Federal Civil Aviation Programs:
An Overview
Bart Elias
Specialist in Aviation Policy
October 17, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42781
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Airport and Airways Trust Fund ............................................................................................... 1
FAA Funding Accounts .................................................................................................................... 3
Airport Financing ............................................................................................................................. 4
FAA Management and Organizational Issues .................................................................................. 5
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Workforce ........................................................................ 5
Facility Consolidation ............................................................................................................... 6
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)........................................................... 7
Aviation Safety Programs ................................................................................................................ 8
Airline Safety............................................................................................................................. 9
Air Ambulance Safety ............................................................................................................... 9
Oversight of Maintenance Repair Stations .............................................................................. 10
Airport Surface Movement Safety ........................................................................................... 11
The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft .................................................................................... 11

Figures
Figure 1. Allocation of NextGen Funding, FY2011-FY2013 .......................................................... 8

Tables
Table 1. Aviation Taxes and Fees ..................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts .......................................................... 4
Table 3. Funding for NextGen Programs ......................................................................................... 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

Introduction
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs and activities are funded under four broad
budget accounts: operations and maintenance (such as air traffic control and aviation safety
functions); facilities and equipment (such as control towers and navigation beacons); grants for
airport improvements under the airports improvement program (AIP); and civil aviation research
and development conducted or sponsored by FAA. Additionally, aviation programs fund aviation
programs administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of the Secretary,
including the Essential Air Service Program that subsidizes airline service to certain small and
isolated communities. These programs are funded primarily through a special trust fund, the
airport and airways trust fund (AATF), and, in part, through general fund contributions.
Other federal entities also play significant roles in civil aviation. These include the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, which conducts extensive research on civil aeronautics;
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which provides research and operational
support to FAA regarding aviation weather forecasting; the Transportation Security
Administration in the Department of Homeland Security, which has authority over civil aviation
security; and the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation accidents and
makes safety recommendations to FAA. These programs are not considered in this report. This
report focuses on FAA and DOT civil aviation programs addressed in the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95), enacted on February 14, 2012, which authorizes AATF taxes
and revenue collections and civil aviation program expenditures through FY2015.
The Airport and Airways Trust Fund
The AATF, sometimes referred to as the aviation trust fund, was established in 1970 under the
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (P. L. 91-258) to provide for expansion of the
nation’s airports and air traffic system. It has been the major funding source for federal aviation
programs since its creation. Since FY2009, the AATF has provided between 66.6% and 71.4% of
FAA’s total annual funding, the remainder coming from general fund appropriations.1 Revenue
sources for the trust fund include passenger ticket taxes, segment fees, air cargo fees, and fuel
taxes paid by both commercial and general aviation aircraft (see Table 1).

1 Federal Aviation Administration, Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) Fact Sheet, http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

Table 1. Aviation Taxes and Fees
(CY2012 rates)
Tax or Fee
Rate
Passenger Ticket Tax (on domestic ticket purchases and frequent flyer awards)
7.5%
Flight Segment Tax (domestic, indexed annual y to Consumer Price Index)
$3.80
Cargo Waybill Tax
6.25%
Frequent Flyer Tax
7.5%
General Aviation Gasoline*
19.3 cents/gal on
General Aviation Jet Fuel* (Kerosene)
21.8 cents/gal on
Commercial Jet Fuel* (Kerosene)
4.3 cents/gallon
International Departure/Arrivals Tax (indexed annual y to Consumer Price Index)
$16.70
(prorated Alaska/Hawaii to/from mainland United States)
(Alaska/Hawaii = $8.40)
Fractional Ownership Surtax on general aviation jet fuel
14.1 cents/gal on
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Current Aviation Excise Tax Structure, updated March 2012.
Note: * Does not include 0.1 cents/gal on for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) trust fund.
In addition to excise taxes deposited into the trust fund, FAA imposes air traffic service fees on
flights that transit U.S.-controlled airspace but do not take off from or land in the United States.
These overflight fees partially fund the EAS program.2
In 2012, the AATF has maintained a cash balance of more than $10 billion. However, the
uncommitted balance has declined considerably since 2001, when it exceeded $7 billion.3 After
falling to about $300 million at the end of FY2009,4 the uncommitted balance climbed back to
about $1 billion at the end of FY2012, but the long-term vitality of the AATF remains a concern.
AATF revenue is largely dependent on airlines’ ticket sales, and the spread of low-cost air carrier
models has held down ticket prices and therefore AATF receipts.
Airlines have long contended that general aviation operators, particularly corporate jets, should
provide a larger share of the revenues supporting the trust fund. General aviation interests dispute
this, arguing that the air traffic system mainly supports the airlines and that non-airline users pay
a reasonable share given the relatively small incremental costs arising from their flights.
Proposals to increase the general aviation jet fuel tax in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
failed.

2 See CRS Report R41666, Essential Air Service (EAS): Frequently Asked Questions, by Rachel Tang.
3 The uncommitted balance consists of funds that have not been expended or obligated through current or prior year
activities, whereas the cash balance includes funds that have been obligated but not expended.
4 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Airport and Airways Trust Fund: Declining Balance Raises Concerns over
Ability to Meet Future Demands, GAO-11-358T, February 3, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

In 2011, the Obama Administration proposed a per-flight user charge of $100 on commercial and
general aviation jets and turboprops that fly in controlled airspace as an additional revenue source
for the AATF.5 The proposal, estimated to generate roughly $1.1 billion annually, was opposed by
general aviation interests who depicted this as a first step toward funding the air traffic control
system wholly or substantially through user charges. This approach is already used in Canada,
Australia, and Europe, and general aviation interests raise concerns over the high cost of air
traffic services under those models. Proposals by the Clinton Administration and the George W.
Bush Administration to establish user charges for air traffic services also failed to gain
congressional support. In the 110th Congress, a Senate proposal to impose a similar $25-per-flight
fee was not adopted (see S. 1300, 110th Congress).
Another concern regarding AATF revenues centers on the recent trend among airlines to impose
fees for a variety of add-on services and amenities such as checked bags, onboard Wi-Fi access,
or seats with additional leg room. Generally, fees not included in the base ticket price are not
subject to federal excise taxes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that the
trust fund could have received $186 million in FY2009 from untaxed baggage fees alone had
these fees been subject to the 7.5% excise tax.6 If airlines continue to seek additional revenue
from ancillary fees as an alternative to increasing base ticket prices, federal aviation programs
and activities may become more dependent on contributions from the general fund.
FAA Funding Accounts
In recent years, FAA funding has totaled between $15 billion and $16 billion annually. FAA
funding is divided among four main accounts. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) makes up the
largest portion of the FAA budget, comprising slightly more than 60% of total FAA
appropriations. It is the only FAA account that is funded, in part, by general fund contributions.
The O&M account principally funds air traffic operations and aviation safety programs. The
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants-in-aid for projects such as new
runways and taxiways; runway lengthening, rehabilitation, and repair; and noise mitigation near
airports. The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account provides funding for the acquisition and
maintenance of air traffic facilities and equipment, and for engineering, development, testing, and
evaluation of technologies related to the federal air traffic system. The Research, Engineering,
and Development account finances research on improving aviation safety and operational
efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of aviation operations. Authorizations and
appropriations for these accounts are shown in Table 2.

5 Office of Management and Budget, Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for
Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, September 2011, pp. 22-23.
6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Commercial Aviation: Consumers Could Benefit from Better Information
about Airline-Imposed Fees and Refundability of Government-Imposed Taxes and Fees, GAO-10-785, July 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

Table 2. Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts
($ in millions)
Account
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Authorized Levels
— —
9,653
9,539
9,596
9,653
Appropriated/Requested Amounts
9,350 9,533 9,653 9,718(R) —
—
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Authorized Levels
— —
3,350
3,350
3,350
3,350
Appropriated/Requested Amounts
3,515 3,000 3,350 3,350(R) —
—
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
Authorized Levels
— —
2,731
2,715
2,730
2,730
Appropriated/Requested Amounts
2,936 2,736 2,731 2,850(R) —
—
Research, Engineering, & Development
Authorized Levels
— — 168 168 168 168
Appropriated/Requested Amounts
191 170 168 168(R) — —
TOTALS
Authorized Levels
— —
15,902
15,772
15,814
15,901
Appropriated/Requested Amounts
15,992 15,439 15,902 15,146(R) —
—
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 112-95, P.L. 111-8 (FY2010 Appropriations), P.L. 112-10 (FY2011 Appropriations),
P.L. 112-55 (FY2012 Appropriations), and the FY2013 Budget Request.
Notes: Table does not reflect amounts specified in short-term extension acts or continuing appropriations
measures. (R) is the requested amount.
Airport Financing
AIP provides federal grants for airport development. AIP funding is usually limited to capital
improvements related to aircraft operations and is usually tied to improvements related to safety,
capacity, and environmental concerns. Commercial revenue-producing portions of airports and
airport terminals are generally not eligible for AIP funding. AIP money cannot usually be used for
airport operational expenses or bond repayments. AIP funds are distributed either as formula
grants or as discretionary grants.7 They may be spent only on public-use airports identified in
FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems, which currently lists about 3,400 airports
across the United States considered significant to national air transportation.
In general, the federal share of costs for AIP projects is capped at the following levels:
• 75% for large and medium hub airports (80% for noise compatibility projects);
and

7 For a detailed description of the AIP program, see CRS Report R40608, Airport Improvement Program (AIP):
Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk. See also Federal Aviation Administration, Overview: What Is
AIP?, http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

• 90% or 95% for other airports, depending on statutory requirements.
Under a provision in P.L. 112-95, airports reclassified as medium hubs due to increased passenger
volumes may retain eligibility for up to a 90% federal share for a two-year transition period.
Additionally, certain economically distressed communities and communities receiving EAS-
subsidized air carrier service may be eligible for up to a 95% federal share of project costs.
The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program provides a source of non-federal funds intended to
complement AIP spending. The PFC is a local tax imposed, with federal approval, by an airport
on each boarding passenger. PFC funds can be used for a broader range of projects than AIP
grants and are more likely to be used for “ground-side” projects such as improvements to
passenger terminals and ground transportation facilities. PFCs can also be used for bond
repayments. Currently, PFCs are capped at $4.50 per boarded passenger, with a maximum charge
of $18 per round trip flight. PFCs are collected by the airlines and remitted to the airports. A
provision in P.L. 112-95 instructed GAO to study alternative means for collecting PFCs.
Airports also raise funds for capital projects from bonds, state and local grants, landing fees, on-
airport parking, and lease agreements.
FAA Management and Organizational Issues
FAA is a large organization with over 46,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Over 33,000
of these are in the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), including more than 15,000 air traffic
controllers, 5,000 air traffic supervisors and managers, and 7,000 engineers and maintenance
technicians. ATO was established under Executive Order 12/07/00 in December 2000 as a
functional unit within FAA but with a completely separate management and organizational
structure and a mandate to employ a business-like approach emphasizing defined performance
goals and metrics related to operational safety and system efficiency. Employee pay and
advancement are based, in part, on meeting annual organizational goals. Creation of the ATO as a
distinct entity within FAA also had the effect of more clearly separating operational components
related to air traffic control from components concerned with regulation and safety oversight of
aircraft operators, repair stations, flight schools, pilots and mechanics, and other entities.
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Workforce
Controller and technician staffing has been an ongoing issue of concern. FAA’s strategy for
controller staffing has focused on accelerated hiring and training through FY2014. Total
controller hiring over the 10-year period ending in FY2014 is expected to total about 12,500.
P.L. 112-95 requires that FAA ensure sufficient numbers of instructors, classrooms, and
simulators are available at air traffic facilities to accommodate increased numbers of controllers.
The act also requires FAA to distribute certified controllers and trainees across facilities in a
manner that avoids training bottlenecks. It directs FAA to carry out an analysis of controller
scheduling and overtime practices. Additionally, it requires FAA to give priority to controllers-in-
training when filling staffing vacancies, and to assess training at facilities with below average
success rates to evaluate conformance with training standards. The act directs FAA to carry out a
study of front-line manager staffing at air traffic control facilities.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

In addition to air traffic controllers, Congress has identified staffing of airway transportation
system specialists that maintain air traffic technologies as a critical issue. P.L. 112-95 specifically
directs FAA to assess the adequacy of training provided to systems specialists. The act also
directs the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study of staffing needs for system
specialists to ensure proper maintenance and certification of the national airspace system.
Facility Consolidation
Consolidation of FAA air traffic facilities and functions is viewed as a means to control
operational costs, replace outdated facilities, and improve air traffic services. Consolidation
efforts to date have primarily focused on terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities.
TRACON consolidation has been ongoing for many years, but in the past has been limited to
nearby and overlapping terminal areas in major metropolitan areas such as New York/Northern
New Jersey, Washington/Baltimore, and Los Angeles/San Diego. More recently, FAA has sought
to decouple combined tower/TRACON facilities and merge approach control functions across
larger geographical areas.
These consolidation projects have been coupled with airport control tower replacements.
Replacements for outdated combined tower/TRACON facilities are being designed to house
tower functions only, and TRACON components are being relocated to consolidated facilities that
may be at some distance from the airport. Operations at low-activity towers that lose their
TRACON components are more likely to be outsourced under the federal contract tower (FCT)
program, an issue of particular concern to FAA labor unions. Currently, about half of all airport
control towers in the United States are operated under the FCT program.
Facility consolidation has been particularly controversial because FAA’s system-wide plan for
realignment and consolidation is still evolving. The plan calls for more comprehensive integration
of TRACONs and en-route centers into large integrated facilities. The DOT Office of Inspector
General cautioned in 2012 that FAA is still in the early stages of planning for this comprehensive
effort and has not made key decisions or developed metrics to assess these plans.8
FAA plans are politically sensitive, as consolidation initiatives could result in job losses in
specific congressional districts even if they do not result in an overall decrease in jobs for air
traffic controllers, systems specialists, and other supporting personnel. Rather, realignment and
consolidation coupled with airspace modernization under the NextGen system are anticipated to
change the nature of these job functions and consolidate them in fewer physical facilities.
Provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95) require FAA to develop a
report providing a comprehensive list of its proposed recommendations for realignment and
consolidation of services and facilities. The report is to include a justification, projected cost
savings, and a timeline for each proposed action. FAA is required to subsequently provide
Congress with formal consolidation and realignment recommendations, along with public
comments received. Congress would then have the opportunity to, within 30 days, pass a joint
resolution formally disapproving any recommendation included in the FAA plan. If Congress

8 Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: The Success of FAA’s Long-Term Plan for Air Traffic Facility
Realignments and Consolidations Depends on Addressing Key Technical, Financial, and Workforce Challenges,
Department of Transportation, AV-2012-151, Washington, DC, July 17, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

disapproves, FAA would not be able to implement that specific recommendation, although the
law is silent with respect to FAA’s recourse to subsequently propose alternative approaches.
The Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)
NextGen is a multiyear initiative to modernize and improve the efficiency of the national airspace
system, primarily by migrating to technologies and procedures using satellite-based navigation
and aircraft tracking. Funding for NextGen programs totals more than $1 billion annually,
primarily funded through FAA’s F&E account (see Table 3).
Table 3. Funding for NextGen Programs
($ in millions)
FY2013
Account FY2011
FY2012
Request
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
12 12 12
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
812 863 956
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)
59 60 67
TOTALS
883 935
1,034
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Aviation Administration.
Note: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Core components of the NextGen system include the following:
• Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B): A system for
broadcasting and receiving aircraft identification, position, altitude, heading, and
speed data derived from on-board navigation systems such as a Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver. “ADS-B Out” functionality refers to a basic
level of aircraft equipage that transmits position data. “ADS-B In” incorporates
aircraft reception of ADS-B signals from other air traffic and/or uplinks of traffic,
weather, and flight information from ground stations. FAA funds support the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the ground network and associated
infrastructure to receive ADS-B transmissions and relay them to air traffic
facilities and other aircraft. Most aircraft will be required to have “ADS-B Out”
capability by 2020.
• System Wide Information Management (SWIM): A system being developed
for aviation system data sharing, consisting of a seamless infrastructure for data
exchange, similar to the World Wide Web. As envisioned, SWIM will consist of
an extensive, scalable data network to share real time operational information,
such as flight plans, flight trajectories, weather, airport conditions, and temporary
airspace restrictions across the entire airspace system.
• Data Communications (DataComm): A digital voice and data network, similar
to current wireless telephone capabilities, to transmit instructions, advisories, and
other routine communications between aircraft and air traffic service providers.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

• Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies (CATMT): A suite of
technologies, including various automation and decision support tools, designed
to enhance existing aircraft flow management functions by exploiting other
NextGen technologies and capabilities such as SWIM.
• NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW): An integrated platform for
providing a common weather picture to air traffic controllers, air traffic
managers, and system users.
Funding allocations for these various core NextGen components are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Allocation of NextGen Funding, FY2011-FY2013
FAA Research
FAA Operations
NextGen Network
Engineering and
and Maintenance
Enabled Weather
Development
(O&M)
(NNEW)
(R,E&D)
2%
1%
11%
Collaborative Air
Automatic
Traffic
Dependent
Management
Surveillance -
Technologies
Broadcast
(CATMT)
(ADS-B)
System Wide
6%
43%
Data
Information
Communications
Management
(DataComm)
(SWIM)
25%
12%

Source: CRS Analysis of U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2013,
Federal Aviation Administration.
Note: Does not include NASA and NOAA funding for research and development and NNEW.
Development and implementation of NextGen pose a number of unique challenges to FAA. One
of the greatest is overcoming stakeholder reluctance to adopt NextGen technologies. This
reluctance is fueled in large part by perceived uncertainties about the technical details and the
potential benefits of particular technologies. Users fear that early investments may not yield near-
term benefits and may prove costly if technical specifications change as NextGen evolves.
FAA has proposed a “best-equipped best-served” concept to encourage airlines and business jet
operators to invest in NextGen technologies. Under this concept, those that equip early with
NextGen capabilities will reap some of the benefits of those capabilities, through preferential
treatment with respect to flight routing and arrival and departure queuing, for example. In
addition, ADS-B may provide some intrinsic benefits, particularly to small general aviation
aircraft, by providing pilots with robust traffic and weather data that may enhance safety. FAA
plans to promote these benefits, in conjunction with equipment mandates for ADS-B, to
encourage more users to adopt NextGen technologies in the near term.
Aviation Safety Programs
FAA’s regulatory functions are focused on the safety of civil aviation operations. FAA’s office of
aviation safety consists of almost 7,500 full-time equivalent positions including regulators, safety
inspectors, safety engineers, and support personnel who are responsible for all federal civil
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

aviation safety standards and compliance with those standards. FAA’s role in aviation safety
includes certification of aircraft and aircraft components, regulation and oversight of airlines and
other aircraft operators, and initiatives to reduce safety risks associated with airport operations.
Although the United States achieves extremely high levels of aviation safety and has one of the
safest aviation systems in the world, Congress has expressed particular concern in recent years
about safety regulation and oversight of smaller regional air carriers; the safety of air ambulances;
regulation of outsourced air carrier maintenance; airport surface movement safety; and, most
recently, the integration of unmanned aircraft (drones) into the national airspace system.
Airline Safety
In response to concerns over regional airline safety following the February 12, 2009, crash of a
Continental Connection flight from Newark, NJ, to Buffalo, NY, Congress enacted the Airline
Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216) on August 1,
2010. The act required FAA to make substantive regulatory changes addressing airline pilot
fatigue; airline pilot qualifications; FAA pilot records; airline flight crew and dispatcher training;
FAA oversight and surveillance of air carriers; pilot mentoring, professional development, and
leadership; and flight crewmember pairing and crew resource management techniques.
In response to these mandates, FAA issued rulemaking to significantly change flight time and
duty time limits and rest requirements for passenger airline flight crews in December 2011. The
new regulations, which go into effect in 2014, set duty limits based on time of day, number of
flight segments, and number of time zones crossed, and establish a minimum 10-hour rest period
between duty periods, two hours more than currently required. FAA also requires air carriers to
implement fatigue risk management programs to aid airlines and flight crews in ensuring that
pilots are fit for duty.9 In addition, FAA has issued proposed rules to increase qualification
standards for first officers, requiring that they meet the same certification requirements as airline
captains.10 FAA is revamping regulations regarding airline training programs for flight crews and
dispatchers, and air carrier safety management systems to provide comprehensive, process-
oriented programs for managing safety throughout an airline organization. It also plans to require
modifications to air carrier training programs to address mentoring, leadership, and professional
development of less experienced pilots, as mandated in P.L. 111-216.11
Air Ambulance Safety
The safety of air ambulances, particularly helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) flights,
has been in the spotlight over the past few years in response to accidents in this growing industry.
NTSB and other aviation safety experts advocate mandatory use of formal flight dispatch
procedures and risk management practices among helicopter air ambulance operators as well as

9 Federal Aviation Administration, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements,” 77(2) Federal Register 330-
403, January 4, 2012; Federal Aviation Administration, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements;
Correction,” 77(95) Federal Register 28763-, May 16, 2012.
10 Federal Aviation Administration, “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations;
Proposed Rule,” 77(40) Federal Register 12374-12406, February 29, 2012.
11 Department of Transportation, Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings, Washington, DC, September 2012,
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/
September%202012%20Report%20on%20DOT%20Significant%20Rulemakings.PDF.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

mandatory installation of terrain warning systems on HEMS aircraft. NTSB found that many air
ambulance accidents have occurred when patients were not on board, and, therefore, operations
were permitted to be conducted under less stringent rules regarding weather and pilot duty times.
Provisions in P.L. 112-95 require air ambulances to comply with more stringent commercial
operating requirements pertaining to weather conditions and crew flight and duty times whenever
medical personnel are on board. FAA is mandated to establish regulations addressing flight
dispatch procedures, pilot training standards, and safety technologies (including helicopter terrain
awareness warning systems, radar altimeters, and cockpit voice and data recording devices). The
act also requires FAA to collect detailed data on HEMS operators and their safety records.
FAA issued proposed rulemaking in October 2010 that would apply commercial operating
standards to all air ambulance flights with medical personnel onboard, mandate radio altimeters
and terrain awareness and warning systems for HEMS aircraft, and require HEMS operators to
conduct pre-flight risk analyses and provide safety training or briefings to onboard medical
personnel. Additionally, HEMS operators with 10 or more helicopters would be required to
establish operations control centers staffed by FAA-approved operations control specialists.12
Oversight of Maintenance Repair Stations
Outsourcing of airline maintenance work to repair stations has been an issue of concern for
policymakers. The issue was highlighted by the NTSB investigation of the crash of a USAirways
Express flight in January 2003 while taking off from Charlotte, NC. NTSB found that the plane’s
elevator control system was rigged improperly, and that the maintenance work that had been
performed by a contract repair facility lacked sufficient oversight and quality assurance. It
recommended that FAA perform targeted surveillance and increased oversight of airline
maintenance practices, require approved air carrier maintenance training programs, and require
air carriers to implement comprehensive aviation maintenance human factors programs.13
Congress has expressed specific concern over the quality of work and oversight of maintenance
performed on air carrier aircraft at maintenance facilities in foreign countries. The FAA
Modernization and Reform Act requires FAA to establish and implement a safety assessment
system for all certified repair stations (both in the United States and in foreign countries) by
February 14, 2013. Additionally, the act requires FAA to ensure that foreign repair stations are
subject to inspections consistent with existing U.S. requirements at least annually, consistent with
obligations under international agreements. FAA is directed to issue an annual report describing
improvements in its capabilities to identify and track where airline maintenance is performed; a
staffing model regarding the number and geographic placement of FAA inspectors; maintenance
inspector training; and a quality assessment of FAA and foreign authority inspections.
P.L. 112-95 also establishes specific requirements for drug and alcohol testing programs for
safety-sensitive workers repairing commercial air carrier aircraft at foreign repair stations. It
requires FAA to publish a proposed rule to require drug and alcohol testing programs at all

12 Federal Aviation Administration, “Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations, Part 91 Helicopter
Operations, and Part 135 Aircraft Operations; Safety Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments,” 75(196) Federal
Register 62640-62674, October 10, 2010.
13 National Transportation Safety Board, Loss of Pitch Control During Takeoff Air Midwest Flight 5481, Raytheon
(Beechcraft) 1900D, N233YV, NTSB/AAR-04/01, Washington, DC, February 26, 2004.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Federal Civil Aviation Programs: An Overview

foreign repair stations that service U.S. air carrier aircraft, consistent with the laws of the country
where the work is performed, by February 14, 2013.
Airport Surface Movement Safety
The risk of on-airport collisions has been a significant safety concern since the 1977 runway
collision of two Boeing 747 on the island of Tenerife, which claimed 583 lives in the deadliest
aviation disaster in history. Over the past decade, FAA has addressed surface movement safety
though investments in airport lighting and signage improvements, modifications to procedures
and communications, and investments in such technologies as surface radar, runway status lights,
final approach runway occupancy signals, and tablet devices for pilots (known as electronic flight
bags) with moving map capabilities. Additionally, FAA has supported targeted installation of
special pavement materials, known as the engineered materials arresting system, or EMAS, at
airports where aircraft that overrun a runway could collide with structures or enter bodies of
water.
P.L. 112-95 required FAA to develop a strategic runway safety plan that includes specific national
goals and proposed actions as well as a review of runway safety at every commercial service
airport in the United States. The act also requires FAA to develop a process for tracking and
investigating runway incidents and incorporating its plan for deploying systems to alert air traffic
controllers and pilots of potential runway incursions into the NextGen implementation.
The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft
P.L. 112-95 directed FAA to develop a plan to begin the safe integration of civil unmanned
aircraft into the national airspace system by the end of FY2015. These aircraft, known as drones,
are likely to come into use for aerial surveillance missions for homeland security, border
protection, and law enforcement, as well as for commercial applications such as surveying,
imaging, and advertising. Integrating drones into the national airspace system poses a number of
challenges including the development of capabilities for drones to sense and avoid other aircraft,
mitigation of risks to persons and property on the ground, qualification standards and training for
pilots, systems operators, and other safety-critical personnel. The act requires FAA to publish a
final rule regarding the operation of small drones for commercial purposes and establish a five-
year test program to study unmanned aircraft system integration at six test ranges.14

Author Contact Information

Bart Elias

Specialist in Aviation Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771


14 For further reading see CRS Report R42718, Pilotless Drones: Background and Considerations for Congress
Regarding Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System, by Bart Elias.
Congressional Research Service
11

---