AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT: THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1984 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES AND OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cardiss Collins (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Cardiss Collins, Major R. Owens, Tom Lantos, Gerald D. Kleczka, Raymond J. McGrath, Alfred A. (Al) McCandless, and Dan Schaefer. Also present: Quentin Burgess, professional staff member; Cecelia Morton, clerk; and Arthur DeCelle, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mrs. COLLINS. Good morning. This hearing of the Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee will come to order. We are continuing a hearing on airline safety management. Yesterday we heard extensive testimony from the Air Line Pilots Association [ALPA] concerning what they perceive to be a systemic lack of safety at the new Continental Airlines. In the course of his testimony ALPA president Duffy also accused the FAA, quote: "Either through desire or default," end quote, of evading its duty to properly monitor, investigate, and correct the root causes or the compromises of safety occurring at Continental. While condemning the FAA's investigation of Continental, ALPA praised the FAA's investigation into possible ALPA sanctioning of radio frequency jamming directed at Continental. We also received testimony from the representative of the Union of Flight Attendants [UFA], which focused on inadequate or faulty training policies by Continental. The FAA was accused of being indifferent or insensitive to the role of flight attendants in aviation safety. Yesterday's hearing concluded with a panel of representatives from Continental who rebutted the ALPA allegations. Continental witnesses emphasized that the airline safety record is equal to or better than that of any other major carrier. They pointed out that the carrier's maintenance operations, the safety systems, are the same today as they were prior to the reorganization. It was Continental's contention that the ALPA claims were an undistinguished attempt to "garb an economic argument in a safety cloak." (425) Today we will hear first from the FAA Administrator, Mr. Donald Engen, and then from the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Mr. James Burnett. Because of the serious charges made against the FAA, we are particularly interested in hearing their responses. Beyond the issues relating to Continental, we are also anxious to hear FAA's view on aviation safety management throughout the industry, particularly those policies and procedures employed by the FAA when carriers face financial or labor difficulties. Today we are going to have two panels. The first panel will be Mr. Don Engen, who is, of course, the Administrator of the FAA. I am sorry. I almost forgot. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. McGrath? You may proceed. Mr. McGRATH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Once again, I am pleased to join you on our second day of hearings to review the safety of our Nation's air transportation system. Our witnesses today represent two Federal agencies with primary responsibility for the safety of air travel, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board. Chairman Burnett has appeared before us in the past, and I would like to welcome him back. We are also privileged to have Adm. Don Engen, the new Administrator of the FAA, with us for the first time. Both of our witnesses have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to air safety. Chairman Burnett has stood fast on many occasions against economic arguments and in favor of measures to maintain and improve the safe operation of our air space system. As a former National Transportation Safety Board member, Admiral Engen has shared that stand. No job in Government is without challenges. Those who will testify before us today have voluntarily assumed difficult tasks in the public interest. Admiral Engen is in a unique position as a witness. The criticism directed at the agency he heads is based primarily on activities and policies undertaken prior to his stewardship of the FAA. I have no doubt that he is eminently qualified to comment on the statements made yesterday. However, I hope the members of the committee will realize that the Administrator will be looking more toward future agency efforts under his leadership. In that vein, I hope we will be able to determine the answers to several basic questions. One, how has the FAA and the Safety Board responded to the airline union and management complaints? Two, are airline officials and their employees living up to the serious public trust they hold? Three, do our safety agencies have sufficient resources to fulfill the missions in a deregulated industry? And finally, are Federal officials comfortable in assuming what some have called the dual role of promoting our air transportation system and assuring its safety? Yesterday I mentioned my special interest in an accident which occurred last December at La Guardia Airport in New York. Both agencies here today are conducting investigations of the problems which led to what I consider to be a serious breakdown in company and Government oversight of air carrier operations. Again, I hope we can obtain important insights on the procedures and responsi bilities of the Federal Government to detect and prevent potential hazards. I wish to thank our witnesses for their efforts and contributions to our inquiry. I sincerely hope that we will be able to shore up confidence in our aviation system and maintain the credibility of those who have built its impressive safety record. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. McGrath. Mr. Engen, for the record, please state who is accompanying you, and you may begin your testimony. STATEMENT OF DONALD D. ENGEN, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY H.C. McCLURE, DIRECTOR, WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONS, AND ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION STANDARDS Mr. ENGEN. I just found the on-off switch. I will start again, if I may. With me, Madam Chairwoman, on my right are Mr. Anthony Broderick, Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards, and on my left, Dr. H.C. McClure, Director of the FAA's western Pacific region. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to discuss airline safety. With your permission, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to offer my prepared statement for the record and make a few brief, introductory remarks to the subcommittee. Mrs. COLLINS. Without objection, your entire statement will be included in the record. Mr. ENGEN. I was not present at the hearing yesterday before the subcommittee. I asked members of my staff to attend and to brief me generally on the issues which were raised. Given the seriousness of the issues raised, I particularly welcome the opportunity to be here today. I hope that I can provide, perhaps, some balance to the information provided to the subcommittee and to the public. Before going any further, let me address one subject which is clearly on everyone's mind. Charges have been made that Continental is unsafe. I disagree. Our surveillance of Continental has satisfied me that Continental has provided, and continues to provide, safe service to the traveling public. If I thought otherwise, let me make it perfectly clear that I would not hesitate to take whatever action was necessary to ground them or to bring them into compliance. Recent suspensions and revocations of the certificates of other carriers by the FAA should substantiate my conviction that the American public should expect and get safe air travel aboard any airline in this country. I know it is apparent to the subcommittee and the public that severe labor-management issues are confronting Continental. Those issues are outside my purview and of no interest to the FAA except to the extent that they infringe upon aviation safety. ALPA has mentioned a letter that I sent to Captain Duffy and to Mr. Adams of Continental. That letter was an effort to say to both parties to the labor dispute that any conduct which might interfere with safety will not be tolerated. The letter was not an effort to state any factual conclusions that I have drawn about either party's conduct. It did not favor one side or the other, nor will we take sides in a private labor dispute. My letter was a warning to all concerned to insure responsible behavior and to preserve the safety and integrity of our air transportation system. I will confront and deal firmly with safety problems in a totally unbiased manner, regardless of the source of those problems. Now, I said a moment ago that Continental is providing safe service. I am satisfied that is the case because of the intense surveillance of Continental conducted in accordance with FAA's standard procedures which call for special surveillance of any air carrier experiencing a labor dispute. Since the strike began in September 1983, some 265 days ago, through last week, more than 1,000 different inspections have been conducted of Continental by the FAA. Let me give you a quick laundry list, if I can. We conducted 17 inspections of operations training courses; 4 of dispatch facilities. We have made 52 maintenance systems inspections; 406 operations enroute inspections were conducted; and 104 maintenance and enroute inspections were conducted; 81 operations ramp checks, and 369 maintenance ramp checks were made, and we performed 40 spot maintenance checks. These inspections were performed by safety inspectors throughout the country from over 19 different FAA offices. Now, this averages out to be close to 3.8 inspections every day of the week, Saturday through Sunday, since the strike began. The overall picture that we get from our surveillance efforts is that Continental is providing safe services. That statement reflects no bias for or against either party to the labor dispute. It is just my honest assessment of the facts. Before responding to questions you may have, let me try to put a couple of other things in perspective, if I may. I understand you have heard that the FAA has not done a good job in inspecting Continental, that our inspections have been careless or indifferent. Let me set the record straight on that point. I have already addressed the coverage. I am convinced the FAA's effort, which started months ago before I became Administrator, has been a sincere one, and I am satisfied that it has been done along the right lines. I mentioned we will not show partiality, and I don't find any evidence that the agency has. I can assure you that is something which I will not tolerate. ALPA has indicated that the FAA has taken too long to evaluate the occurrences reported to FAA by ALPA and that perhaps because of the processing time for Freedom of Information Act requests, valuable evidence was lost. Let me address those points because they focus on the agency's responsiveness. To begin with, when ALPA first approached us with a number of purported safety violations, many of the occurrences had been one or more months prior to that time. Since our air traffic control facilities typically reuse the air traffic control tapes after a couple of weeks have passed, unless a possible incident has been noted and that tape set aside, the tapes for many of the ALPA-reported occurrences have been routinely recycled, and this is just an economic need that we have to do because we have so many facilities taping so many things. When we looked into these reported occurrences, we therefore found we did not have evidence on which to substantiate the charges made so we said two things. "Come back to us if you have any evidence to back up these occurrences, and we will address them" which happened, and we did this in a number of cases. And we said in a March 2 letter, from which I will quote at this time: The current method you are using to report these incidents may preclude us from obtaining the necessary information to conduct a thorough investigation. This is particularly true in those cases which may involve FAA legal action or which may require input from the air traffic control segment of the FAA. As you know, much of the air traffic data are routinely destroyed on a 10 to 30 day timetable. To assist us, we recommend that you advise your membership that when they witness or suspect a safety infraction, they report the incident to the nearest flight standards or air traffic facility as soon as is practicable. This report can be made by telephone, radio, or in person. So, instead of dodging the issue, we told ALPA how they could help us in getting to the bottom of the alleged occurrences. Now, in terms of how quickly we then responded to the reported occurrences once some added evidence was provided, let me make several points. The first is, we must be vigilant in our investigations, not to unduly tarnish the reputation of an individual or an organization. Also, we want to be correct, and to be able to back up in subsequent legal proceedings any actions which we may take. Anyone familiar with the legal process knows this takes time. It is worth noting that during any investigation, if we see something that is not right, we don't wait until the completion of the investigation to ask that corrective action be taken. Finally, our resources in our western Pacific region are being put to a test. They have been involved in a long, gruelling, intensive look at Continental, and have provided support to the National Air Transportation Inspection Program as well. The western Pacific region has expended over 7,800 hours of effort on Continental surveillance and in responding to issues raised by ALPA, and now Continental. This does not include the effort in 18 other offices in the FAA. The workload generated in looking at the occurrences reported by ALPA has certainly added to the burden placed on the region, and has had to be assigned a priority within the overall work effort, both for Continental and for assuring safety of all other carriers in the region. Now, having said all that, let me also go on to say that I have stressed within the FAA since I arrived the need for quality work done in an expeditious and responsive manner. I intend to continue working to see that we get things done a little faster. In closing, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to say that I look forward to working with you on this issue and any other issues of interest to this subcommittee. You may be assured of our continued full cooperation with you and your staff. We would be pleased at this time to respond to any questions you may have. [Mr. Engen's prepared statement follows:] 39-223 0-84--28 |