Mr. ROSEN. No; unless there are some additional questions on that, that really answers the question.

Mr. FARY. If you think of any other explanation, you may make it part of the record by sending it in.

At one point in your testimony you describe that suspension of an airline pilot's certificate as an extreme penalty. At other points you say that the proposed increase in civil and criminal penalties I will be detrimental to the free flow of information. Is not the extreme penalty of certificate suspension a hindrance to the free flow of information?

Mr. ROSEN. I do not believe so, because I think that in the case of the information that is gained from something that could result in a certificate action, that the pilot would have an obligation to report and provide information concerning that to his employer, and by his employer to the FAA, so that what is not hanging over his head are these criminal sanctions which could be taken against him for anything that he says.

The limit would be within the administrative procedures available, and it would not involve any criminal sanction.

Mr. FARY. FAA tells us that one of the most frustrating problems that they encounter is the boarding of intoxicated passengers and that interference with crew members. The FAA claims that the airlines are willing to accept a $1,000 fine in lieu of denying boarding to a regular customer.

Would you like to see penalties for this violation increased? Mr. PRYDE. Mr. Fary, I am a 25-year captain with United. I have run into the intoxicated passenger very infrequently. I believe that the present regulations are adequate.

The safeguards, if the airline tries to board them and the crew becomes aware of it through the flight attendants or through the pilots, are that we can insure that the person is not boarded.

We have occasions that, in my view, are inadvertant, where we have passengers that come on board that do not have the look of being intoxicated, and we only discover that they are intoxicated when they become obnoxious later in the flight. I think, in most cases, these are not intentional violations and are sufficiently penalized by the present regulations. These regulations should not be changed.

Mr. FARY. Do you favor stepped-up enforcement by the FAA in lieu of increasing the penalties for violations? It seems to me that if FAA is correct in concluding that there is a problem with the violation of safety regulations, something needs to be done. If we do not increase the penalties, what do you suggest we do?

Mr. PRYDE. In our case, and again I am speaking for our organization of pilots, I do not believe that the stepped-up enforcement, first of all, would be effective, nor do I believe that it is necessary. I think, as we have indicated earlier, that the present law allows certificate action which is in most cases more than adequate to deter any violation on the part of a pilot. We have found that there are very few of our pilots who are repeat violators, particularly, the airline pilot group.

Most of our people are highly professional. They have their jobs at stake, their licenses at stake. They do not intentionally violate

regulations. The ones that we find in most cases are inadvertent violations.

Mr. FARY. Counsel, do you have any questions you wish to ask or want the gentleman to answer for purposes of the record?

Mr. FILLER. No, sir.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. If an airline pilot's certificate is suspended by FAA, does this place the pilot's job with his company in any kind of jeopardy?

Mr. PRYDE. Yes, his job can be in jeopardy. First of all, normally if there is something that occurs that is a violation, the first action normally comes from your company. They may very well ground you for some period of time for some violation, and second, if the FAA does revoke your certificate or withdraws it for a period of time, you no longer can fly. You no longer can perform the job that your company pays you for, so in most of these cases, the pilot is no longer working for the corporation for that period of time that his license is not valid. There have been some cases where the pilot has been able to take his vacation or something that would pay for a part of that time, but for the most part, when you have your license revoked or withheld for a certain period of time, you have no job either.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. You have no job after that time is up?

Mr. PRYDE. No, not normally. Normally just for the period of time. If the violation was of a sufficent nature that your corporation took action by discharging you, then you would have no job, but in most cases, the actions that we become involved with are not that serious, where there is a discharge involved as well as a certificate suspension.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. It seems that under the present system, the FAA may in the case of a single violation of a choice between a relatively small civil penalty and much more drastic action of a certain suspension, and it would seem if they feel the case is a little too severe, a little small civil penalty, they would have to go for the suspension.

Would the pilot not rather see a situation where the FAA could get a penalty of $2,000, $5,000 where they might go for that penalty instead of a suspension?

Mr. ROSEN. There is available to the FAA at this point what is called administrative action. I do not know whether you have ever seen their enforcement policy, but in cases involving minor infractions which they decide neither to take a small penalty action or take an actual suspension, all they do is write a letter of warning as to that violation. Also the FAA has the ability to charge someone with a violation and not actually suspend his certificate, but make that violation a part of the record without a commensurate suspension and loss of income, so they have a wide variety of authority within the 609 procedure to take any action, from a letter of warning all the way up to revocation.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. I do not understand, based on your answer, why there is anything that falls between a penalty and a suspension. It would seem to me that writing a letter is about the least severe thing they could do, and the more severe would be a penalty, and next in severity would be suspension. I would think there are areas of violations that, if it is bad enough so they feel a penalty would

be too small, but if they had a choice of a larger penalty, they would rather do that then suspend the certificate, and the pilot would be better off having a somewhat larger penalty than a suspension.

Mr. PRYDE. That may be the case, and particularly in the airline pilot organization. If you are suspended for a month, that is a substantial amount. That is your month's salary which can vary anywhere from $3,000 to $10,000 a month. Obviously, that would be much greater penalty than a $1,000 fine. In the private sector, for example, the person who is not utilizing a certificate to earn his income, obviously the $5,000 fine would be much greater than revoking his certificate, because he does not have to fly during the period the certificate is revoked.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. Would you not rather see the FAA have the power to impose a $2,000 fine or a $3,000 fine, so that they could use this instead of a suspension in property cases?

Mr. PRYDE. In some cases, it would be preferable, but I think the danger that we see in this legislation is that if you open that door, then you open some other doors that perhaps are more disadvantageous than that particular one.

We have had that concern among our own group. We have had that complaint from our pilot group. Why does the FAA penalize me a substantial amount when the maximum is $1,000, I get $5,000, because my whole month's salary is gone. We have had that objection from our pilot group.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. You cannot support any increase in the penalty limit, even $2,000, $3,000?

Mr. PRYDE. If it were in the proper context of the rest of the bill, perhaps we could support some higher level of penalties.

Mr. HEYMSFELD. Thank you.

Mr. FARY. Counsel?

Mr. FILLER. I want to pursue something with you, Captain. In the revocation situation, do you have any statistics for us over the last 5 years as to how many times the FAA has revoked pilots' ATP and/or type ratings?

Mr. PRYDE. I do not have with me the statistics. We can get some statistics for you and answer that question to you at a later date. Mr. FILLER. Would you agree that it is a rather rare occurrence? Mr. ROSEN. It would be a small number of cases.

Mr. FILLER. Usually resulting from perhaps a major accident? Mr. PRYDE. Yes, that is the normal case of the revocation. Mr. FILLER. Can you think offhand of any situations in which the FAA abused the revocation procedure with an airplane pilot?

Mr. PRYDE. I could think of some that have occurred as a result of accidents. That is the only ones that I am personally familiar with.

Mr. ROSEN. The only other area would be a demonstration of a lack of proficiency, where the airman was subject to reexamination by the FAA and failed to demonstrate the necessary proficiency. That might result in a revocation, but you are right, the cases are isolated, and they usually stem from accidents. It is a rarity.

Mr. FILLER. One more thing. Again on the revocation issue. Are you aware of any emergency revocation orders being issued against airline pilots.

Mr. ROSEN. I am aware of some in the past.

Mr. FILLER. Can you give us some idea of how often this happens. Mr. ROSEN. That is also a rarity.

Mr. FILLER. Would you submit that for the record.

Mr. PRYDE. We will, sir.

[The following was received for the record:]

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., October 23, 1980.

Hon. GLENN ANDERSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 7488, a bill to increase penalties for air safety violations, ALPA witnesses were asked to provide for the record the number of revocations and emergency revocations of airline pilot licenses over the past 5 years.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, there were 14 revocations of licenses for those serving as pilot-in-command of aircraft operated under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 1975 through 1979. There were five emer-gency revocations for pilots-in-command from 1970 through 1979.

Please note that these figures represent actual, as opposed to proposed revocations.

I hope this information is helpful to the Subcommittee, and we regret the delay in forwarding it to you.

Sincerely,

ROBERT I. BONITATI, Director of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. FARY. Thank you very much, counsel. That, gentlemen, will conclude your part of the testimony, and thank you for your attendance and any information you wish to submit to the committee will be made a part of the record.

Mr. PRIDE. Thank you.

Mr. FARY. Our next witness is Mr. Edward W. Stimpson, president, General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

Mr. Stimpson, the full text of your prepared statement will appear in the record at this point.

[Statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT OF EDWARD W. STIMPSON, PRESIDENT, GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

I am Edward W. Stimpson, President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. We appreciate the opportunity to testify in this matter, as its provisions would have a broad, adverse impact on our members as well as on the users and operators of our products.

This Bill proposes changes in law which would more than just raise the cost of violating, inadvertently or deliberately, FAA regulations. It would more than just adjust the levels of fines in the 1958 Federal Aviation Act to the realities of inflation in 1980. Enactment of the

Bill would break faith with the drafters of the 1958 Federal Aviation

Act and alienate those in the aviation community who strive to follow the rules both to intent and to the letter. There would be little, if any, reduction in violations nor any improvement in the safety of the aviation system as a whole.

Further, this Bill overturns a long-standing accepted philosophy set forth in Federal civil law and the Administrative Procedures Act,