This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-722 
entitled 'Aviation Safety: Better Guidance and Training Needed on 
Providing Files on Pilots' Background Information' which was released 
on September 30, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to the Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on 

Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives:



August 2002:



AVIATION SAFETY:



Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots’ 

Background Information:



GAO-02-722:



Highlights:



August 2002:



AVIATION SAFETY:



Better Guidance and Training Needed on Providing Files on Pilots’ 

Background Information:



Highlights of GAO-02-722, a report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure.



Why GAO Did This Study:



In 1996, Congress enacted the Pilot Records Improvement Act 

to keep unsafe pilots out of the cockpits of commercial aircraft. 

GAO did this study to determine (1) whether air carriers have 

complied with the act by requesting and receiving key documents 

about pilots’ qualifications, performance, and training from the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Driver 

Register (NDR), and other carriers and whether these documents 

have been provided on time; (2) whether carriers are aware of 

requirements for protecting pilots’ rights; (3) what FAA has done 

to oversee compliance with the act; and (4) whether carriers 

believe the act has helped them make pilot-hiring decisions.



What GAO Found:



GAO found, from analyzing FAA and NDR databases and from surveying 

air carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot 

records, that compliance has increased since the act took effect 

in 1997, but noncompliance is also occurring. For example, hiring 

carriers requested and received records less often from other 

carriers than from FAA and NDR, and other carriers provided records 

with more delays than the agencies. (See figure below.) Until they 

receive the required records, hiring carriers are not allowed to 

use pilots to fly passengers or cargo.



Carriers are not always aware of the act’s requirements for protecting 

pilots’ rights, especially of those for notifying pilots of requests 

for their records and for allowing them to review and submit written 

corrections before final hiring decisions are made. Pilots also lacked 

awareness that they could request copies of their records from current 

as well as former employers.  However, if the records are inaccurate, 

the opportunity for pilots to submit corrections does not come until 

after hiring carriers have already received the records.



To oversee compliance with the act, FAA developed guidance but was 

slow to update it after the act was amended and has not included 

information on the act in the agency’s training or handbooks for 

inspectors. As a result, carriers and pilots lack awareness of 

some provisions, and FAA inspectors are not prepared or prompted 

to review compliance. FAA’s ability to enforce compliance is limited 

because carriers are not required to retain the files on pilots 

hired that FAA needs to monitor and enforce compliance. 



While finding pilot records helpful, carriers found them less helpful 

than information from other sources, such as job interviews, flight 

evaluations, and training programs. The carriers were divided in their 

opinions on whether the records were worth the cost.



What GAO Recommends:



To promote greater awareness of and compliance with the act, GAO 

recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to develop clarifying guidance for carriers on the 

contents of pilot records and on retaining the files of pilots hired, 

post information on pilots’ rights on FAA’s Web site, and incorporate 

the act’s requirements into FAA inspectors’ training and handbooks.



FAA agreed with GAO’s recommendations.



This is a test for developing highlights for a GAO report. The full 

report, including GAO’s objectives, scope, methodology, and analysis, 

is available at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-02-722. For additional 

information about the report, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 

512-3650. To provide comments on this test highlights, contact Keith 

Fultz (202-512-3200) or e-mail HighlightsTest@gao.gov.



Contents:



Letter:



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



Background:



Results in Brief:



Principal Findings:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 1: Introduction:



PRIA Requires Air Carriers to Conduct Background Checks on Pilot Job 

Applicants:



PRIA Requires FAA to Provide Periodic Reports and Three Studies :



Congress Amended PRIA Twice:



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Chapter 2: Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements are

Increasing, but Compliance is Not Always Complete or Timely:



Required Requests for Pilot Records Increased, but Available Data Are 

Not Adequate to Determine the Extent of Compliance:



Hiring Carriers Requested the Most Records from FAA and Made the Fewest 

Requests to Other Carriers:



Carriers Said They Generally Receive Records on Time from FAA and NDR 

but Still Have Some Problems Obtaining Records from Other Carriers:



Chapter 3: Air Carriers Have Not Consistently Followed PRIA’s 

Requirements for Protecting Pilots’ Rights:



Some Carriers Said They Are Unaware of PRIA’s Requirements for 

Protecting Pilots’ Rights:



Some PRIA Files Contained Inappropriate Information That Should Have 

Been Excluded:



The Opportunity for Pilots to Correct Their Records May Come Too Late:



Chapter 4: FAA Oversight of PRIA Implementation Has Been Limited:



FAA Has Specific Responsibilities under PRIA as Well as Broad 

Responsibility for Aviation Safety:



FAA Has Developed Guidance on PRIA:



Several Factors May Hamper FAA’s Operations Inspection Ability to 

Monitor Compliance with PRIA:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 5: Most Carriers Found PRIA Records Helpful but Were Divided

on Whether They Were Worth the Cost:



Carriers Generally Found PRIA Records Helpful in Making Hiring 

Decisions but Less Helpful than Information from Other

Sources:



Carriers Differed on Whether PRIA Is Worth the Cost:



Most Carriers Favored Changes That Would Make Additional Information 

Available under PRIA:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Fatal Aviation Accidents That Involved Pilots with Prior

Safety Problems were Cited in Passing PRIA Legislation:



Appendix II: Methodology



Mail Surveys of Carriers:



Database Analyses:



Pilot Interviews:



Appendix III: Survey of Part 121s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:



Appendix IV: Survey of the 135s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:



Appendix V: Chart of Items Needing Clarification by FAA:



Appendix VI: Overview of FAA Form 8060-11:



Appendix VII: Air Carriers’s Cost to Comply with PRIA in 2000:



Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:



GAO Contacts:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: Information Air Carriers Must Request and Review under PRIA:



Table 2: Aviation Operators with Active Part 121 and/or Part 135 

Certificates as of April 13, 2001:



Table 3: Key Changes to PRIA from Amendments:



Table 4: Carriers That Made at Least One Request to FAA for Pilot 

Background Records, July 1998 through April 2001:



Table 5: Requests for FAA Records and NDR Driver Information Records, 

1997 through 2001:



Table 6: Records Releasable under PRIA and FOIA from PRIA’s 

Implementation on February 6, 1997, through January 11, 2002:



Table 7: Percentage of Carriers That Supported Including Additional FAA 

Information in Response to PRIA Requests:



Table 8: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 
22:



Table 9: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 6:



Table 10: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 
9:



Table 11: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 
21:



Table 12: Summary of Survey Returns for Carriers That Made PRIA 
Requests 

to FAA:



Table 13: Databases Used in GAO Analyses:



Figures :



Figure 1: Carriers’ Requests to FAA for PRIA Background Checks on 

Pilots, February 1997 through December 2001:



Figure 2: Carriers’ and Pilots’ Requests for Information on Pilots’ NDR 

Information, February 1997 through December 2001:



Figure 3: Number of Reported Requests for Pilot Records Received by 
Part 

121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers, 1997 through 2000:



Figure 4: Percentage of Carriers That Reported Requesting PRIA Records 

in 2000:



Figure 5: Percentage of Carriers Reporting the Receipt of PRIA Records 

in 2000:



Figure 6: Part 121 Carriers’ Reported Awareness of Seven of PRIA’s 

Requirements for Carriers When Hiring Pilots:



Figure 7: Part 121 Carriers’ Reported Awareness of PRIA’s Requirements 

for Carriers Responding to PRIA Requests:



Figure 8: Percentage of Part 121 Carriers That Identified a Great or 

Very Great Need for Clarification of How to Proceed in Certain 

Situations:



Figure 9: Views of Part 121 Carriers on the Helpfulness of PRIA 

Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



Figure 10: Views of Sampled Part 135 Carriers on the Helpfulness of 
PRIA 

Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



Figure 11: Extent to Which Part 121 Carriers Reported That PRIA Records 

Were a Factor in Decisions Not to Hire a Pilot:



Figure 12: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on 

the Helpfulness of PRIA Records in Making Hiring Decisions:



Figure 13: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on 

the Helpfulness of Non-PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



Abbreviations:



AOPA: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:



ATOS: Air Transportation Oversight System:



CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:



DOT: Department of Transportation:



FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:



FOIA: Freedom of Information Act:



NDR: National Driver Register:



NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board:



PRIA: Pilot Records Improvement Act:



[End of Section]



Letter August 30, 2002:



The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman 

The Honorable William O. Lipinski

Ranking Democratic Member

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives:



In response to your request, this report discusses the implementation 

of the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996. This report contains 

recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation.



Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 

distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. 

At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Transportation; and the Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.



Please call me at (202) 512-3650 if you or your staff have any 

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix VIII.



Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham:



[End of section]



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



The Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA), enacted on October 9, 1996, 

responded to seven fatal commercial air carrier accidents that were 

attributed, in part, to errors by pilots who had been hired without 

background checks. Subsequent reviews of these pilots’ records revealed 

prior safety violations or training problems. PRIA, which took effect 

on February 6, 1997, requires air carriers (carriers), before making 

final hiring decisions, to obtain information for the past 5 years on a 

pilot applicant’s performance, qualifications, and training from the 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

employers (often other carriers), and the National Driver Register 

(NDR).[Footnote 1] The act also includes provisions to protect pilots’ 

rights. FAA oversees compliance with the act and has broad 

responsibility for overseeing aviation safety.



Interested in how effective PRIA has been, the Chairman and Ranking 

Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to determine (1) whether 

hiring carriers have complied with the act by requesting pilots’ 

records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers and whether these records 

were provided in a timely manner; (2) whether carriers, NDR, and FAA 

have complied with the act’s requirements for protecting pilots’ 

rights; (3) what FAA has done to oversee compliance with the act; and 

(4) whether carriers believe the act has been helpful to them in making 

pilot-hiring decisions and is worth the cost.



Background:



PRIA applies to the vast majority of U.S. commercial air carriers that 

transport paying passengers or cargo. These include carriers operating 

interstate (1) under Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations, using 

largely jet aircraft with more than nine passenger seats, and (2) under 

Part 135, using primarily other types of aircraft with nine or fewer 

seats. A few carriers have dual certificates to operate under both Part 

121 and Part 135.



To accomplish its objectives, in part, GAO conducted two nationwide, 

anonymous mail surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers that had made 

at least one request to FAA for information under the act. This 

population included 124, or 86 percent, of the 144 carriers that 

operate under Part 121 or have dual operating certificates and 1,144, 

or 39 percent, of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers that had made at least 

one request to FAA for information. GAO mailed surveys to all 124 Part 

121 or dual-certificate carriers and to a random sample of 350 Part 135 

carriers. While the responses of the Part 121 carriers are 

representative of all such carriers, the responses of the Part 135 

carriers are, subject to sampling error, representative of those Part 

135 carriers that made at least one request to FAA but may not be 

representative of all Part 135 carriers.



Results in Brief:



According to GAO’s analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers’ 

responses to GAO’s surveys, compliance with the act has generally 

increased since it went into effect, but compliance is not always 

complete or timely. The available data are not adequate to determine 

industrywide compliance. Nevertheless, hiring carriers have 

increasingly requested and received pilot records from FAA, NDR, and 

other carriers, as required, and the agencies and other carriers have 

increasingly provided the required records within 30 days, as required. 

FAA, in particular, has accelerated its response time by developing a 

centralized database that enables the agency to generate up-to-date 

pilot records within minutes. However, hiring carriers have requested 

widely varying numbers of records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers, 

even though they are generally required to request records from all 

three sources for each pilot hired. Specifically, GAO’s database 

analyses show that hiring carriers requested about 30,000 more records 

from FAA than from NDR from 1997 through 2001. During the same period, 

according to the survey responses, hiring carriers requested thousands 

fewer records from other carriers than from either agency. These large 

discrepancies in the number of requests indicate some degree of 

noncompliance--an indication consistent with data gathered by FAA 

inspectors at GAO’s request, which show that hundreds of pilots were 

hired by Part 135 carriers that either requested no pilot records from 

FAA or requested records for fewer pilots than they hired. 

Additionally, a few carriers responding to GAO’s surveys self-reported 

noncompliance, indicating that they had requested records from all 

three required sources for half or fewer of the pilots they hired. 

Finally, hiring carriers reported receiving pilot records less often 

from other carriers than from FAA and NDR and, in a few cases, reported 

never receiving the records. According to the hiring carriers, other 

carriers were also less likely than FAA and NDR to provide the records 

on time. Delays in providing the records can be costly for both 

carriers and pilots because, although a hiring carrier is allowed to 

make a conditional offer to a pilot and begin training the pilot before 

receiving the required records, the carrier is not allowed to make a 

final hiring decision and use the pilot to fly passengers or cargo 

until the records have been received.



According to their responses to GAO’s surveys, carriers are not always 

aware of PRIA’s requirements for protecting pilots’ rights. For 

example, many carriers said they were unaware of requirements for 

notifying pilots of requests for their records and for giving them 

opportunities to review their records and to submit written comments to 

correct any inaccuracies before final hiring decisions are made. Pilots 

also lacked awareness that they could request copies of their records 

from current as well as former employers, according to officials from 

the Airline Owners and Pilots Association and several pilots that GAO 

interviewed. Additionally, carrier officials and pilots told GAO that 

some files contain records that, under the act, should be excluded to 

protect pilots’ rights. In reviewing a limited number of PRIA files, 

GAO identified some inappropriate records, including ones that were 

more than 5 years old, were unrelated to a pilot’s performance as a 

pilot or a driver, or reported disciplinary actions that had been 

overturned. Removing inappropriate records or correcting inaccuracies 

is problematic because, although PRIA allows a pilot to review the 

records maintained by a current or former employer, the act does not 

establish procedures for removing any inappropriate records or 

correcting any inaccuracies, and it does not provide for the pilot to 

submit comments to correct any inaccuracies until the records have been 

sent to the hiring carrier--too late to prevent the carrier from seeing 

any potentially damaging information.



FAA has taken limited steps to oversee compliance with PRIA. Under the 

act and its broad responsibility for aviation safety, FAA can issue 

implementing regulations, develop guidance, conduct inspections to 

monitor carriers’ compliance, and initiate enforcement actions when it 

finds evidence of noncompliance. FAA has not issued regulations because 

it regards the act as self-implementing and believes that its 

regulatory resources should be reserved for higher agency priorities. 

Although FAA provided guidance for carriers, it was slow to update the 

guidance after the act was amended. In addition, FAA e-mailed 

information on PRIA to its own staff, but it has not included this 

information in its training for inspectors or revised its inspection 

handbooks to include the act’s requirements. Without information on the 

act in their training and inspection handbooks, FAA inspectors are not 

prepared or prompted to review carriers’ compliance with the act. FAA’s 

ability to oversee compliance with the act is also limited, since the 

act does not require carriers to retain the records FAA needs to 

monitor and enforce compliance. This report contains recommendations 

designed to strengthen FAA’s ability to oversee compliance with the 

act. FAA officials agreed with these recommendations.



While generally finding PRIA records useful in making hiring decisions, 

carriers were divided in their opinions on whether the records were 

worth the cost. Nearly three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and 

about three-fifths of the Part 135 carriers that GAO surveyed found 

PRIA records helpful. However, both groups of carriers found 

information from other sources, such as the job interview, the 

carrier’s flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the 

carrier’s training program, more helpful. About half of the Part 121 

carriers and about one-third of the Part 135 carriers considered the 

PRIA information they received in 2000 worth the cost.



Principal Findings:



Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements Are Increasing, 

but Compliance Is Not Always Complete or Timely:



From PRIA’s implementation in 1997 through 2001, carriers requested 

PRIA records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers for thousands of pilots. 

The number of requests generally increased each year until 2001, when 

the economic recession and September 11 terrorist attacks depressed the 

demand for air travel and slowed pilot hiring.



Although the available data are not adequate to determine overall 

compliance rates, carriers made varying numbers of requests for records 

to FAA, NDR, and other carriers. According to FAA and NDR data, 

carriers requested thousands more records from FAA than from NDR each 

year from 1997 through 2001. In addition, carriers responding to GAO’s 

surveys reported receiving thousands fewer requests each year than FAA 

and NDR reported. Some carriers also reported requesting fewer records 

from other carriers than from FAA or NDR.



According to industry representatives and carrier hiring officials, 

most carriers received PRIA records from FAA and NDR, and carriers 

generally reported receiving these records on time. Although FAA 

initially had difficulty providing the records within 30 days, its 

Aviation Data Systems Branch consolidated three separate databases in 

1998, and the agency is now generally able to generate a response 

letter for a carrier within minutes. Hiring carriers reported receiving 

records from other carriers less frequently, and a few said they never 

received the records. Hiring carriers also reported more delays in 

receiving records from other carriers. Without complete PRIA 

information, carriers are not allowed to use pilots to fly passengers 

or cargo, and delays in receiving records can be costly to both 

carriers and pilots.



Carriers Reportedly Were Not Always Aware of and Did Not Always Follow 

PRIA’s Requirements for Protecting Pilots’ Rights:



Carriers varied considerably in their awareness of PRIA’s requirements 

for protecting pilots’ rights, according to their responses to GAO’s 

surveys. In general, their responses indicated more awareness of 

requirements that are applicable when hiring than of requirements that 

are applicable when responding to requests from other carriers. Hiring 

carriers were least often aware that they must give pilot applicants an 

opportunity to submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies in 

their PRIA records before making final hiring decisions, and responding 

carriers were least often aware that they must allow current or former 

pilot employees to review their records within 30 days of making a 

written request.



According to carrier officials, pilots, and GAO’s review of a limited 

number of PRIA files, pilot records sometimes include outdated or 

inappropriate information, such as records of overturned disciplinary 

actions. If pilots are aware that PRIA gives them the right to review 

the records maintained by a current or former employer and if they 

exercise that right, they can determine whether any of the information 

in their records is inappropriate or inaccurate, and they may be able 

to persuade the employer to remove or correct the information. However, 

PRIA does not establish procedures for removing inappropriate or 

inaccurate information, and it does not give pilots an opportunity to 

submit written comments to correct any inaccuracies until after the 

records have been sent to the hiring carrier--too late to prevent the 

carrier from receiving information that may jeopardize the pilot’s 

chances of being hired. Several carrier officials told GAO that they 

did not know how to remove records that they believed were unfair. 

Finally, when carriers and pilots disagree over PRIA records, there are 

no procedures for resolving their differences.



FAA Has Provided Limited Oversight of Compliance with PRIA:



To promote compliance with PRIA, FAA issued an advisory circular for 

carriers in May 1997, but it did not revise the circular until 

September 2001, even though the law was amended in December 1997 and 

April 2000. In addition, the revised circular includes a sample form 

that requires pilots to waive two provisions of the law designed to 

protect pilots’ rights and inappropriately shifts the responsibility 

for notifying the pilot of a request for records from the responding 

carrier to the hiring carrier. These changes are not in conformance 

with the act.



Although FAA has e-mailed guidance on PRIA to its own staff, it has not 

yet incorporated this guidance into its training classes for inspectors 

or into the handbooks that they use to monitor carriers. FAA inspectors 

have reported few violations of PRIA, and the agency has opened 10 

enforcement cases against carriers, 7 of which resulted in warning 

letters or were closed with no action. This level of inspection and 

enforcement activity seems low compared with the indications of 

potential noncompliance that GAO identified during its review. Without 

information about PRIA in their training classes or inspection 

handbooks, FAA inspectors have no reminders to check for compliance 

with the act. Although FAA maintains that it monitors carriers’ 

processes and procedures for complying with the law, FAA cannot 

determine whether carriers follow these processes and procedures unless 

it performs at least some spot checks. FAA’s ability to enforce PRIA is 

also hampered by the absence of a requirement for carriers to maintain 

copies of the PRIA records they receive for pilots they hire.



Carriers Generally Found PRIA Helpful, but Were Divided on Whether It 

Is Worth the Cost:



The majority of both the Part 121 and Part 135 carriers responding to 

GAO’s surveys reported that PRIA records were helpful in making hiring 

decisions. In their view, FAA information on enforcement actions closed 

during the past 5 years was most helpful, and FAA’s verification of the 

pilot’s medical record and the pilot’s NDR information were least 

helpful. The carriers also indicated that information from other 

sources, such as the job interview, the carrier’s flight evaluation of 

the pilot, or the results of the carrier’s training program, was more 

helpful than PRIA information.



The total costs of implementing PRIA, most of which are borne by 

carriers, are difficult to estimate, primarily because they often are 

not tracked separately from other costs. For 2000, the Part 121 

carriers estimated spending $7,000, on average, to implement the act, 

while the Part 135 carriers estimated spending $1,000, on average. 

About half of the Part 121 carriers and about one-third of the Part 135 

carriers believed their PRIA costs for 2000 were justified by the 

usefulness of the information received. The remaining carriers did not 

believe their PRIA costs were justified.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to develop guidance for carriers on the information that 

is to be included in and excluded from PRIA files; have carriers put in 

place a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance 

with all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot 

background checks have been completed for pilots hired; revise the 

sample form for hiring carriers to conform with the act’s provisions; 

post information on pilots’ rights under the act on FAA’s Web site; and 

incorporate information on PRIA into the training classes and 

inspection handbooks for FAA inspectors.



Agency Comments:



We provided the Department of Transportation with a copy of our draft 

report for review and comment. In our draft report, we recommended that 

FAA develop a regulation requiring that carriers maintain records of 

background checks on the pilots they hire for as long as the pilots 

remain in their employ. FAA agreed that carriers need to maintain these 

records so that it can monitor and enforce their compliance with the 

law, but it proposed a change in its administrative guidance rather 

than a regulation to achieve this goal. We agreed that such a change 

could accomplish the intent of our initial recommendation and revised 

the recommendation accordingly. FAA concurred with all other 

recommendations in our draft report.



[End of section]



Chapter 1 Introduction:



Between 1987 and 1994, errors by pilots whose backgrounds had not been 

checked prior to hiring were identified as contributing factors in 

seven crashes of scheduled carriers involving 111 fatalities. The 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigated these 

crashes, found that each of the pilots involved had been hired despite 

a poor performance history, prior safety violations, or both. In each 

case, NTSB reported, the carrier had lacked access to, or had failed to 

obtain, the pilot’s records with previous employers before hiring. 

Accordingly, on four separate occasions between September 1988 and 

October 1995, NTSB recommended that carriers obtain information from 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and previous employers on a 

pilot’s training, performance, and safety history before 

hiring.[Footnote 2] NTSB later also recommended that information about 

the pilot’s driving record be checked with the National Driver Register 

(NDR).[Footnote 3] In June 1988, we likewise recommended, after 

surveying carriers’ pilot-hiring practices, that FAA encourage carriers 

to review a pilot’s safety history before making a hiring 

decision.[Footnote 4]



On October 9, 1996, Congress enacted the Pilot Records Improvement Act 

(PRIA) to help ensure that fatal crashes would not again occur because, 

in part, carriers had not investigated the backgrounds of the pilots 

they hired.[Footnote 5] The act, which took effect on February 6, 1997, 

requires that air carriers conduct background checks on all pilot 

applicants. The vast majority of commercial carriers carrying paying 

passengers or transporting cargo are classified as air carriers because 

these carriers meet specific statutory requirements that are discussed 

in more detail later in this chapter. These carriers are, therefore, 

subject to the act. Besides requiring that carriers obtain key records 

from FAA, past or current employers for whom the applicant worked as a 

pilot, and NDR, PRIA includes provisions to protect pilots’ rights and 

to protect those furnishing records from liability for providing the 

information.



PRIA also gives FAA responsibility for overseeing compliance with the 

act, by stating that FAA may prescribe regulations as necessary to 

ensure compliance with the requesting and receiving of pilot records, 

protect the personal privacy of anyone whose records are requested as 

well as the confidentiality of those records, and preclude further 

dissemination of those records by the person requesting them. 

Furthermore, as the agency responsible for aviation safety, FAA has a 

broader responsibility to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for the 

aviation industry.[Footnote 6] To carry out this responsibility, FAA 

issues regulations and develops guidance. FAA also performs inspections 

to ensure compliance with federal statutes and regulations and has the 

authority to take enforcement actions against violators. Specifically, 

FAA regulates and monitors the safety of air transportation and air 

commerce through its safety programs, which provide the initial 

certification, periodic surveillance, and inspection of airlines, 

airports, repair stations, and other aviation entities, including 

pilots. These inspections are intended to primarily detect actual 

violations of statutes or regulations. When safety inspectors identify 

violations, FAA guidance requires that such violations be investigated, 

appropriately addressed, and reported.



The Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on 

Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked 

us to review the status of PRIA since its enactment in October 1996. 

Specifically, they asked us to determine the following:



* whether (1) hiring air carriers have complied with the act by 

requesting and receiving key documents about pilot applicants before 

making final hiring decisions and (2) FAA, NDR, and other carriers have 

complied with the act by providing these documents in a timely manner;



* whether air carriers are aware of PRIA’s requirements for protecting 

pilots’ rights;



* what FAA has done to oversee compliance with the act; and:



* whether air carriers believe PRIA has been helpful to them in making 

pilot-hiring decisions and is worth the cost.



Until recently, pilot hiring was expected to keep pace over the next 

decade with projected growth in air traffic and anticipated pilot 

retirements. With the economic downturn in 2001 and the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks, however, the demand for air travel declined. 

As a result of the September 11 attacks, concerns about aviation safety 

and security are likely to remain central, and pilot background checks, 

such as those required by PRIA, may assume even greater importance.



PRIA Requires Air Carriers to Conduct Background Checks on Pilot Job 

Applicants:



PRIA requires that air carriers conduct background checks on a pilot 

job applicant. Specifically, PRIA requires them to request, from FAA, 

previous air carrier and other employers, and NDR, and review 

information about the applicant’s qualifications, performance, and 

training over the past 5 years. This information is to be provided 

within 30 days, and a reasonable fee may be charged to the requesting 

carrier for the service. Table 1 identifies the information required 

from each source.



Table 1: Information Air Carriers Must Request and Review under PRIA:



Source: FAA; Pilot information required: Certificate(s), medical 

certificate, aircraft type ratings with any limitations, and a summary 

of any legal enforcement action resulting in a violation that was not 

subsequently overturned.[A].



Source: Air carriers and other previous employers; Pilot information 

required: Records related to employment; training, qualifications, 

proficiency, or professional competency (including comments and 

evaluations by a check airman);[B] any disciplinary actions (that have 

not been overturned); any release from employment; and any other 

records related to the individual’s performance as a pilot that are 

maintained by the employer, except records pertaining to flight time, 

duty time, or rest time..



Source: NDR[C]; Pilot information required: Driver identification 

information from states for probable matches with a pilot whose license 

has been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied or who has been 

convicted of certain serious traffic-related violations, such as 

driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. Carriers are to then 

contact the state(s) involved for detailed violation information and to 

ensure that the information is for the pilot..



[A] FAA maintains this information in three databases: (1) the 

Comprehensive Airmen Information System contains information on all 

FAA-certificated pilots and can be used to verify a pilot’s certificate 

and type rating, thereby verifying a pilot’s qualification for flying a 

specific type of aircraft; (2) the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s 

database contains information about the class of medical certificate 

held by the pilot, the date of issuance, and any limitations or 

restrictions that are based on a medical condition; and (3) the 

Enforcement Information System contains information on FAA’s 

enforcement proceedings against a pilot, including warnings, 

certificate actions, and monetary penalties.



[B] Regulations require that a pilot’s flying skills be tested during 

periodic “check rides” either by an FAA inspector or by a carrier’s 

designated representative, called a check airman.



[C] Carriers usually obtain driver identification information from the 

chief driver-licensing official of a state. NDR is maintained by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within the Department of 

Transportation.



Source: GAO presentation of information from FAA and NDR.



[End of table]



PRIA Applies to Air Carriers:



PRIA’s definition of an air carrier is based on several statutes. An 

air carrier subject to PRIA:



* is operated by a U.S. citizen[Footnote 7] who directly or indirectly 

provides air transportation;



* provides interstate air transportation--that is, transports 

passengers or property across state lines by aircraft as a common 

carrier for compensation, or transports mail by aircraft; and:



* operates as a common carrier--that is, advertises to the public to 

carry persons, property, or mail for hire.



To operate as an air carrier, a carrier must have an air carrier 

certificate issued by FAA under Part 119 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). FAA issues a number of operating 

certificates under various parts of the CFR. FAA may require an 

aviation operator to have several of these certificates, depending on 

the number of passengers carried, the weight of the aircraft, and 

whether the aircraft is used to fly out of state or carry mail. For 

example, Part 121 certificates are generally issued to major carriers 

who operate turbojet-powered airplanes or airplanes with more than nine 

passenger seats, excluding crew members’ seats, or airplanes having a 

payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds. Part 135 certificates are 

generally issued to small carriers operating other than turbojet-

powered airplanes having no more than nine passenger seats and a 

payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less. The criteria for issuing 

certificates under Parts 121 and 135 have changed since the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, when the seven fatal accidents that led to PRIA’s 

enactment occurred. At that time, all seven carriers operated under 

Part 135 certificates; however, under the new criteria, all of these 

carriers would operate under Part 121 certificates.[Footnote 8]



As of April 13, 2001, FAA had identified 3,059 operators with active 

certificates to operate under Parts 121 and 135 or with dual 

certificates to operate under both. The vast majority of these 

operators are air carriers and thus are subject to PRIA. (See table 

2.):



Table 2: Aviation Operators with Active Part 121 and/or Part 135 

Certificates as of April 13, 2001:



Certificate: Part 121; Number of operators: 117.



Certificate: Part 135; Number of operators: 2,915.



Certificate: Part 121/135[A]; Number of operators: 27.



Certificate: Total; Number of operators: 3,059.



[A] These operators have dual certificates to operate under both Parts 

121 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.



Source: FAA analysis of data in the Flight Standards Operations 

Specifications database.



[End of table]



PRIA Includes Provisions to Protect Pilots’ Rights:



PRIA includes several provisions to protect the privacy of a pilot’s 

records during the hiring process and indicates how a pilot can obtain 

and comment on the records contained in PRIA files. First, PRIA 

specifies that, generally, only information covering a 5-year period 

preceding the date of the employment application or the date of the 

request is to be forwarded to the hiring air carrier. Second, to help 

ensure that a pilot’s records are not requested without permission, a 

carrier must obtain the pilot’s written consent before requesting the 

release of records from FAA, NDR, and current or former employers. PRIA 

also includes provisions to protect air carriers from liability for 

providing a pilot’s records and requires that they not provide records 

without first ensuring that the pilot’s consent has been obtained. 

Finally, PRIA limits access to a pilot’s records to those individuals 

directly involved in the hiring process and restricts the use of those 

records to assessing the pilot’s qualifications as part of making a 

hiring decision. To further protect a pilot’s privacy, a carrier must 

protect the confidentiality of these records.



PRIA also provides a pilot with access to his/her PRIA records. 

Whenever a request is received, a carrier, employer, or agency has 20 

days to notify the pilot of the request and of the pilot’s right to 

receive a copy of the PRIA file. If requested in writing by a pilot, a 

copy of the PRIA file must be provided within 30 days of the pilot’s 

request. Under PRIA, a pilot has the right to submit written comments 

to correct inaccuracies in the records before a final hiring decision 

is made. To further protect the rights of pilots under PRIA, FAA may 

prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to protect the personal 

privacy of any pilots whose records are requested, preclude the further 

dissemination of records received, and ensure prompt compliance with 

requests for PRIA records.



PRIA Requires FAA to Provide Periodic Reports and Three Studies:



PRIA required FAA to provide a written report to Congress on the act’s 

implementation 18 months after the act was passed and at least once 

every 3 years thereafter on proposed changes to FAA’s records, 

carriers’ records, and other employers’ records. If FAA does not 

recommend changes to PRIA, the act also requires the agency to give 

reasons for its position. FAA provided Congress with two reports that 

were issued in October 2000 and April 2002. Neither report recommends 

any change to (1) the agency’s current system of collecting and 

maintaining certificate records on airmen or on legal enforcement 

actions and (2) air carrier and other records required to be furnished 

under PRIA. FAA did not recommend any change because it thought that 

the existing records and system were effective and met PRIA’s 

requirements.



PRIA also required FAA to conduct three studies related to carriers’ 

procedures for hiring pilots--two jointly with representatives of the 

aviation industry. The three studies that FAA transmitted to 

Congress[Footnote 9] recommended additional research on, rather than 

changes to, carriers’ pilot-hiring practices, but FAA has not yet begun 

any of the recommended research. According to officials in the Air 

Transportation Division, FAA has not pursued any of the proposed 

research because it has not yet heard whether Congress agrees with the 

studies’ findings.



Congress Amended PRIA Twice:



To clarify some of PRIA’s requirements and to lessen the act’s burden 

on smaller carriers, Congress passed amendments in December 1997 and 

April 2000 that narrowed and clarified PRIA’s scope and provided some 

relief in areas that had proven burdensome to some carriers. The April 

2000 amendment also directed FAA to carry out certain actions related 

to PRIA. Table 3 summarizes the major changes resulting from these 

amendments.



Table 3: Key Changes to PRIA from Amendments:



Amendments: P.L. 105-142; Date: 12/05/1997; Key changes: * Changed the 

timing of when carriers must request and receive PRIA information from 

before hiring the pilot to before allowing the pilot to begin service.; 

* Narrowed the requirement for background checks from all previous 

employers to just those who had employed the individual as a pilot of a 

civilian or public aircraft.; * Established that carriers must maintain 

their own training and other records on pilots at least 5 years to 

bring that requirement in accordance with the time frame during which 

PRIA records may be requested.; * Specified that copies of records be 

provided to pilots no later than 30 days following the receipt of a 

written request.; * Allowed an exception to the requirement for 

obtaining background information when the former employer no longer 

exists, as long as the carrier can document a good-faith attempt to 

obtain such information.; * Permitted some small operators, before 

receiving requested records, to allow a pilot to begin transporting 

passengers for a period of 90 days if the pilot would be flying 

nonscheduled operations.[A].



Amendments: P.L. 106-181; Date: 4/5/2000; Key changes: * Excluded the 

U.S. Armed Forces, the National Guard, or a reserve component of the 

U.S. Armed Forces from the sources from which a carrier must request 

and obtain a pilot’s flight records.; * Limited the types of records to 

be provided to those pertaining to an individual’s competency and 

performance as a pilot.; * Expanded the good-faith exception to allow 

carriers to begin using pilots whose records are sought from a foreign 

government or entity.; * Directed FAA to provide carriers with 

electronic access to FAA records to make access to background 

information on pilots more efficient and timely and to develop 

regulations as necessary to protect the pilots’ privacy..



[A] This exception applies to operators of aircraft with a payload 

capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, or of helicopters, on flights that 

are not scheduled operations.



Source: GAO summary of PRIA amendments.



[End of table]



The December 1997 amendment made a key change that allows a carrier to 

request and review a PRIA file after hiring an applicant as long as the 

carrier completes the background check before allowing the pilot to fly 

an aircraft with passengers or cargo. Initially, the act required all 

carriers to request and review a pilot’s records from FAA, NDR, and 

previous employers before hiring the pilot. This requirement caused 

delays in hiring decisions because, at the time of the amendment’s 

enactment, FAA and some carriers could not meet the 30-day deadline. As 

a result, Congress amended the act to permit a carrier to perform these 

background checks after the pilot was hired as long as they were 

completed before the carrier used the pilot to fly passengers or cargo-

-a step often referred to as the final hiring decision. In essence, 

this amendment gives carriers the option to use PRIA information not as 

part of a pilot’s initial screening process but as a last check before 

the pilot is put into the cockpit.



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



To meet our objectives, we gathered quantitative and qualitative 

information from a variety of sources for the period from PRIA’s 

implementation in February 1997 through July 2002. Our primary method 

for addressing the four objectives was two nationwide, anonymous mail 

surveys--one for Part 121 carriers and one for Part 135 carriers. 

Carriers with dual certificates, that is, authorized to operate under 

both Part 121 and Part 135, received the Part 121 survey, and we 

include the responses of these carriers with the Part 121 responses 

throughout this report. The surveys, conducted from June through 

September 2001, provided data on the carriers’:



* compliance with the act, including the timeliness with which they 

received records from FAA, NDR, and other carriers;



* use of information to hire pilots;



* costs incurred because of the act’s requirements;



* awareness of actions to protect pilots’ rights;



* views on PRIA’s usefulness;



* opinions on which aspects of PRIA require more clarification or 

guidance; and:



* recommendations for improving PRIA.



The survey population included the Part 121 and Part 135 air carriers 

that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information from 

July 1998, when FAA began tracking such requests electronically, 

through April 30, 2001. This population includes 124, or 86 percent, of 

the 144 carriers that operate under Part 121 or have dual certificates 

to operate under both Parts 121 and 135. All 124 of these carriers 

received the survey. However, the survey population covers only 1,144, 

or 39 percent, of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers. Of these 1,144 carriers, 

we randomly selected 350 to receive the survey. Although we would have 

preferred to survey a representative sample of all Part 135 carriers, 

we were unable to do so in a manner that would produce reliable data 

because we were unable to identify and pretest carriers that were out 

of compliance with the requirement to request documents from FAA. Thus, 

we cannot discuss the opinions and experiences of the 1,771 Part 135 

carriers that did not submit requests to FAA for PRIA information. The 

surveys requested historical data from PRIA’s implementation in 

February 1997 through December 2000 for those questions to which 

carriers said during pretesting that they could provide more complete 

information. Where this was not the case, we requested that carriers 

provide data for calendar year 2000 to offer the most current and 

reliable perspective on carriers’ compliance with the act. We did not 

verify the information provided in our surveys. (See app. II for a more 

detailed discussion of our methodology.)[Footnote 10]



Besides analyzing our survey responses, we used other methods to 

address the first objective on the extent to which carriers have 

complied with the act by obtaining key documents about pilot applicants 

before making final hiring decisions and whether FAA, NDR, and carriers 

have provided these documents in a timely manner. Specifically, we 

interviewed carrier officials who were responsible for requesting and 

reviewing PRIA information as part of their hiring decisions. We also 

analyzed FAA and NDR data on carriers’ PRIA requests. We performed 

limited internal testing of the database that FAA uses to respond to 

PRIA requests, but we did not independently review the validity of the 

data it derives from three other FAA databases. We also did not 

independently review the validity of the NDR database that states use 

to provide information to carriers about pilots’ driving records. To 

obtain further information on compliance with PRIA by Part 135 

carriers, FAA, at our request, asked its principal operations 
inspectors

[Footnote 11] in April 2001 for information on which Part 135 carriers 

should have made requests to FAA for PRIA records in calendar year 
2000. 

Specifically, FAA asked these inspectors to determine how many pilots 
each 

of these Part 135 carriers had hired that year and how many of the 
carriers 

operated only intrastate and thus might be exempt from PRIA’s 
requirements. 

FAA received information on about 842 of the 2,915 Part 135 carriers in 

operation, 798 of which were interstate carriers subject to PRIA. We 
analyzed 

the information about hiring and certification to operate interstate 

operations and compared it with requests for PRIA information made to 
FAA 

by these same carriers in 2000 to determine whether these 798 carriers 
had 

requested information from FAA for at least as many pilots as they had 

hired.



To help determine our second objective of whether FAA, NDR, and 

carriers were aware of PRIA’s requirements to protect pilots’ rights, 

we also interviewed officials from these two federal agencies, carrier 

hiring officials, aviation associations, representatives of a major 

pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand how well PRIA 

has been working, including the effectiveness of measures to protect 

pilots’ rights. To understand pilots’ views of PRIA, we interviewed a 

sample of 20 pilots at hiring fairs and carriers. We also interviewed 

and reviewed the PRIA files of 27 pilots whom we identified as having 

reported experiencing problems with their PRIA records because they had 

contacted FAA, congressional staff, or our office.



To determine our third objective of what FAA has done to oversee 

compliance with PRIA, we reviewed the agency’s policies, guidance, and 

internal documents about implementation as well as the reports and 

studies to Congress that FAA generated in response to the act. We also 

interviewed program officials at the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), FAA headquarters, and FAA field offices responsible for 

responding to PRIA requests from carriers, generating the data needed 

for these responses, and overseeing the program’s implementation. We 

also reviewed enforcement cases initiated by FAA against carriers that 

had violated PRIA’s requirements.



To address our fourth objective on the extent to which carriers believe 

the act has helped them make better pilot-hiring decisions, we surveyed 

Part 121 and Part 135 carriers, as previously stated. We also 

interviewed officials from aviation associations, representatives from 

a major pilot union, and private aviation attorneys to understand the 

impact of PRIA on making better pilot-hiring decisions. In addition, to 

obtain information on the act’s costs to FAA, NDR, carriers, and 

pilots, we reviewed FAA’s submissions on costs to the Office of 

Management and Budget, which are required under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. We discussed the costs of PRIA with officials from all of these 

organizations as well as with officials from state motor vehicle 

agencies that process the vast majority of carriers’ PRIA requests for 

pilots’ NDR information.



We conducted our work from August 2000 through July 2002 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Chapter 2 Actions to Comply with Background Check Requirements Are 

Increasing, but Compliance Is Not Always Complete or Timely:



Efforts to comply with PRIA have increased since the act took effect in 

February 1997, but compliance is not always complete or timely. 

Although available data are not adequate to determine the extent of 

industrywide compliance, our analyses indicate that hiring carriers 

have requested and agencies and other carriers have provided background 

checks on increasing numbers of pilots. However, our analyses also 

suggest greater compliance with some PRIA requirements than with 

others. Both FAA and NDR databases and carriers’ responses to our 

surveys indicate that hiring carriers requested the required records 

more often from FAA than from NDR, even though the carriers are 

required to request records from both organizations for all prospective 

pilots. The survey responses further indicate that hiring carriers 

requested the required records still less frequently from other 

carriers. In general, the hiring carriers reported receiving the 

requested records on time more frequently from FAA and NDR than from 

other carriers. Delays in receiving these records can negatively affect 

both pilots and carriers.



Required Requests for Pilot Records Increased, but Available Data Are 

Not Adequate to Determine the Extent of Compliance:



As discussed in chapter 1, PRIA, as amended, requires hiring carriers 

to request and review information for the past 5 years on a pilot 

applicant’s qualifications, performance, and training. This 

information is to be obtained from FAA, NDR, and carriers and other 

employers, apart from the military, who employed the applicant to fly 

passengers or cargo. While FAA and NDR maintain data on the requests 

for PRIA records that they receive, there are no centralized data on 

requests between carriers.



According to our analyses of FAA and NDR databases and carriers’ 

responses to our surveys, the number of requests for background checks 

increased steadily from 1997 through 2000. However, requests did fall 

in 2001, reflecting the downturn in air traffic resulting from the 

economic recession and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Although 

this generally steady growth in the number of requests suggests 

increasing compliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records, 

we could not assess carriers’ compliance because data are not available 

on how many and which pilots were hired each year by each carrier that 

is subject to PRIA and whether each subject carrier requested records 

from all three required sources for each pilot hired. When we began our 

review, FAA did not know which carriers were subject to PRIA, but 

following discussions with us, FAA agreed to analyze its Operations 

Specification database to make this determination.[Footnote 12] 
Information 

regarding carriers’ requests for records from the three required 
sources 

is not available because federal laws and regulations do not require 
that 

carriers report it to FAA or that FAA maintain it. FAA does not believe 

that the costs of gathering and maintaining these data would be worth 
the 

benefits to aviation safety.



Requests for FAA Background Checks Increased:



According to FAA data, the number of requests for background checks 

nearly doubled from 14,938 in 1997 to 27,104 in 2000. With the 

recession and the terrorist attacks, the number dropped to 21,047 in 

2001. From February 1997, when PRIA was implemented, through December 

2001, carriers requested background checks on 111,552 pilots from FAA. 

(See fig. 1.) The required records include a pilot applicant’s flight 

certificate, medical certificate, and enforcement history.



Figure 1: Carriers’ Requests to FAA for PRIA Background Checks on 

Pilots, February 1997 through December 2001:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.



[End of Figure]



Although the number of requests to FAA for background checks increased, 

not all carriers requested records. According to our analysis of FAA’s 

records, fewer than half of the 3,059 carriers in operation as of April 

13, 2001, requested PRIA background checks from FAA on at least one 

pilot from July 1998, when FAA began tracking PRIA requests by 

carrier,[Footnote 13] through April 2001. Without data on how many 

pilots were hired or on how many carriers hired at least one pilot 

during the period of our review, we could not determine how many 

carriers should have requested records.



In addition, the Part 135 carriers were less likely than the Part 121 

carriers to request records. According to our analysis of the available 

automated data for July 1998 through April 2001, 39 percent of the Part 

135 carriers requested PRIA records from FAA at least once, compared 

with 86 percent of the Part 121 carriers. (See table 4.) Again, data 

were not available to determine whether or to what extent the lower 

percentage for Part 135 carriers was related to compliance. On the one 

hand, information provided by FAA indicated that over 900 Part 135 

carriers have only one pilot, making it unlikely, FAA officials said, 

that they hired any pilots during this period. Furthermore, 4 percent 

of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed--all of whom had made at least one 

request to FAA for PRIA records--reported that they did not hire any 

pilots from 1997 through 2000. On the other hand, as discussed later in 

this chapter, we found evidence of Part 135 carriers that hired pilots 

but may not have complied fully with PRIA’s background check 

requirements.



Table 4: Carriers That Made at Least One Request to FAA for Pilot 

Background Records, July 1998 through April 2001:



Type of certificate: Part 121[A]; Number in operation: 144; Number that 

made at least one request: 124; 86.



Type of certificate: Part 135; Number in operation: 2,915; Number that 

made at least one request: 1,144; 39.



Type of certificate: Total; Number in operation: 3,059; Number that 

made at least one request: 1,268; 41.



[A] For survey purposes, the responses of carriers that hold dual 

certificates as Part 121/135 carriers are combined with the responses 

of Part 121 carriers. As of April 13, 2001, there were 27 Part 121/135 

carriers in operation and 117 Part 121 carriers. We deleted 5 Part 121 

carriers because they subsequently went out of business and were not 

available to respond to the survey. :



Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.



[End of table]



Requests for NDR Information Increased:



The number of requests for NDR driver information records,[Footnote 14] 

primarily from carriers but occasionally from pilots,[Footnote 15] also 

increased, although NDR data, like FAA data, show a drop in 2001 in 

response to the recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks. 

Specifically, the number of requests increased from 9,549 in 1997 to 

23,104 in 2000, but dropped to 18,175 in 2001. (See fig. 2.) According 

to NDR data, carriers and pilots made 81,509 requests for driver 

information from PRIA’s implementation through December 2001. The NDR 

information required for PRIA purposes includes records of revocations 

or suspensions of a driver’s license for such serious offenses as 

reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, or drug convictions.



Figure 2: Carriers’ and Pilots’ Requests for Information on Pilots’ NDR 

Information, February 1997 through December 2001:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of NDR data.



[End of figure]



Carriers Reported Increased Requests for Pilot Records:



The carriers we surveyed reported receiving increased numbers of 

requests for pilot records from hiring carriers for each year from 

PRIA’s implementation through 2000, the last year covered by our 

survey. These requested records include information about a pilot’s 

training and performance as well as the results of drug and alcohol 

testing. For the period from 1997 through 2000, the Part 121 carriers 

reported that the number of requests received nearly tripled, and the 

Part 135 carriers reported that the number of requests nearly doubled. 

(See fig. 3.) The number of Part 121 carriers that reported receiving 

such requests rose from 67 in 1997 to 91 in 2000, and we estimate that 

the number of Part 135 carriers receiving such requests increased from 

461 to 931 during this period.



Figure 3: Number of Reported Requests for Pilot Records Received by 

Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers, 1997 through 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Note 1: As discussed in chapter 1 and appendix II, we surveyed only 

those carriers that made at least one request to FAA for pilot 

background checks.



Note 2: Numbers of records are reported for those carriers that said 

they had requested PRIA records for all or almost all pilots they 

hired.



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers and Part 135 

carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot background 

checks.



[End of figure]



Hiring Carriers Requested the Most Records from FAA and Made the Fewest 

Requests to Other Carriers:



Under PRIA, carriers that hire pilots should make the same number of 

requests to FAA and NDR, and they may be required to make more or fewer 

requests to other carriers, depending on how many employers their pilot 

applicants had in the preceding 5 years and whether records are 

required from those employers. According to our analysis of data from 

FAA and NDR and from our surveys of carriers, FAA received thousands 

more requests for records than NDR and carriers, and both FAA and NDR 

received thousands more requests than carriers.



Requests for FAA Records Far Exceeded Requests for NDR Information:



According to FAA and NDR data, from 1997 through 2001, carriers 

requested records for about 30,000 more pilots from FAA than from NDR, 

and in each of those years, carriers made thousands more requests to 

FAA than to NDR. (See table 5.):



Table 5: Requests for FAA Records and NDR Driver Information Records, 

1997 through 2001:



Year: 1997; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 14,938; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 9,549; 5,389.



Year: 1998; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 23,584; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 13,333; 10,251.



Year: 1999; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 24,879; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 17,220; 7,659.



Year: 2000; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 27,104; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 23,104; 4,000.



Year: 2001; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 21,047; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 18,175; 2,872.



Year: Total; Requests to FAA by carriers[A]: 111,552; Requests for NDR 

information by carriers and pilots[ B]: 81,509; 30,043.



[A] Yearly totals are based on the number of notification letters to 

pilots whose PRIA records were sent to carriers by FAA.



[B] Yearly totals include requests for NDR information by carriers to 

state motor vehicle agencies, by carriers directly to NDR, and by 

pilots directly to NDR under the Privacy Act when pilots indicated that 

they were requesting this information as required by PRIA.



Source: GAO analysis of FAA and NDR data on PRIA requests.



[End of table]



Although disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some 

degree of noncompliance with the requirement to request driver 

information from NDR, FAA and NDR data cannot readily be compared. 

First, NDR does not track its data by carrier or by pilot, as FAA does. 

Therefore, the two agencies’ data cannot be matched to verify that a 

carrier has requested background checks on a pilot from both federal 

agencies. Second, NDR data are, to some extent, understated, partly 

because NDR cannot always identify requests from pilots for NDR 

information as PRIA requests and partly because NDR did not include 

known PRIA requests made by pilots under the Privacy Act in its PRIA 

database until 1999.[Footnote 16] Although requests from carriers for 

NDR information are readily identifiable as PRIA requests, carriers 

sometimes delegate their responsibility for obtaining NDR information 

to pilot applicants, even though PRIA requires that a carrier receive 

the records directly from NDR or the state agency. Pilots’ requests for 

NDR information--whether made directly to NDR under the Privacy Act or 

to state motor vehicle agencies--are not identifiable as PRIA requests 

unless the pilots specify as much. From 1999, when NDR began tracking 

pilots’ requests separately from other Privacy Act requests, through 

2001, pilots made 1,187 (2 percent) of 58,627 requests to NDR for 

background checks under PRIA.



Carriers’ delegation of their responsibility for obtaining NDR 

information to pilot applicants raises issues beyond how to account 

accurately for the number of PRIA requests made for NDR information. 

First, PRIA directs carriers to obtain the NDR information on each 

pilot with the pilot’s consent. Although PRIA allows carriers to have a 

pilot applicant request that either NDR or a state motor vehicle agency 

provide the NDR information directly to the carrier, PRIA does not 

allow the pilot to obtain the information and then provide it to the 

carrier. This practice, which gives the pilot custody of the 

information, potentially compromises the reliability of the 

information. According to NDR officials, at least one major Part 121 

carrier requires pilot applicants to obtain NDR information under the 

Privacy Act and bring it with them to an interview--a procedure that 

violates PRIA.



Reported Requests to Other Carriers Fell Short of Requests to FAA and 

NDR, but Records from Some Carriers Are Not Required:



The carriers responding to our surveys reported receiving substantially 

fewer requests for background checks each year than did FAA and NDR. 

From 1997 through 2000, the last year covered by our surveys, the 

carriers reported receiving about 44,000 requests, compared with about 

91,000 requests to FAA and about 63,000 requests to NDR. Again, 

disparities of this magnitude would seem to indicate some degree of 

noncompliance, but our analysis also identified other possible reasons 

for differences. First, carriers estimated the number of requests they 

received each year, whereas FAA and NDR tracked their requests 

electronically. Second, as previously explained, our survey covered 

only those carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot 

records. Some carriers might have requested records from other carriers 

or NDR, but not from FAA. Finally, under PRIA, as amended, carriers do 

not need to request records from the military, from employers for whom 

pilot applicants worked in jobs unrelated to flying, or from certain 

types of aviation operators. Eighty-eight percent of the Part 121 

carriers and 46 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported 

hiring at least some pilots with military flight experience in 2000. In 

addition, many smaller Part 135 carriers may hire pilots whose recent 

experience includes working for an aviation operator that is not 

required to maintain the kinds of information on training and 

performance included in PRIA records, such as a private flight school 

or an operator that provides agricultural crop dusting, banner towing, 

travel by corporate jet, or aerial surveying. Furthermore, PRIA 

requires only that carriers make a “good-faith” attempt to obtain 

records from foreign employers or bankrupt carriers.



Even though there are several reasons why carriers may have reported 

receiving fewer requests than FAA and NDR received, carriers’ survey 

responses pointed to greater noncompliance with the requirement to 

request records from other carriers or employers than with the 

requirements to request records from FAA or NDR. For example, 57 

percent of the Part 121 carriers reported requesting records from other 

carriers for all or almost all pilots they hired in 2000, compared with 

97 percent for FAA and 95 percent for NDR. Similar percentages of the 

Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported requesting records from each of 

the three sources. (See fig. 4.):



Figure 4: Percentage of Carriers That Reported Requesting PRIA Records 

in 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Note 1: As discussed in chapter 1 and appendix II, we surveyed only 

those carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for pilot 

background checks.



Note 2: Percentages for other carriers reflect those carriers that 

reported requesting PRIA records for all or almost all of the pilots 

they hired.



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.



[End of figure]



Additional Evidence Suggests That Recent Compliance by Some Carriers Is 

Not Complete:



Two types of evidence we gathered suggest that some carriers, 

especially some Part 135 carriers, may not have complied fully with 

requirements to complete background checks on pilots they hired in 

2000. First, our analysis of hiring data gathered by FAA inspectors 

showed that hundreds of pilots were hired by Part 135 carriers that 

either had not requested PRIA records from FAA or had requested records 

for fewer pilots than they had hired. To better understand why many 

Part 135 carriers had not requested records, we asked FAA to have its 

inspectors determine how many pilots were hired in 2000 by Part 135 

carriers that operate interstate and therefore are subject to PRIA’s 

requirements. Data generated by the inspectors raised questions about 

the compliance of 227 (28 percent) of the 798 Part 135 carriers for 

which the inspectors obtained information. These 227 carriers had 

requested records for 318 pilots but had hired 1,078. While the 

carriers that hired some of the remaining 760 pilots might have 

complied with PRIA if the pilots were not placed in service in 2000 or 

if the pilots’ records were requested at the end of 1999 or at the 

beginning of 2001, it is unlikely that these circumstances applied to 

all 760 pilots. According to FAA, its Office of Flight Standards 

Service has asked the regions responsible for overseeing these 227 

carriers to review their compliance with PRIA.



Second, to obtain a snapshot of carriers’ compliance with PRIA’s 

requirements for obtaining background information, we asked our survey 

respondents about the records they requested for pilots hired in 2000. 

A few carriers self-reported significant noncompliance with PRIA’s 

requirements for requesting records. Of the Part 121 carriers, 1 

percent reported requesting FAA records less than half the time for the 

pilots hired in 2000, 3 percent reported requesting NDR information 

less than half the time for the pilots hired, and 6 percent reported 

requesting other employers’ records for half or fewer of the pilots 

hired. The percentages for Part 135 carriers were generally comparable.



Carriers Said They Generally Receive Records on Time from FAA and NDR 

but Still Have Some Problems Obtaining Records from Other Carriers:



PRIA requires FAA, NDR, and carriers to provide PRIA records to a 

hiring carrier within 30 days of receiving a written request. The act 

also requires hiring carriers to receive the records from all three 

sources for each pilot applicant before making a final hiring decision-

-that is, before using the pilot to fly passengers or cargo.



According to industry representatives and carrier hiring officials we 

surveyed or interviewed, most carriers received PRIA records from FAA 

and NDR, and, in the majority of instances, they reported receiving the 

records within 30 days, as required. However, in a few cases, carriers 

reported never receiving the required records. Furthermore, carriers 

said they sometimes needed more time to follow up with state motor 

vehicle agencies on the initial NDR information they received. Carriers 

reported more problems in receiving records on time from other carriers 

and, in a few cases, reported never receiving the required information. 

Without complete information, a carrier is not allowed to use a pilot 

to fly passengers or cargo, and delays in receiving the required 

information can be costly to both the carrier and the pilot.



FAA Has Largely Overcome Initial Delays in Providing PRIA Records to 

Carriers:



During the first 6 months after PRIA was implemented, FAA said it was 

not always able to respond to requests for background checks within 30 

days. FAA said it did not have enough staff to keep up with the volume 

of requests it received. In addition, the agency needed to gather the 

required records--pilot’s flight certificates, medical certificates, 

and enforcement histories--from three separate databases maintained in 

three different offices. As a result, FAA’s responses sometimes took 

months, delaying carriers’ hiring of pilots.



To reduce the delays in responding to requests for records, Congress 

amended PRIA and FAA modified its procedures. Noting that delays in 

receiving records presented a particular burden to small aviation 

businesses, Congress amended PRIA in December 1997 to provide relief to 

the on-demand air carriers[Footnote 17] by allowing them to use pilots 

to fly passengers for up to 90 days before receiving their PRIA 

records.[Footnote 18] In the summer of 1997, FAA transferred the 

responsibility for responding to PRIA requests from its Civil Aerospace 

Medical Institute to its Aviation Data Systems Branch in the Office of 

Flight Standards, which had more staff available to respond to 

requests. In addition, in July 1998, FAA developed a centralized 

database that is automatically updated each night with new information 

from the three databases that contain FAA’s flight, medical, and 

enforcement records. We observed FAA staff using this database and saw 

that they can, within minutes, generate a response letter for a carrier 

and a copy for a pilot.



Our review of FAA’s response times for the 27,104 requests received in 

2000 showed that FAA generally provided PRIA information in less than 2 

work days after receiving a carrier’s request. According to FAA staff 

responsible for responding to PRIA requests, delays can occur if 

information such as a pilot’s name or certificate number is incorrect 

or illegible. In these instances, the staff said, they usually call the 

carrier to obtain the correct information so that they can process the 

requests on time. They further noted that some carriers reduce response 

times by transmitting requests to FAA by fax or Express Mail.



In responding to our surveys, carriers also indicated that FAA 

generally provides records and provides them on time. Ninety percent of 

the Part 121 carriers reported receiving the required records from FAA 

for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000. Of these carriers, 71 

percent reported receiving almost all records on time, and 4 percent 

reported receiving the records on time less than half the time. Of the 

Part 135 carriers we surveyed, 74 percent reported receiving almost all 

FAA records on time, and 12 percent reported receiving these records on 

time less than half the time.



Most Carriers Said They Received NDR Information on Time, but Following 

Up on Information Can Be Time Consuming and Burdensome:



Initially, NDR processed carriers’ PRIA requests directly in 

Washington, D.C., because state motor vehicle agencies’ computer 

systems were not yet set up to handle the requests electronically. 

Until December 31, 1997, carriers could submit PRIA requests directly 

to NDR for processing. Beginning in January 1998, state agencies 

largely assumed this responsibility, and in 2000, the state agencies 

processed 92 percent of carriers’ 22,201 requests, while NDR processed 

8 percent on an emergency basis. Six states now process over three-

quarters of the requests for NDR information,[Footnote 19] including 

most of the requests for residents of four states and the District of 

Columbia that do not process any requests because computer testing has 

not yet been completed to ensure the reliability of the NDR search 

process for those entities.



To gain perspective on recent NDR activity in response to carriers’ 

PRIA requests, we asked carriers whether they had received the NDR 

information they had requested and whether they had received the 

information within 30 days. Those responding to our surveys generally 

reported receiving NDR information from state motor vehicle agencies in 

response to their requests. Specifically, 85 percent of the Part 121 

carriers reported receiving NDR information for all or almost all 

pilots hired in 2000, as did 77 percent of the Part 135 carriers. 

Smaller percentages of carriers reported receiving the NDR information 

on time: 67 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 69 percent of the Part 

135 carriers reported receiving all or almost all records on time. 

Furthermore, some carriers reported problems with timeliness: 4 percent 

of the Part 121 carriers and 18 percent of the Part 135 carriers 

reported receiving the records on time less than half the time.



If a driver’s license has been revoked or suspended for violations, the 

process of following up with the motor vehicle agency in each state 

where violations occurred can take much longer, particularly if the NDR 

information provided by a state motor vehicle agency does not include 

identifiers, such as the driver’s Social Security number, height, 

weight, and eye color. Without such identifying information, the 

carrier must take additional steps to determine whether the pilot 

applicant or someone else committed the violation. Furthermore, when a 

state motor vehicle agency fails to provide the NDR information 

required under PRIA, a carrier cannot legally hire a pilot. The good-

faith exception that Congress established for instances when carriers 

cannot obtain PRIA information from foreign carriers or from domestic 

carriers that have gone out of business does not apply to instances 

when carriers cannot obtain NDR information.



Smaller Percentages of Hiring Carriers Reported Receiving Records from 

Other Carriers Than from FAA and NDR:



Over two-thirds of the carriers responding to our surveys reported 

receiving the PRIA records required from other carriers for all or 

almost all pilots hired in 2000, but the percentages that said they 

received these records were smaller than the percentages that said they 

received the records required from FAA and NDR. (See fig. 5.) Of the 

carriers that said they did not receive the required records from other 

carriers for all or almost all pilots hired in 2000, 2 percent of the 

Part 121 carriers and 10 percent of the Part 135 carriers reported 

receiving the records from other carriers for few or none of the pilots 

hired.



Figure 5: Percentage of Carriers Reporting the Receipt of PRIA Records 

in 2000:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.



[End of figure]



The responses to our surveys also indicated that carriers had more 

problems with receiving records on time from other carriers than from 

FAA or NDR. The Part 121 carriers reported that they were more likely 

to receive records within 30 days, as required, from major, regional, 

and commuter carriers than from small cargo or on-demand carriers. The 

information on timeliness reported by the Part 135 carriers was similar 

to the information reported by the Part 121 carriers, although the Part 

135 carriers reported more problems with the timeliness of records from 

large cargo carriers than did the Part 121 carriers.



Many of the carrier hiring officials, aviation association officials, 

and pilots we interviewed voiced concerns about problems in obtaining 

PRIA records on time or at all from other carriers. Several of the 

carrier officials said they often need to follow up with additional 

telephone calls and letters when these records are not received within 

30 days. Of the 400 comments about PRIA that the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA) has received from its members since PRIA’s 

implementation in February 1997, the most common ones were that past 

employers did not send the requested records to the hiring carrier at 

all or did not send them in a timely fashion and that no one was 

enforcing the 30-day mandate. Several of the pilots we interviewed also 

maintained that it took months to get current and former carrier 

employers to forward PRIA records to prospective employers.



Delays in Providing PRIA Records Can Negatively Affect Carriers and 

Pilots:



Not providing PRIA records to hiring carriers or providing them late 

can adversely affect both carriers and pilots. In a few cases, carriers 

reported that they never received the required information. Hiring 

carriers are not allowed to use pilots to transport passengers or cargo 

until all PRIA records have been obtained and reviewed, except in the 

on-demand air charter industry, which allows carriers to use pilots for 

up to 90 days while completing background checks. Hiring officials at 

two carriers told us they had to let pilots go after providing 

expensive training. One Part 121 carrier official told us that the 

carrier had waited over 5 months for one pilot’s records. In the 

interim, the carrier said it put this pilot through 70 days of training 

and then sent him back for more simulator training, since it could not 

use him for transporting passengers or cargo. Until this matter was 

settled, the carrier said it paid the pilot a weekly training salary of 

$200 instead of a much higher salary as a crew member. The carrier said 

it did not want to release the pilot because he was good and because it 

had spent more than $25,000 on his training. Although PRIA’s good-faith 

exception covers instances when a hiring carrier cannot obtain records 

from a bankrupt or foreign carrier, this exception does not apply when 

an operating U.S. carrier fails to provide records.



Not providing a PRIA file or delays in providing it can also cost a 

pilot an opportunity for career advancement to a larger carrier. With 

delays, a pilot can lose a job offer or receive a lower seniority 

number, which in turn limits job security, choice of flights, and pay. 

For example, according to one pilot, delays by his former employer in 

forwarding his PRIA file postponed his training by 2 months, caused him 

to receive a less desirable seniority number, gave him less choice in 

assignments, and delayed his promotion to captain by 4 months. He said 

this delay in promotion alone cost him nearly $7,500. See chapter 4 for 

our analysis of how FAA could help to improve compliance with PRIA’s 

requirements for providing pilot records within 30 days.



[End of section]



Chapter 3 Air Carriers Have Not Consistently Followed PRIA’s 

Requirements for Protecting Pilots’ Rights:



Some carriers indicated that they are not aware of some of PRIA’s 

requirements to protect pilots’ rights. For example, many carriers said 

they were unaware of requirements for notifying pilots and for giving 

them opportunities to review and submit corrections to their records. 

In addition, state motor vehicle agencies sometimes provided records to 

carriers that they should not have provided. As a result, hiring 

carriers sometimes received PRIA files that contained information that 

was outdated or was not related to an individual’s performance as a 

pilot. While PRIA gives pilots an opportunity to submit written 

comments to correct records before final hiring decisions are made, 

this opportunity comes too late to prevent hiring carriers from seeing 

inappropriate information that could potentially jeopardize pilots’ 

chances of being hired.



Some Carriers Said They Are Unaware of PRIA’s Requirements for 

Protecting Pilots’ Rights:



Carriers’ reported awareness of PRIA’s requirements for protecting 

pilots’ rights varied considerably. In general, carriers said they were 

more aware of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is hiring 

than they were of requirements that are applicable when a carrier is 

responding to a PRIA request. Nearly all of the Part 121 hiring 

carriers we surveyed said they were aware of PRIA’s requirements to 

obtain a pilot’s consent before seeking records from other carriers, 

NDR, and FAA and to keep those records confidential, as shown in figure 

6. The carriers were somewhat less aware of requirements to limit 

access to those records and to use them only during the hiring process. 

They were least aware of the requirement to give the pilot an 

opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a 

final hiring decision. Specifically, 31 percent of the Part 121 

carriers said they were unaware of the requirement to give the pilot an 

opportunity to correct inaccuracies in the PRIA records before making a 

final hiring decision, whereas 44 percent of the Part 135 carriers said 

they were unaware of this requirement.



Figure 6: Part 121 Carriers’ Reported Awareness of Seven of PRIA’s 

Requirements for Carriers When Hiring Pilots:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.



[End of figure]



When responding to PRIA requests, as figure 7 shows, 88 percent of the 

Part 121 carriers responding to our survey said they were aware of 

PRIA’s requirement that, within 30 days of receiving a pilot’s written 

request, they provide the pilot with a copy of the PRIA records that 

they sent to a prospective employer. However, 80 percent of the Part 

121 carriers were unaware of a requirement that gives a pilot the right 

to review the PRIA records kept by a current or former employer at any 

time. In addition, about half of the carriers were unaware of two 

notification requirements designed to let the pilot know that a 

prospective employer had requested his or her records and to give the 

pilot an opportunity to review those records for accuracy and 

completeness. Under these requirements, a carrier must notify a pilot 

within 20 days of (1) a prospective employer’s request for PRIA records 

and (2) the pilot’s right to request a copy of the records that were 

sent. These notification requirements are especially important if a 

pilot’s application and signed PRIA consent form have been on file with 

a carrier in a pool of possible candidates. The Part 135 carriers that 

we surveyed indicated similar levels of awareness of these provisions.



Figure 7: Part 121 Carriers’ Reported Awareness of PRIA’s Requirements 

for Carriers Responding to PRIA Requests:



[See PDF for image]



[A] This requirement allows a pilot to obtain a copy of the records 

that the current or former employer actually sent to the hiring 

carrier.



[B] In 1997, Congress amended the law to require former employers, as 

well as current employers, to allow a pilot to review PRIA records at 

any time and to provide the opportunity to do so within 30 days of a 

written request.



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.



[End of figure]



According to AOPA officials and several of the pilots we interviewed, 

many pilots as well as carriers were unaware of the PRIA provisions 

giving pilots opportunities to review their records. AOPA found that 

one of the most common questions raised by the 400 pilots who inquired 

about PRIA was how to obtain copies of their records. Several of the 

pilots who contacted us with concerns about their PRIA records also 

said they were uncertain about how to obtain copies of their records 

from their current and former employers. Some added that they had tried 

unsuccessfully to obtain their records.



Some PRIA Files Contained Inappropriate Information That Should Have 

Been Excluded:



Several of the PRIA files that we reviewed contained information that 

should have been excluded, and carrier officials and pilots we 

interviewed also cited examples of inappropriate information in these 

files. To protect pilots’ rights, PRIA specifies what records should 

and should not be included in pilot files. Although FAA met these 

criteria in the records it forwarded, NDR and other carriers did not 

consistently follow these criteria.



Both carrier officials and pilots we interviewed told us of instances 

in which outdated records were included in pilots’ files. Officials at 

a Part 121 carrier explained that deleting older records can be 

difficult, especially if the records are part of computerized training 

reports that may cover much longer periods of time. How widespread the 

inclusion of outdated records in PRIA files may be is unknown; however, 

this practice raises concerns because there is no mechanism for a pilot 

to have them deleted until after the hiring carrier has seen them.



Outdated driver information may also sometimes be included in pilot 

files. According to the chief of NDR’s Driver Register and Traffic 

Records Division, a number of states provide a driver’s complete record 

rather than limit the information to 5 years. The Vice President of the 

Aviation Services Department at AOPA also noted that the inclusion of 

old driving information has been a problem with PRIA files. One pilot 

who contacted us complained that his driving record still showed a 

violation from about 20 years earlier for having unopened beer in his 

car when he was 18. NDR officials explained that if a pilot requests 

driver information directly from NDR or through a state motor vehicle 

agency without specifying that the information is needed for PRIA, the 

information provided may include information older than the 5 years 

required by this law.



Although an amendment to PRIA in April 2000 limits the records to be 

provided by a former employer to those directly related to a pilot’s 

performance as a pilot, we found limited evidence that at least three 

carriers had forwarded unrelated records to hiring carriers. In 

reviewing the PRIA files of the 27 pilots who contacted us, we found 

one file that contained the pilot’s personal bankruptcy papers. Another 

file contained copies of documents from a dispute between the pilot and 

the carrier about unemployment compensation. A third file included 

court records of a carrier’s suit against a pilot for failing to repay 

training funds but excluded the judge’s ruling that the pilot did not 

have to repay those funds. These court documents were unrelated to the 

pilot’s flying abilities. About 29 percent of the Part 121 carriers we 

surveyed indicated a great need for clarification of which records are 

related to an individual’s performance as a pilot and thus should be 

included in the files forwarded to hiring carriers. The Part 135 

carriers we surveyed indicated a similar need for clarification.



Information unrelated to a pilot’s driving record is also sometimes 

included in the files NDR and states send to hiring carriers, according 

to the Chief of NDR’s Driver Register and Traffic Records Division. For 

example, he said that some states have included information on 

nonmoving violations, such as parking tickets, as well as on tax liens, 

nonpayment of child support, and unpaid library fines. Such information 

can appear in PRIA files because NDR gives the states some flexibility 

in determining what information they submit to its computerized 

registry. NDR requires the states to submit the names of persons whose 

driver licenses have been denied, canceled, revoked, or suspended for 

cause as well as of those who have been convicted of certain serious 

traffic offenses, such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other 

drugs. However, NDR also allows the states to submit information on 

convictions and withdrawals of licenses for other offenses. While NDR 

limits the information provided in response to a PRIA request to the 

most recent 5 years, it does not otherwise screen the information 

provided. In contrast, when FAA reviews a pilot’s fitness to hold a 

medical certificate to fly, it obtains driver information from NDR that 

is screened to include only certain serious moving violations and drug-

and alcohol-related convictions over a 3-year period. FAA must then 

obtain detailed information about the pilot’s driving record from any 

states where violations occurred.



Some of the PRIA files we reviewed included records of disciplinary 

actions that were subsequently overturned. Although PRIA requires 

carriers to include records of disciplinary actions that were not 

overturned, carrier officials, aviation attorneys, and one pilot who 

contacted us raised concerns about including records of overturned 

disciplinary actions. For example, the file for one pilot showed he was 

suspended briefly for departing late, but did not show that his 

suspension was later overturned and he was paid in full after providing 

copies of air traffic control tapes showing that he had departed on 

time. But because a copy of the final ruling that cleared him was not 

included in his file, the prospective employer did not hire him, 

according to the pilot. This example shows how any reference in a 

pilot’s file to a past problem, even a problem that has been resolved 

in the pilot’s favor, can be damaging to the pilot’s chances of being 

hired.



In another case, one of the pilots who contacted us with concerns about 

PRIA said that his current employer had provided inconsistent records 

to carriers to which he had applied. Our review of his records sent to 

a major carrier indicated that he had tested positive on a required 

drug or alcohol test, while his records sent to a small Part 135 

carrier indicated that he had submitted to and passed all such tests. 

In such a case, inaccurate information could potentially cause a 

carrier to unfairly reject a competent pilot whose record is clean or 

to unknowingly hire a pilot who has tested positive. One aviation 

attorney we interviewed also told us that carriers have provided 

inconsistent PRIA records for the same pilot to different hiring 

carriers.



The Opportunity for Pilots to Correct Their Records May Come Too Late:



Though enacted to keep unsafe pilots from being hired to fly commercial 

flights, PRIA may have some unintended negative effects. While PRIA 

allows pilots to review their records at any time, it does not require 

that they have an opportunity to submit written comments to correct 

their records before a hiring carrier receives their file. Thus, 

corrections, if submitted, may come too late to prevent the hiring 

carrier from seeing inaccuracies; information that should not, under 

PRIA, have been included in the files; or disputed information 

presented only from the carrier’s perspective.



The timing of the opportunity to correct records can create problems 

for both pilots and carriers. Several of the pilots we interviewed said 

that after successfully completing interviews, simulator testing, or 

other screening procedures, carriers declined to hire them because of 

incorrect records in their PRIA records. Some of these pilots said they 

were unaware of the incorrect information in their PRIA records and had 

no opportunity to correct it before the hiring carrier turned them 

down. The potential costs to both the pilot and the hiring carrier are 

even greater if the pilot has already accepted a position with the 

carrier, begun training, and given up a previous job before the PRIA 

records are reviewed. Eighty-two percent of the Part 121 carriers and 

73 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed reported that they do 

not have the PRIA records to review until after the pilot has accepted 

a conditional job offer and/or begun training.



In addition to the timing of the opportunity to correct records, PRIA 

does not indicate, and FAA has provided no guidance on, how to submit 

corrections to PRIA records. As a result, even when carrier officials 

concur with a pilot and are willing to remove or correct a record, some 

said they are unsure whether the act allows them to do so. Several 

carrier officials said they were unsure how to remove records that they 

believed were unfair. For example, the president, attorney, and chief 

pilot for one Part 121 carrier fully concurred with a pilot that the 

record of a failed check ride should be removed from the pilot’s file 

because the training manager who had administered this and other check 

rides had subsequently been fired for being sexist and racist. The 

carrier consulted with FAA and aviation attorneys but could not 

determine whether it could remove the questionable training record. 

Instead, the carrier said it included a cover memorandum explaining why 

the training manager was fired, affirming the pilot’s skills, and 

describing an emergency evacuation in which the pilot saved the lives 

of two other pilots.



Moreover, PRIA does not establish any procedures for arbitrating 

disagreements between a pilot and a current or former employer over 

PRIA records. Several of the pilots who contacted us described problems 

they had experienced in getting explanations or rebuttals to specific 

records included in their files. Six of these pilots knew of the 

incorrect information but said that they had little success in removing 

or rebutting disputed records. PRIA establishes no remedy for wrong or 

unjust entries in a pilot’s records or for failing to provide an 

opportunity for record correction, if the carrier obtained a release of 

liability.



According to a law review article,[Footnote 20] several carrier 

officials and private aviation attorneys we interviewed, and some of 

the pilots who contacted us with concerns about the law, another 

unintended consequence of PRIA is that it can be used in ways that can 

diminish safety. Specifically, the weight that the act gives to records 

from current and former employers can be used as leverage in disputes 

between pilots and carriers over safety issues. According to the 

previously mentioned law review article, disagreements over “how much 

safety is enough against the background of economic competition,” can 

pit pilots against managers “who also happen to hold the trump card of 

the pilot’s job in their hands.” In these instances, the article argues 

that pilots may feel compelled to subordinate their concerns about 

safety to their employers’ economic interests to avoid having negative 

information placed in their PRIA files.



In addition, we found some limited indication that PRIA could be used 

in ways that could potentially reduce aviation safety, rather than 

enhance it as intended. Several of the pilots who contacted us said 

they had been threatened with having negative records placed in their 

PRIA files if they did not take actions that violated FAA’s safety 

regulations. Although we could not corroborate them, largely because 

discussing them with the carriers could have further jeopardized these 

pilots’ careers, we raised them with FAA because these allegations 

involve potentially serious safety issues. For example, one pilot said 

he was pressured to fly an aircraft with serious maintenance problems, 

including an inoperable radar and autopilot, during bad weather. This 

pilot and another pilot who flew for the same carrier also said they 

had been pressured to identify mechanical problems informally on post-

it notes instead of recording the problems in the aircraft’s 

maintenance log, as FAA requires. We provided FAA with information 

about the carriers involved that were still in business, but FAA was 

unable to substantiate the allegations, and the carriers denied them.



Finally, according to the previously cited law review article, the 

inclusion of negative information in a PRIA file effectively negates 

the pilot’s ability to quit and go elsewhere. Several of the pilots who 

contacted us said they had been threatened with negative records in 

their PRIA files if they did not repay the costs of their training 

before leaving. Some carriers require that pilots sign training 

contracts and remain with the carriers for a prescribed period of 

months or years, after which time the cost of training is considered 

paid in full. According to the pilots, these contracts make it 

difficult to leave a carrier, especially if the carrier does not 

prorate the cost of training, because if a pilot departs early, he or 

she will owe all or a disproportionate amount of the total cost. 

Contract disputes about training costs were included in several PRIA 

files that we reviewed. For example, one pilot earning an annual salary 

of $15,000 said he quit after being pressured to commit safety 

violations. He offered in writing to repay a prorated portion of the 

$4,000 remaining on his training contract, but the carrier sued him. 

The judge ruled that the training costs did not have to be repaid. 

Although the broken training contract was not related to the pilot’s 

professional competence and the carrier lost the case, the carrier 

included a record of the lawsuit in the pilot’s file without reference 

to the judge’s ruling in the pilot’s favor. See chapter 4 for our 

analysis of how FAA could help to improve carriers’ awareness of PRIA’s 

requirements for protecting pilots’ rights and better inform pilots of 

their options for obtaining, reviewing, and correcting their records.



[End of section]



Chapter 4 FAA Oversight of PRIA Implementation Has Been Limited:



FAA has taken limited steps to oversee PRIA implementation and to 

monitor this program as part of its broader responsibility for aviation 

safety. To promote compliance with PRIA, FAA developed some guidance 

for carriers and its own staff, but the advisory circular that it 

issued for carriers in 1997 was soon outdated. A revised circular, 

which FAA produced in September 2001, addressed some of the issues on 

which carriers had sought clarification. FAA’s guidance also includes a 

new form for carriers that inappropriately (1) requires a pilot 

applicant to waive the rights provided by PRIA to be notified about 

requests and (2) changes the party PRIA makes responsible for notifying 

the pilot of a request for records. Although FAA has periodically 

provided its own inspectors with updated information on PRIA, it has 

not revised its handbooks or training for operations inspectors to 

incorporate PRIA’s requirements. To date, few inspections have 

identified problems with carriers’ implementation of PRIA, even though 

FAA’s inspectors at our request identified hundreds of Part 135 

carriers that had hired pilots but did not request PRIA records from 

FAA. FAA has seldom initiated enforcement actions against carriers for 

PRIA violations.



FAA Has Specific Responsibilities under PRIA as Well as Broad 

Responsibility for Aviation Safety:



Congress gave FAA exclusive authority to oversee the implementation of 

PRIA by authorizing FAA to issue regulations to (1) protect the 

personal privacy of the pilots whose records are disseminated and the 

confidentiality of those records, (2) preclude the further 

dissemination of PRIA records, and (3) ensure prompt compliance with 

any request for records. Congress gave FAA discretion in deciding 

whether to use this authority to issue regulations. To date, FAA has 

not used this authority. According to FAA’s Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Regulation and Certification, the agency views PRIA 

as self-implementing because it places the responsibility for 

collecting pilot records on the carriers, not on the government. In 

addition, FAA has not issued PRIA regulations because it has allocated 

its regulatory resources to other priorities.



In addition to the specific responsibilities given to FAA by PRIA, FAA 

has broad oversight responsibility and authority for aviation safety. 

This broad responsibility and authority apply to PRIA as well as to 

other aviation safety programs. Specifically, in carrying out its 

mission to ensure a safe and efficient national air space system, FAA 

is responsible for issuing regulations and developing implementation 

guidance. FAA also performs inspections to ensure compliance with 

federal statutes such as PRIA and under FAA’s general civil penalty 

authority in 49 U.S.C. 46301 has the authority to take enforcement 

action against violators.



FAA Has Developed Guidance on PRIA:



FAA issued guidance for carriers in the form of an advisory circular. 

FAA issued this circular in May 1997, 3 months after PRIA went into 

effect, and revised the circular in September 2001. The revised 

circular incorporates information on the December 1997 and April 2000 

amendments to PRIA, which Congress enacted, in part, to clarify aspects 

of the law. For example, the revised circular includes a copy of the 

law, as amended; provides sample forms that hiring carriers may use in 

requesting pilot records; and discusses each of the key changes to PRIA 

made in the 1997 and 2000 amendments. (See table 3.):



Revised Advisory Circular Addresses Some Issues on Which Carriers 

Sought Clarification:



In our survey, which we sent to carriers before FAA issued its revised 

advisory circular, we asked which aspects of PRIA’s hiring requirements 

carriers thought needed further clarification. Hiring carriers we 

contacted had preliminarily identified 17 key issues that they thought 

warranted further clarification. However, a majority of the Part 121 

and Part 135 carriers indicated little or no need for clarification on 

the majority of these issues, including whether they were subject to 

PRIA, which records they were required to maintain, how long they were 

required to maintain the records, how they should store the records, 

who should be allowed to see the records, and whether the carriers 

could charge a fee for supplying the records. In contrast, many 

carriers indicated a great or very great need for clarification on how 

to proceed when the hiring carrier cannot obtain requested records and 

how to handle situations involving disciplinary actions taken against a 

pilot. (App. V presents complete information on which of the 17 key 

issues carrier hiring officials view as most in need of clarification.) 

FAA’s revised advisory circular addresses some, but not all, of 

carriers’ issues related to the need for clarification.



Many carriers said there was a great need for clarification on how to 

proceed in four situations when they are unable to obtain records from 

other carriers. These situations and the percentages of Part 121 

carriers identifying them as greatly needing clarification are shown in 

figure 8. Similar percentages of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed 

expressed a great need to clarify how to proceed in these four 

situations. FAA’s revised circular explains how to proceed in two of 

these situations--when a hiring carrier cannot obtain a pilot’s records 

from a carrier that has gone out of business or from a foreign entity-

-both of which were outlined in good-faith exceptions in the 1997 and 

2000 amendments, respectively. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor 

the revised advisory circular offers guidance on how carriers should 

proceed when they are unable to obtain records from other carriers that 

are still in business or driving records from a state.



Figure 8: Percentage of Part 121 Carriers That Identified a Great or 

Very Great Need for Clarification of How to Proceed in Certain 

Situations:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA records.



[End of Figure]



Many carriers also sought clarification on handling situations 

involving disciplinary actions taken against a pilot by another 

carrier. Of the Part 121 carriers, 43 percent identified a great or 

very great need to clarify which disciplinary actions are related to an 

individual’s performance as a pilot and therefore should be provided to 

carriers interested in hiring their current and former employees. In 

addition, 39 percent of the Part 121 carriers identified a great or 

very great need to clarify how carriers should handle pilot records 

when a disciplinary action is resolved through a negotiated settlement. 

Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers sought clarification on the 

handling of these situations. However, neither PRIA, as amended, nor 

FAA’s revised advisory circular defines disciplinary actions, specifies 

which ones should be considered relevant and documented in PRIA 

records, or discusses how to remove records of disciplinary actions 

that have been resolved through a negotiated settlement.



Resolving carriers’ questions about how to proceed when other carriers 

do not provide required records and how to determine what information 

about disciplinary actions should be provided to hiring carriers is 

important because such questions, if unresolved, can delay or preclude 

final hiring decisions.



FAA’s Revised Circular Includes a Sample Form That Requires Pilot 

Applicants to Waive Some Protections and Alters Notification Provisions 

Required in the Law:



FAA’s guidance to carriers on PRIA includes a new sample form that 

requires a pilot applicant to waive certain rights provided by PRIA. 

The form also changes the party responsible for notifying the pilot of 

a request for records. In September 2001, FAA revised its advisory 

circular on PRIA and included the sample form for hiring carriers to 

use when requesting records from current and former employers. (App. VI 

includes a copy of FAA Form 8060-11, Air Carrier and Other Records 

Request (PRIA)--Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996.) Part III of the 

form requires the pilot to waive PRIA’s requirement that the current or 

former employer receiving the request for records notify the pilot 

within 20 days of the request and of the pilot’s right to receive a 

copy of the records. The form does, however, provide information on the 

pilot’s right to receive a copy of the records within 30 days of 

requesting them in writing. FAA made these changes in the form to 

simplify and expedite the hiring process, according to the official in 

the Air Transportation Division who is responsible for overseeing 

policy decisions related to PRIA.



In addition to violating provisions in the act, part III of form 8060-

11 is problematic for several reasons and could reduce a pilot’s 

chances of knowing when records are actually forwarded to hiring 

carriers and of receiving a copy of the records. First, the form makes 

the hiring carrier responsible for notifying a pilot of a request 

rather than the current or former employer as PRIA specifies.[Footnote 
21] 

Shifting responsibility for notifying the pilot does not follow the 
process 

outlined in the law, which requires the current or former employer to 

provide this notification. Second, as we learned in interviewing pilots 

and hiring officials, forms completed at the time of application 
sometimes 

remain on file for months or years before being activated and submitted 
to 

current and former employers, particularly when the hiring carrier is a 

major carrier. Officials in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems Branch 

confirmed that the pilot often signs these forms months or even years 

before the hiring carrier submits them. In such cases, a pilot might 

not know whether and when the hiring carrier actually submits the 

request to the current and former employer. Furthermore, the revised 

form no longer includes a place for the pilot’s address, which makes it 

more difficult for former employers to obtain correct mailing 

information to notify the pilot of the hiring carrier’s request and to 

provide a copy of the records to the pilot, if requested.



FAA Has Developed Some Guidance on PRIA for Its Own Staff but Has Not 

Incorporated the Guidance into Its Handbooks and Training Classes:



FAA has developed some additional guidance for its own staff. For 

example, the agency prepared draft guidance for its staff before PRIA 

took effect in February 1997, even though it did not issue the original 

advisory circular until May 1997. In addition, FAA has used E-mails and 

memorandums to its regional and field offices to further clarify PRIA’s 

requirements. Finally, FAA has assigned responsibility for responding 

to PRIA requests from carriers to staff in the Aviation Data Systems 

Branch and primary responsibility for answering policy questions about 

PRIA to the Air Transportation Division, both of which are within FAA’s 

Office of Flight Standards.



FAA’s efforts to disseminate guidance on PRIA to its staff have not yet 

extended to revisions of the handbook that its operations inspectors 

are to use to monitor carriers’ training and use of pilots.[Footnote 

22] Furthermore, the agency has not yet incorporated information on 

PRIA into its training classes for operations inspectors. FAA uses its 

handbooks and training classes to familiarize inspectors with laws, 

regulations, and inspection protocols and to enhance their oversight 

and monitoring of carriers’ compliance with aviation laws and 

regulations. Without such information, inspectors may be unaware of 

PRIA and amendments to the law. FAA officials said they believe 

information on PRIA should be included in the handbooks and training, 

but they are awaiting the publication of our report to ensure that all 

relevant information is included. In the meantime, inspectors have been 

addressing their questions about PRIA to staff in the Aviation Data 

Systems Branch.



On March 22, 2002, FAA activated a new Web site with information about 

PRIA for carriers and pilots. The site provides brief answers to 

frequently asked questions about how PRIA works, which records must be 

provided, and what protections are afforded to pilots under the law. It 

also includes links to a copy of the law, to FAA’s advisory circular 

that provides guidance on PRIA, and to forms used by carriers to 

request records. As of May 1, 2002, FAA had not linked the PRIA Web 

site to the agency’s home site or to the Web information that FAA 

maintains for carriers and pilots. Linking these sites would enhance 

the accessibility of the PRIA information.



In the spring of 2000, FAA began drafting guidance on which penalties 

are appropriate when carriers violate PRIA’s requirements, according to 

attorneys in FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel. They said that this effort 

has become part of a larger one to revise penalty guidance in the 

agency’s enforcement handbook, which is being coordinated with other 

FAA offices. However, this coordination stopped after September 11, 

2001, because of uncertainty about FAA’s future role in aviation and 

airport security. These officials said the coordination would proceed 

once this issue is resolved.



We reviewed the draft guidance that had been completed and determined 

that it covers most PRIA provisions and should provide inspectors with 

a clearer basis for identifying and, where appropriate, for taking 

enforcement actions against carriers for violations of PRIA’s 

requirements. The draft guidance proposes penalties when a carrier 

fails to:



* obtain the pilot’s consent to release records,



* provide the records within 30 days of a request,



* provide a copy of the records to the pilot, and:



* provide the pilot with an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in 

those records before making a final hiring decision.



Several Factors May Hamper FAA’s Operations Inspection Ability to 

Monitor Compliance with PRIA:



Several factors may explain why FAA’s operations inspectors, who 

conduct many thousands of inspections on carriers each year, have noted 

few problems with carriers’ compliance with PRIA. First, information on 

PRIA is not incorporated into the inspection handbooks and training 

classes, consequently these inspectors have no reminders to check for 

compliance with PRIA. Second, FAA lacks the information needed to 

assess compliance with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records 

because PRIA does not require that this information be reported (see 

ch. 2). Thus FAA may lack evidence that carriers have obtained the 

required records before making final hiring decisions because PRIA does 

not require carriers to retain the records they have received.



As of July 3, 2001, FAA’s Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) 

database,[Footnote 23] which tracks inspections of the nation’s 10 

major passenger carriers, showed no entries related to PRIA. FAA’s 

older Program Reporting and Tracking Subsystem database, which tracks 

some limited information on the 10 major carriers, as well as the 

results of inspections on all other carriers, contained 76 inspection 

entries related to PRIA since the law’s implementation in 1997. Two of 

these entries identified possible noncompliance with PRIA and led to 

the opening of enforcement cases, while the remaining 74 noted that the 

inspectors had provided information on PRIA to the carriers but did not 

identify any noncompliance. One additional entry, dated June 15, 1999, 

identified noncompliance but did not lead to the opening of an 

enforcement case. According to the entry, a random inspection of the 

records of 169 pilots with a large Part 121 carrier revealed 

noncompliance with PRIA, which the inspector reported to the carrier’s 

Vice President of Operations and to the responsible Principal 

Operations Inspector at FAA.



Since PRIA’s implementation in February 1997, FAA has initiated 10 

enforcement cases against six carriers. In the 3 most serious cases, 

which resulted in fines ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, the carriers 

failed to request PRIA background checks for 12 pilots they hired and, 

in 1 case, the carrier falsified documents related to providing PRIA 

checks. The remaining 7 cases resulted either in warning letters or 

were closed with no action.



Although the number of inspection findings and enforcement actions 

could be indicative of widespread compliance with the act, our analyses 

of carriers’ requests for PRIA records and of carriers’ awareness of 

PRIA’s requirements for protecting pilots’ rights indicate that 

carriers are not always requesting the required records, especially 

from other carriers, and are not always sufficiently aware of the 

pilots’ rights protections to comply with them (see chs. 2 and 3). 

Alternatively, FAA inspectors may not be regularly reviewing carriers’ 

compliance. Without information on PRIA in their inspection handbooks 

and training classes, these inspectors have no reminders to check for 

compliance with PRIA. According to FAA’s Deputy Associate 

Administrator, Office of Regulation and Certification, FAA’s monitoring 

focuses on a carrier’s processes and procedures for complying with 

PRIA, not on checks of records for individual pilots. Although we 

concur with the importance of checking carriers’ processes and 

procedures for complying with laws, FAA cannot determine whether a 

carrier actually follows its processes and procedures without 

performing at least limited spot checks. This system safety approach 

with compliance checks is the basis for the new ATOS inspection system 

that FAA uses to oversee the nation’s 10 major air carriers.



Regardless of whether FAA operations inspectors attempt to monitor 

carriers’ compliance with PRIA, they may not have sufficient evidence 

to do so. Just as FAA lacks information needed to assess compliance 

with PRIA’s requirements for requesting records because PRIA does not 

require that this information be reported (see ch. 2), FAA also may 

lack evidence that carriers have obtained the required records before 

making final hiring decisions because PRIA does not require carriers to 

retain the records they have received. According to an attorney from 

FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel, nothing in the PRIA statute requires 

carriers to maintain the pilot records they receive from FAA, NDR, or 

other carriers. The statute requires carriers to maintain the records 

they generate on their pilot employees for 5 years, but it does not 

require them to store or maintain the PRIA records they receive when 

they hire pilots. Without these records, he noted, it is very difficult 

for FAA to determine a carrier’s compliance with PRIA. According to 

another official in FAA’s Air Transportation Division, carriers have an 

incentive to dispose of these records to avoid any liability resulting 

from their hiring decisions. Nonetheless, he observed that some 

carriers still keep these records, and he agreed that it would be 

almost impossible to complete an enforcement action against a carrier 

without them. Requiring carriers to maintain the PRIA records they 

receive could, however, be costly, especially for smaller carriers, 

according to the Deputy Associate Administrator, and these costs would 

not be warranted by the safety benefits achieved. According to FAA, it 

has not identified pilot performance during past training events as a 

high-risk area because of the extensive training, testing, and checking 

required for pilots.



We believe it is important for FAA to be able to enforce the law. As 

previously discussed, FAA is responsible for overseeing PRIA’s 

implementation and has the authority to issue regulations or establish 

procedures for carriers to maintain the records needed for FAA to 

monitor and enforce compliance with the act. FAA has not issued 

regulations on PRIA because it believes that carriers, not the 

government, are responsible for collecting PRIA information. 

Furthermore, FAA believes that it should focus its regulatory resources 

on higher aviation-safety priorities. FAA officials agreed, however, 

that it was important for carriers to maintain records of background 

checks on pilots they hire to enable both the carriers and FAA to 

monitor PRIA’s implementation.



Conclusions:



By making information about pilots’ qualifications, performance, and 

training available to hiring carriers, PRIA improves carriers’ ability 

to screen pilots and may help keep unsafe pilots out of the cockpits of 

commercial aircraft. However, FAA’s limited oversight of the act’s 

implementation, together with carriers’ incomplete compliance with the 

requirements of the law, may have prevented PRIA from being as 

effective or as protective of pilots’ rights as it could be. For 

example:



* Unresolved procedural issues--such as how to correct errors in pilot 

records, especially before hiring carriers see inaccurate information; 

how to remove inappropriate records; and how to handle disputes between 

pilots and carriers--effectively limit pilots’ rights. As individuals, 

pilots have less power than carriers, and without procedures for 

resolving these issues, they cannot compel carriers to correct or 

remove inaccurate records or settle disputes. Moreover, even when 

carriers are willing to make changes, they may not know how to do so. 

Inaccurate or inappropriate information may jeopardize a pilot’s 

chances of being hired.



* FAA has not taken advantage of its Web site to make information about 

pilots’ rights readily available. Because the act does not mandate when 

pilots are to be given an opportunity to correct their records, except 

that it come before the final hiring decision, many pilots do not seek 

to correct their records until after the records have been sent to the 

hiring carrier. It is critical that FAA do what it can to make pilots 

aware of their rights to review and correct the records maintained by 

their current employer at any time. With knowledge of their rights, 

pilots can take responsibility for reviewing the accuracy of their 

records before the records are sent to hiring carriers.



* The sample form that FAA designed for hiring carriers and included in 

its revised guidance for carriers, though intended to streamline the 

hiring process, weakens pilots’ rights and inappropriately shifts the 

responsibility for notifying pilots of requests for their records from 

current or former employers to hiring carriers. If carriers follow the 

procedures set forth in the sample form, they will not be in compliance 

with PRIA’s notification provision, and pilots may not know when 

records are sent to hiring carriers.



* Although FAA has updated its information on PRIA for carriers, it has 

not yet included this information in key guidance for its own staff. 

Until the agency incorporates its guidance on the act into its 

inspector handbooks and provides its inspectors with appropriate 

training, the inspectors may not be sufficiently aware of PRIA’s 

provisions to review carriers’ compliance. We do not know whether the 

limited number of inspection findings related to PRIA is indicative of 

widespread compliance, infrequent compliance reviews, or a lack of 

evidence to determine compliance. However, there is sufficient 

evidence--from the discrepancies in the number of records requested 

from FAA, NDR, and carriers; from the reviews of 798 Part 135 carriers 

conducted by FAA inspectors at our request; and from carriers’ 

responses to our survey questions about their requests for records in 

2000--to suggest that noncompliance is occurring.



* The number of enforcement actions taken is also difficult to 

evaluate, given the number of inspection findings. However, FAA has 

said that it cannot enforce compliance because carriers are not 

required to retain the records that would demonstrate their compliance. 

We agree. Unless carriers retain the records they receive on pilots 

they hire, FAA cannot monitor or enforce their compliance with PRIA’s 

background check requirements. As the agency with exclusive 

responsibility for overseeing PRIA’s implementation, FAA has the 

authority and, we believe the obligation, to ensure that carriers have 

a system that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with 

all PRIA requirements, especially whether required pilot background 

checks have been completed for pilots hired.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



To assist FAA in overseeing the implementation of PRIA and to enable 

FAA to determine whether carriers have conducted the required 

background checks on pilots before making final hiring decisions on 

pilots, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

FAA Administrator to:



* update FAA’s advisory circular on PRIA to (1) clarify which records 

to include in PRIA files that are forwarded to hiring carriers and 

which records to exclude and (2) have carriers put in place a system 

that will allow the carriers and FAA to check compliance with all PRIA 

requirements, especially whether required pilot background checks have 

been completed for pilots hired;



* incorporate information on PRIA’s Web site that informs pilots of 

their rights, including the right to review and correct their records 

under PRIA;



* revise the Air Carrier and Other Records Request form (FAA Form 8060-

11) to conform with the law’s provisions for notification, review, and 

correction of records by pilots; and:



* incorporate information on PRIA into the handbooks, inspection 

guidance, and training for FAA’s operations inspectors.



Agency Comments:



We provided DOT with a copy of our draft report for review and comment. 

In our draft report, we recommended that FAA develop a regulation 

requiring that carriers maintain records of background checks on the 

pilots they hire for as long as the pilots remain in their employ. 

While FAA agreed that carriers need to maintain the records for the 

agency to monitor and enforce their compliance with the law, FAA 

proposed a change in its administrative guidance rather than a 

regulation to achieve this goal. We agreed that such a change could 

accomplish the intent of our initial recommendation and revised the 

recommendation accordingly. FAA concurred with all other 

recommendations in our draft report and suggested technical changes 

that we incorporated in this report where appropriate.



[End of section]



Chapter 5 Most Carriers Found PRIA Records Helpful but Were Divided on 

Whether They Were Worth the Cost:



Most carriers found PRIA records at least somewhat helpful, but they 

were divided on whether the records were worth the cost. The majority 

of the carriers favored changes that would make additional information 

available. Nearly three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about 

three-fifths of the Part 135 carriers that had made at least one 

request to FAA for PRIA information found PRIA records to be helpful in 

making their hiring decisions. Both groups of carriers found 

information from other sources, such as the job interview, the 

carrier’s flight evaluation of the pilot, and the results of the 

carrier’s training program, more helpful. Since PRIA’s costs are 

difficult to determine, Part 121 and Part 135 carriers were divided on 

whether the PRIA information they received in 2000 was worth the cost. 

Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us 

they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain 

additional information (1) from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents 

and on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases and (2) from the 

Department of Defense on military pilots’ histories.



Carriers Generally Found PRIA Records Helpful in Making Hiring 

Decisions but Less Helpful than Information from Other Sources:



Seventy-three percent of the Part 121 carriers found PRIA records at 

least somewhat helpful in making hiring decisions, and 27 percent said 

these records were not very helpful, as shown in figure 9. Among the 

Part 121 carriers, those with more than 1,000 pilots were more likely 

than smaller carriers to say that PRIA records were helpful in making 

hiring decisions, and 61 percent of these larger carriers rated PRIA as 

very helpful.



Figure 9: Views of Part 121 Carriers on the Helpfulness of PRIA 

Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.



[End of figure]



Compared with Part 121 carriers, Part 135 carriers found PRIA less 

helpful in making hiring decisions: 59 percent of the Part 135 carriers 

found PRIA at least somewhat helpful, and 41 percent said that PRIA was 

not very helpful. (See fig. 10.):



Figure 10: Views of Sampled Part 135 Carriers on the Helpfulness of 

PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 135 carriers that had 

requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.



[End of figure]



The Part 121 carriers found PRIA more useful in encouraging pilots to 

be honest about their background and experiences than did the Part 135 

carriers we surveyed. Sixty-eight percent of the Part 121 carriers 

rated PRIA as moderately or very useful in this regard, compared with 

49 percent of the Part 135 carriers. Because PRIA records allow 

carriers to verify pilots’ statements, receiving the records increases 

the likelihood that carriers will detect false statements. Nonetheless, 

11 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 25 percent of the Part 135 

carriers indicated that PRIA was not very useful in encouraging pilots 

to be honest.



According to carriers’ responses to our surveys, PRIA information 

played a greater role in decisions not to hire pilots for Part 121 

carriers than for Part 135 carriers. In 2000, 43 percent of the Part 

121 carriers said they decided not to hire pilots because of PRIA 

information, compared with 9 percent of the Part 135 carriers we 

surveyed. The Part 121 carriers said they decided not to hire 156 

pilots in 2000 because of PRIA information, while we estimate that the 

far more numerous Part 135 carriers decided not to hire 162 pilots. 

About two-thirds of the Part 121 carriers that said they did not hire a 

pilot because PRIA information indicated that the circumstances 

surrounding the pilot’s departure from a previous employer and the 

pilot’s training records were major or moderate factors that influenced 

their decisions. About half of these carriers identified the pilot’s 

driving records or enforcement history as a factor, as shown in figure 

11. Similar percentages of Part 135 carriers reported being influenced 

by the circumstances surrounding a pilot’s departure and by a pilot’s 

training records. Evidence of falsification, employers’ records of 

comments and evaluations, and driving records were, however, much less 

influential for the few Part 135 carriers that did not hire pilots 

because of PRIA information than they were for the Part 121 carriers, 

and such evidence played a smaller role in their hiring decisions than 

did the pilot’s enforcement history.



Figure 11: Extent to Which Part 121 Carriers Reported That PRIA Records 

Were a Factor in Decisions Not to Hire a Pilot:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.



[End of figure]



Both the Part 121 carriers and the Part 135 carriers we surveyed 

reported that they found some PRIA records more helpful in making their 

hiring decisions than others. Specifically, as shown in figure 12, they 

found FAA information on closed enforcement actions during the past 5 

years the most helpful and FAA’s verification of the pilot’s medical 

record and the pilot’s NDR information the least helpful.



Figure 12: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on 

the Helpfulness of PRIA Records in Making Hiring Decisions:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers and Part 135 

carriers that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.



[End of figure]



According to the Part 121 carriers, the information not required by 

PRIA was generally far more helpful than PRIA records in making final 

hiring decisions. Virtually all of the Part 121 carriers reported that 

they found the results of job interviews, their own training programs, 

evaluations of a pilot’s flying skills, and recommendations from other 

pilots at least somewhat helpful in making these decisions. (See fig. 

13.) This seems reasonable, given that most carriers make a conditional 

job offer to, and begin training, a pilot on the basis of non-PRIA 

information and have made their hiring decision by the time they 

receive and review PRIA files. According to our survey results, 82 

percent of the Part 121 carriers had PRIA records available for review 

after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or begun training. 

Moreover, some carrier officials said, in survey comments and 

interviews, that they view training and performance records from other 

carriers as subjective. They said that PRIA information rarely changes 

their hiring decision unless they see multiple problems in a pilot’s 

file.



Figure 13: Views of Part 121 Carriers and Sampled Part 135 Carriers on 

the Helpfulness of Non-PRIA Information in Making Hiring Decisions:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Because few Part 135 carriers review military pilot logbooks, we 

excluded this question from our survey of these carriers.



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

that had requested at least one PRIA record from FAA.



[End of figure]



Similarly, in making their final hiring decisions, the Part 135 

carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA generally reported 

finding information not required by PRIA to be more helpful than PRIA 

records. At least 94 percent of these Part 135 carriers said they found 

the results of job interviews, their own evaluations of a pilot’s 

flying skills, and recommendations from other pilots at least somewhat 

helpful in making these decisions. About 73 percent of the Part 135 

carriers said they had PRIA records available for review late in the 

hiring process--after a pilot had accepted a conditional job offer or 

begun training.



Carriers Differed on Whether PRIA Is Worth the Cost:



Although the total costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to 

estimate, carriers bear the largest portion of these costs. According 

to our survey results, the Part 121 carriers spent substantially more, 

on average, than the Part 135 carriers to comply with PRIA in 2000, and 

the Part 121 carriers were more likely to view their costs as justified 

by the usefulness of the information received.



Costs of Implementing PRIA Are Difficult to Determine:



The costs of implementing PRIA--to carriers, pilots, and federal and 

state agencies--are difficult to determine. In December 2000, FAA 

estimated $5.3 million in implementation costs, including the costs to 

carriers, pilots, and the agency itself; however, this estimate did not 

include a number of costs to these entities and individuals, and it did 

not include the costs of providing and obtaining NDR information. For 

carriers, the full costs of implementing PRIA are difficult to 

determine because they often are not tracked separately from other 

hiring and record-keeping costs. For FAA and NDR, the costs are also 

difficult to determine because complete data are not available.



FAA estimated that carriers, in requesting and responding to requests 

for PRIA records, incurred $4.6 million, or about 86 percent, of the 

estimated $5.3 million in total implementation costs. This estimate 

covered the costs of:



* staff time to obtain a pilot’s signatures on release forms, to 

request the records, and to follow up on records that do not arrive 

within 30 days;



* staff time to review and evaluate an applicant’s file once it is 

received;



* staff time needed to prepare, copy, review the contents of, and mail 

PRIA records; and:



* the maintenance of records related to PRIA’s requirements.



FAA’s estimate did not include the fees that hiring carriers pay to 

background investigation companies and to those carrier employers and 

state motor vehicle agencies that charge a fee for providing records. 

About 46 percent of the Part 121 carriers and about 26 percent of the 

Part 135 carriers responding to our survey reported hiring background 

investigation companies to obtain at least some PRIA records. Most 

carriers--81 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 94 percent of the 

Part 135 carriers we surveyed--said they do not charge a fee for 

providing records. Two of the six[Footnote 24] state motor vehicle 

agencies that respond to the vast majority of carriers’ requests for 

NDR information charge for this service.



In responding to our survey, the Part 121 carriers indicated that they 

spent an average of $7,000 to comply with PRIA in 2000. The Part 135 

carriers said they spent an average of $1,000 or less. The total costs 

for individual Part 121 carriers ranged from $1,000 or less to $100,001 

to $1 million. The total costs for individual Part 135 carriers ranged 

from $1,000 or less to $10,001 to $50,000. (For more detailed cost 

information, see app. VII.):



Carrier officials told us that the costs for PRIA are difficult to 

distinguish from other hiring costs, partly because most carriers do 

not have staff dedicated to carrying out PRIA requirements and use the 

same staff to perform both PRIA and other responsibilities. In 

addition, the fees that background investigation companies charge to 

obtain PRIA information may not be billed separately from their fees 

for performing other services that are not required by PRIA, such as 

consumer credit or criminal records checks.



For 2000, FAA estimated that pilots whose PRIA files were requested 

incurred total costs of nearly $436,000, or about 8 percent of the 

estimated $5.3 million total cost. This estimate did not include the 

pilots’ costs to obtain copies of their employment and training records 

from carriers for review and to obtain copies of their driving records.



Complete data are not available on the costs to FAA, NDR, and state 

motor vehicle agencies of implementing PRIA. For fiscal year 2000, when 

FAA provided a more complete estimate of its PRIA costs than it had 

developed in previous years, the agency estimated its own costs at 

about $312,000, or about 6 percent of the $5.3 million total estimate. 

However, according to staff in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems Branch, this 

estimate did not include about $40,000 that FAA spent in fiscal year 

2000 for the initial development and maintenance of its automated 

system for responding to PRIA requests. NDR officials reported spending 

$318 to complete 17,000 requests from carriers in 1999, but this figure 

did not include any portion of the $1 million that NDR spends annually 

to maintain its computer system or of the costs that NDR incurs to 

hand-process pilots’ requests for driver information under the Privacy 

Act. None of the six state motor vehicle agencies that respond to most 

carriers’ requests for NDR information could identify the costs of 

providing the information, according to responsible state officials.



Carriers Were Divided on Whether PRIA’s Costs Were Justified:



Compared with the Part 135 carriers we surveyed, the Part 121 carriers 

were more persuaded that the PRIA information they received was worth 

the cost, but even the Part 121 carriers were split in their views. 

Specifically, 52 percent of the Part 121 carriers believed that their 

PRIA costs in 2000 were justified by the usefulness of the information 

received, while 48 percent did not. Conversely, nearly two-thirds of 

the Part 135 carriers did not believe that their PRIA costs were 

justified, whereas about one-third did.



Most Carriers Favored Changes That Would Make Additional Information 

Available under PRIA:



Substantial majorities of both Part 121 and Part 135 carriers told us 

they would support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain 

additional information from FAA on aviation accidents and incidents and 

on open, pending, and reopened enforcement cases. Carriers can obtain 

this information from FAA under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

request, but pilots are not informed of FOIA requests and are not 

provided copies of the FOIA files that are sent to potential employers. 

FOIA records also have not undergone as much legal review as PRIA 

records. The majority of Part 121 carriers also told us they would 

support changes to PRIA that would enable them to obtain flight records 

from the military. Such records are not available through FOIA 

requests.



Carriers Can Request More Safety Information on Pilots under FOIA Than 

under PRIA:



Currently, carriers can obtain more extensive information on a pilot’s 

safety history from FAA under a FOIA request than under a PRIA request. 

In responding to a FOIA request, FAA can release information on all 

open, closed, and pending enforcement cases from which the pilot’s 

identity has not been expunged, even if those cases are more than 5 

years old. In responding to a PRIA request, however, FAA is precluded 

by the act from releasing any records more than 5 years old. In 

addition, as a matter of law, FAA provides information only on those 

accidents and incidents that have resulted in a legal enforcement 

action. Under PRIA, FAA is not required to provide other records that 

it maintains on aviation accidents and incidents as well as on open, 

pending, and reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA’s analysis, 

nearly 20,000 more records were available in response to FOIA requests 

than to PRIA requests as of January 10, 2002. (See table 6.) These 

include 9,885 records of enforcement cases that have been closed but 

from which the pilot’s name has not been expunged as well as of open, 

pending, or reopened enforcement cases. The remaining records that FAA 

could provide were of accidents and incidents.



Table 6: Records Releasable under PRIA and FOIA from PRIA’s 

Implementation on February 6, 1997, through January 11, 2002:



[See PDF for Image]



[End of table]



According to an analysis done by staff in FAA’s Aviation Data Systems 

Branch, fewer than one-quarter of the 1,726 carriers that requested 

PRIA records between February 6, 1997, when the law went into effect, 

and January 11, 2002, requested additional safety information under 

FOIA. The analysis concluded that the majority of carriers are unaware 

that they are receiving incomplete safety records from FAA under PRIA. 

Additionally, the report noted that, under FOIA, there are no 

requirements to notify a pilot of a request for records, to obtain the 

pilot’s consent for the release of those records, or to provide the 

pilot with a copy of the records that were released.



FAA does not support for a variety of reasons a change in the law that 

would provide carriers with more complete safety information on pilot 

applicants if it released its records of accidents; incidents; and 

open, pending, or reopened enforcement cases. According to FAA’s Office 

of Chief Counsel, using the reports of accidents and incidents in FAA’s 

data system to evaluate pilots’ performance could be unfair because 

these reports may not involve pilot error. Moreover, even if they do, 

pilots identified in accident and incident reports do not receive the 

same due process protections that pilots receive when they are subject 

to legal enforcement actions. Additionally, enforcement actions that 

have not been closed have not been fully reviewed by FAA, NTSB, and 

perhaps a U.S. Court of Appeals. These cases could eventually be 

dropped or dismissed.



Carriers Favored Receiving Additional Information in Response to PRIA 

Requests:



Over three-quarters of the Part 121 carriers and about two-thirds of 

the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported having FAA include 

additional information on accidents and incidents and on open, pending, 

and reopened enforcement cases in response to PRIA requests. However, 

the carriers were much less supportive of including enforcement 

information over 5 years old. (See table 7.):



Table 7: Percentage of Carriers That Supported Including Additional FAA 

Information in Response to PRIA Requests:



[See PDF for Image]



[End of table]



Although Congress excluded military flight records from the sources of 

PRIA information in April 2000, 62 percent of the Part 121 carriers and 

56 percent of the Part 135 carriers we surveyed supported a change in 

the law that would enable them to receive these records. Currently, 

carriers can review a military pilot’s logbook to obtain information on 

the pilot’s flight hours, types of equipment flown, and rate of 

progress in mastering new aircraft as well as any flight-related 

disciplinary actions. While substantial majorities of both Part 121 and 

Part 135 carriers that had hired military pilots found the military 

logbook helpful in making their hiring decision, the carriers 

nevertheless favored receiving flight records directly from the 

military.



Military records are important to carriers because they hire many 

pilots with military flight experience. Eighty-eight percent of the 

Part 121 carriers reported hiring at least some pilots with military 

flight experience in 2000, and the largest Part 121 carriers, with more 

than 1,000 pilots, reported that about 40 percent of the pilots they 

hired in 2000 had military experience. Forty-six percent of the Part 

135 carriers that had requested PRIA files from FAA hired pilots with 

military flying experience in 2000.



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I Fatal Aviation Accidents That Involved Pilots with Prior 

Safety Problems Were Cited in Passing PRIA Legislation:



National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: Flight and 

location: Fatalities: [Empty].



11/15/1987; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-88-09[A]; Flight and location: Continental Air Carriers 1713; 

Denver, Colorado; Fatalities: 28; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: The 

plane crashed on takeoff due to the captain’s failure to have it deiced 

a second time after a delay before takeoff. This resulted in a loss of 

control during rapid takeoff rotation by the first officer. The first 

officer had shown significant shortcomings during his training. The 

carrier was unaware that a previous employer had discharged the first 

officer for inability to pass a flight check ride..



1/19/1988; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-94-05; Flight and location: Trans-Colorado Air Carriers 2286 

(Continental Express); Bayfield, Colorado; Fatalities: 9; [Empty]; 

Cause and pilot history: The plane went below minimum descent altitude 

then struck terrain. The captain had used cocaine prior to this flight. 

The first officer’s record prior to his employment with this carrier 

and during his training indicated deficiencies in performing instrument 

procedures. Records of both pilots revealed prior traffic violations 

and accidents and a previous aircraft accident for the captain. The 

carrier was unaware that both pilots had received warning letters from 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)..



2/19/1988; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-88-16; Flight and location: Air Virginia, Inc. (American 

Eagle); Cary, North Carolina; Fatalities: 12; [Empty]; Cause and pilot 

history: The plane crashed shortly after takeoff because of the pilots’ 

failure to maintain a proper flight path because of the first officer’s 

inappropriate instrument scan, the captain’s inadequate monitoring of 

the flight, and the crew’s response to a perceived fault in the 

airplane’s stall avoidance system. Company records showed instances of 

substandard performance by the copilot, who was flying the plane at the 

time of the accident..



10/28/89; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-90-05[A]; Flight and location: Aloha Island Air 1712; Molokai, 

Hawaii; Fatalities: 20; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: The captain 

continued flight under visual flight rules at night into instrument 

meteorological conditions that obscured rising mountainous terrain. The 

captain’s FAA records showed one previous incident attributed to a 

brake malfunction and the suspension of his commercial pilot 

certificate for 180 days for not meeting required flight-time 

requirements and tests..



4/22/92; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-93-01[A]; Flight and location: Tomy International 22 (Scenic 

Air Tours);; Maui, Hawaii; Fatalities: 9; [Empty]; Cause and pilot 

history: The captain decided to continue visual flight into instrument 

meteorological conditions that obscured rising mountainous terrain and 

failed to properly use available navigational equipment to remain clear 

of the Island of Maui. The carrier was unaware that the captain had 

been dismissed by five previous carriers for misrepresentation of 

qualifications and experience, failure to report for duty, disciplinary 

action, poor training performance, and work performance below 

standards..



12/1/1993; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-89-01; Flight and location: Express II 5719; Hibbing, 

Minnesota; Fatalities: 18; [Empty]; Cause and pilot history: An 

excessively steep landing approach, a lack of proper crew coordination, 

and a loss of altitude awareness contributed to the plane’s descending 

short of the runway at night. The carrier did not adequately address 

previously identified deficiencies in the captain’s airmanship and crew 

resource management. Deficiencies included multiple check ride 

failures, difficulties during transition and upgrade training, letters 

of complaint and reprimand for his behavior toward company employees, 

allegation of sexual harassment toward female employees, and a 

reputation among first officers as an intimidating captain..



12/13/1994; National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report number: 

NTSB/AAR-95-07[A]; Flight and location: Flagship Air Carriers (American 

Eagle 3379); Morrisville, North Carolina; Fatalities: 15; [Empty]; 

Cause and pilot history: The plane crashed short of the runway during 

an instrument-landing approach. The captain improperly assumed that the 

engine had failed and subsequently failed to follow approved procedures 

for engine failure, single-engine approach and go-around, and stall 

recovery. The carrier did not identify, document, monitor, or remedy 

deficiencies in the pilot’s performance and training at the previous 

carrier..



[A] NTSB reports that included recommendations for pilot background 

checks.



Source: GAO summary of accident report data from NTSB.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Methodology:



This appendix provides additional information on the design and 

implementation of our mail surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers on 

their experiences of hiring pilots under the Pilot Records Improvement 

Act of 1996 (PRIA). It also discusses database analyses we performed 

for our review; an electronic survey done by FAA of its principal 

operating inspectors to obtain information on pilot hiring by some Part 

135 carriers in 2000; and interviews we conducted with pilots on their 

hiring experiences, especially their experiences with PRIA background 

checks.



Mail Surveys of Carriers:



To support our responses to the four research questions asked by the 

Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, we conducted two separate nationwide mail surveys of 

Part 121 and Part 135 carriers from June through September, 2001. The 

surveys provided data on carriers’ compliance with PRIA, the types of 

information carriers use in hiring pilots, the costs they have 

incurred, and their awareness of the pilots’ rights set forth in PRIA. 

In addition, the surveys provided data on carriers’ views on the need 

for clarifying some of those rights, PRIA’s usefulness in the pilot-

hiring process, FAA’s oversight of compliance with the law, aspects of 

PRIA that require more clarification or guidance, and ways of improving 

PRIA.



We obtained data from FAA on Part 121 carriers, Part 135 carriers, 

those carriers that have dual certificates to operate as either Part 

121 or Part 135 carriers, and those carriers that made requests to FAA 

for PRIA records. FAA data from November 13, 2000, identified 120 Part 

121, 23 Part 121/135, and 2,717 Part 135 carriers. Our review of FAA’s 

Civil Aviation Registry found that 5 of these Part 121 carriers were no 

longer operating. We were unable to identify all of the active Part 135 

carriers at that time because FAA did not maintain that information in 

its database. Our analysis of FAA’s PRIA request data identified 

individual carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA 

records from July 1998, when FAA’s automated system began tracking 

these requests by carrier, through April 30, 2001. We used this 

information in creating our mailing lists for the two surveys. We 

combined the lists of Part 121 carriers and of Part 121/135 carriers to 

create a list of 124 carriers that had made at least one PRIA request 

to FAA. We sent the Part 121 carrier survey to all 124 of these 

carriers. Of the 2,717 Part 135 carriers, 1,144 (39 percent) had made 

at least one PRIA request to FAA. We selected a random sample of 350 of 

these carriers and sent the Part 135 survey to them.



During pretesting, we found that we needed procedures to guarantee the 

anonymity of survey respondents because of the sensitive nature of some 

questions on carriers’ awareness of and implementation of certain PRIA 

requirements. To guarantee anonymity, we retained no means of 

identifying the respondent on the survey booklet or the return 

envelope. This procedure precluded our knowing the identity of any 

respondent for the surveys mailed to us in Washington, D.C. The use of 

a separate return postcard, which was to be detached from the survey by 

the respondent and sent to our Seattle, Wash., office for follow-up, 

allowed us to track which respondents did and did not mail back a 

survey response. The response rates were 81 percent for the Part 121 

survey and 75 percent for the Part 135 survey. Tabulated copies of the 

surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers appear in appendixes III and 

IV, respectively.



We randomly selected the sample used for this study on the basis of a 

probability procedure. As a result, our sample is only one of a large 

number of samples that we might have drawn from the total population of 

1,144 Part 135 air carriers that had made at least one PRIA request to 

FAA. If different samples had been taken from the same population, it 

is likely that the results (i.e., the estimates) would be different. We 

therefore express our confidence in our particular sample’s results as 

95 percent confidence intervals--bounded by lower and upper confidence 

limits. These are intervals that would contain the actual population 

values for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, 

we can say we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence 

intervals presented in this report includes the true values in the 

study population.



The responses for the survey of Part 135 carriers involve sampling 

errors. The sampling error (confidence limits) for all percentages 

(except those shown for questions 22 and 25) does not exceed plus or 

minus 7 percentage points. The confidence limits for the percentage 

estimates for question 22 are shown in parentheses in table 8. These 

sampling errors are shown separately because the number of respondents 

is much smaller for this item than for all other items; and therefore, 

the confidence intervals are larger. The sampling error for all 

percentage estimates for question 25 does not exceed plus or minus 10 

percentage points. The confidence limits for the median estimates for 

questions 6, 9, and 21 are shown in tables 9, 10, and 11 respectively.



Table 8: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 

22:



a.; Reasons for termination: FAA’s records showed that the pilot had 

falsified information during the job application process. N=16; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 19%; (6%, 42%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 6%; (1%, 27%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 0%; (0%, 18%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate 

(confidence limit): Not a reason: 69%; (45%, 87%); Percentage estimate 

(confidence limit): 6%; (1%, 27%).



b.; Reasons for termination: The employer’s records showed that the 

pilot had falsified information during the job application process. 

N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 13%; (3%, 

37%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 0%; (0%, 

19%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%, 

29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 67%; (42%, 86%); Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): 13%; (3%, 37%).



c.; Reasons for termination: The pilot’s FAA records showed enforcement 

actions against the pilot that made the pilot unacceptable for our air 

carrier. N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 

27%; (10%, 52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate 

reason: 20%; (6%, 45%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor 

reason: 0%; (0%, 19%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 47%; (24%, 70%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).



d.; Reasons for termination: The employer’s records of comments and 

evaluations, including those by a check airman, raised concerns about 

the pilot’s competency. N=14; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 

Major reason: 7%; (1%, 31%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 

Moderate reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence 

limit): Minor reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence 

limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 

29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 31%).



e.; Reasons for termination: The pilot’s training records showed a 

pattern of poor performance. N=14; Percentage estimate (confidence 

limit): Major reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence 

limit): Moderate reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate 

(confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%, 31%); Percentage estimate 

(confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 

Not a reason: 29%; (11%, 55%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 

7%; (1%, 31%).



f.; Reasons for termination: The pilot’s records included disciplinary 

actions that made the pilot undesirable for employment. N=15; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 20%; (6%, 45%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 27%; (10%, 

52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 7%; (1%, 

29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 40%; (19%, 64%); Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).



g.; Reasons for termination: The records showed circumstances of the 

pilot’s departure from the former job that raised concerns. N=17; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 35%; (17%, 59%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 29%; (13%, 

53%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 18%; (5%, 

40%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 12%; (3%, 33%); Percentage 

estimate (confidence limit): 6%; (1%, 26%).



h.; Reasons for termination: The pilot’s driving records raised 

concerns. N=15; Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 

7%; (1%, 29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Moderate reason: 

27%; (10%, 52%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Minor reason: 

7%; (1%, 29%); Percentage estimate (confidence limit): [Empty]; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Not a reason: 53%; (30%, 76%); 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): 7%; (1%, 29%).



i.; Reasons for termination: You may list other reasons below. N=18; 

Percentage estimate (confidence limit): Major reason: 6% of the 

respondents listed one or more reasons. The 95% confidence interval for 

this estimate ranges from 1% to 25%..



[End of table]



Table 9: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 6:



Question 6 (total); N: 253; Median: 9% (7, 11).



Question 6 x 2000; N: 252; Median: 3 % (2, 3).



Question 6 x 1999; N: 232; Median: 2 % (2, 3).



Question 6 x 1998; N: 216; Median: 2 % (2, 3).



Question 6 x 1997; N: 208; Median: 2 % (2, 3).



[End of table]



Table 10: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 

9:



Question 9 (total); 252; Median: 7% (5, 8).



Question 9A (2000); 250; Median: 3% (2, 3).



Question 9B (1999); 233; Median: 2% (2, 3).



Question 9C (1998); 214; Median: 2% (1, 2).



Question 9D (1997); 200; Median: 1% (0, 2).



[End of table]



Table 11: Confidence Limits for the Percentage Estimates for Question 

21:



Question 21; N: 208; Median: 0% (0, 0).



[End of table]



Our two 20-page surveys were identical except for two questions. First, 

during pretests, Part 121 carriers told us that responses to the 

question on the number of new pilots hired from 1997 through 2000 could 

identify certain major Part 121 carriers and might lead to their not 

completing our survey. Because of concerns about maintaining anonymity 

for Part 121 carriers, we omitted the question from our survey of these 

carriers. However, we included the question in our survey of Part 135 

carriers because they did not express concern about its effects on 

their anonymity during pretesting. (See app. IV, question 6.) Second, 

for question 3 in both surveys, on the relative helpfulness of non-PRIA 

information to an air carrier’s hiring decisions, we did not include 

one item--”The pilot’s own record of military flying”--in the Part 135 

survey because we were told that few Part 135 carriers hire military 

pilots.



Early in designing our surveys, we interviewed three carriers to help 

determine the appropriate topics for the surveys. Next, we met with 14 

air carriers to pretest the surveys. We selected a wide variety of 

carriers for these meetings, including cargo and passenger carriers; 

carriers located around the nation; and small, medium, and large 

carriers. In the pretests, a printed survey, which was similar in 

appearance to our final product, was filled out by one or more 

representatives selected by each carrier for their knowledge of and 

work with the pilot background checks required by PRIA. The carrier 

representative(s) filled out the questionnaire in the presence of two 

GAO observers. The observers then interviewed the carrier 

representative(s) to ensure that (1) the questions were readable and 

clear, (2) the terms were precise, (3) the survey did not place an 

undue burden on carriers that would discourage their participation, and 

(4) the survey appeared independent and unbiased in its point of view. 

We revised the final survey to reflect the results of the pretests.



Besides pretesting the surveys, we interviewed and obtained reviews of 

them from industry trade representatives for small, medium, and large 

carriers. These representatives included AOPA, the Airline Industrial 

Relations Conference, the National Air Carrier Association, the 

National Air Transportation Association, the National Business Aviation 

Association, and the Regional Airline Association. We also met with FAA 

officials involved in implementing FAA’s PRIA requirements. We 

incorporated comments from these reviews as appropriate.



To increase our survey response rates, we mailed a prenotification 

letter to the respondents 1 week before mailing the surveys themselves. 

We mailed the Part 121 surveys on June 8, 2001, and the Part 135 

surveys on June 21, 2001. We then mailed (1) reminder postcards 1 week 

after mailing each of the surveys and (2) reminder letters 10 days 

after mailing the reminder postcards to those carriers that had not yet 

responded. To ensure a better response from the Part 121 carriers, we 

telephoned about 40 carriers to ensure that they had received the 

survey instead of mailing reminder letters to them. Finally, 10 days 

after mailing the reminder letters, we again mailed the surveys to 

those carriers that had not yet responded. We received the last surveys 

included in our analysis on September 6, 2001.



We received responses to our surveys from 101 Part 121 carriers and 261 

Part 135 carriers for response rates of 81 percent and 75 percent, 

respectively. Table 12 summarizes the survey returns.



Table 12: Summary of Survey Returns for Carriers That Made PRIA 

Requests to FAA:



[See PDF for Image]



[End of table]



Database Analyses:



To determine whether carriers had complied with PRIA’s requirements to 

request and review background information on pilots, we analyzed data 

from three DOT databases. These include the Airline Certification, NDR, 

and PRIA databases. (See table 13.):



Table 13: Databases Used in GAO Analyses:



Database: Airline Certification; Office responsible for the database: 

FAA’s Office of Flight Standards Service; Purpose of the database: 

Provides information on the type of operation authorized for the 

carrier..



Database: NDR; Office responsible for the database: NDR in DOT’s 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Purpose of the 

database: Tracks and maintains driver traffic violation indicators 

reported by the states and territories to a national database..



Database: PRIA; Office responsible for the database: Aviation Data 

Systems Branch in FAA’s Office of Flight Standards Service; Purpose of 

the database: Tracks carriers’ requests to FAA and provides pilots’ 

certificate and medical information as well as any closed enforcement 

actions for findings of violation..



Sources: FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



[End of table]



To assess the reliability of the database that FAA uses to respond to 

carriers’ PRIA requests, we interviewed officials from FAA’s Aviation 

Data Systems Branch, which is responsible for the development, 

maintenance, and operation of this database, and the branch’s 

contractors. We also obtained data on PRIA requests to FAA from the 

initiation of the agency’s automated tracking system in July 1998 

through June 2001. For 1998 through early April 2001, this system 

included about 79,350 requests. We examined these data for consistency 

and completeness. When we found that the requesting carrier’s 

certificate designation or Part designation was missing, we requested 

this information from FAA. In addition, FAA determined for us whether a 

carrier had requested PRIA information directly or through a third 

party. We tested the reliability of FAA’s data at selected sites and 

performed our own electronic data testing. The data elements that we 

selected for testing were, in our opinion, sufficiently complete and 

consistent to fairly characterize the types and extent of the PRIA 

requests to which FAA responded during the period of our review. We did 

not independently review the validity of the three databases from which 

the PRIA database derives its data. Because the Airline Certification 

and NDR databases contain information available only from these 

sources, we were unable to verify the quality of their data.



Using these databases, we performed several analyses to determine which 

carriers are subject to PRIA and how many requests each had made for 

PRIA background checks. To identify those carriers that are air 

carriers and are therefore required to conduct background checks on 

pilots under PRIA, we analyzed FAA data on which Part 121 and Part 135 

carriers have certificates to fly interstate and are subject to PRIA. 

We analyzed trends in the number of requests made by carriers from 

PRIA’s implementation in February 1997 through April 2001. To determine 

the number of requests made by each carrier, we analyzed data on 

requests made by carriers since the initiation of FAA’s automated PRIA 

database in July 1998 through April 2001. FAA does not have automated 

data on requests by individual carriers for the first year of PRIA’s 

implementation.



We analyzed available information on pilot hiring to gain insight into 

the extent to which Part 135 carriers have implemented PRIA by 

requesting background check information from FAA for pilots hired in 

2000. In April 2001, we briefed FAA on the percentage of Part 135 

carriers that had made at least one request to FAA for PRIA information 

in 2000. Because only 39 percent had made at least one request, FAA, in 

April 2001, asked its principal operations inspectors, who are 

responsible for overseeing Part 135 carriers, to provide information on 

how many pilots these carriers had hired in 2000 and whether the 

carriers operated only intrastate and thus were potentially not subject 

to PRIA. By June 1, 2001, FAA had received responses from 83 inspectors 

responsible for overseeing 842 Part 135 carriers. FAA provided us with 

copies of their responses for analysis. Using data from the inspectors’ 

responses and the PRIA database, we eliminated those 44 carriers that 

operate only intrastate and compared data on the number of pilots hired 

in 2000 by each of the remaining 798 carriers with the number of PRIA 

requests made by that carrier that year.



To gain perspective on the safety histories of carrier pilots, we 

obtained relevant accident reports from NTSB, reviewed a 1988 GAO 

report[Footnote 25] on pilot hiring, and asked FAA to provide updated 

data on pilots qualified to fly commercial aircraft. FAA provided 

updated data from its Civil Aviation Registry, Accident and Incident 

Data System, and Enforcement Information System databases, including 

(1) how many pilots are qualified to fly for commercial carriers; (2) 

how many of these pilots have been involved in aviation accidents or 

incidents; (3) how many have had their certificates revoked or 

suspended or have received fines; and (4) how many enforcement cases 

that are open, pending, reopened, or expunged involved these pilots.



We met with FAA program managers to discuss the results of our surveys 

and database analyses and to obtain their insights on the findings.



Pilot Interviews:



To understand the perspectives of pilots involved in hiring under PRIA, 

we interviewed a sample of 20 pilots at hiring fairs and carriers. We 

also interviewed 27 pilots whom we identified as having reported 

experiencing problems with their PRIA records because they had 

contacted FAA, congressional staff, or our office. Most of these 27 

pilots provided copies of the PRIA records prepared by their current or 

former employers for our review and analysis.



[End of section]



Appendix III Survey of Part 121s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:



[See PDF for Image]



[End of section]



Appendix IV Survey of Part 135s: Pilot Records Improvement Act:



[See PDF for Image]



[End of Section]



Appendix V Chart on Items Needing Clarification by FAA:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of survey data from Part 121 carriers.



[End of Figure]



[End of section]



Appendix VI Overview of FAA Form 8060-11:



9/20/01	AC 120-68A Appendix 3:



APPENDIX 3. OVERVIEW OF FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS 

REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996:



NOTICE:	Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I 

through III are completed as specified in the instructions for the 

form.



1. Part I - Records Request (PRIA). Part I is used by the air carrier 

to request certain records of the pilot from any air carrier or other 

person that has employed the individual at any time during the 5-year 

period preceding the date of the employment application of the 

individual, or from the trustee in bankruptcy for such air carrier or 

other person. The records that must be provided are identified in 49 

U.S.C. § 44936 f(1)(B).



2. Part II - Airman Consent to Release of Records. Part II is used by 

the air carrier to obtain written consent to the release of the records 

from the airman who is the subject of the records requested.



3. Part III - Airman Notice and Right To Receive Copy.



a.	Part III is used by the air carrier or other person(s) to:



(1) Notify the airman that he/she is the subject of a request; and:



(2) Notify the airman of his/her right to receive a copy of any such 

records:



furnished.



b.	Part III is used by the airman to:



(1) Waive the requirement that the air carrier or person(s) providing 

the records also provide separate notification of the request and the 

airman’s right to receive a copy of all records furnished in response 

to the request; and:



(2) Notify the air carrier or other person(s) whether the airman 

desires a copy of any record furnished.



4. Furnishing Records. A person who receives a request for records 

under 49 U.S.C.



§ 44936(f) shall furnish a copy of all such requested records 

maintained by the person not later than 30 days after receiving the 

request.



5. Reasonable Charges. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(7) allows for reasonable 

charges for processing requests and furnishing copies of requested 

records.



Page 1 (and 2):



9/20/01	AC 120-68A Appendix 3:



FIGURE 1. FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST 

(PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996 (FRONT):



AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS.



f400[0] IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996.



U.S. Department Title 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f), Records of Employment of 

Pilot Applicants, As Amended.



of Transportation.



NOTICE: Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I 

through III are completed as specified.



Federal Aviationin the instructions.



Administration.



PART I: RECORDS REQUEST (PRIA).



To:.



hereby requests.



(Air Carrier Name) (Air Carrier Certificate #).



copies of records as required under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(1)(B), as 

amended, pertaining to the airman consenting in Part II below..



Name: Title:.



(Print-Air Carrier Representative) (Print --Title of Air Carrier 

Representative).



Signature: Date:.



(Air Carrier Representative).



Mail Records To:.



Telephone: FAX:.



PART 11: AIRMAN CONSENT TO RELEASE OF RECORDS.



I, consent to and authorize my current or previous employer.



(Print-Airman’s First, Middle, and Last Name).



to release records.



(Print --Employer Name).



pertaining to me as required under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(1)(B) to the 

air carrier named in Part I above..



Airman Certificate Number(s):.



Signature: Date:.



(Not valid unless signed and dated).



PART III: AIRMAN NOTICE AND RIGHT TO RECEIVE COPY.



Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6), you are hereby notified of the 

foregoing Air Carrier and Other Records Request (PRIA) and that.



you are entitled to a copy of any and all records furnished in response 

to the request made in Part I above. My signature below.



serves to waive the requirement under 49 USC § 44936(f)(6) that the 

person(s) identified in Part I above, which is a person receiving.



the PRIA request, also provide me with notification of the request and 

of my right to receive a copy of all records furnished in.



response to that request. I may request a copy of such records by 

checking the appropriate box below..



YES, I want a copy of the furnished records. NO, I do not want a copy 

of the furnished records..



Signature: Date:.



(Not valid unless signed and dated).



FAA Form 8060-11 (Revised 09/2001) Previous editions are obsolete OMB 

No. 2120-0607.



[End of table]



Page 3:



AC 120-68A	9/20/01 Appendix 3:



FIGURE 1 (CONTINUED). FAA FORM 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS 

REQUEST (PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996 (BACK):



INSTRUCTIONS: FAA Form 8060-11, AIR CARRIER AND OTHER RECORDS REQUEST 

(PRIA) --PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996, TITLE 49 U.S.C § 

44936(f), Records of Employment of Pilot Applicants.



Air carriers should use this form to request records from current and/

or past employers as contemplated under 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f).



NOTICE:



Request will not be deemed received or valid unless Parts I through III 

are completed as specified below.



A person who receives a request for records under 49 U.S.C. § 

44936(f)(1) shall furnish a copy of all such requested records 

maintained by the person not later than 30 days after receiving the 

request (see 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(5)).



This form may be photocopied for use.



This form is available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/

afshome.htm. Click on the Flight Standards Forms link. A separate form 

must be used for each airman whose records are requested.



DO NOT use this form to request Pilot Records from the Federal Aviation 

Administration.



PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT.	49 United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 

44936(f), Records of Employment of Pilot Applicants, as amended, 

requires all air carriers to request FAA records and Air Carrier and 

Other Records concerning an individual before allowing that individual 

to begin service as a pilot. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(8) requires the FAA 

Administrator to promulgate standard forms to request records. The 

information entered on the standard forms will be used to facilitate 

search and retrieval of the required records. It is estimated that the 

average burden per respondent associated with the collection of Air 

Carrier and Other Records (this collection] is 30 minutes. If you wish 

to comment on the accuracy of that estimate or submit suggestions for 

reducing the burden, you may write to: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20591. The requirement to collect background information 

on the pilots before allowing the pilot to begin service is mandatory; 

the use of this form is not. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The control 

number assigned to this collection is 2120-0607.



Part I: To be completed by the Air Carrier.



1. All entries, except for signature, must be either type written or 

printed legibly with black or dark blue ink.



2. The name, title, and signature of the person making the request on 

behalf of the air carrier must be legibly entered.



3. A complete mailing address must be furnished to facilitate 

processing the request.



Part II: To be completed by Airman/Applicant.



1. All entries, except for signature, must be either type written or 

printed legibly with black or dark blue ink.



2. In the first blank, type or print your name as it is shown on your 

airman certificate(s).



3. Sign the Consent portion of the form in ink using your legal 

signature.



4. Type or print your certificate number(s) in the blank provided.	In 

parentheses after the Certificate number, indicate the type of 

certificate by using S for Student, P for Private, C for Commercial, F 

for Flight Instructor, G for Ground Instructor, or A for Airline 

Transport Pilot. If you have multiple certificates that use the same 

certificate number, list the certificate number once and indicate the 

types of certificates in parenthesis. For example, if you hold an Air 

Line Transport Pilot Certificate as well as Flight Instructor and 

Ground Instructor Certificates using the same number, you should 

indicate as follows: Certificate No. 456231234 (A,F,G):



Part III: To be completed by Airman/Applicant.



1. 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6) requires the person receiving a records 

request to notify the airman of the request, and further entitles the 

airman signing FAA Form 8060-11 the right to receive a complete copy of 

all records furnished in response to a request made by an air carrier. 

Because FAA Form 8060-11 provides the airman with this notification, a 

separate notification from the person or air carrier providing the 

records would be redundant. The airman’s signature on Part III waives 

the requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 44936(f)(6) that the person(s) or air 

carrier(s) receiving the records request also provide separate 

notification of the request and the airman’s right to receive a copy of 

all records furnished in response to the request.



2. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether you DO or DO NOT want 

a copy of the records, date & sign in ink using your legal signature. 

An address for mailing the records must be provided; or, furnish 

appropriate handling instructions.



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Appendix VII Air Carriers’ Costs to Comply with PRIA in 2000:



Cost: $0; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 0; Part 121 carriers: 

Percentage: 0; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Carriers: 17; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Percentage: 7.



Cost: $1 - $1,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 15; Part 121 carriers: 

Percentage: 16; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Carriers: 164; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Percentage: 65.



Cost: $1,001 - $5,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 18; Part 121 

carriers: Percentage: 20; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 51; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Percentage: 20.



Cost: $5,001 - $10,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 18; Part 121 

carriers: Percentage: 20; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 10; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Percentage: 4.



Cost: $10,001 - $50,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 20; Part 121 

carriers: Percentage: 22; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 9; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA 

files from FAA: Percentage: 4.



Cost: $50,001 - $100,000; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 12; Part 121 

carriers: Percentage: 13; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested 

PRIA files from FAA: Carriers: 0; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA 

files from FAA: Percentage: 0.



Cost: $100,001 - $1 million; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 8; Part 121 

carriers: Percentage: 9; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA 

files from FAA: Carriers: 0; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA 

files from FAA: Percentage: 0.



Cost: Total; Part 121 carriers: Carriers: 91; Part 121 carriers: 

Percentage: 100; [Empty]; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Carriers: 251; Part 135 carriers that requested PRIA files 

from FAA: Percentage: 100.



Source: GAO analyses of survey data from Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

that had requested PRIA files from FAA.



[End of section]



Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-3650

Tammy Conquest (202) 512-5234

Bonnie A. Beckett, Ph.D. (202) 512-6525:



Staff Acknowledgments:



In addition to those named above, Alan Belkin, Nancy Boardman, Jeanine 

Brady, Stephen Brown, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Fran Featherston, Curtis 

Groves, David Hooper, Julian King, and Colleen Phillips made 

significant contributions to this report.



FOOTNOTES



[1] NDR is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, which is within the Department of Transportation.



[2] See appendix I for a list of NTSB reports that recommended pilot 

background checks following four crashes.



[3] NDR is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation.



[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Safety: Air Carriers 

Should Check Pilot Applicants’ Safety History, GAO/RCED-88-154 

(Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1988).



[5] None of NTSB’s reports on commercial airplane crashes from January 

1995 through July 2001 cite inadequate background checks on pilots as a 

contributing factor.



[6] 49 U.S.C. 44701.



[7] The term “U.S. citizen” refers in this context to a person, 

partnership, or corporation.



[8] In 1996, FAA issued a final rule requiring that commuter operations 

conducted in airplanes with 10 to 30 passenger seats be conducted under 

Part 121 of title 14 of the CFR. Previously, scheduled passenger-

carrying operations in airplanes with over 30 seats or a payload 

capacity of more than 7,500 pounds were conducted under Part 121, and 

operations in airplanes with 30 or fewer seats and a payload capacity 

of 7,500 pounds or less were conducted under Part 135. Part 121, which 

provides the safety requirements for all major air carriers, was 

generally considered to have more restrictive requirements than Part 

135. This change in the criteria was in response to several Part 135 

commuter accidents that had occurred in previous years and the need to 

bring most passenger operations under one level of safety.



[9] Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: Pilot Pay-for-

Training Study (Washington, D.C.: February 1998); Report to Congress: 

Pilot Minimum Flight Time Requirements Study (Washington, D.C.: March 

1998); and Report to Congress: Air Carrier Pilot Pre-Employment 

Screening Standards and Study Criteria (Washington, D.C.: March 2000).



[10] Data results from our surveys of Part 121 and Part 135 carriers 

are reported differently for the body of our report and for the two 

survey appendixes (see apps. III and IV). Survey results cited in this 

report may combine several individual questionnaire categories. For 

example, in asking about the degree that some non-PRIA information 

helped carriers make pilot-hiring decisions, we report percentages that 

are based on responses ranging from “very helpful” or “moderately 

helpful” to “not very helpful.” Categories such as “other,” 

“uncertain,” and “did not do this” and missing responses are not 

included in these percentage calculations for the body of this report. 

This approach presents in the body the views of carriers that expressed 

an opinion on each question. In the survey appendixes, we do include 

these categories in the data reported, when they are present, in order 

to report the complete range of information generated. Their inclusion 

can cause a difference in the percentage calculations for those 

questions affected in the survey appendixes, as compared with the 

percentages for the same questions in the body of this report. 

Throughout this report, we include data on Part 121 carriers’ responses 

to our surveys. If Part 135 carriers’ responses were within the 

sampling error (plus or minus 7 percentage points for most survey 

questions), we note that the responses were similar and do not report 

them separately.



[11] Principal operations inspectors lead teams of FAA inspectors that 

conduct inspections of such items as pilots’ certification and 

performance, flight crews’ training, and in-flight record keeping.



[12] Specifically, FAA determined that all 138 carriers with Part 121 

or dual operating certificates and 2,550 Part 135 carriers are subject 

to PRIA because they are authorized to conduct interstate operations 

and therefore fit the act’s definition of an “air carrier.” 

Furthermore, according to FAA’s analysis, only a handful of the 

remaining Part 135 carriers carry mail and are also subject to the act.



[13] Although FAA maintains data on the number of PRIA requests it has 

received since the act’s implementation in February 1997, the agency 

did not begin automated tracking of requests by carrier until July 

1998. Consequently, we were not able to determine how many carriers 

made PRIA requests during the first 16 months of the program or whether 

the requesting carriers were Part 121 or Part 135 carriers.



[14] Throughout this report, we use the term “NDR information” to refer 

to NDR driver information records provided in response to PRIA 

requests, both by NDR and by state motor vehicle agencies, which 

largely assumed this responsibility in 1998.



[15] Although carriers are required to receive NDR information from NDR 

or a state motor vehicle agency, carriers sometimes ask pilot 

applicants to request the information. If the pilots identify 

themselves in their requests to NDR as pilots or specify that they are 

requesting the NDR information for PRIA purposes, NDR includes their 

requests in its PRIA database. Furthermore, indicating that the request 

is for NDR information ensures that the information provided includes 

records of convictions or suspensions in all 50 states, not just those 

in the state that supplies the information.



[16] Under the Privacy Act, an individual may make a written, notarized 

request directly to NDR for a file search to determine whether NDR has 

provided the individual’s driver information records to a third party.



[17] On-demand carriers include carriers that operate under Part 135 

for compensation, including (1) operations as a public charter with 

negotiated time and location of departure, (2) scheduled operations 

with limited frequency of operations, and (3) small all-cargo 

operations with a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less.



[18] Clarifications to the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, H. 

Rpt. 105-372, House of Representatives, October 31, 1997.



[19] The states are Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.



[20] John J. Nance and Charles David Thompson, “The Pilot Records 

Improvement Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences,” Journal of Air Law 

and Commerce, Southern Methodist University School of Law (Summer 

2001).



[21] 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44936 (f)(6).



[22] Operations inspectors conduct inspections of such items as pilots’ 

certification and performance, flight crews’ training, and in-flight 

record keeping.



[23] In October 1998, FAA began using ATOS, a new approach to 

overseeing the nation’s 10 largest passenger air carriers--Alaska, 

America West, American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, Trans 

World, United, and US Airways. Trans World subsequently merged with 

American.



[24] Florida and Texas charge for providing NDR information, while 

Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah do not.



[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Safety: Airlines Should 

Check Pilot Applicants’ Safety History, GAO/RCED-88-154 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 21, 1988).



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: