July 24, 2008
What’s at Issue
The Aviation Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 6493, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in response to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) whistleblowers’ account of safety lapses involving commercial air carriers. Specifically, this legislation seeks to address the relationship between the airlines and FAA regulators, and requires regulators to review safety risk data reported by carriers more frequently.
Why It’s Important
While the legislation is targeted at the airlines, it is likely that these changes will have an indirect impact on other regulated entities, including Part 135 on-demand operators.
Major Provisions
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, James Oberstar, (D-MN), Ranking Member, John Mica, (R-FL) and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Jerry Costello (D-IL), sponsors of the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act, introduced the legislation to restore public confidence in the FAA’s safety programs.
The bill includes the following provisions:
-Creates an independent Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office within the FAA to investigate safety complaints and information submitted by both FAA employees and employees of certificated entities. This office will then recommend the appropriate corrective action to the FAA after the investigation has yielded its findings.
-Directs the FAA to modify its customer service initiative, mission and statements of policy to remove air carrier or other entities regulated by the agency as “customers,” clarifying that traveling public is its only customer.
-Establishes a two-year post-service period for FAA inspectors or anyone responsible for oversight of FAA inspectors before being permitted to represent an air carrier that the individual once oversaw during their term at the FAA.
-Requires the FAA to rotate principle maintenance inspectors between airline oversight offices every five years.
-Requires the FAA to implement monthly reviews of the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) database to ensure that regulatory compliance is identified and corrective actions are taken according to Agency regulations.
NATA Position
In general, NATA concurs that the FAA has been too lenient in enforcing regulatory compliance for Part 121 scheduled air carriers especially in light of the Agency’s recent enforcement actions against Part 135 on-demand air charter operations. The most glaring example of this inequity was the FAA’s recent issuance of a $10 million fine levied against Southwest Airlines for operating unairworthy aircraft on multiple occasions with passengers aboard. Southwest’s air carrier certificate was not suspended or revoked allowing them to continue operations despite their non-compliance with FAA regulations. To the contrary, the FAA has taken actions to suspend or revoke the certificates of charter operators for far less severe regulatory infractions.
NATA encourages members to review our recent Action Call regarding FAA’s enforcement inconsistency and contact their Members of Congress accordingly.
Status
The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 22, 2008 by unanimous consent. However, it is unclear whether the Senate will consider and approve the measure.
Staff Contact:
Kristen Moore
Director, Legislative Affairs
NATA
kmoore@nata.aero