ecurity’s experience with the new inspections protocols supports our observations and those of DOT’s Inspector General that Flight Standards could benefit form the use of more structured team inspections. While certain types of security violations, such as the failure to display proper identification, may be easier to identify and document than violations by mechanics that may not be readily visible during inspections, more structured Flight Standards inspections could identify more violations. Both the Acting Deputy Manager of the Flight Standards Service and the Director of the Office of Civil Aviation Security Operations cautioned, however, that the types of inspections conducted should not be driven only by the percentage of violations detected. They stressed the importance of routine surveillance and some spot inspections in their inspection programs.-FAA’s databases for tracking inspections identify safety and security violations by indicating which parts of the Federal Aviation Regulations were violated. Thus, they generally indicate the number and type, but not the seriousness, of reported violations. According to inspectors we interviewed, the tracking systems quantify the numbers of violations but do not reflect their seriousness. Because the tracking systems do not allow FAA to distinguish major from minor violations, the agency cannot use the results of its inspections as an early warning system to identify the greatest potential risks to aviation safety and security and to target its inspections to addressing these risks.-Although FAA inspectors conduct thousands of inspections annually, not all problems or violations they observe are entered into their respective program office’s tracking system. In addition, Flight Standards allocates a large portion of FAA’s inspection resources for unstructured inspections by individuals that typically produce few reports of problems. Finally, FAA&#...
