ntage of violation reports, averaging 22% compared with 8% for air carrier station and hazardous materials inspections.-Security managers said that inspector’s use of the new inspection protocols resulted in more systematic, comprehensive, and consistent inspections. They also noted that Security followed up on its efforts, reviewing both the implementations of the new protocols and the new AAIRS inspection reports after 6 months. Security then provided additional guidance to inspectors, stressing the importance of reporting all violations and of differentiating clearly between violations and observations. Because the guidance was issued late in fiscal year 1996, insufficient data were available to determine the effect of the follow-up reviews and guidance on inspectors’ reporting practices. Other possible reasons for the increase in the percentage of reported violations, according to the Director of the Office of Civil Aviation Security Operations, include Security’s aggressive testing of compliance with security directives, which started in November 1995, and Security’s extension of hazardous materials inspections form large air carriers to smaller carriers and freight forwarders, whose rates of noncompliance are often higher.-While FAA does not require the use of a checklist for routine surveillance, teams are more likely than individual inspectors to use checklists or other job aids. According to FAA headquarters officials, such lists are provided by each inspector without removing the flexibility required to evaluate a repair station’s compliance. In our view, the use of a checklist or other job aids would not diminish an inspector’s flexibility during inspections but would help to ensure that comprehensive inspections are being performed. At a minimum, the use of such tools would remind inspectors to check the most safety-critical elements of a repair station of other aviation facility.-S...
