Summary: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) attaches great importance to its safety-related programs. However, it has not been effective or timely in developing systems to identify safety hazards because it has not (1) recognized their importance, (2) emphasized information gathering and analysis, nor (3) undertaken long-term planning for comprehensive identification systems. Organizational problems and a lack of a comprehensive planning process for addressing aviation safety issues have also hampered the effectiveness of FAA. Procedures for insuring that safety project plans are prepared, reviewed, and approved are either incomplete or nonexistent. The difficulties FAA has had regarding priorities, requirements, cost-benefit analyses, interim corrective actions, internal coordination, staffing-workload analyses, and accountability in safety projects have not always been monitored because FAA has no agencywide requirement for recording actual time charged on safety project work. The priority accorded the cabin safety issue has been inconsistent and FAA has been untimely and ineffective in establishing requirements for cabin materials. Various interim cabin safety corrective actions have been considered over the years, but no substantive rulemaking actions have occurred. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that FAA give its highest priority to improving standards for seat systems. Although FAA spent years in seat strength research, it has never clearly established whether or not stronger seats are necessary. An examination of FAA documents indicated that internal FAA research showed that seat failures had occurred in survivable transport accidents. However, FAA officials stated that there was no evidence that the standards being used were inadequate. Each time proposals to increase seat strength standards have come to a decision point, FAA has claimed there was no evidence to justify the need. GAO believed that, without an estimate of the costs and benefits of increasing seat strength, FAA is in a weak position to make sound decisions on establishing requirements, initiating research, continuing research, or using the results of such research.
