What’s at Issue
NATA recently issued a survey to its members to assess the impact on them of inconsistent regulations among FAA regional offices. The results of the survey proved significant due to the number of respondents who claimed their aviation businesses were negatively affected by varying regulatory interpretations. NATA President James K. Coyne wrote a letter to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee expressing this concern, and requesting that report language be included in the FY 2009 appropriations bill to secure a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of how inconsistent regulatory interpretations are unnecessarily costing the FAA and the aviation industry millions of dollars in resources while also raising serious concerns about unified safety standards. The letter follows.
August 18, 2008
The Honorable Patty Murray
Senate Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing
And Urban Development and Related Agencies
133 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Kit Bond
Senate Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing
And Urban Development and Related Agencies
128 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators Murray and Bond:
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA’s 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation, and the military.
I am writing to bring to your attention an important issue confronting the general aviation industry. The varying interpretation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations by the agency’s Regional, Aircraft Certification (ACOs) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs) is estimated to cost general aviation businesses hundreds of millions of dollars annually when previously approved regulations are subjected to “re-interpretation.” Currently, there are 9 FAA regions, 10 ACOs and more than 80 FSDOs that each issue approvals on a wide range of maintenance and operational requests made by regulated entities. These regulated entities include Part 135 on-demand charter operators, Part 145 repair stations, and Part 141 and 61 flight training facilities.
NATA issued a survey to its members to capture the impact on them of inconsistent regulations among FAA regional offices. The results of the survey proved significant due to the number of respondents that claim their aviation businesses have been negatively affected by varying interpretations of standard regulations.
Below are the detailed results of the survey:
89% of NATA members responded that their business has suffered due to inconsistent regulations.
Various aspects of aviation businesses included aircraft, operations and approval of manuals.
Additionally, 81% stated that lack of standardization is the result of the FAA’s reluctance to accept prior approval.
The report showed that 7% of NATA members had to wait at least 30 days to resolve a discrepancy with an FAA regional office; 20% 30-60 days; 19% 61-120 days; and 51% 121 days or longer.
Most importantly, the report highlighted significant financial loss, $10,000 to over $2,000,000, not including legal fees, resulted due to instances such as delayed Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL) approvals.
An example of inconsistent regulations is a Part 135 on-demand air charter operator who spent approximately $25,000 to secure FAA approval to move an aircraft on his air carrier certificate from one FAA region to another. First, the operator demonstrated compliance with FAA officials from the region where the aircraft was based. The operator then had to work with FAA officials in the region to where the aircraft was being moved as its new base location. The new FAA office would not accept the determination of compliance from the original FAA office and insisted that the operator again demonstrate that the aircraft was in compliance with the FAA regulations. The aircraft was out-of-service and unavailable for customer use for more than five weeks, at a cost of more than $200,000 in lost revenue to the operator.
Inconsistent and varying interpretations of compliance are not only costly for the general aviation industry, they also demonstrate a shortcoming within the FAA. I am concerned with the FAA’s inability to coordinate its workforce and ensure that the decision-making abilities vested in inspectors are respected across all divisions of the agency, impairing their ability to achieve a uniform safety standard nationwide. For this reason, I respectfully ask that report language be included in the FY 2009 appropriations bill requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review how inconsistent regulatory interpretations are costing the FAA and the aviation industry millions of dollars in resources, which is raising serious concerns about unified safety standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
James K. Coyne
President