment. When
we finished dispositioning all the comments from industry, we
put a revised process for sequencing out. It will still
sequence. It's basically going to be prioritization of specific
resources, but it won't hold up the initiation of the projects.
So from here out, after we implement this in 2014, when you
put in an application, you'll immediately be able to initiate
your project; and then the limiting factor might be a
particular specialty in engineering to issue a special
condition where there's a novel item in the design of the
aircraft. If there isn't, it would just flow through the system
and there wouldn't be any holdup anymore.
Dr. Bucshon. OK. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Our primary responsibility and
highest priority is to maintain the safety of the existing
system, the operators that are currently out there. So in order
to protect our ability to do that, we created the certification
services oversight program. When an applicant files an
application, or when a stakeholder files an application for
some kind of certificate, we first evaluate whether the
resources are available in that jurisdiction to support the
initial certification of the operator and the ongoing oversight
of that operator.
If they don't exist in that office, we look more broadly to
see if it can be done by someone else or somewhere else. If
that can't happen, then the application is placed on the wait
list. For all practical purposes, the certification oversight
process is where we keep applicants informed, on a 90-day
basis, of where they are in the process. The limitation in that
process is our resources, the resources to perform the required
work that needs to be done and to provide the ongoing oversight
of the new operator that's created.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank all the witnesses for being here.
Your last statement about the resources, I do have a
question about the recent Government shutdown and the budget
cuts, hiring freezes, and some say they were sequestered. It
has had the affect on FAA's ability to attract and retain
qualified staff for aircraft for Flight Standard
Certifications. And I wonder also about the kind of risk that's
based on improving the aviation safety and wonder if you had
those impacts to deal with and how it's affected it.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I'll start from a flight standards
standpoint and say that the challenges that you described, the
impact on us is that we evaluate the resources that we have
available to make sure that we cover the continuing operational
safety requirements that we have. Because of the resource
constraint, we expect that we will have slower response times
in terms of what we just described, the certification processes
and so forth. It'll be slower and our ability to use overtime
and travel expenses may also impact those things.
New operators will likely be delayed, as we talked about a
minute ago, and that may have an impact on small businesses.
There may be significant delays associated with those
operators. Additionally, operators that require changes, such
as new aircraft on their certificates or training program
approvals and so forth, may be delayed beyond the time that
they would plan to implement those things, because of the
resource constraints.
Ms. Johnson. One further question. Just earlier this year,
just before the shutdown came, there was an air control tower
open, and--with the promise that staff would be furnished for
the control tower. And after much discussion, that promise was
kept, but also we are very aware that there is some threat to
that. Now, how much of that is being experienced throughout the
country, and for air traffic controllers?
Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question, but that's something
handled by Air Traffic Control. So we could take an action to
get back to you on that.
Ms. Johnson. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to note that both panels today have testimony
that references the Small Airplane Revitalization Act. I am
proud to cosponsor this bipartisan bill that would improve
general aviation safety and spark innovation in the private
sector by streamlining regulations. It appears this bill is
getting very close to being presented to the President.
You take a look at bills like that and ODA, and this
committee has some good momentum and I hope we are able to keep
it going. My question is going to be directed to Director
Baker. Thanks for your role in ensuring the safety of our
system. GAO made two recommendations in 2010. FAA has addressed
one, but still has a little work to go on the other.
GAO indicates that performance measures are necessary for
FAA to be able to evaluate current programs. Can you talk about
what you are doing to institute these performance measures?
Ms. Baker. Yes, Gerald was correct. We found that setting
performance measures is very difficult. You have got to be sure
that you don't create unintended consequences. The approach
that we chose to take was to develop a vision and pull together
all of the initiatives in the section 312 response, and then to
start working with industry to develop those metrics.
We have milestones and goals to meet each of the
initiatives. The actual effectiveness and efficiency metrics
will be built as we work through the projects. It will have to
be done very, very carefully, again, so that we don't cause
things to happen that we hadn't intended to have happen.
Mr. Davis. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have pretty much a very simple question or observation.
It seems to me I've been on this committee an awful long time,
and I remember when Libby Dole cut back on the inspector work
for us big time.
I don't think we've ever recovered from that, and I guess
my question is--we have testimony in the next panel from
Michael Perrone from PASS, and he says, ``The balance of FAA
oversight is insufficient. The high number of designees''--and
he talks about that basically people are just chained to their
desks reviewing paperwork or answering questions, but they
really can't get out any more because of the impossible
workload they're being given.
Do we have--and I guess the FAA has actually studied this
issue and they've come up with varying numbers. Do we have
enough people? We can talk about all the systems, changes we
want to make, and all the other things we want to do and all
the computer applications, and all this streamlining and all
that stuff; but if you don't have enough people to provide the
critical oversight of the designees program--which I think is a
good program when properly overseen--it's not going to work. Do
we have enough people?
Dr. Dillingham? Anybody? Do we need more?
Dr. Dillingham. Well, Mr. DeFazio, you know, of course, FAA
can always use more people. I mean its responsibilities are
ever-expanding, and we support that, but we also--there's a
reality of the fiscal condition that we all are in. So that
means that you have to make the best of the resources that you
have.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I get that, but OK. So let's not be
fiscally constrained. We could look at novel ways to--you know.
I mean if the people who are developing the new systems and new
aircraft, the new avionics, all the other things are feeling
like they're being held back so much in terms of their
productivity. They might be happy to contribute some money to
the FAA to hire more people so that they could get more timely
reviews more quickly.
Dr. Dillingham. I think you hit the nail on the head when
you started off, Mr. DeFazio, by saying a properly overseen
designee program is probably the quickest, most efficient way
to expand the resources available to carry out the work. That
oversight has to be top-notch. Otherwise, you do start to risk
issues of safety and other related matters.
Mr. DeFazio. I think we have seen with some other agencies
over at the--overseeing pharmaceuticals, the FDA or the Corps
of Engineers, sometimes, on major projects where they
essentially allow people who have an interest to contribute
resources; but the resources are not employees of or
responsible to those who contributed the additional resources.
They are responsible to the agency doing the reviews. And so
you are still having the amount of oversight you need, but you
are providing more people.
Isn't the number of people ultimately going to be a choke
point, no matter what we do here and no matter how efficient we
make this? No matter what reforms we adopt, they're still
shuffling stuff around.
Dr. Dillingham. Absolutely.
Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else got a different opinion or want
to augment that opinion?
Ms. Baker. No. I don't think that there is a different
opinion. There is, obviously, a point where you've got a
diminishing return. You can only have as many designees as you
can have enough employees to oversee those designees
appropriately. What we're trying to do is to develop processes
and procedures and tools so that they can do a better job at
oversight by making sure that FAA inspectors are doing their
jobs strategically, instead of using the personal preference of
an individual. If you can determine which areas you, as an
inspector, should target, then the idea is that you would use a
system safety approach and it would direct you to the areas
where you should concentrate.
That way, you'd use fewer people. But there is, obviously,
a point where you cannot delegate any more. You have to have
more people.
Mr. DeFazio. Hm-hmm. OK.
Mr. Guzzetti. Congressman DeFazio, I just wanted to
piggyback off that statement. Because of the fiscal
constraints, because of the inability to hire new inspectors,
it's up to FAA to make sure that they have the best process to
target what limited resources they have to risk, and we just
issued a report this past March regarding a staffing model that
FAA has, that they've been having some difficulties with.
But it would be helpful if there was a model to at least
identify how many inspectors FAA needs, given the demand out
there, and we made some recommendations along those lines. And
that model was also meant to not only include flight standards
inspectors, but also aircraft certification engineers and
inspectors. It's not there yet, but perhaps that could be very
helpful to FAA to get that model up and running.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But, you know, if we target the people
to the risk areas--I fly a lot and am happy with that--but that
leads to the statistics we heard earlier in all these routine
things that become a bigger and bigger backlog. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Guzzetti. It's definitely a balancing act. You heard
Mr. Duncan indicate that continuing operational safety should
be the priority and that has impacted his ability to process
new applications. It's a big challenge, but it's one that has
to be tackled. And to not allow any new applicants to begin at
the exclusion of continuing operational safety, I don't know if
there's a proper balance right now.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
of you for being here today. Appreciate it. I'm from Texas. We
have got a lot of aviation in Texas, and especially in my
district. And, also, I just want to add one thing. I am a small
business owner, and I hear what you are saying about balancing
and this and that, and remind you in all due respect that small
businesses are balancing right now. That's the nature of our
economy to get the most; sometimes the least, but I appreciate
what you all are doing.
My question would be to Mr. Guzzetti. Of course, safety is,
I know, everybody's top priority and we appreciate the record
that you have. But I guess I would ask at least in here with
all that in mind to find a balance between streamlining your
processes, your certification processes, and make sure it
doesn't compromise. Are you able to do that, make sure it
doesn't compromise with what we call the gold standard of
safety that you all have?
Mr. Guzzetti. I think there's probably ways to do it. I
don't know what they are. I think FAA needs to explore those
additional processes or a different process for efficiencies.
Right now, the general philosophy at these flight standards
offices is to process these new applicants that come in,
whether it be a small airline or a repair station that wants to
start up, on a first-come-first-served basis.
But, when you look at the guidance, it can allow some
flexibility for the FAA to bypass that process, marshal their
resources, and not let a complex project clog the pipeline of
simpler projects behind it. So FAA could explore those
flexibilities to add a little more balance.
Mr. Williams. Compromising safety is not anything we want,
so.
Mr. Guzzetti. No, absolutely not. Safety should always
remain FAA's number one priority; but, by the same token, they
also are the regulator and the organization to give the green
light to small business. Safety should be number one, but they
have this other component they need to perhaps make more
efficient.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Larsen, do you have any thing else?
Mr. Larsen. One more question.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK.
Mr. Larsen. Dr. Dillingham, in April you testified before
the Senate that ``When faced with the certification of new
aircraft or equipment, FAA staff have not been able to keep
pace with industry changes, and thus may struggle to understand
the aircraft or equipment they are tasked with certificating.''
Do you think that is a major problem? If so, what steps can
the FAA take or is it taking to address that concern?
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you for the question, Mr. Larsen.
We heard that opinion from some of the stakeholders that we
interviewed about FAA's capabilities. I don't think that that's
a major problem at this point in time. It could take on more,
become more of an issue as their workload expands and different
technologies come in. But our experience in looking at FAA, for
example, when we did the work looking at the composite
components of the Boeing Aircraft, we found that FAA had taken
numerous steps to train its workers, establish centers of
excellence, work with the industry to understand what's going
on.
So our experience, at least in that example, shows that
when FAA sees an issue that requires that kind of technological
expertise that it reaches out to industry, hires people when it
can, but also makes sure that its current workforce is up to
speed on things. So now we don't see it as a major problem;
and, again, the future is to be determined.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah.
Ms. Baker and Mr. Duncan?
Ms. Baker. I agree. No entity is going to have the
expertise in every, single, new technology. Especially when
industry is consistently pushing the boundaries of technology.
Our people gain experience through the certification of the new
technology, but they also work with committees, like RTCA and
SAE. Our people are in amongst the world-renowned experts and
absorb the information from them, and rely upon them in many
cases. We can go to contractors, like Volpe, if we need
expertise in a particular area. So all of these are at our
disposal.
In addition, we have chief scientists within our
organization, whose sole role is to go out and to learn more
about new technology and bring information back to our
engineers. When we do see that we are, maybe deficient in a
particular area, or not multistranded in a particular area,
then we'll provide the training for those individuals who need
it so that they can be up to speed with the technology that's
presented to them.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Thanks.
OK. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
To our first panel, thank you very much. We will take a
very, very short break, allow the second panel to get set up
and then proceed again.
[Recess.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. We will pick up with our second
panel. We welcome Mr. Peter Bunce, president and CEO of the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association; Mr. Tom Hendricks,
president and CEO of the National Air Transport Association;
Mr. Michael Perrone, president of Professional Aviation Safety
Specialists; and Mr. Ali Bahrami, vice president of civil
aviation, Aerospace Industries Association of America.
Peter, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF PETER J. BUNCE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GENERAL
AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; THOMAS L. HENDRICKS,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION;
MICHAEL PERRONE, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AVIATION SAFETY
SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO; AND ALI BAHRAMI, VICE PRESIDENT-CIVIL
AVIATION, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Bunce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen, it is a
pleasure to be here today and be able to discuss certification.
Certification is a very complex topic, and it was very evident
by the first panel and the discussion that went back and forth
that everyone is very familiar with some of the impediments to
this process and also the opportunities that we have as we move
forward with being able to streamline certification.
General aviation manufacturing in this country is extremely
important. We are talking 1.2 million jobs, and $150 billion in
economic contributions to this Nation's economy. But, what's
really important is in recent years 50 percent of the product
that is produced in this country is going overseas. That is a
great export engine for this Nation, and that's why being able
to get product to market is so important.
We are one of the most heavily regulated industries that
there are, and getting product through the system and through
the FAA certification process has a tremendous impact on jobs.
This committee has been extremely supportive of this journey
that we are on with our Government regulators in both section
312 and 313. The last Congress and the FAA Reauthorization Act
really put a focus on this. And then, during this Congress, and
particularly this subcommittee and the full committee, the
support for the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act is absolutely
instrumental.
That is just the start. We want to be able to extend that
to Part 27 and Part 29 for rotorcraft, and eventually to Part
25 for transport category aircraft, because this is a new way
of doing business, and it is very important to keep aerospace
leadership here where it belongs. But reform is extremely
important, and let me put the challenge that we have in front
of us in terms of different companies that we have out there.
If we take a small company that is trying to develop a new
technology--and Mr. Massie was here earlier, and one company
he's very familiar with actually looked at being able to put
safety-enhancing, a great safety-enhancing technology in their
new iteration of a product going out the door--and looked at
the length of time it was going to take to be able to get that
certified, and just said ``we cannot afford to be able to wait
that length of time to introduce this new product. We will miss
a market opportunity in our timing when other companies are
introducing similar technologies,'' and they had to forgo some
great safety enhancement, just because of the amount of time it
took.
You take another company, such as one that's located in Mr.
Nolan's district. It is their first foray into a jet. They have
only produced piston aircraft heretofore. They need resources
to be able to be devoted to them to get this new technology and
be able to get the help from the FAA to get that product to
market because they haven't done that before.
Now, compare that to some mature companies that are in both
of your States or in Mr. Bucshon's State looking at engine
technology, these companies are very mature. They set up these
ODAs to be able to go and have a safety system in place that
recognizes that when they are doing something that they have
done time and time again, they have competencies built up. So,
Mr. Larsen, when you ask that question about what you delegate
and what you don't, the system recognizes that they have
competencies. But when they are doing something new and novel,
then resources can be devoted there.
So leveraging resources becomes so very, very important,
and the burn rates for some of these companies are very huge.
When you look at a larger company, a burn rate in a development
program is up to $10 million a month; and, when it is extended
out for a year, you are talking real dollars. When you are
talking a smaller company and you look at investment dollars
and the requirement of investment capital to get a return on
investment, but you have to go back and tell them, ``Well, the
certification process is uncertain. It could take 3 years or it
could take 5 years,'' that investment just doesn't happen,
because of that uncertainty.
The return on investment is too far out there, because of
the certification process. So, if we allow delegation to work
through an ODA, we free up resources to be able to go to those
newer companies. And unfortunately, I can give you a list as
long as my arm of companies that just couldn't make it because
they ran out of money in the certification process. So
leveraging these resources becomes absolutely critical.
Implementation is the key. As Dr. Dillingham brought out,
we've started a journey, but it is just not enough for the FAA
leadership, which I believe really is behind this effort and is
in concert with us to try to make this process more efficient.
But you can't just put out edicts from headquarters without
putting in the implementation criteria, actually having metrics
that we can measure and be able to come back to this committee,
and you all asking important questions, ``Are we making
progress?'' It's got to be measurable.
We need to be changing job descriptions; we need to be
changing that culture, and you heard that in the first panel.
Cultural change is the real driver to be able to make this
work. And, finally, what I want to emphasize is this gold
standard. The erosion of the gold standard is something we are
very concerned about. FAA should be the standard for
certification across this entire planet, so we have got to make
sure that we keep talking to international authorities about
the robustness of our programs and how we produce the safest
products on the planet.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Hendricks?
Mr. Hendricks. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen and other members of the
subcommittee.
We appreciate the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee
today, and thank you for your foresight in conducting this
hearing. It is good to testify before the subcommittee, again,
in my new role as the president of the National Air
Transportation Association. Our members represent--are
characterized by small businesses at the Nation's airports. We
have over 2,000 members.
As stated earlier, we operate in a very highly regulated
environment. Our members include fixed-base operators, charter
companies, maintenance repair stations, flight schools and
airline service companies. The 2012 FAA Modernization Reform
Act played a large role in how our companies are regulated, and
I am pleased to provide comment today.
Specifically, regarding section 313, the consistency of
regulatory interpretation, as you are aware, NATA cochaired the
Aviation Rulemaking Committee. We were honored to do that. The
FAA has a challenging environment. They have eight regions, 10
aircraft certification offices, and 80 flight standards
district offices. And so we need to strike a proper balance
between the different operating environments that these
companies find themselves in.
I'll give you an example of one of our members. A member, a
charter company, actually moved an aircraft to a different
region of the FAA. To get that aircraft placed on their
operating certificate in that region required 5 weeks. During
this time, this small company spent $25,000 trying to comply
with the new requirements in this new district, and they had to
forgo over $200,000 in revenue. Again, these are small
businesses. Thirty percent of our members have 20 employees or
less. These are make-or-break decisions, so we support reform
in this regard.
The Aviation Safety Information System that the FAA is
developing is a step in the right direction, and we support
this system that provides the ability to coordinate, not only
within the Flight Standards Service and the Aircraft
Certification Service, but between those two organizations. We
view it as a positive development.
Specifically, regarding section 312 of the Act, we strongly
support the modernization of the certification processes, and I
agree with Mr. Bunce's comments on this issue. We are concerned
about the rapid pace of technology evolution in the aircraft
environment, in the FAA's ability to keep up with that pace.
Right now, there are safety enhancing and economic enhancing
technologies that are just slow to the market, because of the
FAA's struggles with certifying this new equipment.
And we are concerned that as technology rapidly evolves
over the coming years that there will be a larger bow wave of
requirements, and we are going to fall further and further
behind. The FAA has acknowledged this. We are working with
them, trying to be very solution-oriented, and we agree that
expanding the ODA, the Organizational Delegation Authorization,
is a correct path and will yield results. And we couldn't do
that without the great work force we have already with the
inspectors. So it is a community-industry-Government effort to
try to expand this program and leverage the talent that we
already have.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say that we all have
helped create the safest, most complex aviation system on the
planet. We can't lose sight of that. It has taken strong
collaboration with our regulator, with industry, and the
oversight of the Congress. We are very thankful for that, and
what we would like to see in the future is an FAA that provides
more agility to respond to these ever-evolving, safety-
enhancing technologies that can improve our businesses and grow
jobs. With that, I'll be happy to take any questions you might
have.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Perrone?
Mr. Perrone. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Lawson and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting PASS to
testify today.
PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees,
including over 3,000 aviation safety inspectors in the flight
standards and manufacturing bargaining units. We appreciate the
opportunity to present our views on the FAA certification
process and ways to improve it for the safety and efficiency of
the aviation system.
The FAA certification process is intended to ensure
aircraft and equipment meet FAA's airworthiness requirements.
Section 312 and 313 of the FAA Reform Act included requirements
for the FAA to streamline the certification process and address
inconsistencies. In response, the FAA created two Aviation
Rulemaking Committees to analyze the certification process and
make recommendations.
Regarding the ARC recommendations, we agree that the
certification process is in need of some streamlining; however,
we don't believe that creating additional steps or layers of
paperwork is the most efficient way to achieve this goal. In
fact, paperwork requirements included in the FAA's CPI guide
and other guidance contribute to inefficiencies rather than
address it.
PASS recommends conducting a review of agency regulations,
policies and procedures in the certification process to
eliminate those that are inefficient, redundant and
conflicting. PASS also supports the development of a database
to monitor and track certification process improvements. The
ARC also recommends that the FAA enhance its use of the
designee program. PASS has serious concerns with this
recommendation. The FAA cannot keep delegating out work without
an adequate number of inspectors to oversee the designees. In
our view, this is an aviation safety issue.
Oversight is especially difficult to ensure in the ODA
program where an entire corporation performs work on behalf of
the FAA. Since inspectors are only able to examine a small
portion of a large company, it is literally impossible to
ensure sufficient oversight. When the ODA program was first
introduced, it was intended to allow companies with the highest
expertise and capabilities to serve as an extension of the FAA.
Now there are 76 ODAs, and the FAA intends to expand this
program.
The level of work and the oversight needed to ensure proper
surveillance of designees and ODAs must be addressed. This
committee asked what can be done in the near term to improve
the certification process. The number one way to improve the
process is through additional inspector staffing. There are
currently 139 manufacturing inspectors. Unbelievably, that
number has not changed for over a decade, despite the steadily
increasing level and diversity of work and responsibility
including oversight of the designee program.
Certification activity is on the rise due to industry
changes and advances in technology. At the same time, budget
cuts resulting from sequestration are preventing the hiring of
additional inspectors due to the hiring freeze; and, while
staffing is dropping in many locations due to retirements and
other factors, the work is steadily increasing for the
remaining inspectors. Without a doubt, in order to ensure a
safe and efficient certification process, there must be an
adequate number of FAA inspectors in place to oversee these
important functions.
In closing, PASS wishes to express our serious concerns
regarding the impact of the Government shutdown. For 16 days in
October, oversight of important certification work was put on
hold. During the shutdown, among other things, no new safety
design approvals were addressed, quality system audits and
supplier control audits were delayed. Investigations were
altered and safety data was not evaluated. When a limited
number of inspectors were called back during the shutdown, they
were directed to focus only on continued operational safety and
stop all certification work.
Aircraft manufacturers and the aviation industry as a whole
depend on FAA employees being on the job to review and certify
new equipment on a timely basis. These critical employees must
be given the tools and resources to continue performing their
important work.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Bahrami?
Mr. Bahrami. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
allowing AIA to submit testimony at this important hearing.
I am Ali Bahrami, vice president for civil aviation at the
Aerospace Industries Association. AIA represents the interests
of over 380 U.S. aerospace and defense manufacturers. Our
members have a keen interest in efficiency of the FAA
certification activities, because those activities govern our
ability to bring new and innovative products to the market.
Before joining AIA earlier this year, I worked 24 years in
the FAA's aircraft certification service. In 2012 I also served
as the cochair of the agency's Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
formed in response to section 312 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act. I think it is appropriate to first recognize the
dedication and technical expertise of the FAA certification
work force.
Our aviation system is the safest in the world. This is
partly due to effective partnership between aircraft
manufacturers and FAA certification staff. While industry has
continued to grow, certification offices have been facing
budget cuts, hiring freezes, and furloughs due to sequester and
the Government shutdown. Expecting the FAA to keep pace with
industry while conducting business as usual is not realistic.
If the streamlining is not implemented properly, FAA will
not be able to keep up and will begin to fall behind our global
competitors. FAA's response to the 312 ARC recommendation has
been very encouraging. The FAA has developed detailed
implementation plans for all six recommendations, and work has
already begun on several of them. We are also pleased that the
FAA's plan includes establishment of a joint FAA-industry group
to review the implementation progress.
The AIA welcomes the recommendations made by the so-called
313 ARC, the committee charged with addressing the
inconsistencies in regulatory interpretation. We are waiting
for the release of the implementation plan for these
recommendations. Since many certification standards are
performance-based and not prescriptive, it would be unrealistic
to assume that these recommendations will eliminate all
inconsistencies.
AIA believes development of an effective process to quickly
resolve disagreements between applicants and the FAA staff is
essential. Given the magnitude of the process changes, it is
important that the FAA institute a robust change management
process that ensures acceptance of the change by the workforce
and successful transition. The members of the 312 ARC believe
this issue was important enough to be included as one of the
recommendations.
While we are moving forward with these activities, let's
not forget that today we have an effective tool that can reduce
certification delays. It's called delegation. We have over half
a century of successful history with delegation. This
successful history supports expansion of delegation based on
data. The AIA members can tell you obtaining an organizational
designation authorization is not easy. It requires a lot of
resources, care and oversight on part of an applicant. We urge
the FAA to allow greater use of delegation, not only to take
full advantage of industry expertise, but to increase the
collaboration that improves aviation safety.
Mr. Chairman, we applaud the committee for holding this
hearing. It demonstrates to the agency that certification is a
priority for this subcommittee; but, equally important is
ensuring that the FAA has the resources it needs to maintain
momentum. Like any other initiative, process re-engineering
will take resources to implement. In some cases, this will
divert staff from paying attention to the certification work
and other safety matters, at least in the short term.
The FAA's 312 implementation plan does not estimate the
resources needed to follow through on the recommendations. We
believe these resources should be clearly identified, reviewed
by the subcommittee, and protected as much as possible in the
appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
For the whole panel, the question I asked of the first
panel, we have heard a lot about the use of designees. Are the
use of designees in those programs safe in your eyes, in your
estimation?
Mr. Hendricks. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's a very safe, highly
regulated environment as Mr. Bahrami alluded to, to be admitted
in the program. With the volume of projects and the evolution
of technology, we feel like this is a very safe, sound process
at the FAA, and we'd like to see it expanded.
Mr. Bunce. Mr. Chairman, designees are nothing new. Since
the FAA was created in 1958, we've been using designees all
along. I mean every pilot out there that flies in the system
uses a designee just to be able to get their pilot's license.
Using them in the certification process actually makes the
system safer, because we are able to go ahead and leverage that
FAA expertise and the great men and women that we have their
work on, the engineering workforce, to go into the new and
novel technology. So as long as we leverage this correctly, we
are actually making the system safer.
Mr. Bahrami. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned during my
remarks, we have a lot of data over the past 50 years that
indicates that the system is working and it is safe.
Mr. Perrone. Mr. Chairman, as I said, because we only have
a limited number of staff, the expansion is probably a concern;
but, overall, it's safe. But how much oversight, how much
checks and balances can we have if we don't have enough
inspectors to oversee the designees? So, right now, are we
pushing the envelope, or are we at a safe place? It's hard to
tell what. In our view, more inspectors will help make it a
safer and continue to make it a safer system.
Mr. LoBiondo. Also, for the whole panel, how has the FAA
consulted with industry on gauging implementation plans and
progress? And what role do you think should labor have and are
they being utilized?
Mr. Perrone. From PASS's perspective, we should be involved
in any decisions that the agency and industry work with to have
more eyes and ears, to be involved in would help and I think be
as successful, because we have a particular need to make it the
safest system in the world. So labor should be at the table
with this.
Mr. LoBiondo. Are they consulting with you?
Mr. Perrone. From the PASS perspective, limited to none.
Mr. Bunce. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have a very
close relationship with the engineers out in the aircraft
certification offices throughout the country. And so there's
constant feedback between industry and the regulator, itself,
at that local level; one, to get consistency across the board,
but also to be able to implement the guidance that's coming
down from headquarters.
Sometimes that information flows differently to industry
than it does to Government. And that's why as we implement ODA,
and we also just streamline the whole certification process,
being able to have metrics in place that everyone understands,
that we can measure and have everybody on a common sheet of
music is extremely important. And then the education and
training for the FAA workforce, we want nothing more than to be
able to have very educated engineers, especially when we are
working with new and novel technology.
So that's why industry is very eager, and when we're doing
something new to have them partner with us so they can learn
along with us when we have this new technology. But when we are
doing something that we have done routine time and time again,
we don't need the FAA engineers down there with the sharp
pencil down in the details. Let's focus them on areas where we
really need them, and I think that's where the communication
has to be.
Mr. LoBiondo. I understand. But are they consulting with
you or are they dialoguing with you? Or is there a back and
forth here on some of these critical things?
Mr. Bunce. Absolutely; there is a back and forth. Just when
you go and you develop a plan to be able to certify a program,
whether you are using an ODA or whether you are in the normal
sequencing process, there is a back and forth that goes on.
Industry will submit the plan. It's brought back to us with
either acceptance or recommendations. So there is a process
back and forth.
Now, one thing that we are asking for is if a company
actually does have an ODA that they have invested a lot of
money to be able to set this up on the promise that the FAA
will allow them to go ahead and administer and have these
programs delegated unless it's new and novel. Right now, the
process works that a lot of times the FAA can go ahead and say,
``I'm going to retain this, this, this. You can do this, this
and this.''
What we'd like to do is see a process because the way the
ODA was originally envisioned that says, ``OK. FAA, if you are
going to retain it, give us rationale on why you want to retain
it. Is it to train your workforce? Is it because it is new and
novel technology?'' And then if there is a discussion about
that, we can go ahead and elevate it to a higher level, but
that would be a much more efficient way of administering the
ODA and leveraging those precious resources.
Mr. Hendricks. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer you
may be shocked to know that in the aviation world our members
are not shy about sharing their opinions, about what they are
seeing out there in the field. And they see challenges at the
local level. We can't allow everything in the FAA to be run at
headquarters. It wouldn't be a good way to operate. But our
members share those with us. All of us have expertise on our
staffs, and the FAA has been very collaborative as we bring
them evidence of the cases I cited in my testimony about a
challenge you are seeing in the field. So I would say the FAA
is working very well with us. We are looking for solutions,
collectively, and trying to be constructive in those
suggestions we offer.
Mr. Bahrami. Mr. Chairman, a key word is collaboration, and
I believe so far on these two initiatives FAA has been doing a
great job of communicating and working with industry. With
respect to questions on working with labor, as I mentioned,
acceptance of these changes by the workforce is really
important. If you don't have that, we are going to continue to
struggle. So, whatever the form is for that collaboration,
through whatever means, I think that's appropriate and
necessary.
Mr. LoBiondo. I have some additional questions but I am
going to hold back and let some of the other Members go.
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perrone,
considering the future and the next decade or so, trying to get
NextGen technologies out, new models and new airplanes being
designed and built in the country, application of new
technologies to existing general aviation platforms, have your
folks done any sort of independent or in-house analysis of the
number of inspectors that you need to (1) perhaps catch up to
where we should be today, and (2) looking out in the future,
the numbers that we would need to maintain an efficient
certification and approval program?
Mr. Perrone. We had the Academy of Sciences do a study a
few years back, the flight standards folks, and they came up
with a recommendation for a model that the FAA has used. They
plugged in a number, somewhere between 300 and 900 short of
inspectors.
On the manufacturing side, however, there has not been any
study. That is why I am saying the 139 manufacturing
inspectors, it has been that way for a decade.
From PASS's perspective, we just continue to see and hear
the workload is increasing and increasing to oversee the
designees and expand--the ODAs.
We believe we are short staffed. The more the industry
needs to move along with NextGen, and we see that as an
important aspect--NextGen is going to be here. There are going
to be a lot of new products. The FAA needs to have more of that
oversight to make sure everything is done safely and
efficiently.
Mr. Larsen. Does your thinking include the need for FAA to
have some folks come in, outside experts come in just for a
brief period of time and leave again? You are not including
that group of folks, are you?
Mr. Perrone. No.
Mr. Larsen. You still expect that to happen: outside folks
to come in for a technology-specific thing and then go, but
once we are in implementation and application, incorporating it
in the platforms, that is where we are going to need additional
folks?
Mr. Perrone. Correct.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Bunce, you talked about the gold standard.
Is the FAA in danger of losing its gold standard status for
certification?
Mr. Bunce. Yes, sir. Actually, we see an erosion of it that
is happening all across the board. If you look internationally
right now, EASA, the rough FAA equivalent over in Europe, it is
very aggressive with teams out, being able to explain their
certification processes.
When they go and do that to other countries that are out
there starting to stand up more robust aviation regulating
authorities, we want to make sure that they have confidence
that if something has an FAA Stamp of Certification on it, they
say OK, we do not need to spend the time to have to come over
to the U.S. or have manufacturers come over to their country to
once again prove that this aircraft was built safely.
We want them to be able to accept the FAA as the gold
standard. Any of the authorities that we have a bilateral
relationship with, that is really not a problem if we are
dealing with Transport Canada, ANAC in Brazil, or EASA.
When we have so many countries out there that are now
increasingly getting into aviation, it becomes all the more
important that we do not waste time having to re-prove that we
built this aircraft safely, and they accept that FAA gold
standard.
What does that require? That requires the FAA certification
offices along with the international offices to be aggressive,
to be out there and discuss with these countries and the other
regulators, as they stand up their structure, to say ``hey, you
need to accept what we did because this is the best in the
world.''
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Hendricks outlined the problem that even
here in the United States, you cannot get one region to accept
the standard another region has set.
Mr. Hendricks. I think it goes to the point, Congressman
Larsen, about striking the proper balance. We do have different
operating environments. It is different flying in the southeast
U.S. compared to the Rocky Mountain region, and the oversight
of those operators in those regions need to reflect that
reality.
We do not believe one size does fit all for the regulatory
regime, for operating aircraft safely in the U.S., that we need
to have thoughtful discussions, and that is the reason we
mentioned the balance between headquarters' view of regulation
and what the inspectors out there in the field who know their
operating environment very well, how they view their operation.
We just would like to see an increase in that dialogue so
we are striking the proper balance.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Bahrami, I want to ask you to explain
yourself, being from the northwest region. I have a different
question for you. If you want to address that, that'd be great,
given your experience in one of the regions.
This issue of other certification processes. The FAA's
August 2012 Aircraft Certification Review states that Europe
and Canada have more mature systems approaches for regulatory
oversight of design organizations and certification processes.
Has AIA looked at how Europe's oversight of the
certification process differs from those of the U.S., and can
you grade it? Can you say it is more mature? Can you say it is
better or worse?
Mr. Bahrami. I would not be in a position to grade it
better or worse, but I would tell you that from experience I
have had in certification, 24 years, and 10 years of it in
large transport, some of the ideas that we are thinking to
start, things like certificated design, organization or
approved organization, have been used in other countries.
When it comes to the safety level, if you define measure of
success as safety, we are competing with those and we are doing
quite well.
But if you talk about the transition, the pace of change
and things of that nature, I think we are a bit slower, and
therefore as Mr. Bunce mentioned, there is a risk of not being
able to lead globally if we cannot find ways to do things more
effectively.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Bucshon?
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A general comment and
a couple of questions. I have heard a lot today at this
hearing, which I do at a lot of other hearings in different
committees about funding and how funding has an effect on
Federal agencies.
As it specifically relates to the FAA, in regards to where
Congress is on funding, when you have the FAA is $4 billion
over budget on NextGen, for example, and other issues like
that, I think it is important--we have heard some of that
today--not to convince but to show Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle where the taxpayers' money is being used
efficiently or not. I think that is one of the rate-limiting
steps on funding.
The other comment I have on funding is we have a crisis in
debt, but we are only addressing about 40 percent of the
overall Federal spending budget. Congress will need to address
the 60 percent of our mandatory spending programs or else we
are going to continue to see a pinch on the discretionary side.
With that said, Mr. Bunce, can you detail some of the
effect on industry and your members from the current system in
terms of delay and costs to your members? Do you have just a
general comment on that and how that is affecting your members?
Mr. Bunce. Absolutely, sir. In your State, two very mature
engine manufacturers that operate in Indiana--if you look at
some of the new technology that we have going forward, in fact,
they were very instrumental in success with ICAO in Montreal in
developing new CO2 standards, which all jet engines will be
measured against as long as we will all be around.
That new technology is complex. There are new materials
being used, new metallurgy, new ceramics in those engines.
If you try to get through that process and you are doing
something new and novel, if we can go and dedicate those
resources, we keep the burn rate down of being able to
introduce that new product. Because if you look at the air
frame manufacturers, they need to keep constantly putting a new
air frame out. They have to have new engines.
If one of those companies misses that development cycle
because their program is drawn out because they cannot get the
resources devoted to this new technology, they will miss being
on that platform. That translates directly into money and
directly into jobs and really into safety. These new engines
will be safer, and the environment, because they will be more
efficient.
It is all intertwined in the efficiency of the system to
get that product out the door.
Dr. Bucshon. Do you think the inspection process and the
approval process is causing some difficulty with keeping
American competitiveness in place worldwide?
You talked about the expansion of other countries, getting
involved in the aviation industry and the regulatory climate in
their area of the world, maybe the EU or other places.
Do you think we are at the point where it might be
inhibiting America's competitiveness worldwide in your
industry?
Mr. Bunce. Yes, sir. I do think it impacts us. When you
have some of our manufacturers in the U.S. looking to actually
do their certification program in another country, because they
can actually have it being done faster or more efficiently,
that concerns me, because those jobs will go there.
At the same time, when you are looking at this program and
the competitiveness itself, we are a global industry, and
because 50 percent of the market is here in the U.S., we want
people to be able to relocate.
I am very proud of the fact that a lot of international
manufacturers are building facilities here in the U.S. right
now, whether you are talking North Carolina, Florida, or
others, because they look at this market and say ``we want to
be close to the market,'' and we want to encourage that by
making it very efficient for them to be able to get through the
process.
Dr. Bucshon. Mr. Bahrami, do you have any comments about
that with your members, on both the costs and the delays,
perceived delays, and also the competitiveness aspect of it?
Mr. Bahrami. Sir, any time you have a delay in a program,
it is going to be costly, whether the source of that delay is
the FAA or some technical challenges in the program.
From our perspective, what we are trying to do is trying to
have these collaborative relationships, real dialogue,
communication, between the manufacturers and the regulators, to
be able to plan things.
Absolutely, if you have delays, it will cost quite a bit of
money because you cannot stop everything and let people go and
bring them back. Those are things that you just cannot do when
you run a program that runs anywhere from 3 to 8 years.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. Thank you all for
being here today. I should not use all my time. I just have a
quick question and a comment for Director Baker. Thanks for
your role, too.
For President Bunce, I am sorry. Thank you for being here
today and reminding us in your testimony how vital general
aviation is to our economy.
I was actually making notes while this hearing was going
on. 1.2 million jobs generated by the general aviation
industry. It is important that we do not forget that.
There seems to be a commitment from the stakeholders, and
as your testimony indicates, these changes can have their
challenges. I want to note in your testimony, too, and
highlight the fact that you have several cases of smaller
aviation businesses faced with a loss of financing and possibly
going out of business because of the inability of the FAA to
act.
I know we have gone over the FAA process, the certification
process. I want you to speak to the importance of congressional
oversight in this process as part of this team to achieve our
safety goals.
Mr. Bunce. Thank you, Congressman Davis. I want to put it
into something mentioned on the first panel, the Small Airplane
Revitalization Act. This really was to make certification
something that works in the 21st century.
We developed a bunch of rules back in the 1990s. We
promulgated about 800 rules in a very short period of time and
basically certified very simple aircraft to the highest common
denominator of very complex jets.
What did that do? That stifled innovation. That hurt a lot
of companies out there, but it also made regulations become
stale.
So what you all have done is help the FAA push the process
forward, because left to their own devices, I think the FAA
supported everything we were doing, but when it got into the
FAA legal channels and their decisionmaking, they all said no,
this is too hard to do.
What you have done with this legislation is to say no, you
have to do this, and this is the right way. You get
international regulators together to have a common set of
standards, you have them meet periodically to keep the rules
fresh and keep pace with modern technology, and what do you do?
You stimulate innovation to that process, and you are saying,
by the way, get it done by the end of 2015.
I cannot thank this committee enough for the support you
have given us there. We can do more, and the oversight that
this committee and your colleagues in the other body also have,
to be able to hold the FAA's feet to the fire and say let's
make progress. This is important to us. It is important to
safety and important to jobs.
I just cannot overemphasize the importance of it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, President Bunce, and thank you, all.
I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I can tell you that I appreciate your holding this hearing and
calling attention to this problem. Apparently, there is really
a serious problem at the FAA in the certification process.
I read in the inspector general's report that there are
now, across the country, 1,029 new certification applications
pending, and it says of these awaiting certification, 138
applicants have been delayed for more than 3 years, with one
applicant waiting since August of 2006.
I am sorry, I was at another committee hearing and did not
get to hear all of your testimony. I read in Mr. Bunce's
testimony for instance, that according to one aircraft
manufacturer, a delay in a large certification project cost
over $10 million a month, and it says this is just one project.
You can imagine the compounding effect when carried across the
whole industry over a number of months.
Additionally, we have had several cases of smaller aviation
businesses faced with the loss of financing and possibly going
out of business because of the inability of the FAA to act.
And then I read in Mr. Hendricks' testimony about one
commercial air charter operator who had to spend $25,000 to
secure FAA approval to move an aircraft on his air carrier
certificate from one FAA region to another.
It seems to me there is a real problem there. In fact, I
wish, Mr. Bunce and Mr. Hendricks, you would get together and
give us some specific suggestions as to how we can speed this
entire certification process up.
I know there is some variations, depending on what types of
things are being requested to be certified, but there are
surely ways to do this. I can tell you, it is not a money
problem. The FAA is getting plenty of money. They should be
handling these certifications much, much faster.
In fact, I think if they started giving out some bonuses to
move some things faster, they probably would see a lot of this
backlog wiped out pretty quickly.
It is just not a good report. When I read Mr. Hendricks
said 89 percent of NATA members responded that their businesses
have suffered due to inconsistent interpretation of
regulations.
I know the two of you are in a difficult position because
you have to work with FAA so you cannot be too critical, and
because there might be repercussions, but do either of you have
anything you would like to add to what is in your testimony?
Mr. Hendricks. Thank you, Congressman Duncan. I would like
to offer a couple of views, if you do not mind.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. Sure.
Mr. Hendricks. You know very well with your experience, we
are a highly regulated industry, unlike any other industry in
the United States.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. Yes, sir; I know.
Mr. Hendricks. When entrepreneurs make the decision to
start a small business out there, one of the pieces of the
framework that they use to develop their business model is how
we are regulated.
During the recent Government shutdown, we saw what happens
when the regulator nearly disappears. We had commerce come to a
grinding halt in many cases. Pilot qualifications expired,
instructors that could help with those pilot qualifications,
their qualifications expired. We had aircraft that were unable
to be transferred between businesses because the FAA aircraft
registry office was closed in the shutdown.
I do not want to focus on the shutdown, but it shows you
how dependent we are on our regulator, and why the oversight of
the Congress and this subcommittee is so critically important
to our members.
One of the things we subscribe to very strongly, and Dr.
Dillingham referred to this in his remarks as did Director
Dorenda Baker, is that we must take a systems safety approach
through safety management systems, very highly structured,
risk-based approach, complete buy-in by the regulator, by
labor, by management, and moving forward on how we evolve the
system more efficiently than we have done.
We have seen success with this in the industry and we would
like to see this process and this culture change accelerated
within the FAA as well.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. I did not want to get into this
but I will say on our side, we voted four times to open the
entire Government back up with just a simple delay of Obamacare
for a year, but we do not need to get into all that.
Mr. Bunce?
Mr. Bunce. Congressman, I would just add that the workforce
that Mr. Perrone represents, they are great people, they are
sharp people, they want to learn, they want to be with us on
this journey, but I think they are trapped by the bureaucracy
in a lot of ways.
We are in a very risk-averse setting where they are very
constrained by the guidance that is coming down to them. It is
very important that they get clear guidance of what they are
allowed to do and what they cannot do, but also that they can
take confidence in what some of the other FAA inspectors
already approve.
Let me give you an example. Several years ago we went to
this thing called RVSM, reverse vertical separation minimums,
so it allows us up at the high-altitude airspace to fly closer
together vertically.
When we give an aircraft and sell it to a customer, we have
to show it can do this, that the avionics is very tight, the
tolerances are very specific, to be able to fly there. But then
we had a process where that was the certification side, but
then we had to reprove the aircraft could do that on the flight
standard side.
That side was not trusting what the other side did. Then
within the flight standards--we just had an incident a few
months ago where on a telecon, they were discussing RVSM and
the capability to certify aircraft to fly there, and all of a
sudden, an FAA inspector chimed in over the phone and said
``how can I trust what the FAA inspector did in another region,
how can I trust that he did that right?'' All of a sudden,
there was silence in the room, and people got it then, right
away, that we have inspectors, because of the guidance, are not
able to trust what another FAA inspector has done.
That is just debilitating for industry. What happened is
FAA leadership listened to this, there was industry in the
room, there was a lot of discussion, and now there is going to
be some very clear guidance put out dealing with RVSM and what
should be expected.
That is what we are asking more of and that is why this
oversight is so important, that we have metrics available and
that we make sure the FAA is putting implementation guidance to
leverage these resources properly and use delegation.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. My time has gone way over. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for
coming today. I want to focus a little bit on the bureaucracy
and what was just touched on. I am troubled at times when I
hear about the need for regulators on a daily basis. That is
counterproductive to a vibrant economy.
At the same time, we obviously need a safe environment, and
the airline and general aviation industry has been extremely
safe. It is highly publicized when there is an accident, but
when you look at it compared to a number of other
transportation modes, we have a great track record.
The--administrator for the FAA, I have been very direct in
some of my questioning, but yet at the same time I believe him
to be a person who wants to do the very best for the industry.
And so Mr. Hendricks, I would ask you, specifically what
would be the top three things that we could do to get rid of
some of the bureaucracy, to speed up the process, to make sure
we have a competitive aviation business? Because if it is not
us, it is going to be somebody.
I come from North Carolina. We love aviation in North
Carolina, but what would be the top three things that you would
recommend?
Mr. Hendricks. Thank you, Congressman Meadows. I actually
would give you the top choice rather than the top three, and it
would be let's accelerate the movement towards safety
management systems at the FAA and drive cultural change.
The industry is already rapidly moving in this direction,
the airline industry is very mature in their safety management
system processes.
Former Director of Flight Standards, John Allen, spoke very
frequently about the role of the regulator changing in the
future because of the cultural change that is taking place at
the regulated parties, and it needs to take place at the FAA.
The FAA knows this. The Administrator will acknowledge this. It
is a proven system. It is very thorough. It requires everyone
to take ownership of the identified risks in an operation or a
certification process, and we believe this is the way of the
future for the FAA and will allow them to be much more agile in
their oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I would ask you for the record and
not to respond right now, is to give us three areas that we can
get rid of. Because what we do is we add layer upon layer upon
layer. Most of us in this room have flown, and we still get--
and this may be a poor example, but every time we get on a
commercial airline, they are still showing us how to put our
safety belts on. You want to go at what point is there a market
saturation on that training.
I would assume in this particular area, you can identify
three areas that we just added layers, so I would ask you to
respond to the committee on that, if you would.
Mr. Hendricks. I would be happy to do that. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Three actions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
can take to improve safety and help our industry
compete in the marketplace by streamlining the FAA
processes:
1. LSMS--The FAA should leverage the Safety Management
Systems being implemented throughout the industry. The
FAA could reduce direct involvement and could rely on
an approved SMS regime to identify and mitigate risks
so that overall safety levels are improved with more
efficient FAA oversight activities. Reliance on SMS
principles should permit expanded use of delegation
authority without requiring additional FAA personnel
for oversight.
2. LThe FAA should develop and publish directions to
the inspector workforce through handbook guidance that
specifically requires approvals from one geographic
region to be approved in every region. This procedure
should require that any approval deemed not
``transportable'' be reviewed at a higher level to
determine the root cause. Therefore, this procedure
could dramatically improve standardization by
automatically elevating differences in policy
interpretation so that operators would not be reluctant
to complain or fear retribution.
3. LThe FAA should continue its effort to provide a
single platform for all regulations, guidance materials
and legal interpretations for both Aircraft
Certification and Flight Standards. A critical aspect
of this effort is that much of the guidance is outdated
and should be modernized so that it will be clearer to
both FAA inspectors and to the operators and
manufacturers. A consolidated library of standardized,
modern and clear guidance will support more consistent
regulatory interpretation and is key to streamlining
FAA processes. This project will only be enabled if
Congress protects necessary funding and provides
adequate staffing.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Bunce, you mentioned in your testimony
about the certification process using engineering experts, that
they are the same with the traditional, I guess, certification,
and that was problematic.
Can you expand on that a little bit, the difference, why
using those same engineers would be a problem?
Mr. Bunce. If you take an aircraft certification office,
Congressman, that has been working traditionally in the old
model, and all of a sudden you say convert to this new safety
system management/safety oversight, there is resistance to
change. That is just human nature. People do not want to
change.
What does an engineer want to do? God love them, they want
to be down there designing, working on the intricacies. It is
very tough to be able to say no, your job now is to manage the
whole safety processes network and let this company that has
had a very mature record of developing aircraft, or engines,
avionics, whatever it is, go and do the day-to-day sharp pencil
engineering, and you make sure their processes are safe. That
is cultural.
Mr. Meadows. So they have more of a broader brush
overarching engineering responsibility where specifically you
allow the stakeholders and so forth to do the processes that go
into that? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Bunce. Absolutely. Sometimes that may be appointing
different people to go do that expertise. This may be the
sharpest engineer in one specific area. You may want to move
that engineer and say go work on this project for this company
that it is brand new for, and put another person into that
safety oversight.
In your great State, Honda, this is their first foray into
jets, this is a complex program. We want to make sure they have
all the resources they need to be able to get that product to
market quickly, because they are spending a lot of money. I am
sure you have been to that facility. It is tremendous.
They are going to employ a lot of people. The sooner they
start delivering jets, the sooner they start ramping up that
employment.
We want them to have the resources, but a mature company
that has been doing it for a long time, let their processes be
overseen by a safety management system.
Mr. Meadows. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. I have some
additional questions that I am going to submit for the record.
Unfortunately, we are up against a little bit of a time
constraint, but I want to thank the second panel, encourage you
to keep thinking ideas to bring to us. Rick and I want to stay
very much engaged with trying to see how we can further get
this on a positive track.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]