[Senate Hearing 106-1089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1089
NOMINATIONS OF JOHN J. GOGLIA FOR REAPPOINTMENT, AND CAROL J. CARMODY
FOR APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
78-127 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 1, 2000.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 1
Witnesses
Goglia, Hon. John J., Member, National Transportation Safety
Board.......................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Biographical information..................................... 5
Carmody, Carol J., Member-Designate, National Transportation
Safety Board................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Biographical information..................................... 17
Appendix
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 31
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, prepared
statement...................................................... 31
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F.
Hollings to:
Carol J. Carmody............................................. 32
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison to:
Carol J. Carmody............................................. 35
John J. Goglia............................................... 38
NOMINATIONS OF JOHN J. GOGLIA FOR REAPPOINTMENT, AND CAROL J. CARMODY
FOR APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: Virginia Pounds,
Republican professional staff; and Jonathan Oakman, Democratic
staff assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. The Commerce Committee meets today to review the
qualifications of two nominees to the National Transportation
Safety Board.
Let me say a few words about the NTSB. As a former vice
chairman of the Board, I certainly appreciate the work this
agency does. The National Transportation Safety Board is
certainly not our largest Federal agency, with only 400 full-
time employees, but to the general public it is certainly one
of the most visible, and it is one of the most important in
terms of the work you do for the general public's benefit.
Since its creation, the Board has investigated over 100,000
accidents. In the last 3 years, the Board has investigated over
7,000 accidents. It has issued 57 major reports and issued
1,100 safety recommendations. I believe it is important for
Congress to authorize the work that NTSB is doing. Therefore, I
will shortly introduce a reauthorization bill for the National
Transportation Safety Board.
There are a number of issues to sort through, such as
future funding, personnel levels. We must also address the
Board's need to recruit and keep quality personnel, as well as
the primacy of jurisdiction over accident investigations. I am
committed to the Senate acting on an NTSB authorization, and
would hope that we could get a bill to the President in the
near future.
Now let me turn to our two nominees. We have Mr. John
Goglia, who is being renominated, and you have been on the
Board since 1995. The new nominee is Ms. Carol Carmody. Ms.
Carmody was born in Houston, Texas, and is a graduate of SMU.
You have a long career in aviation issues, working for the FAA,
the Senate Commerce Committee, and most recently as the United
States Representative to the Council of the International Civil
Aviation Organization, based in Canada.
I look forward to hearing the statements from the witnesses
and hearing your views on the issues that we would be facing in
an NTSB reauthorization, and now I would like to turn to our
Ranking Member, Senator Hollings. Before I do that, I will say
that Senator McCain specifically asked me to hold this hearing
so that we could get the process going on your nominations. We
want the Board to be fully at a full complement and able to
function. Certainly, as you know, the go teams need to have
rotating memberships, and we need to make sure that we have our
members confirmed as soon as possible, and that is why Senator
McCain asked me to hold this hearing so that we could do this
in short order.
So with that, I would like to call on our distinguished
Ranking Member, Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would be
delighted to cosponsor your reauthorization bill. The National
Transportation Safety Board is without question very
professional and has the credibility enjoyed throughout the
public. That is why I did not want to treat it casually and
miss this hearing. We have got another one going on at the
moment. I wanted to welcome Carol Carmody back. She has served
with us on this committee for years and has done an outstanding
job. Of course Mr. Goglia is from Massachusetts and, according
to John Kerry, you know, does a wonderful job. I have not seen
any individual thing, but I will take Senator Kerry's word for
it. I am glad to support both of them, and I thank the chairman
very much. I ask that my full statement be included in the
record at this time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
Good morning. I am pleased to welcome the nominees of the National
Transportation Safety Board, Carol Carmody and John Goglia. Ms.
Carmody, as many of you know, is a former staff member on aviation
issues for the Senate Commerce Committee as well as the former U.S.
delegate to ICAO. Mr. Goglia has served on the NTSB since August of
1995. He is a working Airframe and Powerplant mechanic, a noted expert
on human factors in the mechanic's workplace, as well as a specialist
in regulatory issues.
Today, the NTSB is in a position of doing more than it ever has
before. All modes of transportation seem to be in the news--whether it
is a train crash in Baltimore injuring people, the sinking of a
recreational sailboat off the coast of Charleston killing all aboard,
or the crash of Alaska Air flight 261 off the California coast which
killed 88 passengers and crew. In each instance, NTSB is at the scene
investigating the cause of the tragedy. They are also the ones who,
after much study, formulate key safety directives for the prevention of
reoccurrences. As our transportations systems become more congested and
if the causes of transportation accidents continue to increase in
complexity, their safety recommendations will become even more
critical.
Lately, the NTSB and its staff have been lauded for their expertise
and devotion while some of the NTSBs techniques and practices have come
under scrutiny. The Rand Report, commissioned by the NTSB itself, is
complimentary but expresses concern that the NTSB is stretched to
capacity. This is certainly something we should heed--the NTSB is
highly regarded for its integrity and investigative acumen. It would be
a mistake to allow them to become overburdened by too many extensions
of their original mission or through understaffing. I look forward to
listening to the nominees' statements and their potential contributions
to the NTSB, as well as their thoughts on improving the NTSB.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Hollings, and thanks
for the offer to work with us and cosponsor the
reauthorization. We will take you up on it. Thank you.
Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to add
my word of endorsement in support for Carol Carmody, who was
raised in New Orleans, at least, and has a Louisiana
connection. At a time when many people are looking for ways to
get out of public service and out of Federal service, it is
always terrific that we have someone who has made a career in
public service and wants to continue in that capacity, and who
brings to this position a great deal of background and
experience in both international civil aviation as well as the
practical politics of serving on the Commerce Committee. She
has an understanding of how we make the laws, and how we like
to see them followed through and enforced, and that combination
of practical, real world experience, particularly in the
international area, as well as the work here on the Commerce
Committee I think is very, very important. Add to that the time
spent, 11 years, I think, at the FAA, which really allows Carol
to come to this position, I think, with a tremendous amount of
experience, and I am just delighted that she is willing to
continue in public service in this capacity, because everybody
will benefit from it. Welcome.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Breaux. I am pleased
that you noted that Ms. Carmody was raised in Louisiana, but
she did choose Texas for her higher education.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. With that, I would like to welcome both
of you, and let me turn first to the incumbent, Mr. Goglia, for
any statement you would like to make for the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. GOGLIA, MEMBER,
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Mr. Goglia. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am honored to appear before you today as you
consider my renomination to be a member of the National
Transportation Safety Board. I would also like to thank the
President for my renomination, and this Committee for
scheduling this hearing.
I would also like to acknowledge my fellow member, John
Hammerschmidt, who is here in the audience. I would also like
to introduce my wife, Patricia, and my daughter, Michelle, who
have come down from Boston today to be with me.
Senator Hutchison. I would like to ask them to stand. Thank
you. Welcome.
Mr. Goglia. For the last 4\1/2\ years I have had the unique
privilege of serving as a member of the Safety Board and
working with skilled and dedicated, committed professionals who
are passionate about safety. I believe that we have made a
difference. Our accomplishments would not have been possible
without the continued support of this committee, and I thank
you.
I would like to briefly highlight three areas in which I
believe I have made significant contributions. Since 1995, I
have seen an increase in accidents involving maintenance. I
have continued to highlight the importance of maintenance and
the maintenance professionals in our aviation transportation
system. Personnel quality, as well as quantity, are challenges
facing this industry, and I have proactively worked with the
industry to ensure that the new aviation work force not only
understands how important the work is, but also understands the
safety implications of every task performed.
Human factors, including human error and fatigue, are
indicated as causal factors in transportation accidents more
often than any other element. I have diligently pursued
increasing awareness of the human element by participating in
and coordinating workshops and seminars. I have been
instrumental in bringing together the resources of industry,
academia, and the Department of Defense, to expand the
cooperative base on which our safety recommendations can be
made.
Another initiative I have focused on is training to
counteract human error. Mentoring practices between junior and
senior personnel are necessary, and diminish the learning
curve. A concerted effort to reach out to our youth to involve
them in our goals and have them become an integral part of the
solution to these issues has been my mission in promoting
safety throughout the transportation industry. The youth of
today are vital to our continued mission.
In closing, I believe my 37 years of experience in the
operational and maintenance environment demonstrates to the
members of this committee my dedication to transportation
safety and my strong commitment to work on behalf of the
traveling public. This is the tradition of the NTSB, and if
confirmed I will do my best to uphold this tradition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Goglia follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John J. Goglia, Member,
National Transportation Safety Board
Good Morning.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as you consider my renomination to be a Member of the
National Transportation Safety Board. I would like to thank the
President for my renomination, the Committee for scheduling this
hearing and Senator Kerry for his kind words of introduction and
continued support.
With the permission of the Chairman, I would like to introduce my
wife, Patty, and my daughter, Michelle, who are with me today. I would
also like to acknowledge my other daughters, Marissa and Marie, who are
unable to attend today's hearing.
For the past 4\1/2\ years, I have had the unique privilege of
serving as a Member of the Safety Board and working with skilled,
dedicated and committed professionals who are passionate about safety.
I believe that we have made a difference. Our accomplishments would not
have been possible without the continued support of this Committee and
I thank you.
I would like to briefly highlight three areas in which I believe I
have made significant contributions.
Since 1995, 1 have seen an increase in accidents involving
maintenance. I have continued to highlight the importance of
maintenance and the maintenance professional in our aviation
transportation system. Personnel quality as well as quantity are
challenges facing this industry. I have proactively worked with
industry to insure that the new aviation workforce not only understands
how important the work is, but also understands the safety implications
of every task performed.
Human factors, including human error and fatigue, is indicated as
causal in transportation accidents more often than any other element. I
have diligently pursued increasing awareness of the human element by
participating and conducting workshops and seminars. I have been
instrumental in bringing together the resources of industry, academia
and DOD to expand the cooperative base on which safety recommendations
can be made.
Another initiative I have focused on is training to counteract
human error. Mentoring practices between junior and senior personnel
are necessary and diminish the learning curve. A concerted effort to
reach out to our youth, involve them in our goals and have them become
an integral part of the solution to these issues has been my mission in
promoting safety throughout the transportation industry. The youth of
today are vital to our continued mission of safety.
In closing, I believe my 37 years of experience in an operational
and maintenance environment demonstrates to the Members of this
Committee my dedication to transportation safety and my strong
commitment to work on behalf of the traveling public. This is the
tradition of the NTSB and, if confirmed, I will do my best to continue
to uphold this tradition.
Thank you. That concludes my opening statement and I would be glad
to answer any questions that you may have.
a. biographical information
1. Name: John Joseph Goglia.
2. Position to which nominated: Member, National Transportation
Safety Board.
3. Date of nomination: August 5, 1999.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Office: National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza East,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20594. Home in D.C.: 1464 South Greenmount Drive,
Apt. 109, Alexandria, VA 22311. Home in MA: 73 Auburn Street, Saugus,
MA 01906.
5. Date and place of birth: May 18, 1944, Boston, MA.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married: Patricia Dolores Guarino Goglia.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.) Marissa Rozenski, age 32; Michele Dafonte,
age 30; Maria Dafonte, age 29.
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.)
1996-1997 University of Southern California, Institute
of Safety and Systems Management, 26 Credit
Hours Earned
1993 Federal Rulemaking Drafting Program, Federal
Aviation Administration
1984-1985 Institute of Safety Symposium, University of
1986-1987 Southern California
1984 Rules of Procedure Program, National
Transportation Safety Board
1976 Center for Labor Education and Research,
University of Colorado
1975 Labor Leadership School, University of Alabama
1968 IAMAW, Shop Steward Training Program
1966 United Airlines, Management Training Program
1964 University Extension Program, University of
Massachusetts, Technical Writing Program
1963 Graduate, East Coast Aero Tech, Bedford,
Massachusetts
1963 FAA A&P License
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.)
National Transportation Safety Board
Member; 1995-present
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) consists of five
members.
Appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Members
serve five-year terms. The NTSB is the primary U.S. investigatory body
for aviation, railroad, highway, marine and pipeline accidents. The
NTSB investigates accidents and reports on the facts, conditions and
circumstances of each accident investigated. The NTSB determines
probable cause and develops appropriate safety recommendations. The
NTSB monitors all transportation modes and analyzes on-going safety
issues in order to make safety recommendations to governmental entities
and private industry.
Highlights--Member Goglia's Present Term:
On-Site Board Member--Serves as chief accident spokesman.
--Rail/School Bus Accident. Fox River Grove, Illinois
--Commuter Rail Accident. Silver Spring, Maryland
--FEDEX MD-11 Cargo Aircraft Accident, Newark, New Jersey
Chairman of Board of Inquiry
Serves as presiding official at public hearings on accidents which
includes the presentation of NTSB staff investigatory fact-finding and
public testimony. Coordinates the compilation of the technical and
public record, which results in the presentation of the findings to the
NTSB Members for appropriate decisions.
--ValuJet Airlines, Everglades, Florida Accident
--Delta Airline, Pensacola, Florida uncontained Engine Failure
Accident
--Union Pacific Special Review of Railroad Accidents
Human Factors Activities
--FAA/JAA/Aviation Industry--International Maintenance
Conference; Human Factors Issue Chairman, Washington, DC
--SAE International Human Factors Symposium; Human Factors
Issue Chairman, Vancouver, British Columbia
--International Civil Aviation Authorities Maintenance
Conference; keynote Speaker and Human Factors Discussion
Leader, Singapore
--World Aviation Congress; Keynote Speaker, Los Angeles,
California
--Other: Organizer and speaker at approximately twenty
additional Human Factors conferences, seminars and forums
Other Activities
--Coordinated and Chaired Aviation Bird Strike Conference for
Government and Aviation Industry in Washington, DC and Boston,
Massachusetts
--Speaker on aviation issues at American Bar Association and
NTSB Bar Association Annual and Issues Meetings. Keynote
speaker at Federal Aviation Law Judges Annual Convention
--Speaker at maritime, railroad and pipeline conferences,
including Association of American Railroads and Great Lakes
Steamship Authority
--Presented visiting lectures on aviation issues at University
of Southern California; Purdue University; College of
Aeronautics, New York City; and Dowling College
Aviation Maintenance Responsibilities & Aviation Issues Representation
1991-1995--International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers; Special Assistant: Aviation Issues and Enforcement/Safety
Specialist
Represented IAMAW on the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee and
Subcommittees. Served as IAMAW principal liaison officer with the FAA,
NTSB, DOT and other Executive Branch Agencies as well as liaison for
IAMAW Congressional aviation issues. Served as IAMAW/USAir principal
enforcement/safety representative for investigating, preparing and
presenting defenses to enforcement actions and serving as team
coordinator of aircraft accident investigations.
1966-1995--USAir, Logan International Airport, Boston, Massachusetts
Lead Line Maintenance, 1988-1990--Responsible for managing a line
maintenance crew of twelve mechanics, including all work performed on
engines, avionics and airframe. Responsible for work performance,
quality control, maintenance record-keeping and aircraft flight
certification. Assigned temporarily to manage the integration of PSA
airline maintenance personnel into USAir maintenance.
Inspector 1984-1988--Performed all inspection functions, including
review of all maintenance task documents and documenting completed
work, and returning the aircraft to service. Special functions included
knowledge and performance/reading of non-destructive testing methods
including x-ray, ultra sound, eddy current, magnetic particle and
penetration technologies.
Lead Mechanic, 1972-1984--Responsible for managing a line
maintenance crew performing letter aircraft inspections. Responsible
for work performance, quality control, maintenance record-keeping for
work performed and aircraft flight certification. Responsible for
managing a line maintenance crew of twelve mechanics, including all
aspects of engine, avionics and airframe maintenance. Responsible for
work performed, quality control, maintenance record-keeping for work
performed and aircraft flight certification.
Line Maintenance Mechanic, 1966-1972--Responsible for performing
maintenance on engines, avionics and airframes.
1964-1966--United Airlines, Washington National Airport, Washington, DC
Line Maintenance Mechanic--Responsible for performing maintenance
on engines, avionics and airframes.
Enforcement/Safety Responsibilities
1989-1995--IAMAW Representative: FAA/Industry Human Factors in Aviation
Maintenance
Served as IAMAW representative on Committee and in official forums
analyzing and researching human factor elements of aviation
maintenance. Charged with developing new procedures and workplace
facilities that enhance the quality of maintenance and mechanic safety.
1984-1995--IAMAW District 141 FAA Safety and Accident Coordinator
Investigation Committee
National Coordinator of flight safety, policy development,
management/mechanic training and legislative activity, involving over
25,000 IAMAW mechanics. Principal official responsible for representing
IAMAW mechanics in enforcement actions involving the FAA and NTSB's
administrative law proceedings. Enforcement responsibilities including
interviewing, investigation, case preparation, defense strategy and
case presentations before the appropriate legal authorities. Managed
IAMAW officials for formal investigations into causes of commercial
airline accidents, working with FAA and NTSB team members.
1969-1995--Member; 1980-1984: Chairman, USAir Grievance Committee
Represented IAMAW mechanics in the New England region in
grievances, disciplinary actions and worker's compensation proceedings.
This included case investigations, case preparations and presentations
and representation before appropriate officials.
1972-1995--Chairman, FAA Committee, IAMAW Lodge 1726
Responsible for liaison with FAA officials concerning flight safety
enforcement actions involving IAM mechanics in the New England region.
Responsibilities included recommendations of appropriate flight
standard and certification procedures to ensure proper aircraft
maintenance and flight safety. Coordinated with IAMAW mechanics to
ensure proper representation of their interests in enforcement actions
before appropriate federal officials.
1970-1980--Chairman, Ground Safety Committee, IAMAW Lodge 1726
Responsible for maintaining and advancing workplace safety for
IAMAW mechanics working in New England's commercial airport facilities.
Responsibilities included facility review, safety procedures review,
human factor analysis and recommendation of appropriate safety
procedures. The Committee received the Outstanding Performance Award
from Hartford Insurance Group in 1975, and the Award of Merit for
Accident Control from Hartford Insurance Group in 1979.
Private Business
1984-1988--Owner/President, Air Carrier Support, Inc., Logan
International Airport, Boston, MA
Managed company operations to provide line maintenance services for
commercial freight operators. Managed company financial affairs and
accounting staff.
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.)
1991-1995--IAMAW National Representative, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee
Served as the IAMAW member on the joint FAA Aviation Industry
Committee involved with reviewing and updating all sections of the
Federal Aviation Regulations, including drafting new rules, regulations
and guidance materials. Served as Chairman of the Cabin Seats
Subcommittee, Part 43 Subcommittees and Cabin View Subcommittee. Served
as member on additional sixteen ARAC subcommittees. Served as IAMAW's
principal spokesperson on ARAC related activities.
1988-1994--Member, Massachusetts Worker's Compensation Advisory Board
Governor's appointee to task force to monitor the implementation of
Massachusetts Worker's Compensation Law
1988-1989--Member, Blue Ribbon Commission for Airport Locations
Served as Governor's appointee for Blue Ribbon Commission to study
and select site for second major airport in the greater Boston area.
1983-1984--Transition Chief/Executive Assistant, Secretary of Labor,
State of Massachusetts
Represented the Labor Secretary and responsible for the management
of transition functions of the Labor Department during the change in
gubernatorial administrations. Served as Labor Secretary's negotiator
for the reform of worker's compensation law and legislative and public
interest group coordinator.
11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.)
GES Leasing--Shareholder--50% and Treasurer (1976-1994); Air
Carrier Support--Shareholder--approximately 30% and Treasurer (1985-
1992); Holyoke Street Partnership (rental property)--50% owner; Counsel
of Aviation Accreditation--Standard Safety Counsel for Aviation Schools
(1998-1999); Aerospace and Transportation Education Association (1998-
1999).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.) International Society of Air Safety Investigators
(present); Aero Club of Washington (present); International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Professional Aircraft Mechanics
Association; National Aeronautic Association; National Coalition for
Aviation Education, Chairman (1995); Experimental Aircraft Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate. None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years. None
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. From 1964 to 1995, I was
a member of the IAMAW Political Action Committee in which I contributed
approximately $150 for the years 1990 to 1995.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
1998--Honorary Doctorate--College of Aeronautics New York City, NY;
1994--FAA Technician of the Year; 1994--Eastern Regional Technician
Award; 1994--Boston FSDO Technician Award.
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.)
1993 Developed IAMAW/FAA training program for air
carrier mechanics.
1992-1995 Developed and implemented the first
Maintenance Resource Management Program in
aviation maintenance for USAir.
1986-1987 Developed comprehensive maintenance training
program for aviation safety specialists for
several major air carriers.
Contributing Author--Continuing
Aircraft Maintenance Technician Magazine; Avionics News Magazine
Aircraft Electronics Association; Aeronautical Repair Station
Association, Monthly News Letter; Mass Transit Magazine (Devoted to
commuter rail transportation); IAMAW ``Messenger'', National Newspaper;
IAMAW Lodge 1726, Monthly Newsletter; Selected contributor to numerous
aviation periodicals.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.
I have given numerous speeches, participated in technical panels,
and provided testimony at government and industry events that focus
attention on transportation safety issues about which the Board has
made recommendations for corrective action. Enclosed are copies of
several formal speeches delivered over the past five years. Many
speeches delivered are derivatives thereof or are delivered
extemporaneously.
Remarks Presented to Transportation Table, Washington, D.C., June 14,
1996
Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here with you
today. I am honored to have been given the opportunity to briefly share
with you some of my thoughts regarding aviation safety questions which
we, as industry professionals, need to address. Since our group today
consists of representatives of most modes of transportation which we at
the NTSB are involved with, I will try to integrate my thoughts in
order to reflect my observations that many of the aviation safety
questions which we address, in some manner must also be addressed
within the other modes of transportation. Further, I hope that my
comments will lead to your questions, and your ideas, which we can
discuss within the time which has been allotted to me.
In response to the subject which I am specifically addressing, I
believe the biggest question ahead in aviation is intrinsically inter-
woven into the fabric of the other modes of transportation. That
question is--how do we, as transportation manufacturers or operators,
safety oversight officials, regulatory agencies and legislative bodies,
integrate the science of human factors into our transportation system?
All of us in aviation know the statistics: Human error of one kind
of another is responsible, in some manner, for the majority of
incidents and accidents. This is true in all modes of transportation,
and, in fact, it is true in reference to the design, manufacture,
operation and maintenance of any technologically complex system.
Similarly, every human error, regardless of its gravity, is a product
of multiple causes and factors. The performance of individuals never
takes place in a vacuum, but always occurs within an organizational and
cultural context. If this is true, then there is another big question:
Why can't the process of establishing causal factors in transportation
accidents be from a view of improving the system rather than
establishing blame?
Even with this knowledge and these questions, the science of human
factors is a relatively new field of study. However, I believe that the
aviation industry, in addressing the importance of developing aviation
maintenance human factors programs within their organizations, is
leading the way in this exceptionally important area. But this area of
study is in its pioneer stage and its complexity and is sometimes
frustrating to those who have chosen to set out on this mostly
untraveled road. The exploration of the unknown has almost always
yielded tremendous dividends, and I strongly feel that the work we can
do in comprehensive human factors, is the key to combining the rapid
technological advances we are achieving in transportation equipment and
system's operations into an inter-modal transportation system which can
attain a higher degree of safety than most individuals thought possible
before the human factors pioneers began their journey just a short time
ago.
In the aviation community, most industry and regulatory
representatives have signed on to the ultimate goal of ``zero
accidents.'' This is also a worthy goal for all other modes of
transportation. The question is--will we ever achieve ``zero
accidents''? Realistically, probably not. However, I can assure you
this lofty goal is beyond our reach unless we recognize and incorporate
the effects of human factors in the workplace into the safety equation.
Technology will continue to advance. Safety regulations will continue
to be promulgated and integrated into the operation of the
transportation system. However, human factors is the only area that can
successfully define the relationship of men and machines in a
transportation environment. Understanding human factors is good
business, and is the key to approaching the goal of ``zero accidents.''
In commercial aviation, we are combing recent accidents for the
probable cause or causes of these tragedies. Rail and surface
transportation came tragically together an Fox River Grove, Illinois.
High speed rail has suffered recent deaths in New Jersey and Maryland.
Derailments have occurred recently resulting in loss of life and
environmental pollution. Pipeline explosions have taken lives and
driven people from their homes. And we are all aware of maritime
accidents which have caused irreparable damage.
Of course each of these accidents will have unique factors which
contributed to its cause or causes. But I think I can state with
confidence that a better understanding of human factors would have
prevented some of these accidents.
Are there other ``Big Questions''? Certainly.
How do we streamline the regulatory process to implement safety
procedures in a more timely manner? Today, in aviation, where the FAA
is ``Fast-tracking'' rulemaking in the Part 135 area, the on-demand
carriers feel that their concerns are being over-ridden by the haste in
which the FAA promulgated these changes. The question then becomes, how
do we balance pertinent interests and still achieve efficient
implementation of safety rules and regulations.
In rail, we are, in certain instances, handcuffed by a regulatory
system which is unnecessarily based on rigid legislative standards
which have not kept pace with modern advances in the industry. The
question is, how do we transform this inflexible system into a system
which recognizes the economic and safety needs of modern rail
transportation?
Since I do not want to extend my comments into the time remaining
for our discussion period, let me just mention some additional
questions which come to my mind.
How do we integrate Global Positioning System (GPS)
into all modes of transportation?
How do we effectively deal with chemical and alcohol
abuse in transportation?
How do we provide safer control of aircraft on the
ground?
How do we deal with the railroad industry regarding
collision avoidance systems?
How do we deal with human fatigue in transportation
operations?
Obviously, there are many others.
While I was given the topic of aviation safety, you can see that I
believe that the challenges which lay ahead for all of us really do
transcend the boundaries of all our transportation systems. These are
challenges which we can all work together to achieve in each of our
particular modes of transportation.
Now, let's discuss your thoughts and perspectives on these
subjects. Any questions?
Presentation before the American Bar Association, Seminar on Aviation
Litigation, Over-View of Responsibilities of National
Transportation Safety Board Concerning Aviation Accidents, June
28, 1996
When an aviation accident occurs, emergency response is immediate.
Local authorities--including the police, fire department, paramedics
and the coroner--respond to the scene as quickly as possible to secure
the accident site, and insure that the wreckage is net disturbed. They
provide medical care and other assistance to the survivors, and provide
for the identification and removal of those who have perished.
At the same time the initial on-scene response is occurring,
Federal agencies which have jurisdiction in this area are notified of
the accident. This includes the Department of Transportation, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), and in some cases the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
The Secretary of Transportation ensures that requested federal
resources are made available, and he or she moves swiftly to take
action on any safety recommendation that comes to light. The Secretary
does not comment on the investigation. This is the sole responsibility
of the NTSB.
The FAA is required by law to be a participant. They provide
technical support, but do not take part in the determination of the
probable cause. The FAA also determines whether any of its activities
were involved in the accident. This includes, for example, performance
of FAA facilities or functions, airport operations or certification
safety standards, and airworthiness of FAA-certified aircraft.
The NTSB is responsible for determining the probable cause of
transportation accidents, and for formulating safety recommendations to
improve transportation safety. Within hours the NTSB sends its ``go-
team'' of investigators to the accident site. The make up of this ``go-
team'' varies, based on the type of accident, but generally it is
comprised of one of the five Board members and a half dozen or more
personnel who possess a wide range of accident investigation skills. In
the case of an airline accident, the NTSB supervises work teams
comprised of technical experts to assist in the investigation. This may
include manufacturers, airline personnel, mechanics, etc.
Unless the accident is caused by a terrorist act, the NTSB is in
charge of the investigation. They secure the site in order to protect
evidence, and interview witnesses. They ensure that the facts become
known, and work to uncover the cause of the accident.
At this stage of the investigation, lawyers are not allowed at the
crash site.
In cases where terrorism is suspected, the accident site is
initially considered a crime scene, and the FBI is in charge. The NTSB
will assist as requested in this effort.
The length of time the ``go-team'' remains on the scene varies with
need, but generally a team completes its on-scene work in seven to ten
days. The Safety Board remains in charge of the accident site until it
determines the site is no longer critical to its investigation.
The Safety Board takes its responsibility to keep the public
informed very seriously. Often, when a major accident occurs and the
probable cause is not readily apparent, there is considerable
speculation by the press and public about what happened. The Board
follows a policy of providing factual information--and only factual
information--on the progress of the investigation at regular press
briefings. These briefings do not speculate about the possible causes
of the accident.
The Safety Board will spend several months following the on-scene
investigation, further exploring the data, to arrive at the probable
cause of the accident. Approximately two to four months after an
accident, factual reports written by NTSB investigators are made
available in a public docket at NTSB headquarters.
As the investigation progresses, the NTSB may elect to hold a
public hearing to address related safety issues as well as the probable
cause of the accident. The hearing is usually held at a location near
the accident site, and can sometimes be highly technical. Witnesses may
be subpoenaed to testify who have impressive engineering and/or
technical backgrounds. Sworn testimony is taken by a panel of NTSB
officials.
Actual participation in the hearing is limited to invited witnesses
and parties to the investigation. This is an opportunity for various
experts to testify in an effort to explain what may have happened, and
questions or statements from uninvited witnesses will not be allowed.
With the completion of the fact-finding phase, the accident
investigation process enters its final stage--analysis of the facts,
conditions and circumstances found. The analysis results in the Safety
Board's determination of probable cause.
A draft accident report is presented to the five-member board for
discussion and approval at a public meeting in Washington, D.C. The
date of this meeting is published in advance in the federal register,
and is also released to the media. The entire investigative process may
take from seven to twelve months.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
(a) I have not been provided with specific details with regard to
the reasons for my nomination. However, I believe that I have made
noteworthy contributions in my duties as a Board member over the past
four years. I continue to work on human factors issues, along with
discussing, through speeches and attendance at conferences and
symposia, the issues on the Board's ``Most Wanted'' list. As you are
aware, these are the ten issues the Board believes can save the most
lives.
(b) I believe my background and qualifications highly qualify me
for another term as a member of the Board. Before my tenure as a Board
member, I worked for over a quarter of a century in the aviation field,
with eight of those years as coordinator for the International
Association of Machinists' Accident Investigation Team. As a Board
member, I accompanied Go-Teams to the school bus grade crossing
accident in Fox River Grove, Illinois; the MARC train and Amtrak
collision near Silver Spring, Maryland; and the Federal Express MD-11
accident in Newark, New Jersey. In addition, I presided over public
hearings held regarding the tragedies involving ValuJet near Miami,
Florida, and Delta Airlines in Pensacola, Florida. My four years as a
Board member have been the most challenging and satisfying of my
career. Through hard work, the Board makes a difference, whether it be
educating pilots on the hazards of bird strikes, or making changes in
the way a railroad addresses safety issues such as fatigue, and I look
forward to the challenges ahead.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Not applicable. Because I have served as a
Member of the National Transportation Safety Board for the past 4
years, I have already severed all connections with my former employers
and business associations.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. I am retired from and receive a pension from
USAir. I am in a real estate partnership with my brother.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated. None.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated? NTSB Counsel approved the
retirement arrangements made with my former employer, USAir, prior to
my confirmation in 1995. It was determined that my pension was not so
substantial a financial interest that would likely affect the integrity
of my services. I continue to abide by this agreement.
GES Leasing and Air Carrier Support, both companies of which I was
a shareholder within the last 10 years are transportation-related
companies that could have conceivably had interests before the NTSB.
However, both companies no longer exist.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. 1993-1994:
General Aviation Revitalization Act; 1992: Revisions of civil penalties
regarding violations by mechanics under the provisions of the Federal
Aviation Regulations and related rules and regulations.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) I am
retired from US Airways. US Airways is an air carrier, and has
interests that could be affected by actions of the NTSB. As such, it
would be unlawful for me to participate personally in an official
matter that could affect its financial interests. In 1995, the Chairman
of the NTSB determined that my pension was not so substantial a
financial interest that would likely affect the integrity of my
services, and he therefore issued a waiver to me under 18 USC 208 (B)
(1). I have agreed with the Ethics Official of the NTSB that I will
request another waiver upon confirmation.
Nonetheless, because of the sensitivity of the Board's
investigative process, I have since disqualified myself from serving as
the on-scene Member or chairman of a Board of Inquiry in an accident
investigation involving US Airways. As a result of my disqualification,
the Managing Director of the NTSB has agreed that it would be
permissible for my wife to avail herself of the free flying benefits
for which she is eligible as the dependent of a retired airline
employee, but that I will forgo these benefits to avoid any appearance
of impropriety.
Finally, I have agreed that in all particular matters involving US
Airways or IAM, I will continue to consult with the General Counsel and
the Agency Ethics Official before involving myself in such official
matters, in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Conduct. 5 CFR
section 2635.502.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details. 1982--Medical
Malpractice (settled) Phoenix, AZ; 1990--Shareholders Action (settled)
Boston. MA.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. Please describe how your previous professional experience and
education qualifies you for the position for which you have been
nominated.
I am an internationally recognized expert in aviation maintenance
and aircraft operations. In August 1995, I was sworn in as a Member of
the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
I am the first working A&P mechanic to serve on the Safety Board,
and have over thirty years of aviation experience. Before my Senate
confirmation in 1995, I was with USAir and was the recipient of the
prestigious 1994/Industry Aviation Mechanic of the Year Award.
I have been a leading advocate regarding the evaluation of human
factors in the aviation workplace. I helped develop the Maintenance
Resource Management Program, combining management, labor, regulatory
agencies and academia into what has become the premier human factors
program in aviation maintenance.
I served as the Governor's appointee to the Massachusetts Workers
Compensation Board and to the Boston Area Second Airport Site Selection
Board.
I also served as Team Coordinator of the International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' (IAMAW) Accident Investigation
Team and for over 21 years served as the IAMAW's Flight Safety
Representative. I was the IAMAW's principle specialist on aviation
issues, service as liaison to the FAA, NTSB, DOT and other executive
branch agencies as well as the U.S. Congress. I represented the IAMAW
on the aviation Rule Making Advisory Committee, which evaluates and
recommends changes regarding aviation safety and operational
regulations.
In 1995, I served as Chair and a founding member of the National
Coalition for Aviation Education, an aviation industry organization
that advances aviation education among America's youth and aviation
workforce. I was an original member of the Steering Committee to
establish International Society Aviation Maintenance Professionals, a
professional society dedicated to advanced safety and professionalism
throughout the aviation maintenance industry. I have become an
internationally known speaker and author addressing aviation safety
issues, lecturing at world symposiums and serving as contributing
editor to several industry periodicals. In 1960, I learned to fly in a
Piper J2-J3 and, for over ten years, I was owner/operator of an
aircraft service company.
I have been Member on scene for the Safety Board's investigations
of the school bus grade crossing accident in Fox River Grove, Illinois;
the MARC train and AMTRAK collision near Silver Spring, Maryland, and
the FEDEX MD-11 accident in Newark, New Jersey. In January 1996, I
chaired a briefing for Government and industry representatives
regarding the problem of ingestion of Canada Geese in the new
generation of air carrier engines. I served as Chairman of the Board of
Inquiry for the ValuJet accident near Miami, Florida and the Delta
Airlines accident in Pensacola, Florida.
2. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? With over thirty years of aviation
experience and having served as a Member of the National Transportation
Safety Board for the past four years, I am confident that I possess the
necessary skills for renomination to this position.
3. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? It is a life-changing experience to investigate a major
accident, and I have had the occasion to investigate numerous accidents
from all modes of transportation. It has been a great privilege to
serve as a Member of the NTSB for the past four years. I see the
positive impact of the Board's work and my contributions to that work
and want to continue to pursue the important initiatives we have
already started for accident prevention. Each day I witness evidence of
the Board's work when I see a child in a safety seat or sitting in the
back seat of an automobile when a family member of a transportation
victim thanks you for keeping them apprised of the Board's activities,
or when I come to a railroad grade crossing and know that as a result
of the Board's actions, the signal system has been checked to ensure
that they are operating properly.
The NTSB plays an important role in making our transportation
system safe, and I look forward to the challenges ahead.
4. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? I continue to believe the one area that must be
more fully addressed in all modes of transportation is human fatigue.
The Board has been in the forefront on this issue, and I will work
toward changes in the hours of service regulations in all modes of
transportation. In addition, the Board's ``Most Wanted List of
Outstanding Recommendations'' addresses those issues we believe will
have the most safety benefit, and I will continue to draw attention to
these issues.
Additionally, I would like to see increased development and
application of technology to enhance safety. I will continue to place
added emphasis on addressing the root cause of accidents in the areas
of human factors, and additional investigation of incidents to prevent
the safety deficiencies from being manifested in accidents.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when should society's
problems be left to the private sector, and what standards should be
used to determine when a government program is no longer necessary. The
NTSB has a long record of identifying problems and issuing
recommendations to the transportation industry which are key to
accident prevention. The Safety Board has a long history of partnering
with industry to accomplish its safety mission.
The NTSB has the role in transportation safety to recommend
improvements. This independent role is essential for safe travel and
could only be supported on a national level by the government. The
private sector plays a multifaceted role in transportation as the
provider and innovator of transportation systems.
6. In your own words, please describe the agency's current
missions, major programs, and major operational objectives. To continue
to prevent transportation accidents from occurring and promote the
safest forms of transportation available in a proactive manner.
As part of the Board's major programs, we are tasked with
investigating aviation, rail, marine, highway, and pipeline accidents,
determining the probable cause of these accidents, and making
recommendations to prevent them from happening again.
7. In reference to question number six, what forces are likely to
result in changes to the mission of this agency over the coming five
years? Aviation is a growing international industry. Today's worldwide
estimate of 15 million departures per year could grow to 33 million
departures per year by 2015. Additionally, statistical studies indicate
that, based on the accident rates for the past 10 years and the
increasing number of transport category airplanes in service, by the
year 2006 there will be one accident a week worldwide in which the
airplane will be considered a total loss.
International investigations are central to the Board's mission
because every year the number of U.S.-manufactured and U.S.-registered
aircraft being operated overseas increases, as does the number of
foreign-manufactured aircraft operating in the U.S. As a result, safety
issues that arise in foreign investigations often have wide-reaching
implications for both the U.S. aviation community and for the worldwide
aviation industry.
8. In further reference to question number six, what are the likely
outside forces which may prevent the agency from accomplishing its
mission? What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
board/commission and why? Transportation safety oversight must receive
adequate resources. The resources required for the NTSB to be prepared
in the years ahead must accompany the reality of globalization.
One of the primary challenges to the Board is keeping its staff
current on the technical aspects of the transportation industry.
The second challenge is responding world-wide to accident
investigations with a limited staff. The week of September 1, 1999, 17
NTSB staff members were in six different countries assisting in
aviation accident investigations.
Additionally, the Board must face the challenge of continuing to
respond to the increased needs of family members following
transportation disasters.
9. In further reference to question number six, what factors in
your opinion have kept the board/commission from achieving its missions
over the past several years? The Safety Board has been highly effective
in achieving over an 80% acceptance rate of its safety recommendations.
The primary issue for the Board's future is linked to the availability
of resources it has to do its job in light of what seems to be an ever-
expanding set of expectations.
10. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? First and
foremost, the American public is the primary stakeholder. The public
holds the Board in extremely high regard as a protector of safety
standards that make the American transportation system the best in the
world. Operators and manufacturers of transportation systems are an
integral part of this group of stakeholders.
Secondly, the Congress, with its own regard for public opinion and
the need to maintain a sound and reliable transportation system, is
also a stakeholder in the work of the NTSB.
The Department of Transportation and its various regulatory
agencies that respond to NTSB recommendations are also stakeholders.
11. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number ten. I
have an extremely focused concern for transportation safety and believe
that my role is to be an advocate for improved transportation systems.
I believe that as a Board member, I have a responsibility to make
realistic safety recommendations that can successfully be implemented
to reach the unified goal of the Safety Board and its stakeholders,
which is accident prevention.
12. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? Treat employees as I
would want to be treated. My experience as a union steward has
underscored my appreciation for mutual respect as the foundation for
solid supervisory/employee relations.
To my knowledge there have been no employee complaints brought
against me.
13. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe. I am always willing to address any
concerns of Congress. Prior to becoming a Board member, I testified
before Congress on several occasions concerning aviation rules and
regulations. As a Board member, my working relationship with Congress
is limited. I review testimony to be presented, requests for changes in
the Boards statute, and the Congressional budget.
14. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your board/commission
comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. Although the
Safety Board is non-regulatory agency, we as a Board have not hesitated
to notify Congress regarding transportation safety issues that needed
to be addressed. We will work closely with Congress to keep our
programs goals closely aligned with significant public policy interests
in transportation safety. I will continue to participate in this effort
if confirmed.
15. In the areas under the board/commission jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views. Historically Congress has been supportive of
strengthening the Board's authority and providing the tools the Board
needs to execute its important responsibilities. I personally believe
that the Board's request for reauthorization, which is pending in your
Committee, should be a high priority. The changes requested are
essential to maintaining the Board's continued high standards in
accident investigation, and will go a long way to enabling us to hire
and retain qualified personnel.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is motor carrier safety.
The Board has been investigating too many accidents where there has
been little or no oversight, and I commend Chairman McCain for the
introduction of legislation regarding this issue.
16. Please discuss your views on the appropriate relationship
between a voting member of an independent board or commission and the
wishes of a particular president. I am certainly aware of the Board's
history with regard to pressure by the White House and the
Administration and the need for Board independence. I believe it is
imperative that the Board maintain its independence, and that there
should be no political pressure with regard to our decision making.
Senator Hutchison. Ms. Carmody.
STATEMENT OF CAROL J. CARMODY, MEMBER-DESIGNATE, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Ms. Carmody. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning. First
of all, I want to thank Senator McCain in absentia for agreeing
to hold this hearing, and you, Senator Hutchison, for agreeing
to chair it. I appreciate Senator Breaux coming to introduce
me. I know what a busy schedule everyone has. I appreciate very
much Senator Hollings' presence since I worked up here a number
of years for him.
It is very nice to be back in this Committee room too, I
might say, and I wish to thank President Clinton for nominating
me to the Board. I am very honored to be considered. Every
since 1977, when I started work at the FAA, I have heard about
the NTSB. Some of the time I was there I worked for Admiral Don
Engen, who was Administrator and also a former Board member. I
came to understand some of the I think healthy tension that
existed between the FAA and the board, and probably between the
board and all regulatory agencies.
My time on the Commerce Committee gave me a good sense of
the statutory underpinnings of the board, the sort of work they
do, and the authority they have. I also had the opportunity,
while I was on the Commerce Committee, to know a number of the
Board members and to get acquainted with their work. I decided
then that it was home to a very, very high level of public
servants.
I remember when the first ``Most Wanted'' list was
introduced in 1990, and I have watched that develop through the
years to be a very important tool the NTSB uses to highlight
its priorities. I have also been aware of the interest and the
support this committee has always given to the board and to its
work. I think safety is clearly a collaborative effort with the
Congress, with the regulatory agencies, the board, and the
public.
If I am confirmed to the position I certainly bring a
longstanding and strongly held interest in improving aviation
and transportation safety for the traveling public. My years at
the FAA, my time on the Commerce Committee, and my service at
ICAO have given me a broad understanding of the aviation
industry, of the redundancies that exist in the industry, and
of the occasional failures when accidents do occur.
I think the successes of the board and the regulatory
agencies have been remarkable in the 20 or so years I have been
aware of them. I have no doubt there is much more to be done,
and I think there will always be new and improved ways to
address safety. I think there is probably no greater calling or
higher pleasure for a public servant than to make the lives of
fellow citizens better and travel safer, and so if I am
confirmed I look forward with enthusiasm to taking up the role.
Thank you very much. That is the end of my remarks, and I
will be looking forward to questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Carmody follow:]
Prepared Statement of Carol J. Carmody, Member-Designate,
National Transportation Safety Board
Good Morning. I want to thank the Commerce Committee for holding
this hearing, and Senator Hutchison for chairing it. I am grateful to
President Clinton for nominating me and I am proud to be considered for
membership on the National Transportation Safety Board.
Ever since I went to work at the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in 1977, I heard about the work of the Board. Later as I worked
for Admiral Don Engen, FAA Administrator and former NTSB Member, I
learned more about the efforts and successes of the organization.
During my years on the Commerce Committee as an Aviation Staff member,
I came to know many Board Members and to learn a bit about their work.
I decided years ago the NTSB is home to an impressive group of public
servants who do extremely important work. I remember when the first
``Most Wanted'' list was developed, and I have witnessed some of the
Board's successes. I remember too how supportive this Committee has
always been of the Board's mission and requirements. Safety is a
collaborative effort: the Congress, the regulatory agencies, and the
Board all play a role.
If confirmed I will bring to the Board a strong and long held
interest in improving the safety of transportation for the traveling
public. My years at the Federal Aviation Administration, on the Senate
Commerce Committee and at ICAO have given me a broad understanding of
the aviation industry, an appreciation for the remarkable redundancies
in the systems, and a glimpse of the rare failures in those system
which produce accidents. I think the Board and the transportation
regulatory agencies have accomplished marvelous things in the past
years; but there is more to be done, and there will always be new
discoveries of ways to improve safety. I don't think there can be any
higher privilege for a public servant than to help protect the welfare
of fellow citizens. If confirmed by the United States Senate, I look
forward to the opportunity to serve.
a. biographical information
1. Name: Carol Jones Carmody.
2. Position to which nominated: Member, National Transportation
Safety Board.
3. Date of nomination: November 8, 1999.
4. Address: 4535 Van Ness Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20016.
5. Date and place of birth: Houston Texas, August 14, 1942.
6. Marital Status: Divorced. Former husband Robert F. Carmody, Jr.
7. Names and ages of children: None.
8. Education: American University 1981-1983 M.P.A.; University of
Oklahoma 1961-1964, BA; Southern Methodist University 1960-1961; Louise
McGehee School 1956-1960, Highschool Diploma.
9. Employment record: (All jobs held since college)
1965-1967 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, New Orleans,
LA. Insurance claims adjustor in casualty
claims office.
1967-1968 Braniff Airlines, New Orleans, LA. Ticket and
reservations agent.
1968-1971 Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, D.C.,
Editor and intelligence analyst.
1972-1973 Bailey Employment Agency, Milford, Ct., Owner
and manager.
1973-1977 Trust Fund Consultants, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Manager of firm which administered pension
and medical plans for labor unions.
1977-1985 Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
D.C. Budget analyst and then manager of
budget formulation division.
1985-1988 Federal Aviation Administration, Washington.
D.C. Deputy Director, Congressional
Relations, Office of Administrator.
1988-1994 Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.
Professional aviation staff.
1994-1999 Department of State. U.S. Representative to
the Council of the International Civil
Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada. Appointed by the President to
represent the US in this United Nations body
which establishes standards for international
civil aviation.
1999-present Consultant. Clients include Air Transport
Association, Washington, D.C. on subjects of
noise and the environment; Baker, Donelson,
Bearman and Caldwell of Washington, D.C. on
the subject of the European hushkit issue.
10. Government experience: (Any advisory, consultative, honorary or
other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed above.) None.
11. Business relationships: Partner, One Park Washington. I was one
of three limited partners; my husband was general partner in the
ownership of an office building in Falls Church, Va. He and I sold our
interests in the building to the other two partners in February 1998.
12. Memberships: I am a member of the Aero Club of Washington, the
International Aviation Club, Executive Women in Aviation, American
University Park Citizens Association, Humane Society of the US, Junior
League of Washington.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate. None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years. Registered Democrat since 1991; previously registered Republican
in D.C. to vote for mayor.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. No single contribution of
this size.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
Federal Aviation Administration Award for Extraordinary Service,
1999; Louise S. McGehee School Award for a Distinguished Alumna 1996;
Outstanding performance awards in 1981, 1983 and 1985 while working at
the FAA.
15. Published writings: Safety Oversight at ICAO appearing in ICAO
Journal, fall 1994.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.
I spoke to the Aero Club of Washington twice and, among other
things, addressed the issues of international air safety and programs
to improve it.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President? I believe the President chose me because my background
demonstrated that I have a comprehensive knowledge of the aviation
sector and because I have demonstrated the ability to work with
technical information, draw conclusions and produce results.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment? My work at
the FAA gave me a first hand view of the regulatory agency and its
relationship to the NTSB. My work on the Senate Commerce Committee gave
me the opportunity to become familiar with the work of the NTSB; its
mandate and its structure. My acquaintance with the industry has given
me an understanding of the impact NTSB has on it, and of the
interrelationships that exist and should exist between them. All of
these factors will help me in assessing information as a Board member
and working to reach conclusions and recommendations which will improve
safety.
b. future employment relationship
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your fall term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. I am a consultant to the Air Transport
Association, and to Baker, Donelson, Beannan and Caldwell. My
consulting work will cease, as will my payments, when I begin
employment at the NTSB. I will not have any deferred compensation
agreements.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated. None.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated. None.
4. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. In my consulting
work this year, I have been trying to persuade the U.S. government to
take action against the European Union for the EU hushkit rule, which
would prohibit certain aircraft from operating in Europe. I have
attempted to persuade both authorizers and appropriators staffs to
include language in the relevant bills directing the U.S. government to
take specified action against the EU.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. If potential conflicts of interest are identified, I will
consult with the appropriate ethics officials and take the steps
recommended to resolve the issue.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association disciplinary
committee, or other professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Yes. On May 18, 1998 I was arrested
and charged with misdemeanor--simple assault--by D.C. Police. US
Attorney dismissed charge. No paper--no prosecution. Date was May 18,
1998 in Washington, D.C. in Superior Court of District of Columbia.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. I have nothing to add.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes, to the
extent of my authority to do so.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes, to the extent of my authority
to do so.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
f. general qualifications and views
1. Please describe how your previous professional experience and
education qualify you for the position for which you have been
nominated. I have worked in the aviation arena since 1977 when I took a
job at the FAA. After 11 years at that agency, I was fortunate to work
as an aviation staff member on the Senate Commerce Committee. In that
position I became intimately acquainted with the work of the NTSB.
Working on the Board's reauthorization, I became aware of its mission
and function regarding all modes of transportation. My work on the
Commerce Committee and then at the International Civil Aviation
Organization has given me a broad understanding of the transportation
industry and its components. I have the ability to sift through data
and draw conclusions. While I was at ICAO I had the opportunity to
manage teams of technical experts from disparate disciplines to achieve
common goals; I believe that experience prepares me for the job of
managing investigations, promoting and supporting the work of the
technical experts who determine the cause of accidents and make
recommendations to prevent the recurrence of such accidents.
2. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? Although I am familiar with the Board's
work in all modes of transportation due to my work on the Senate
Commerce Committee, most of my experience has focused on the aviation
arena. There are important safety issues in the other modes of
transportation, and I will make a concerted effort to become well
acquainted with each.
3. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? I have spent over 25 years of my career with the government
and have found it to be extremely rewarding. I would like to continue
my public service, and believe that I have the combination of
experience, maturity and determination that this job deserves. I look
forward to making a positive contribution to improving safety for the
travelling public.
4. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? First, I would become more knowledgeable about
the Board's current activities, particularly in the surface modes of
transportation.
Second, along with my fellow Board Members, I will work to
implement the items on the NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' list. The list
identifies those safety recommendations which can have the greatest
impact on transportation safety. Since its inception, I believe it has
had a positive impact on safety.
Third, I am interested in the issue of aircraft certification and
the method in which safety improvements may be incorporated in the
design of new aircraft. I hope to explore this subject further if I am
confirmed to the Board.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. I believe government can be a beneficial and positive force
in the lives of citizens. I think there is much that the private sector
and ``market forces'' can accomplish to make society better and life
more productive; however, in areas of public health or safety or
transportation, I believe the government has an important role as
overseer and regulator. For example in the areas of transportation I do
not think it is reasonable to expect market forces to produce the
safest systems for the travelling public. It is important for the
government regulators to set the standards high enough to protect the
public, yet still weigh the cost and effect of the standards on the
public. It is crucial that an independent body judge if those standards
are sufficient to prevent accidents.
In areas where the goal is efficiency, the private sector may be
the desired choice. If equity is a concern, or safety, perhaps the
government is more capable and more interested in serving the common
interest.
A government program should be discontinued if 1) its goals have
been achieved and/or 2) if the private sector has demonstrated it can
perform the task more efficiently. I do not necessarily hold these
views in instances where the public safety is involved.
6. In your own words, please describe the agency's current
missions, major programs, and major operational objectives. The primary
mission of the NTSB is to saves lives through the prevention of
transportation accidents. This is accomplished through the
investigation of aviation, highway, hazardous materials and pipeline,
marine, and railroad accidents; the determination of probable cause of
those accidents; and the issuance of safety recommendations. Accident
investigations may produce issues which require additional special
study or investigation. An example was the highway special
investigation report on bus crashworthiness which was recently adopted
by the Board.
7. In reference to question number six, what forces are likely to
result in changes to his mission of this agency over the coming five
years? Transportation is an ever-increasing industry. As the industry
grows, the potential for accidents increases. With growth, we are
likely to see an increase in accident investigation that would exceed
the NTSB's current resources.
According to research from the FAA, ICAO, and Boeing, civil
aviation is expected to grow about four to six percent per year in the
U.S., with even higher growth overseas. In 1996, over 650 million
passengers boarded U.S. commercial aircraft in 1998. That is
approximately twice our population.
Although the number of transportation deaths has decreased in the
past year, there are still a significant number of accidents. Highway
fatalities comprised over 94 percent of transportation related deaths
this year. Each year highway traffic accidents cost the nation about
40,000 lives, five million injuries, and $137 billion in medical costs,
lost productivity, and property damage.
Although railroads are one of this country's safest forms of
transportation, every year over 500 people die in grade crossing
accidents. I understand that approximately two-thirds of all crossings
have no train-activated warning devices. Future projections estimate
that there will be over 600 million train miles in the year 2002.
Additionally, over 700 deaths occur due to approximately 6,500
recreational boating accidents each year.
There are more than 1.6 million miles of pipeline that carry gas to
about 60 million customers in this country. There are on average 21
pipeline fatalities each year; however, the potential for greater loss
exists as was demonstrated by the San Juan, Puerto Rico, accident on
November 21, 1996.
Not only will the Board need sufficient resources to meet the
challenges of this transportation growth, but also it is imperative
that the Board retain a qualified staff. New transportation technology
is continuously introduced, and the Board must have the capability to
hire, retain, and continuously train its technical staff.
7. Re: question number six, what are the likely outside forces
which may prevent the agency from accomplishing its mission? What do
you believe to be the top three challenges facing the board/commission
and why? As mentioned above, the Safety Board must be able to keep up
with the technological changes and growth in the transportation
industry. More and more demands are placed on the Board by the
internationalization of the industry and it is important to realize
that globalization will continue to have a significant impact on the
Safety Board and the American travelling public.
The first challenge facing the Safety Board is resources. The Board
must have the adequate resources necessary to accomplish its mission.
The second challenge of the Safety Board is to attract and retain
qualified staff. The very integrity of the reports and recommendations
produced by the Board hinges on the competence and expertise of its
investigators and scientists.
Third, the Board must be able to keep its employees trained
properly so that they remain ahead of the curve in this constantly
changing industry. I understand that one of Chairman Hall's goals last
year was to fully fund training for employees across all modes. I
believe that adequate training is critical to maintaining the technical
qualifications of the Board's employees.
8. Re: question six, what factors in your opinion have kept the
board/commission from achieving its missions over the past several
years? Although difficult in these times of budget constraints, I
believe the Board has been successful in achieving its mission over the
years. The acceptance rate of Board safety recommendations is
approximately 80 percent; the acceptance rate for urgent
recommendations is even higher, and every day we see evidence of the
Board's accomplishments. It is because of work completed by the Board
and its employees that child safety seats are now a requirement in all
50 states; parents are aware of the dangers of passenger-side air bags
pose to children; all states have raised the legal drinking age; many
states have a pipeline one-call system, and all commercial fishing
vessels are required to carry specific lifesaving devices, including
liferafts, survival suits, and emergency position indicating radio
beacons.
9. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? There are
many obvious stakeholders of the Safety Board's work, including the
Department of Transportation and its modal administrations, all
segments of the transportation industry, and the United States
Congress. Ultimately, every man, woman and child in the United States
who relies on transportation are stakeholders in the work of the Safety
Board. It is for the taxpayer that the Board strives to make
transportation safer.
10. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number 10? As a
Board Member, it would be my responsibility to ensure that we continue
to have the safest transportation system in the world. I, too, am a
stakeholder in the work of the Safety Board. I too am a stakeholder in
the work of the Safety Board. I believe that the goal of accident
prevention is shared by the Safety Board and all of its stakeholders.
The work of the Board must be known to be effective. It is the
responsibility of the Board Member to make sure the public is aware of
the Board's safety concerns. This can be accomplished by keeping
Congress aware of the Board's actions, and by speaking to local civic
groups, to transportation association, to airport officials, etc.
11. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? My philosophy is that
supervisor/employee relationships must be collaborative, cooperative
and congenial. I have had extensive experience with both roles, and I
know that people who have an interest and a stake in the outcome
produce the best work. I favor open and frank discussion between
workers at all levels. I acknowledge that the overall responsibility
rests with the top; management should provide direction and create an
atmosphere to avoid uncertainty. I have had no employee complaints
brought against me.
12. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? My working relationships with the Congress have been
harmonious. Because of my six years as a staff member with the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I have worked
extensively with both Senators and staff on transportation issues. My
association with Members of Congress and staff have continued as a
result of my consulting work and as the U.S. Representative to ICAO.
13. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your board/commission
comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. If confirmed, I
will work closely with Congress to ensure that the Board's programs
reflect significant public policy interests related to transportation
safety. Although the Board is a non-regulatory agency, I believe that
it is important to keep Congress apprised of transportation safety
issues that are not being adequately addressed by industry or the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
14. In the areas under the board/commission jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? I am
familiar with the NTSB's reauthorization request that was transmitted
to this Committee on April 27, 1999. I agree with the Board that the
issues highlighted in the request will go far in helping it to
accomplish its Congressional mandate.
15. Please discuss your views on the appropriate relationship
between a voting member of an independent board or commission and the
wishes of a particular president. The Board is an independent agency in
part to avoid political pressure. Although the Board's investigations
are conducted through a party system, it retains its independence
throughout the process. It is the Board who analyzes the work of its
investigators, it is the Board who determines the probable cause of an
accident, and it is the Board who issues safety recommendations to
prevent the recurrence of similar accidents. Political pressure, no
matter who it comes from, should not be a part of the Board's decision-
making process.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much. If you would let me
have 5 minutes, and then I will go to Senator Breaux, and then
I will come back to me to finish, because I think this will be
fairly brief, but as we are preparing--let me say, I think both
of you are totally qualified, and what we want to do is keep
the process going. That is the purpose of this hearing, to get
your nominations moving.
But I do want to ask you, as we are beginning to look at a
reauthorization, to address some of the issues that NTSB is
facing and I would like to ask both of you to respond as you
would like to on my questions. Particularly, the House has
passed an NTSB reauthorization and there are certain provisions
of it--if you are familiar with what the House has passed, I
would like to ask you to comment on it, and if you think there
is anything that was not addressed by the House, or if you
particularly support what the House has done.
Mr. Goglia.
Mr. Goglia. Although I am familiar with our re-
authorization requests, I am not intimately familiar with what
the House has passed.
Senator Hutchison. Are you, Ms. Carmody?
Ms. Carmody. Well, I know one area which they passed, some
language having to do with giving the NTSB priority in
investigations, reinforcing, if you will, the existing
statutory authority of the NTSB. I think there has been an
increasing tendency over accidents recently to have to have
parallel criminal investigations, and there has sometimes been
confusion over who was in charge at what time, so I believe the
House did have language in the reauthorization that addressed
this.
Senator Hutchison. Actually, I would like to have your
opinion on this. It allows the Attorney General to determine if
the cause is criminal, and if that is the determination it
would give the FBI primacy even in aircraft investigations, and
as a former member, I would be somewhat concerned about
determining primacy for the FBI in an investigation rather than
a dual role at least, where if there is--the way NTSB
investigates, everything has to be laid out a certain way, left
in place until you are able to pick up the part that is
important, but where it sits is very important as well, which
might be different from a criminal investigation.
What would be your thought about FBI primacy in an air
investigation that might be determined criminal?
Mr. Goglia.
Mr. Goglia. I have some experience in this area. I was the
member on-scene with the Federal Express accident in Newark,
New Jersey, and the FBI had concerns about evidence they had on
that airplane, and I thought the methods we actually devised
on-scene worked very well, inasmuch as we had FBI agents that
were put on every one of the groups, and we maintained for
their purposes a clear chain of custody. Although we operated
under our procedures and our process, we also preserved the
chain of custody so that in the event the investigation turned
criminal, lawenforcement would have had control over all the
pieces of the airplane, all the evidence, at all times until
such time as it was determined that the investigation was not a
criminal investigation.
If we do that in reverse, it causes us considerable
problems in the safety investigation, in the timeliness of the
investigation as well because of the different priorities, and
so I think that whatever decision the Congress makes, I think
we need to have the NTSB controlling the scene, using our
processes.
If our processes and procedures need to be tweaked or
adjusted, I think we can do that to accommodate the needs of
the Justice Department. But there needs to be one leader at the
scene, and we cannot have this continuing tete-a-tete back and
forth over whose accident it is.
Senator Hutchison. Do you have any comment on that, Ms.
Carmody?
Ms. Carmody. None, except it sounds sensible to me. I have
not been involved in accident investigations, but I think that
sounds like a reasonable approach.
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you another question. This
was dealt with in the House bill, and I have certainly heard
about it from Chairman Hall, and that is, the Coast Guard and
the NTSB have had possibly even more conflict than the FBI on
jurisdictional issues.
The committee language in the House bill just says work it
out. I would like to know your thoughts on whether that is the
right approach, try to get the two groups to work something out
that would be in everyone's best interest, or should it be in
the law?
What is your view, Mr. Goglia?
Mr. Goglia. Well, I understand there have been discussions
on an MOU with the Coast Guard, but I do not believe that they
have gone anywhere.
My own personal view is that the NTSB provides you and
other Members of Congress and other decisionmakers valuable
information which you can use to make decisions that shape
transportation policy in this country. You do not get the
benefit of an independent view without having given us the
ability to have primacy in the investigation.
If I was to turn the shoe around the other way and I were
the Coast Guard, I would certainly not want somebody to come in
and review my operation that was potentially going to air my
dirty laundry out all around the country. So until we get the
primacy that enables us to give you the unbiased facts of the
accident so you and other decisionmakers can make the correct
decisions, we are always going to be at a disadvantage.
Senator Hutchison. Ms. Carmody.
Ms. Carmody. I was frankly baffled when I heard of this
issue, because I did not understand why the Coast Guard had a
different arrangement than other agencies. It seems to me it
would be easier if it were spelled out in more specifics.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think clearly we need to have
input again from the Coast Guard and from the NTSB to--I would
like for it to be worked out without law, just because I know
that sometimes in investigations you just cannot follow a
procedure perfectly when you are dealing with new things, with
new areas, with--even sometimes one side has the resources and
the other side needs access to something different.
You just cannot predict what you are going to need in an
accident investigation, and I do not want you to have to go out
on a Coast Guard cutter and start looking at a manual of the
law. I would rather have you be able to do it in a way that
would make sense between the two agencies, but it has bubbled
up a couple of times, so we will look at that as we go toward
reauthorization.
With that, Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Well, you have raised a very interesting
point. I sort of tend to believe we need some clear direction
of who is in charge. You cannot have the FBI and the Coast
Guard and the NTSB at an accident site deciding, in my opinion,
onsite who is going to be in charge. It is too late.
And in a terribly unfortunate situation, such as an
accident where a plane goes down, generally there is a great
deal of chaos, and that is not the right time to sit down and
decide who is in charge. I mean, it should be clearly spelled
out, and I am not really satisfied, Madam Chair, to tell the
three agencies to go work it out.
I mean, anybody who has been around Washington long enough
knows the various agencies are all going to be trying to get
their inputs, and they want to be in charge. The Coast Guard
wants to be in charge, the NTSB wants to be in charge, the FBI,
who thinks there is something wrong, wants to be in charge.
Everybody is going to sit around arguing about who is in
charge. What happens when that occurs nobody is in charge, and
we do not want to wait until that happens.
I mean, we have already seen some problems in this, and I
think maybe Congress does have to say, all right, NTSB is in
charge, and then if other things come to light, bring in other
prospective agencies on this, but I really do think that we
ought to take a look at doing more than just saying, ``work it
out.'' We are not going to get it worked out. Anybody who has
been around Washington more than five years knows that.
Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Goglia. I agree with that 100 percent.
Senator Breaux. They are going to fight over it. I have
seen them fight.
Senator Hutchison. Your point is well-taken. Where the
problem comes is, there are certain assets that NTSB has. In
investigating an accident they have the ability to take the
flight data recorder and bring it in, and they have got the
equipment to read it out, but they do not have the ability to
go out into the ocean and hunt for parts, and so if we go that
route, which I think makes sense, we are also going to have to
look at some budgetary authority, because the Coast Guard might
not have the budget, or the Navy might not have the budget for
their divers.
There has to be some ability for the one in charge to also
be able to pay for the services rather than one agent be in
charge and the other one be providing resources from their
budgets that they do not have, and so it is complicated, but I
think your point is well-taken. I think it needs to----
Senator Breaux. Well, I will just suggest the budgetary
concerns, and that is always very important about who pays for
what. But you have to have someone on the scene who is in
charge, and then you have to be able to utilize the equipment
and the manpower, and the vessels and everything else that
needs to be brought in. But somebody has to say that he is in
charge of an investigation and to bring in everybody else, and
we ought to be able to solve this. It is not that great a
problem that people with good intent cannot come together, and
I would just hope that when the bill comes up over here, that
we do more than just say work it out, because it is not going
to get worked out.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Did you have any other questions?
Senator Breaux. No.
Senator Hutchison. If not, then there are a couple of other
things I just wanted to ask for my information. Mr. Goglia, the
board has indicated that it plans to hold a hearing on safety
implications of NAFTA, and I wanted to ask you if that has been
done?
Mr. Goglia. We have held several hearings around the
country on truck safety issues. The NAFTA hearing was held
October 20-22, 1999, in Los Angeles, CA.
Senator Hutchison. Have there been any safety
recommendations that have come from those hearings?
Mr. Goglia. Not yet.
Senator Hutchison. Do you think there will be any?
Mr. Goglia. I suspect there will be. It is a little
premature for me to say. We need to have three Board members to
agree, so it is a little premature to say the outcome, but I
believe we will have some recommendations.
Senator Hutchison. I think this is an important area for
NTSB to address. As we are beginning to make the decisions on
truck entry from Mexico, I think we need to know what the
problems are and if there are recommendations for safety that
would protect people on our highways all over our country, and
it is something I have looked at, and I think the Department of
Transportation has been correct in making sure that we do not
leap before we look and that we do not allow a lot of trucks
that do not meet our standards on our highways, but I would be
interested in NTSB's recommendations before those final
decisions are made.
It is my understanding, Mr. Carmody, that there have been
recruitment problems for accident investigators, getting
qualified people. Are you familiar with that kind of problem,
and if so, would you tell us what the problems are, and how you
would address that?
Ms. Carmody. We are not sure, did you invite me to answer
that, Senator?
Senator Hutchison. I was actually talking to Mr. Goglia as
a member of the Board, but if you have comments, if you are
aware of this I would be happy for you to jump in. I was
addressing it to Mr. Goglia.
Mr. Goglia. That has been an ongoing problem, Senator. Our
ability to attract qualified people in the ranks of
investigators has grown in the past. As the economy gets strong
we cannot compete with the commercial interests and what the
private sector is offering as a compensation package. Anyone
who knows the workload of the NTSB, knows you would have to
take that into consideration when you signed on, because the
average work week is something like 62 hours, and most of it,
that extra over 40 hours is not adequately compensated, so it
is a labor of love on the side of our investigators.
So the really experienced people we are not drawing. We are
drawing much younger people, and we have a turnover. As soon as
they get the qualifications, industry will take them away from
us, and frankly I do not blame them for leaving.
Senator Hutchison. Do you think higher GS levels, or do you
think overtime is more the corrective?
Mr. Goglia. We need to have a basic compensation level that
equals what industry is paying, and we need to find a way to
compensate them if not fully, at least more than the token
compensation we give them for the extra hours they put in.
Senator Hutchison. Did you have a comment, Ms. Carmody, on
that?
Ms. Carmody. Just that I read the Rand report, and I know
this was a concern that was raised there in terms of the number
of hours the staff work and the difficulty in recruiting them.
I think it is probably not unique to the NTSB. I think some of
the other Government agencies have had the same problems with
recruiting and retaining people.
I recall there was a provision in the NTSB reauthorization
which would provide early retirement for some of the
investigative staff, which I believe the Board thought would be
an additional lure to get people to sign on.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Goglia, you have aviation in your
background, but you have also participated in a number of the
railroad issues. I wanted to ask you if you think the public
education program such as Operation Lifesaver, which was
actually started when I was on the NTSB--we worked with the
National Safety Association to former Operation Lifesaver--if
you think that Operation Lifesaver and the Department of
Transportation Share the Road education campaigns are having an
impact. Do you sense that, or do you see it in the accident
reports?
Mr. Goglia. Not in accident reports, but I see it in my
traveling, in my discussions in the real world that it
definitely is having an impact. Operation Lifesaver is a
wonderful program.
I chaired, or I ran the on-scene investigation at Fox River
Grove, which was the grade crossing accident with the school
bus, a very painful accident, to see those children like that.
I think anything that we can do to alleviate grade crossing
issues in this country is money well-spent.
I applaud the work of the Railroad Administrator. She has
worked in cooperation with the industry. I believe they have
closed approximately 20 percent of the grade crossings in this
country. We need to do more.
So given the constraints on the resources, I think all of
those programs are worthwhile, and if we could find more
resources I would love to see this put in. There are some 600
fatalities every year at grade crossings, and every single one
of them is preventable.
Senator Hutchison. I agree with your assessment of Jolene
Molitoris. As the Federal Rail Administrator she has been so
tough and active, and I think she has done a terrific job, and
the ads that are being put forward by Operation Lifesaver,
which is now an ongoing entity, have been totally supported by
Jolene Molitoris, and they are tough, and I am sure that any
teenager or person who sees those ads is impressed and will
remember, and I certainly hope that it is successful.
I would like to ask Ms. Carmody, because this is an area
where you have had experience with FAA and NTSB having been on
that side and on the Commerce Committee side, how do you see
the agency's actions on recommendations? Do you think the NTSB
and FAA have a healthy working relationship? Do you think the
FAA is doing as much as it should from the NTSB
recommendations? Are they acting as quickly as they should?
What is your assessment of that relationship?
Ms. Carmody. I think overall the FAA is doing a very good
job. I am looking at the level of recommendations they accept
from the board, and I think it is 83 percent, so I think on
balance they have done a good job. I think Jane Garvey has done
a remarkable job in her tenure there.
Senator Hutchison. How do you feel about the NTSB's
recommendations? Do you think they have been about right on, or
do you think they do too much or too little?
Ms. Carmody. No, I do not think they do too much. I was
going to say I think there are always areas in which it would
be nice if FAA were more aggressive, or acted a little more
quickly. Runway incursions is an obvious example. That has been
a subject on the ``Most Wanted'' list for quite a while. I
think the FAA is moving on it, but it seems that the progress
has been very limited.
The AMASS System has had some delays, and I think there is
a possibility to be frustrated over it sometimes, the pace of
the FAA, but I think on balance--as I said in my opening
statement there is a tension between the two, and that is to be
expected. I think it is probably healthy. I think it is
important that the two agencies continue to cooperate, but I
believe there is always going to be a little bit of a
difference of opinion between them.
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask both of you how you think the
MD-80 problems were addressed by the FAA and NTSB? Do you think
that the right thing was done at the right time after the
Alaska Air----
Mr. Goglia. You are talking about the jackscrew problem. I
think the NTSB and the FAA both moved very quickly to deal with
that issue, but they also have to give the industry credit
themselves. I know from my contacts with the industry they did
not wait for either one of us to move. As it became known, the
problems became known, the industry moved before us, and that
is exactly the way the system should work.
Ms. Carmody. I was equally impressed. I was from the
outside looking in, since I am not on the Board, of course, but
I was impressed with the speed with which the FAA and the
industry seemed to take this up and act on it.
Senator Hutchison. I read an article in the Washington
Times that said those parts were made in China as part of an
agreement that McDonnell-Douglas had made when they were
selling in the eighties to China, that they agreed that they
would manufacture certain parts there. I would like to ask you
if a) you believe that that is true and, if so, is there
anything that needs to be done that would require more
inspections of foreign-made products, or is this something that
just could not be avoided, or is there something we ought to be
looking at if that is the case?
Mr. Goglia. Well, first off, Senator, I am not aware of the
fact that this particular part was made in China, so it may not
have been, but aircraft parts in general--and I am from
Massachusetts, so that is p-a-r-t-s. We talk a little funny.
But aircraft parts in general are held to pretty high
standards.
Senator Hutchison. You certainly do, as far as I am
concerned.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Goglia. They are held to a high standard, and the
specifications in this example are thread, pitch, and hardness
of material, and they are well spelled out, and the inspection
process is pretty well-defined.
Senator Hutchison. Is it defined before it goes into an
aircraft? Is there anything special about a foreign-made part?
Mr. Goglia. If the system works as designed, the pieces,
there is a specification that is sent to wherever it is
manufactured, this country or outside, and the part is made to
those specifications, and then there is a receiving inspection
that is designed to assure that the part meets the
specification.
Now, does that happen every time? The answer is no. We have
examples in the Delta Airlines accident in Pensacola, Florida,
where a fan hub came apart that was manufactured by Volvo, and
that part had--although it had all the rights stamps, it was
clearly the inspection process failed, so yes, sometimes things
fail and fall through the cracks, but you cannot have 100
percent inspection for every piece. You have to build it in on
the production side, and failures in that area are pretty rare.
Senator Hutchison. And the FAA does spot-checking, is that
the process?
Mr. Goglia. They check the process. Quite frankly, Senator,
the FAA does not have the resources to keep up with industry
today. I mean, we have 3,000-some-odd aviation safety
inspectors at the FAA and they just cannot keep up with it. The
fleet is growing rapidly. Industry is just moving so quickly.
Government is not structured in a way to perform the
inspections, so they really have to ensure that the process
that is in place at either the manufacturing level or the
airline level is proper.
Senator Hutchison. Ms. Carmody, do you think that we need
to look at the FAA's processes and their number of inspectors?
Is that something that we should address down the road, or very
quickly?
I know that they cannot--they will never be able to inspect
every single part that goes onto every single airplane. There
would be no way. But is it adequate?
Ms. Carmody. I think that is something this Committee has
looked at at various times through the years. Inspectors are
always the subject of interest and concern. You are right,
there will never be enough to inspect everything, but there has
to be an adequate number to oversee various processes that are
ongoing at the FAA.
In terms of what the Board is doing, I believe there is a
special study now that NTSB is conducting of FAA oversight of
repair stations, so-called part 145. I am not sure what the
timeframe on that is, but it is an ongoing study. It is part of
looking at the oversight capability of the FAA, but I do think
the number of inspectors and the subject of inspectors should
be of continuing interest to this committee and the NTSB.
Senator Hutchison. Do you have an opinion, Mr. Goglia, of
whether it is sufficient the way it is done now, or should we
look at expanding the number of inspectors?
Mr. Goglia. The FAA needs additional resources to provide
the oversight. The industry is expanding rapidly. The number of
inspectors are overworked. In some areas of the country, such
as Miami and the West Coast, there is just an explosion of
aviation providers, and there is certainly not enough
inspectors to go around, and visiting the repair station once a
year quite frankly does not cut it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I would be interested in NTSB's
findings on the study they are doing now, but perhaps even
expanding that to determine if we really need to address FAA's
resources in light of what you have said about the exploding
number of providers. I know we are now starting to use in my
State, starting to use smaller jets for commercial aviation.
The 50 passenger jets that would give intrastate service in
Texas, and we really have not had very many of those, at least
in Texas, heretofore, but now I think they are going to be more
and more popular around the country.
Right now, they are made in Brazil, so I think we are going
to want to make sure that we have adequate safety of those
coming online, which is just one example of what you have said.
We have got more types of systems coming in.
So I would be interested in NTSB doing a study, and
certainly FAA does report to us, but I think having the NTSB as
an outside source would be very important, so you might look at
that as you enter your service on the Board, and as you
continue yours.
Well, I would just like to say, that is the end of my
questions. If you have any other comments you would like to
make, I would be happy to put those in the record at this time
and, if not, I think you are certainly well-qualified. I will
look forward to working with you and we will at the earliest
possible moment have a full committee hearing and vote your
nominations out and see if we can get you confirmed on an
expedited basis.
Thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your
leadership in convening this hearing to consider these nominations.
The nominees before us today, Carol Carmody and John Goglia, will
play a vital role in shaping our nation's transportation policy if
confirmed as Members of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB). The NTSB is an independent agency charged with promoting safety
in transportation throughout the nation. They conduct accident
investigations, make recommendations for safety improvements based on
their investigations, do safety studies, and evaluate the effectiveness
of government agencies' transportation safety programs. The
professionals before us are veterans of transportation practice and
policy--they are clearly well qualified for the positions they have
been nominated for. I look forward to hearing from them.
John Goglia has served on the NTSB since 1995. In addition to his
experience at the Board, he is considered an expert on human factors in
the mechanic's workplace. He gained much of this experience during his
employment at Logan Airport with US Airways beginning in 1966 and
ending in 1995 when he was confirmed to his present position at the
NTSB. His 32 years of aviation experience coupled with the fact that he
is an internationally recognized expert in aviation maintenance and
aircraft operations make him an ideal nominee for reappointment to the
Board.
Carol Carmody is a veteran of the Hill and the Administration. I am
pleased to see Carol back before the Committee, although on the other
side of the dias this time. Her six years of experience on the Commerce
Committee staff working on aviation issues and her time at the Federal
Aviation Administration make her an ideal candidate for the NTSB. In
addition to her federal experience, for the last four years, she has
served as the U.S. Representative at the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), the United Nations body responsible for civil
aviation standards. I have no doubts that, if confirmed, she would
excel in her role as a member of the NTSB given her experiences in the
past.
To both of the nominees here today, thank you for your attendance
and I look forward to working with you in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Goglia here today for his renomination
to the NTSB. Mr. Goglia was born and raised in Boston and I am pleased
to have such an outstanding citizen of my State of Massachusetts serve
as a member of the NTSB. I encourage my colleagues to support his
speedy confirmation.
Mr. Goglia has been a member of the NTSB since 1995 and is uniquely
qualified to serve on the Board, as he is an internationally recognized
expert in aviation maintenance with over thirty years of aviation
experience.
Before he began his service on the NTSB, he was an aviation
mechanic with USAir at Logan Airport. He was the recipient of the 1994/
Industry Aviation Mechanic of the Year Award. He has also served on the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' (IAM)
Accident Investigation Team and for over 21 years he served as the
IAM's Flight Safety Representative.
Mr. Goglia's vast experience has permitted him to bring a valuable
perspective to the Board, where he has made a number of valuable
contributions since his confirmation in 1995. He has focused the NTSB's
attention on the significant role maintenance plays in transportation
safety. Related to that, he has advocated that the Board focus on the
importance human factors play in transportation safety. Mr. Goglia's
background has also made him uniquely qualified to address the problems
that maintenance worker shortages in the aviation industry cause.
I think Mr. Goglia is exceptionally well qualified to continue his
service on the Board, and would encourage my colleagues to support his
confirmation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Carol J. Carmody
Question 1. As it has been noted recently in commentary on the
January 31, 2000 Alaskan Airlines Flight 261 crash off the coast of
California, in which 88 people died, accident investigations are
becoming increasingly complicated. This is due to many factors, but
especially to the fact that we have been able to eliminate the ``easy''
accidents. In light of this, do you believe that the NTSB has the tools
available to meet the challenges of more intricate investigations?
Answer. This problem was mentioned in the Rand Report, entitled
Safety in the Skies, which was released late last year. The need for
increased resources is reflected in the NTSB FY 2001 budget request for
an additional 25 technical, investigative and support positions to
address the increasingly complex accidents the Board is encountering.
Of course it may be impossible for the NTSB to ever have the tools
needed in-house for all investigations, so the Board must continue to
expand its capabilities through the party system and the use of special
technical experts.
Question 2. There has been some comment lately, including that by
the Rand Commission, that the NTSB resources are stretched a little
thin for comfort and that it is only the professionalism of the staff
which is upholding the impeccable standards of the NTSB. What are your
views on the Rand Report?
Answer. I believe the Rand Report provided some valuable insights
into the NTSB's mission and work. I think the recommendation that the
Board assess laboratories, universities and independent corporate
resources to identify ways to augment NTSB expertise is an excellent
idea. I would be interested in exploring the idea of forming
independent review and assessment teams, as suggested in the Report.
Question 3. One of the management issues currently before the
Federal Aviation Administration is instituting a cost accounting
system--determining what services cost as well as ensuring proper
stewardship of assets. This is an issue other agencies, including the
NTSB, also face. Do you think that this will be difficult given the
extemporaneous nature of accident response teams? What are some ways to
strengthen this accountability?
Answer. I understand the NTSB has just recently adopted an
accounting system which identifies all non-salary costs by category and
investigation. Payroll is handled by the FAA personnel system, so
salary costs are not retrievable in the same way.
The Rand Report recommended that NTSB establish its own complete
system so that all costs could be integrated and tracked by
investigation or project. This recommendation sounds reasonable and
consistent with good management practices, but I would like to have
some experience with the current NTSB account information before I
reach a conclusion about implementing a new system. Clearly managers
must be able to track what they are spending to ensure that resources
are used wisely. Budgets for a particular project or investigation
should be established and costs should be reviewed and measured against
the plan on periodic basis. Managers in charge of projects or
investigations should be responsible for their specific budgets.
Question 4. In October of 1999, the NTSB completed its
investigation into the tragic sinking of the Morning Dew, a 34-foot
recreational sailing vessel, which struck a jetty outside of Charleston
Harbor in December 1997, resulting in the deaths of all four
passengers. The NTSB concluded that, while the most probable cause of
the accident was operator error, the substandard performance of the
Coast Guard Group Charleston in initiating a search and rescue
contributed to the loss of life. The NTSB has stated that current rules
requiring coordination with the Coast Guard in investigating such
incidents result in duplication of effort and may compromise the
independence of NTSB investigations. Consequently, the NTSB Chairman
has recommended that clear rules be established, governing when the
NTSB should be given the lead in such investigations. Coast Guard,
however, does have significant experience in investigating marine
accidents. I understand NTSB and the Coast Guard are trying to work
this issue out.
Based on your knowledge of the relative expertise of NTSB and Coast
Guard, is coordination the best way to go, or should NTSB be given the
lead in marine accident investigations? Are there particular
circumstances under which NTSB primacy may be warranted?
Answer. The NTSB reauthorization requested that this issue be
clarified by giving NTSB the same priority in marine accident
investigations that it has in all other modes. The NTSB has argued that
in marine accidents delays and confusion often result from the
uncertainty over which agency has priority and which rules of
investigation apply. Under the current system each modal administration
retains authority to investigate accidents and to enforce penalties as
needed, and this practice has been successful for 30 years. To date, I
understand that the Coast Guard and the NTSB have not made progress in
``working it out,'' so I think legislation would be useful to define
roles and remove uncertainty.
Question 5. As part of a series of reforms, the Board, last year,
changed its procedures for the assignment of Members to accident
investigations, limiting the time each Member assigned to a site can
remain on site. Do you support those changes?
Answer. If I am confirmed as a new Board member, I expect to follow
all the Board orders and procedures. I have read Order 6A dealing with
the responsibilities of Members at accident sites and it seems clear
and reasonable to me. I have no experience at accident sites on which
to form an alternative opinion.
Question 6. Does the NTSB have the resources to keep up with new
technology? Is there a systematic approach for this in place? If not,
would you advocate one?
Answer. The NTSB seems to have done a remarkable job of keeping up
with technologies, but frequently it is during the course of an
accident investigation. The Rand Report says that the NTSB approach to
training--which familiarizes staff with technologies--is haphazard. The
report also recommends a staffing increase of about 12 percent over FY
1999 levels, and suggests personnel exchanges and cross training as
some ways to improve the situation. I expect the NTSB is reviewing the
recommendations. I believe the goal of maintaining a well trained,
current staff is extremely important and I would expect to support
strategies or approaches that would produce this.
Question 7. The media crush following an accident can be
overwhelming. Except for accidents involving criminal conduct, the NTSB
is the primary investigative voice during an accident. While ``talking
heads'' espouse their views on what the cause is immediately following
a crash, the NTSB has to be more judicious.
(a) How do you balance the need to provide information to the media
with the need to ensure that investigations are not impeded or
compromised?
Answer. I think the media must be provided current factual
information in as timely a fashion as possible. It is impossible to put
a stop to speculation by others, but the Board can do its job by
providing information whenever it is reasonable to do so. From my
perspective, the NTSB has handled the press very successfully following
the recent Alaskan Air crash.
(b) What are some of the other issues surrounding the media which
you feel the NTSB should address?
Answer. The access of media to an accident scene is an issue where
treatment differs with the situation. Questions of safety and
sensitivity are involved and the Member on the scene, if any, will make
the determination as to access. The Board has also committed to
briefing family members before any national briefing so those calls
have to be coordinated before any press briefing.
Involved parties, such as airlines or aircraft manufacturers, run
some risks if they do not respond to press inquiries themselves right
away--and the public expects and deserves some kind of response and
available information directly from them. On the other hand, the NTSB
wants to be, and to some extent must be, a gatekeeper for accident
information.
Several Members of the Commerce Committee were copied on an
exchange of letters between the Safety Board and American Airlines on
this very issue after the Little Rock accident.
(c) What do you think the appropriate balance is and how would you
propose to work together with the parties (American, Boeing) to prevent
that kind of disconnect from happening again?
Answer. Parties to accident investigations sign agreements
governing how they will conduct themselves during the accident
investigation. The Board is properly concerned about parties relating
information about the accident. After the Little Rock accident, the
Board and the ATA worked together on a Memorandum of Understanding
which spells out new procedures for press coverage after accidents. It
involves daily coordination between airlines and NTSB; and identifies
specific items on which an airline may comment--such as the type of
aircraft. This procedure seemed to work well according to parties
involved in the recent Alaskan Air accident.
Question 8. The NTSB uses a ``party system'' to investigate
accidents, with private sector expertise as well as that of other
agencies to supplement the NTSB's own personnel. Some have questioned
this system on grounds that the parties, particularly the airlines and
the manufacturers, may have a conflict of interest. Others have said
that the process should be opened even further, so that families of
victims could also participate in the investigation.
(a) How would you respond to these criticisms?
Answer. The party system seems to have worked well for the NTSB
because it allows the Board to expand its resources and use experts in
particular areas. I believe there are enough parties to an accident
that potential conflicts may be minimized. Part of the management of
the process by the Board must be to assure that there is no bias or
favoritism. I am aware that some have suggested that families of
victims should be allowed to participate in accident investigations. I
do not believe this is a good idea. Current NTSB rules require that
party representatives possess specific expertise. Other difficulties
could arise in attempting to select appropriate family representatives
for participation. I hope the families' concerns can be addressed by
the Family Assistance Program, which assures that members are briefed
regularly on developments and made aware in advance of press
conferences.
(b) Do you feel that the party system is still a feasible approach
to accident investigating?
Answer. Yes I do. I believe the Rand Report made some valuable
suggestions about ways to expand the party system. The report
recommended that the Board survey the capabilities of independent
resources--labs, universities, etc.--to see what independent expertise
is available. The Board could then contract as necessary with these
independent parties to assist in investigations.
(c) Are there possible gaps in the integrity of investigations that
warrant a shift away from the party system?
Answer. From my perspective outside the NTSB, I have not read or
heard anything which would justify a shift away from the party system.
The Rand Report concludes that the system has worked well for the NTSB.
If a system has produced solid, useful work for many years, I see no
compelling reason to change it.
Question 9. The relationship between the NTSB and the FBI and the
Department of Justice is both delicate and critical. High profile
accidents that may involve criminal conduct raise some practical
questions and potential conflicts about lines of authority between the
agencies.
(a) Are there ways the NTSB could improve the process of
establishing clear lines of authority in accidents where criminal
activity is suspected?
Answer. The NTSB reauthorization request sought clarification of
NTSB's primacy in all accident investigations, whether accidental or
otherwise. Such leadership would include coordination with other
agencies, and involvement of law enforcement agencies if criminal
activity were suspected. If the investigation yields evidence of
criminal activity, the Board can then turn the responsibility over to
the appropriate law enforcement agency. This policy is in accordance
with both NTSB procedures, and ICAO's Annex 13.
(b) In your view how much evidence of criminal activity does there
need to be before the NTSB should give primary authority to law
enforcement?
Answer. I would want strong or compelling evidence that the event
was not accidental.
Question 10. NTSB makes recommendations for the Department of
Transportation and its modal agencies. These recommendations are not
binding but do require some type of response from the modal agencies.
Does this process work well in promoting safety or are there ways
that you think we could improve the accountability of the agencies?
Answer. I believe the current process works well. Overall, 82% of
all NTSB recommendations are implemented by the modal administrations.
The Board uses the Top Ten list to keep pressure on agencies. Board
Members are able to advocate safety improvements through public
appearances and information. The Board can keep any unaccepted
recommendations before the Congress and the public so those agencies
may be encouraged to act.
Question 11. There has been some comment lately, including in the
recent Rand Commission report, that the NTSB's funding and staff
resources are inadequate to fulfill its mandate.
(a) Do you agree with that assessment?
Answer. I accept the Rand Report's findings that NTSB staff works
in excess of 50 hours a week normally, and over 60 hours a week during
accident investigations. I also note that the NTSB FY 2001 budget
request seeks an increase of 25 investigative and support positions.
That suggests to me that resources are strained.
(b) If so, what would you propose to do about it?
Answer. I hope the appropriators will support the budget request. I
think NTSB should continue to seek ways to leverage its resources
through the party system and possibly through use of outside experts,
as recommended in the Rand Report.
Question 12. The recent Alaskan Airlines crash off the coast of
California highlighted how complex accident investigations have become.
There is a sense that, in terms of safety improvements, the aviation
industry has already made all of the easy or obvious improvements, and
that we are left with the more rare and complex engineering,
manufacturing and human factors problems.
(a) Does the NTSB have all of the tools available to meet the
challenges of more intricate investigations?
Answer. The NTSB is seeking an increase of 25 technical,
investigative and support position in the FY 2001 budget, and must
continue to expand its capabilities through the party system and the
use of special technical experts.
(b) Does the NTSB have the resources to keep up with new
technology?
Answer. I found that the Rand Report provided some valuable
insights into the Board's mission and work. I think the recommendation
that the Board assess laboratories, universities and independent
corporate resources to identify ways to augment NTSB expertise is an
excellent idea. I would be interested in exploring the idea of forming
independent review and assessment teams, as suggested in the Report.
(c) Is there a systematic approach for staying abreast of new
technology in place at the NTSB? If not, would you advocate one?
Answer. From my perspective outside the NTSB, it appears that the
NTSB has managed to keep pace with technologies at least in the course
of accident; however, I noted that the Rand Report says that the NTSB
approach to training--which familiarizes staff with new technologies--
is haphazard. Personnel exchanges and cross training are recommended as
some ways to improve the situation. I expect the NTSB is reviewing the
recommendations. I believe the goal of maintaining a well trained,
current staff is extremely important and I would expect to support
strategies or approaches that would produce this.
Question 13. In 1996, Congress gave the NTSB the authority to
provide assistance to families of aviation accident victims. The
specific need for one central clearinghouse for families was made clear
by the unprecedented problems surrounding the crash of TWA flight 800
in July 1996 off the coast of Long Island. Since then questions have
been raised about whether an investigative agency such as the NTSB--
with primary responsibility for figuring out the reasons for a crash--
lends itself very well or easily to a family assistance program.
(a) Do you believe that the NTSB should continue to serve as the
family assistance coordinator, or should some other agency, public or
private, be given those responsibilities?
Answer. At this stage, I understand the NTSB has established a
Family Affairs Office, separated it from the other parts of the NTSB,
and trained the experts. The staff has responded on more than 20
accidents and from all reports has functioned exceptionally
effectively. I don't see the value in removing a successful program and
transferring it to another agency that would have to start from zero to
do what the Board has done over the last few years.
(b) Would a shift of family assistance to another agency free up
limited NTSB resources for accident investigations and safety work?
Answer. No. I doubt that the resources for family assistance would
be appropriated for NTSB if the function were removed to another
agency. I am also told by the Board that removal of the office might
require more time from investigators because the other department would
not be allowed to sit in accident briefings, which the NTSB family
assistance staff do. Therefore, investigators would have to brief a
separate agency on the developments, coordinate press releases, etc.
All these things are now handled fairly easily within the NTSB.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Carol J. Carmody
Question 1. The governing statute for the National Transportation
Safety Board is silent as to the duties and responsibilities of Board
Members although the law does address membership qualification
requirements. Please describe in your own words what you believe the
two most important responsibilities and duties of a Board member are.
Answer. A Member of the Safety Board has numerous important
responsibilities to the American public, the Congress, and the
transportation industry. I believe one of the most important
responsibilities of a Board Member is to draw on his or her individual
experience, knowledge and expertise to make independent decisions
concerning various Board actions to promote transportation safety and
to ensure public confidence. To do that, a Member must consider the
facts and analysis developed through accident investigations and safety
studies, and exercise his or her own judgment when deciding on a Board
action, reviewing a party submission, or rendering an opinion or order.
I think it is also important for a Board Member to be a proactive
advocate for transportation safety. The Board has no regulatory
authority to ensure that its safety recommendations are implemented;
therefore, it is imperative that Board Members are advocates in
promoting the work of the NTSB and in persuading the recipients of its
recommendations and others who influence the implementation of safety
recommendations.
Question 2. After concerns were raised last year about excessive
Board Member travel, Chairman Hall instituted procedures and budgets
governing non-accident travel. What do you believe is a justifiable
need for foreign travel, and how should the travel budget be developed
and maintained?
Answer. As a long time federal employee, and also a political
appointee, I am sensitive to concerns about foreign travel. I believe
any travel--foreign or domestic--should have a bearing on the work of
the Board. It should contribute to, or improve the understanding of a
member in developing recommendations for improved safety, and/or it
should promote the transportation safety mandate of the Board. I know
from my time at ICAO that the United States no longer has a corner on
the market of new technology or ideas, and it may be important for
Board members to learn how other systems handle safety issues. It is
also useful for a Board member to promote the mission of the NTSB, or
to explain the role of the NTSB to others. For example, Chairman Hall
attended the ICAO Assembly in Montreal in 1998. He talked to a number
of other delegations and succeeded in an Assembly Resolution, which
urged all states to implement family assistance programs for the
families of accident victims. Without his interest and participation,
this Resolution would not have passed.
The Chairman has authority to develop the budget and I would
anticipate that would be done after consultation with the Members and
review of their requirements. Since the Chairman of the Board has
executive authority over the budget, I believe there should be close
coordination with the Chairman on travel plans.
Question 3. What guidelines covered your travel while U.S.
Ambassador to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)?
Answer. I was governed by the rules of the State Department
contained in the Foreign Affairs Manual--specifically 6FAM-100. Travel
must promote the interest of the United States and contribute to the
mission.
Question 4. While at ICAO, did any companies or organizations pay
for your travel and were any of the companies or organization parties
to ICAO accident inquiries? If the answer is yes, what was the value of
the paid travel and are you required to file reports on the accepted
travel and, if so, to whom are the reports filed?
Answer. In 1994, the International Aviation Women's Association
(IAWA) paid for my travel to Washington for a speech to their annual
meeting. The IAWA has no involvement with ICAO. The value of the paid
travel was $340. Clearance was obtained in advance from the Assistant
Secretary of State for International Organizations, and I reported the
trip and reimbursement on my Public Disclosure Form, SF 278 for that
year. All other trips were paid by the US government.
Question 5. Service on the NTSB requires a full-time commitment.
Yet NTSB submitted travel data indicate that in the past five years
Board Members spent a substantial portion of their time away from
Washington, D.C. on non-accident-related travel. What are your views
regarding the necessity for members to spend time at the headquarters?
Answer. I believe that my doing a good job will require that I
spend most of my time at headquarters and I expect to do so.
Question 6. What are the most significant safety accomplishments
you achieved during the years you served at ICAO?
Answer. My most significant accomplishment was the creation and
promotion of the ICAO safety oversight program. When I arrived at ICAO
in 1994, many countries were in an uproar over the FAA's safety
assessment program of foreign civil aviation authorities. The United
States and the United Kingdom suggested that ICAO undertake a program
to assess whether its member states were living up to ICAO standards.
Resistance to the program was widespread; difficulties were numerous.
The result after four years of effort was the adoption by the ICAO
Assembly in 1998 of a universal, mandatory safety assessment program.
Like most organizations, ICAO has a shortage of funds for its many
activities. For three consecutive years I was successful in persuading
the ICAO Council to reprogram funds from some non-critical programs to
the Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) program.
I believe all my work at ICAO has increased the safety of the
traveling public through the development, promulgation and publicizing
of international standards to promote safety and uniformity in
international civil aviation.
Question 7. The NTSB has a web site which lists speeches given by
Board Members. If confirmed, will you list all speeches and
presentations before outside groups on the site?
Answer. I usually speak from notes and not from a prepared text.
Certainly if I have a text I would make it available to the web site.
Question 8. Under the ICAO accident investigation rules, all
nations who are parties to an investigation are provided a draft copy
of the accident report for comment. Any substantive comments made which
are not agreed to by the investigating agency are appended to the final
report of the accident report. The NTSB followed a similar procedure in
the ATR Roselawn investigation. Do you believe the NTSB should consider
extending the ICAO procedures to Safety Board domestic investigations?
Answer. I understand that all parties to Board investigations are
encouraged to provide the Board with a submission outlining their views
regarding the investigation and determination of probable cause. This
information is provided to all Board Members and is made part of the
public docket. It seems this process provides the opportunity for ample
input from the parties, while leaving the analytical process in the
hands of the Board investigators.
I am not sure what deficiencies in the existing system this
proposal is intended to correct, and I would want to understand what
those are. The Rand report suggested a number of significant changes to
the process including an option for Board members to request a
technical peer review of final accident reports and safety studies. I
could commit to considering the suggestion for appending party comments
along with the other recommendations of the Rand Study.
Question 9. What, in your own words, are the two most serious
safety problems in the aviation industry, railroad industry, maritime
industry, pipeline industry, and the commercial motor carrier industry?
Answer. Aviation--Runway incursions are on the NTSB most wanted
list and have been since 1990. Runway incursions are increasing and,
without change, will continue to increase with the growing traffic.
Another critical aviation issue is explosive fuel-air mixtures in fuel
tanks. The Board had made several recommendations since the TWA 800
accident.
Railroad--Collisions at crossings between vehicles and trains are
the most serious safety threat in this area, followed by collisions
between trains. The attention to separating or closing crossings must
be continued, as should the work on electronic systems to provide
positive separation of trains.
Pipeline--The most serious threat comes from damaged or corroded
pipelines so I believe work must be done to monitor and insure the
integrity of pipelines. There is danger also to pipelines during
excavations near pipelines, so attention should be directed to training
and updated procedures.
Maritime--Judging from the accidents in the past three years,
cruise ship safety is a major concern. Immediate attention is needed to
adequate fire detection and warning devices. The failure of boaters to
equip themselves with personal flotation devices is another serious
safety issue in this area.
Commercial Motor Carrier--Fatigue is a problem in all modes of
transportation but it seems to me to be particularly acute for truck
drivers. State requirements for and oversight of truck operators is
another issue that should be reviewed. I understand the Board held a
special hearing on this subject and expects a report soon.
Question 10. Do you believe that the FAA and DOT have been
proactive in the effort to improve aviation safety? If not, what can
they both do to prevent accidents and incidents before they happen?
Answer. I think the FAA and DOT generally have responded well to
Board recommendations. One could wish the agencies had moved faster in
some areas, such as runway incursions, but I believe the high rate of
acceptance of Board recommendations indicates that the DOT and FAA are
intent on improving aviation safety.
Question 11. What is the proper relationship between the NTSB and
the aviation industry and should there be more cooperation between the
NTSB and the industry when investigating accidents, or less?
Answer. The NTSB has the statutory responsibility for investigating
the accident. I am sure this is more easily accomplished when there is
cooperation between parties. Indeed I am aware of a number of recent
collaborative efforts between the industry and the Board--for example
in the areas of press guidance and recovery of victim remains. I
believe cooperation is to be encouraged; however the NTSB is in charge
and must retain control. Inevitably there will be times when there is
friction between parties with a vested interest in the outcome and the
Board, but the Board must manage this friction and steer the
investigation to a successful outcome.
(a) Further, what is your view of the NTSB party system
investigation process?
Answer. I have not participated in an accident investigation so my
views at this stage are based on observations from the outside. The
party system seems to be eminently reasonable. First it allows the NTSB
to leverage its scarce resources. Second it makes available those
people with expertise in the subject under investigation. Third it
minimizes what the Rand study called the ``insular'' character of the
NTSB.
(b) Given your current involvement with the Air Transport
Association (ATA), what steps will you take to maintain your
objectivity in accident investigations involving ATA members?
Answer. I have consulted regularly with the ethics officers at the
NTSB since my nomination, and they have found no conflict of interest.
If confirmed. I will terminate my relationship as a consultant, and
will continue to consult with ethics officials in the future and will
be guided by their advice.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
John J. Goglia
Question 1. During your service as a Board member, you have
witnessed significant changes throughout the transportation industry.
(a) What has been the single most important safety recommendation
issued by the Board and implemented by the recommendation recipient in
the years you have served at the Board?
Answer. I do not believe I can name just one recommendation, but I
believe the recommendations aimed at the safe transportation of our
young people would be among the most important. Since 1996, the Safety
Board has issued over 60 safety recommendations to improve child
passenger safety. These recommendations focused on the dangers of air
bags to children, the importance of putting children in the back seats
of vehicles, the need for fitting stations to ensure that child safety
seats are properly installed, and increasing proper restraint use for
children between the ages of 4 and 8 years old. I believe the Board can
be proud of its work in these areas. For example, within six months of
the issuance of the safety recommendation regarding fitting stations,
Daimler Chrysler announced that it would make its child safety seat
fitting stations available to every family in America. In addition,
General Motors and the National SAFE Kids Campaign have partnered to
educate parents about the need to buckle up children by establishing a
mobile fitting station program and conducting hundreds of periodic
child safety seat inspections. These programs will save hundreds of
lives and prevent many injuries.
(b) What do you believe to be the most serious transportation risk
facing the traveling public?
Answer. It is impossible to point to just one transportation risk.
However, I believe human fatigue is one of the most widespread safety
issues in the transportation industry. Alertness is key to safe vehicle
operation, whether it be an automobile, a train, a marine vessel or an
aircraft. Human fatigue has a substantial impact on operators,
dispatchers, controllers, mechanics and all others in safety sensitive
positions.
(c) What do you think has been the most significant safety
contribution you have made in your five-year tenure?
Answer. As mentioned above, I believe fatigue is one of the most
widespread safety issues in the transportation industry. My main
contribution as a Board Member has been to highlight and focus
attention on the issue of human factors, including fatigue, in all
modes of transportation. I have conducted and participated in
workshops, helped develop recommendations, and spoken to various groups
throughout the transportation industry in order to raise awareness of
this issue.
Question 2. Secretary Rodney Slater announced several years ago
that ``Safety'' is the Department of Transportation's North Star.
(a) Given your experience at the NTSB, what has been the single
most important initiative undertaken at the Department of
Transportation to reduce transportation fatalities? Please list an
improvement for each transportation mode.
Answer. The fact that the DOT modal agencies have an average of
over an 80% acceptance rate of Safety Board recommendations is one of
the most significant indications of the work the DOT is doing to reduce
transportation related fatalities in all modes.
Since I became a Board Member in 1995, the FRA has closed 20% of
the grade crossings in the U.S. Although, I would like to see more work
being done in this area, it is a step in the direction of saving lives.
The FRA has also begun to apply modern science techniques developed by
NASA to address the issue of fatigue throughout the railroad industry.
Since Administrator Garvey took over at the FAA, there have been
renewed efforts to improving aviation safety by working together with
the Safety Board on many on-going initiatives. This is evidenced by the
new flight data recorder requirements and the commitment to enforce
hours of service regulations. Since 1990, the Safety Board has listed
runway incursions on its ``Most Wanted'' list. Although the FAA has
been working on this issue, there is still much to be accomplished
before runway incursions can be removed from the ``Most Wanted'' and I
believe this effort is one of the most important recommendations made
to the FAA that would save lives.
In the area of highway transportation safety, the NTSB is involved
with the DOT ``Partners in Progress'' initiative which is aimed at
reducing the number of alcohol-related fatalities from 16,000 per year
to 11,000 per year by 2005. In conjunction with the automobile
industry, the DOT has made significant advancements in the area of
child safety restraints.
Since taking office a year ago, Administrator Kelly Coyner has
renewed the commitment to improving pipeline safety in this country.
Excavation damage is the leading cause of pipeline accidents, and
actions to prevent those type of accidents are on the Safety Board's
``Most Wanted'' list of safety improvements. The Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA) has done considerable work on this
safety issue over the past two years. In fact, last June, RSPA and the
NTSB sponsored a symposium on excavation damage prevention. I believe
that there are several areas in which RSPA does need to make
significant improvements: (1) Pipeline operator qualification and
training requirements to ensure that those persons operating pipeline
systems are properly qualified, and (2) to require strong inspection
and testing requirements for pipelines to identify defects and damage
before they grow to critical size and fail catastrophically.
In the area of marine safety, the Coast Guard has initiated a new
program to improve port safety. The risk assessment and management
program is a response in part to recommendations the Safety Board made
on this issue following a high profile marine accident in New Orleans
in 1996.
As a Member of the Safety Board, I applaud the initiatives and
efforts undertaken by the DOT to reduce the number of transportation
fatalities. I believe there is still much to be accomplished, and I
would hope these efforts result in the implementation of safety
recommendations in a timely manner.
Question 3. As a Member of the NTSB, what changes in accident
investigation and safety recommendation procedures, if any, have you
recommended? Have those recommendations been implemented and if so,
what has been the result?
Answer. The Safety Board's investigation and safety recommendation
procedures have been in place for many years and have undergone some
minor revisions from time to time. Since I have been a Board Member,
these procedures have served the Board and the American public well,
and I have seen no need for major overhaul of the practices already in
place.
Question 4. During your tenure at the Safety Board, have you ever
found yourself in disagreement with NTSB recommendations? If so, how
did you deal with those disagreements?
Answer. When I have had a concern about the language of a safety
recommendation, I have worked with the staff and other Board Members to
reach a consensus about the final recommendation issued by the NTSB.
Question 5. During your tenure at the Safety Board, have you ever
voted against the adoption of an accident report or safety
recommendation? If so, list the instances and reasons for your
disagreement.
Answer. Since becoming a Member of the Safety Board, I have not
voted against the adoption of an accident report or safety
recommendation issued. As discussed above, I have worked with the staff
and other Board Members to reach a consensus when I have had concerns
over a Board report or recommendation.
Question 6. Board Members review the reports drafted by staff on
accidents and vote on recommendations and the statement of probable
cause contained in those reports. All votes occur in public meetings.
After the votes, the staff makes any necessary revisions and the report
goes to print.
(a) Subsequent to those votes and discussions, are you aware of any
involvement by Board Members in the preparation of the final version of
the written report as adopted by the Board? If so, how is the review
process handled and what reports were involved?
Answer. Work products presented to the Board for discussion are
sometimes changed as a result of the discussion following a Board
meeting at the request of the Board. In most cases, the Board will
trust that their requests have been followed and there is no need to
once again review an item. However, at times extensive changes are
requested and the Board does ask that the revision once again be
circulated for Board review. This was most recently done with regard to
a safety recommendation package regarding the need for video cameras on
all turbine-powered, non-experimental, non-restricted-category aircraft
that are not currently required to be equipped with a crashworthy
flight recorder device.
Board Members have recently discussed reports in a meeting, and
because of the extent of the changes have not adopted the report but
asked that it be recirculated. Examples are the report of a June 27,
1996, fire on board the Panamanian Passenger Ship Universe Explorer in
the Lynn Canal near Juneau, Alaska, and a hazardous materials accident
that occurred June 29, 1998, in Key West, Florida, involving the
transfer of cargo from a semi-trailer cargo tank to a straight-truck
cargo tank.
(b) Are all Board Members given an opportunity to review the
written report that will be published and are there any public
opportunities to review the changes made?
Answer. I do not review the written report before it is forwarded
to the printer. However, I am sure a request would be honored should
the Board Member ask to see the product. The substance of any changes
are discussed at the public meetings, and any changes are reflected in
the final report.
Question 7. NTSB accident investigations are recognized as being
thoroughly objective and comprehensive. A dedicated staff devotes
substantial effort in the preparation of accident investigation reports
and the development of safety recommendations. At the same time, the
public deserves to have the benefit of the NTSB's expertise as quickly
as possible and consequently the Safety Board has been criticized for
allowing many of its investigations to run longer than a year.
(a) What steps have you taken while at the Safety Board to shorten
the amount of time that elapses from an accident's occurrence to the
adoption of the Safety Board's report on the accident? (Please specify
any changes you have initiated by mode of investigation.)
Answer. It is important to note that accident investigations are
extremely complex and are becoming even more so. The NTSB has a small
staff that accomplishes an extraordinary amount of difficult work. I
believe that it is part of my job as a Board Member to be responsive
and timely to any issue that is presented or any Board action that is
needed to further transportation safety.
(b) Please provide a list of the accidents where you were the Board
Member on scene, the date of the accident, the date the accident
investigation report was adopted by the Safety Board, and then printed.
Answer. Fox River Grove, Illinois; Accident: October 25, 1995;
Adopted: October 29, 1996; Printed: January 22. 1997.
Silver Spring, Maryland; Accident: February 16, 1996; Adopted: June
17, 1997; Printed: October 24, 1997.
FedEx MD-11 Newark, New Jersey; Accident: July 31, 1997.
Bourbonnais, Illinois; Accident: March 15, 1999.
Question 8. Federal agencies are required by law to respond to
Safety Board recommendations within 90 days. However, there is no
similar statutory requirement for the NTSB to reply to a Federal agency
response.
(a) Once the Safety Board receives a response to a safety
recommendation from a Federal agency, how long does it take for the
NTSB to follow up in writing to an agency concerning the recommendation
response?
Answer. The Office of Safety Recommendations is providing the
response time it takes for the NTSB to follow up in writing to another
agency. I will forward this information to the Committee as soon as it
becomes available to me. I should note that I am aware that the NTSB
often exceeds the 90-day response time required of other agencies. I do
not think the Safety Board's lengthy response time is acceptable.
(b) Do you believe the NTSB should devote more time to following up
on the recommendations it issued and if so, what can be done to improve
the NTSB response rate?
Answer. Safety recommendations are the primary tool used by the
Board to motivate implementation of safety improvements, prevent future
accidents, reduce injuries and save lives. Unfortunately, the Safety
Board does take an excessive amount of time to respond to a safety
recommendation response. Chairman Jim Hall has taken steps to put more
emphasis on the development and follow-up of the Board's
recommendations and restructured some of the Board's resources to
aggressively pursue all of our recommendations. As part of that effort,
the agency's recommendation function was centralized by moving five
specialists to the Office of Safety Recommendations and
Accomplishments. These individuals no longer have collateral duties,
but focus full-time on recommendation development and implementation.
Although there are still improvements that can be made, I believe these
steps will enable the Board to respond and follow-up on safety
recommendations in a more timely manner.
Question 9. Aviation accident statistics show that general aviation
fatalities continue to outpace commercial aviation fatalities.
(a) In your opinion, what accounts for this continuing phenomenon?
Answer. Human error is the cause of the majority of aviation
accidents, whether they be general aviation or scheduled air carriers.
The general aviation accident rate has been decreasing since 1992, and
I believe this is due to the proactive efforts of the general aviation
community, the FAA, and the NTSB to better train and inform pilots.
(b) What safety programs currently underway or in the planning
stages offer potential for reducing general aviation accidents
fatalities?
Answer. We need to continue to provide easy access to accident and
safety recommendation information. Aviation briefings, meetings, and
forum can provide excellent information, and in late fiscal year 2000,
the Safety Board plans to hold a public forum on general aviation
issues. I would hope that this forum would be well attended by general
aviation pilots.
Question 10. Under the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) accident investigation rules, all nations who are parties to an
investigation are provided a draft copy of the accident report for
comment. Any substantive comments made which are not agreed to by
investigating agency are appended to the final report of the accident
report. The NTSB followed a similar procedure in the ATR Roselawn
investigation.
(a) Do you believe the NTSB should consider extending the ICAO
procedures to Safety Board domestic investigations?
Answer. ICAO rules do require that a draft copy of the analysis
portion of the report be provided to the participating States, however
the rules do not require the sharing of the analysis to the parties for
comment. The parties to a NTSB domestic investigation do have an
opportunity to contribute to the analysis phase of the report
preparation through their party submissions which are forwarded to the
Board Members and included as an addendum to the final report. The Rand
report recently considered whether the role of the parties should be
expanded to allow them to review and comment on the analysis section.
In it's report released in the fall of last year, Rand found that party
participation in the analysis phase, beyond written submissions would
only ``amplify concerns over potential or perceived conflicts of
interest inherent in the party process.'' I believe that the process
the Safety Board currently has in place is appropriate and necessary to
maintaining our independent review of transportation accidents. I
should also note that, it is my belief that extending ICAO procedures
to the Board's processing of reports would most likely further the
delay in the issuance of a final report.
(b) Aside from public speaking engagements and testimony, what
initiatives have you advanced during your ensure to broaden public
participation in NTSB safety programs?
Answer. Public speaking engagements are my primary method of
increasing public awareness and appreciation of NTSB safety programs.
In addition, I have also lead workshops, participated in interactive
programs with various universities, and met with numerous educators,
industry representatives, and government officials to further this
objective. Because the Safety Board has no regulatory authority, it is
important to participate in such activities to inform others of the
Safety Board's work and add credibility to our actions.
Question 11. During your tenure at the Board, what do you consider
your greatest contribution to promoting national transportation safety
policy?
Answer. I believe I have made many significant contributions to
transportation safety since I became a Board Member 1995. One the
contributions I find most significant is bringing an operation and
maintenance perspective to the Board. Because of my background, I
believe that I have heightened the awareness and importance of the role
maintenance plays in all modes of transportation. Significantly,
maintenance involvement in aviation accidents has increased
dramatically the past five years. Some of the other significant
contributions I have made include driving the recommendations made
concerning bird strikes, bringing attention to the disparity in airport
rescue and firefighting, and focusing attention on human factors.
Question 12. The NTSB currently has an agreement, in the form of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding
the conduct of maritime accident investigations. Please explain your
own views on the current MOU and any changes you believe are needed to
insure that maritime accidents receive complete and impartial
investigation.
Answer. My understanding of the current MOU the Safety Board has
with the Coast Guard is that the Safety Board lacks the ability to
adequately and independently review and investigate the actions of the
parties to a marine investigation. Currently, the Safety Board must
negotiate with the Coast Guard in order to be allowed to follow
established NTSB rules and procedures for accident investigations. I
support the Board's position to request changes that provide for a more
direct and independent role for the Safety Board in marine accident
investigations in order to maintain public confidence and safety. I
understand that Chairman Jim Hall and senior staff are currently in
negotiations with the Coast Guard that would lead to an MOU that would
permit the Board to conduct any investigation it believes appropriate
to improve maritime safety.