|
|
|
|
|||
By Mike Mitchell |
||||
April 6, 2010 - DOT’s Inspector General’s Office testified before congress, Subcommittee on Transportation, in their report they indicated the FAA’s oversight of the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) inspections continues to be ineffective at the national level in large part because the FAA does not collect data on all overdue inspections or fully utilize the data it already collects.
In response to DOT 2008 recommendation, the FAA established a process to compile inspection data at the national level and distribute quarterly reports to alert regional managers to overdue inspections. However, FAA’s data tracking efforts still lack accountability in two key areas. First, FAA does not monitor completion of a key group of inspections, those identified as scheduled, but not yet assigned.
From June 2008
through June 2009, 237 scheduled inspections were left unassigned and
uncompleted—and none were being tracked by FAA to completion. |
||||
Unless the FAA
holds regional managers accountable for ensuring that local inspection
offices complete these inspections, they will continue to lapse beyond
the minimum inspection intervals established by FAA. Inspecting air
carrier programs at required time intervals is critical to validate the
levels of risk that might exist in air carrier programs.
Second, the FAA’s
quarterly inspection status reports do not include any trend analyses or
cumulative data roll-up from the rest of the year that could help
identify offices where inspections are habitually late. Moreover,
regional managers stated that they did not find the Headquarters reports
useful and, in many cases, were already tracking the progress of their
local oversight offices in completing assigned inspections using locally
developed systems. Yet, those systems were not monitoring the 237
overdue inspections identified during DOT review to completion.
The FAA introduced
(ATOS) in 1998 as its new tool for conducting air carrier safety
inspections. ATOS was a major shift in FAA’s oversight system as it
moved beyond the traditional inspection method of simply checking an air
carrier’s compliance with regulations to identifying and assessing
safety risks to preclude accidents. FAA initially implemented ATOS at 10
of the Nation’s largest passenger air carriers. |
Over the past 7
years, DOT has reported on a number of weaknesses within ATOS. In 2002,
DOT recommended that FAA establish strong national oversight and
accountability to ensure consistent ATOS field implementation. Today,
all Part 121 passenger air carriers in the
In 2005, DOT again
recommended that FAA strengthen its national oversight of field offices
by establishing policies and procedures to ensure air carrier
inspections are conducted in a timely and consistent manner. More
recently, in 2008, DOT recommended that FAA implement a process to track
field office inspections and alert the local, regional, and Headquarters
offices to overdue inspections.
To conduct this
review, DOT obtained and analyzed ATOS inspection data and interviewed
FAA Flight Standards Division (Headquarters) and regional managers to
evaluate their role and effectiveness in analyzing data and ensuring
timely completion of inspections.
ATOS is FAA’s
approach to air carrier safety oversight. FAA inspectors assigned to
local oversight offices use ATOS to conduct surveillance of air carrier
operations and maintenance programs at more than 100 Part 121 air
carriers in the
ATOS is designed
to allow FAA inspectors to use data to focus their inspections on areas
posing the greatest safety risks and adapt their inspection plans in
response to changing conditions within air carriers’ operations. ATOS
helps inspectors assess air carriers across three primary areas:
• System Design:
Inspectors evaluate air carriers’ policies and procedures to determine
if their operating systems comply with safety regulations and standards.
System design evaluations are required every 5 years.
• Performance:
Inspectors determine whether an air carrier is following its
FAA-approved procedures and that those procedures and operating systems
are working as intended. Performance evaluations are conducted at
prescribed intervals depending on the likelihood of failure in air
carrier programs.
• Risk Management:
Inspectors examine air carrier processes dealing with hazards and
associated risks that are subject to regulatory control (e.g.,
enforcement actions and rulemaking). FAA uses these analyses as a basis
to target resources towards the most at-risk programs.
The frequency of
performance evaluations is based on the significance of the program to
an air carrier’s operations. Inspections of high-criticality maintenance
programs, such as Airworthiness Directive Management, are performed
every 6 months; lower-criticality programs, such as Carry-On Baggage or
Service Difficulty Reports, are inspected every 12 or 36 months,
respectively.
Since ATOS is an
automated oversight system, results of inspections and decisions made by
managers to mitigate risk levels are collected and organized in a
centrally located repository within ATOS. This allows Headquarters and
regional officials to monitor the current status of all ATOS
inspections.
FAA headquarters
does not use inspection status data to hold local oversight offices
accountable for completing ATOS inspections. Inspections are
automatically scheduled in ATOS based on intervals established within
the system, and it is the responsibility of local oversight office
managers to assign inspectors to complete these inspections.
However, DOT
review of inspection data indicates that not all scheduled inspections
are being assigned, including those with increased levels of risk. For
example, four local oversight offices that transitioned to ATOS since
2006 have yet to complete any scheduled system design or performance
inspections for 10 air carrier operations programs. At the time of DOT
review, these inspections were unassigned.
In DOT June 2008
report, DOT recommended that FAA implement a process to monitor field
office inspections and alert local, regional, and Headquarters
management to overdue inspections. In response, the FAA developed a
process to track the status of ATOS inspections. In July 2008, the FAA
Headquarters ATOS Division Manager began sending quarterly inspection
status reports—commonly referred to as the Quarterly ADI Completion
Report—to regional managers.
However, DOT
analysis of FAA’s quarterly inspection status reports showed that FAA
Headquarters only tracks the status of assigned inspections for timely
completion. Unassigned inspections pose a greater problem for FAA
because managers have not committed inspector resources to complete
these inspections.
Once these
inspections become past due, there is no sense of urgency to complete
them. FAA Headquarters officials also use the quarterly reports during
FAA’s “Dashboard” meetings. DOT found 237 instances where ATOS
inspections were unassigned and not completed at the required interval.
For example, DOT review of ATOS data disclosed 11 inspections that were
at least 90 days past due but not yet rescheduled. In other instances,
FAA did reschedule unassigned inspections.
FAA officials
acknowledged that not all scheduled ATOS inspections will be completed
at the required interval. They informed DOT that in a risk-based
oversight system such as ATOS, it is not practical or desirable to
complete all inspections just for the sake of completing inspections.
Therefore,
Headquarters officials do not hold local oversight offices accountable
for completing unassigned inspections because doing so would impede the
time inspectors need to perform quality inspections for those areas that
pose greater risk.
While DOT agreed
that higher-risk air carrier programs warrant being inspected ahead of
lower-risk programs, some of the unassigned inspections were identified
by inspectors as “high risk” programs but not inspected. Additionally,
ensuring that all areas, regardless of risk, are inspected is a critical
step toward identifying and monitoring risk levels before system failure
occurs.
Quarterly
inspection status reports consistently pointed to a lack of inspector
resources as the main reason scheduled inspections have gone unassigned
and uncompleted. Headquarters officials acknowledged that they are aware
of the resource issues cited by the regions, but they have not addressed
this problem.
DOT analysis
showed that a lack of inspector staffing was cited in 70 percent of the
237 unassigned inspections over a 1-year period.
FAA’s efforts to effectively oversee all inspections at a
national level will require a process that tracks unassigned inspections
to ensure that they are rescheduled and completed in a timely manner.
FAA could maximize the results of this process by monitoring reasons
cited by local oversight offices for failing to assign inspections.
|
©AvStop Online Magazine Contact Us Return To News |
|