virsight hearing - Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project

Policy and direction ...
Accident investigation
TechnoloS- -.......-....
Saf€ty programs
Ad]!inistration..
Administrative law judgee
165
146
64
24
30 5
Total.....................
310
Question Aft). The C,ommittee is concerned about the
"sharo
reduction" in the Board's staff level since Fiscal
Year -1982 and requests an explanation of t}re impact o-!
the cutbacks on th-e professional and nonprofessio-nal staff
and on the Board's important functions Please also show
the FTE attritions annually since that year.
Resoonse. We share the Committ€e's concern. Enclosed
(encloiure 5t is a graphic description of the fluctuation
that the Board's staffing level has experienced in rece-nt
-Board's vears. This fluctuation has been very disruptive to the
nroductivitv and to emplovee morale. In the first
wave of ieductions bccurring in-1981, the Board made significant
reductions in its administrative and support staff.
However, reductions continued into 1982,. forcing- the
Board to implement a rather large reduction !.n force.
Overall, appioximately 60. percent of the Board's losses
have been from the professional ranks
The unrelenting pressure on key staff c-aused by increased
workload- dlmands, couplea with these reduced
etaffine levels, has resulted in a continuing loss ol easential
t€;hnical staff. The Board's stalT ie compo6ed for the
most part of highly trained technical specialists in3l! the
various transpi'rtdtion modes. Reductions in staff have
forced the Boird to eliminate the depth in most technical
specialtv areas to the point where, in some areas, there
alre onli one or two speiialists. Therefore, it is common for
investilators to be oir call 24 hours a day' seven days a
week. This is one of the reasons whv industry and other
government agencies recently have been very succeasful in
hiring the Board's technical staff.
An! additional reductions would furthe,r com-pound our
probl-em of maintaining experienced staff, and -seriouely
- ieopardize our abilitv to fulfill our statutory mandate'
In general, the siope of the Board's aciident inv€stigation
ictivity and the comprehensiveness of its aviation accident
dati base have bee-n sigrrificantly and adversely imoacted.
The resultins scope, detail and number ot our
iafetv recommendatio=ns hds been less than what could be
achidved. Also, our ability to assure the effective imple
mentation of the recommendations through aggressive,
persistent ' follow-up has been limited.
To put this in pirspective, it should be noted that-after
the slbstantial dutbi'cks in fiscal year 1982 ihe Saf,ety
Board was forced to reevaluate all of its programs. At that
time, we determined that we needed at least 34? FIE to
fulfiil our Congressional mandate Consequently we have
fl
f
t.
ti
{
i:.
f $
il
f*
*
i:
il
?a*
*