[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION: PRESENT AND FUTURE
=======================================================================
(109-82)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-652 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Columbia
SUE W. KELLY, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
TED POE, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New BOB FILNER, California
York, Vice-Chair JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia (Ex Officio)
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Chew, Russell, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 11
Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. General Accountability Office............................. 11
Elsawy, Amr A., Senior Vice President and General Manager,
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, the Mitre
Corporation.................................................... 11
Pearce, Robert, Acting Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization................................................... 11
Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Re[resentative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 8
Zinser, Todd, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Transportation..................... 11
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Riss, of Missouri................................. 41
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 109
Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., of New Jersey.......................... 155
Waters, Hon. Maxine, of California.............................. 159
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Chew, Russell................................................... 42
Dillingham, Gerald.............................................. 112
Elsawy, Amr A................................................... 146
Pearce, Robert.................................................. 42
Zinser, Todd.................................................... 164
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Chew, Russell, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration:
Responses to questions......................................... 57
Responses to questions from Rep. Costello...................... 69
Responses to questions from Rep. Pascrell...................... 76
Responses to questions from Rep. Honda......................... 84
Elsawy, Amr A., Senior Vice President and General Manager,
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, the Mitre
Corporation, responses to questions from Rep. Costello......... 150
Pearce, Robert, Acting Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization:
Responses to questions from Rep. Mica.......................... 85
Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar...................... 92
Responses to questions from Rep. Costello...................... 105
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Thompson, Gerald L., statement and responses to questions from
Rep. Costello.................................................. 184
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION: PRESENT AND FUTURE
----------
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good afternoon, and I would like to welcome
everyone to today's Subcommittee hearing of the House Aviation
Subcommittee.
The order of business today is going to be opening
statements by members; I will lead off. We have one member
witness that we will hear from.
I understand there are going to be votes at 2:30, so maybe
we can get opening statements and members' comments taken care
of, and we may even get into the introduction of our first full
panel.
So, with that, I will begin. I have got a few comments I
would like to make, and then I will yield to other members.
Of course, the topic of today's hearing is air traffic
control modernization, looking at both the present and future.
And this Subcommittee first addressed the topic of today's
hearing, air traffic control modernization, nearly a quarter of
a century ago, during the first term of the Reagan
administration, and since then the Federal Government has spent
a whopping $44 billion taxpayer money on a seemingly and
sometimes Don Quixotic quest to upgrade our Nation's air
traffic control system. However, we still have a system today
that relies on costly ground-base and sometimes 30-year-old
technology that sometimes we think might be best suited for
display in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum down the
street.
Until recently, the ATC modernization effort has been
plagued by costly overruns, scheduling delays, and
mismanagement, making this one of the worst acquisition
programs in the history of the United States Government.
However, I have a caveat and I want to take this opportunity to
commend our FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, and also give
accolades to our air traffic organization and chief operating
officer, our COO, Russell Chew, and I think we are going to
hear from him shortly, for both of their leadership.
I have said before in some of these ATC modernization
hearings, I feel like it is Groundhog Day; I keep living the
day over and over again. But they have put a halt to some of
the programs that we see in some of the dog chasing the tail,
and now we are seeing some of our modernizations gain on-time
performance and also looking at some reasonable budget costs.
However, if we can't sustain this progress and make
significant strides in modernizing the balance of our future
ATC system, then I am afraid that the next decade we may see a
meltdown of our Nation's air traffic control system. Such a
meltdown would cripple our Nation's economy, which could lose
in excess of $30 billion annually due to people and products
not reaching their destinations within the time periods that we
take for granted today.
The need for ATC modernization is paramount. FAA's recent
forecast conference could not have made it any clearer. Air
transportation demand that is coming will demand even greater
capability than we have today, of course. According to the FAA,
domestic air passenger traffic will nearly double--in fact, I
think this is wrong, I think it is going to more than double--
annually by 2015, and by 2015 we will expect, again, a doubling
in our passenger count, and by 2025 they are looking at in
excess of 1.5 billion passengers annually.
While I am dismayed that our existing ATC system may be
incapable of meeting air traffic demand in the near term, it is
in fact a testament to the 50,000 employees of the FAA that our
ATC system has been and continues to be the largest and safest
in the world. It is now averaging only one fatal accident per
five million flights, an incredible record.
In light of these significant future demands on the
national airspace system, Congress, in 2003 directed the FAA to
develop a comprehensive plan for next generation air traffic
control systems, also known as NGATS. NGATS, in essence, moves
air traffic control from earth to the sky and space by
replacing antiquated and costly ground infrastructure with
orbiting satellites, onboard automation, and data link
communications.
Under the leadership of Mr. Chew--who is, again, I think,
one of the finest public servants I have had to deal with and
most capable people in any of the Federal agencies--I have seen
this ATO plan starting to resemble a performance-based, value-
driven organization, and that is I think what Congress
envisioned. Both the GAO and the DOT Inspector General found
that the ATO has made significant progress in meeting costs,
schedule, and performance targets for its major ATC acquisition
programs.
And some of this isn't easy. There is a lot of pressure
from members not to make the consolidations, the improvements,
and gain technology, sometimes replace antiquated systems and
unneeded personnel. It is a tough fight, but he has persisted,
Marion Blakey has persisted.
I am pleased with the bold cost-cutting and productivity
initiatives the ATO has implemented on the operation side, and
I am hopeful that the transition to a satellite-based ATC
system will open up other opportunities for even more
significant, albeit politically unpopular, cost-saving
initiatives, including the consolidation of major air traffic
control facilities. The consolidation of regional offices and
the decommissioning of ground-base navigational aids can take
place without, I believe, any degradation to safety.
However, in light of political opposition to such
initiatives--and we saw some of that on the floor recently, and
it is also evidenced by the reaction to FAA's proposal to
consolidate certain radar stations or TRACONs--I believe that
we need to consider maybe another method of handling this,
since it is a political hot potato. I have gotten my hands
burned, and it is difficult for people in political office to
respond to some of these consolidations upgrades and necessary
revisions, so I am proposing that we look at a base realignment
and closure type commission, a BRAC type process, in the next
FAA reauthorization bill. Maybe it will take some of the
politics, hopefully, out of that process.
While I am pleased that the FAA's Joint Planning and
Development Office, the JPDO, has led an interagency effort
towards planning and development, and they have been successful
in establishing a time line for NGATS, I have two primary
concerns. First, the JPDO's goal of completing NGATS by 2025,
in my opinion, is too late, and that is because, again, the
dramatic growth we are seeing in air travel and that we have
expected to continue, and I see no reason for a change over the
next decade.
Despite the expenditure of, again, some $44 billion in
taxpayer dollars on ATC modernization initiatives, the GPS-
based navigation system in one of the cars I rented recently is
in fact more sophisticated than some of the 60-year-old radar
technology being used to navigate some of our aircraft today.
In light of the FAA's dismal track record on overall ATC
modernization--and, again, this spans almost three decades or
more--we need to consider increasing the role of industry as a
means of expediting the development and implementation of
NGATS.
Ironically, our European friends have adopted a more
industry-driven approach to their air traffic modernization,
called SESAR, which warrants, I think, a closer look by the
Subcommittee.
My second concern is twofold: how much will NGATS costs and
then, of course, the big question is how we are going to pay
for it. ATO estimates that NGATS will cost between $15 billion
and $18 billion. That is on top of the $44 billion we have
already spent. We will hear more about that in testimony today.
Finally, FAA also predicts that a funding gap between the
FAA's capital accounts and NGATS requirements of between $500
million to $1.2 billion will exist over the next five years.
It is important to note that most of the FAA's existing
$2.5 billion capital account, which is about half a billion
dollars short of the amount authorized by Congress, goes mostly
for existing ATC system running, not for NGATS-related programs
that we are planning.
In light of the $44 billion spent to date on ATC
modernization, we owe assurances to the American taxpayer that
NGATS will be a cost-effective system that will safely
accommodate rising air traffic demands for decades and decades
to come.
With those comments, I am pleased to recognize our Ranking
Member, Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be very brief
and put my statement in the record. We have our colleague,
Representative Waters, waiting to testify, and I know that we
have at least one or two opening statements here.
First, let me thank you for calling the hearing today. Our
air traffic system today is fundamentally based on radar
tracking and ground-based infrastructure from the 1960's. Much
of the FAA infrastructure is well passed its useful life. The
increase in regional jets, the growth of point-to-point
service, and the anticipated influx of very light jets are
placing new and different strains on the system. It has been
estimated that consumers could lose as much as $30 billion
annually if people and products cannot reach their destinations
within the time periods expected today. Modernizing and
transforming our air traffic control system is a national
priority.
Yet, despite its importance, there is a major serious
disconnect between the rhetoric and the resources being applied
to this effort. For example, funding for the FAA's ongoing
airspace redesign efforts, which is the key to enhancing
capacity and reducing airline fuel costs, have been cut by
almost 70 percent this fiscal year. For a third consecutive
year, the Administration is proposing to fund the FAA's capital
account at $2.5 billion, well below the level authorized in
VISION 100.
At the same time, this Subcommittee has been informed of
preliminary FAA data indicating that the initial capital cost
of the Next Generation System could be approximately $4 billion
more than the FAA's current five year capital plan. By starving
the FAA's capital account, the Administration is slowly setting
the transformation effort up to fail.
While the JPDO is a multi-agency effort, coordination
between JPDO and the FAA is particularly important. However,
both the GAO and the DOT Inspector General, as we will hear
today, will testify that the JPDO does not have the authority
to leverage key human and financial resources from the FAA. I
look forward to hearing and asking questions concerning whether
they believe the current level of coordination between the FAA
and JPDO is adequate. If not, Congress should consider formally
restructuring the relationship.
Going forward, we will clearly need the talent, energy, and
know-how of the American air traffic industry to develop our
Next Generation System. However, the Government must maintain
its ability to effectively manage and control its contracts.
Given the long history of cost overruns on large-scale, highly
complex air traffic acquisitions, I see the value in a phased
incremental approach. An incremental approach to acquisition
has been what the FAA Chief Operating Officer, Russ Chew, has
attempted to do within the agency, and I look forward to
hearing his testimony today.
For many years, GAO has consistently reported that failing
to involve the air traffic controllers in the technology
development process has led to costly reworks and delays. The
IG notes in his testimony that the need for focused human
factors research has important safety implications. Common
sense tells us that the people that will be using the new
technology should be involved in its development. I am very
concerned that the GAO is now reporting that no current
controllers are involved in the next generation effort. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on this issue as well.
Additionally, the JPDO success at transformation depends
largely on its ability to forge consensus with system users.
Increasingly, the aircraft itself is becoming a part of our
critical infrastructure, and airlines will be asked to make
costly investments in equipment to take advantage of our new
system. It may be time for Congress and the Administration to
engage in a discussion about providing incentives for airlines
to make the costly investments.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and I have a number of questions for them, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
especially for calling this hearing. I think this is a really
crucial issue that has to be addressed, and addressed soon.
I recall we had a hearing about 1997, 1998 to identify the
most crucial issues, and at that time it was airport capacity,
or everyone assumed it was. I differed with that and commented
that within the decade the biggest concern was fuel prices,
which in fact is what happened. I think we will be able to
resolve that problem, but not very easily.
But I do agree that the greatest problem we face at the
moment is air traffic control, and the entire system, as far as
I am concerned, has to be redone. A lot of developments will be
taking place. First of all, we can increase airport capacity
with a modern, well operated air traffic control system without
building any additional airport runways.
Secondly, with the new electronics available, we can
replace a lot of the human factor in air traffic control. But
we have to do it right. And we have to recognize the
vulnerability of that system, particularly to acts of war,
because if we develop an air traffic control system based on
satellites, we have to recognize how vulnerable the satellites
are in moments of war.
So we have a lot of things to discuss, a lot of things to
worry about, and, unfortunately, have not done well in adapting
over the decade that I have been on this Committee. And I have
seen a lot of money wasted on attempts at air traffic control
which simply haven't worked, and it is time that we zero in on
the right solution and then proceed with it.
I look forward to the testimony that we will hear, Mr.
Chairman, and I hope that we will gain enlightenment on these
subjects. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. If there are others.
Mr. Mica. Other members seek recognition? Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this
hearing. I am sorry I have another hearing as well and won't be
able to stay for the full hearing, as important as it is.
Every time we look at FAA, its mission gets more and more
complicated. It gets complicated by technology which keeps
racing ahead of us; it is complicated by 9/11 and all that
entails; and, of course, it is complicated by these aging
facilities, which become even more important to update in
relation to these other two factors.
We brag, I think justifiably, that we have the safest air
control system in the world. I believe that. But it is a labor-
intensive system, and I hope we don't forget that. That under-
describes our dependence on air traffic controllers.
We have just been through a very controversial labor
dispute in the midst of all the rest of this. It was
unfortunate that that happened. While the agency is thinking
about modernization, as it must, I certainly hope it thinks
about modernizing its labor relations as well. We need those
controllers. We need them to be the very best, as they always
have been, and it is very hard to be one of them today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, not unlike my colleagues, I thank
you and Mr. Costello for having scheduled this hearing. And in
the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I won't take but very
little time.
But for what it is worth, someone said to me the other day
that airports today have become what bus stations were 45 or 50
years ago, that is, extremely crowded, consistent delays in
takeoffs and landings, and it just brought to mind that air
traffic is going to continue to be a very significant portion
of our day-to-day living, and we need to address these problems
and hopefully assuage the discomfort and the difficulty that is
being felt by many air traffic customers and clients.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Modernization of the air traffic control system has been a
subject of inquiry by this Committee ongoing for over 20 years,
years that I chaired the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee and then the Aviation Subcommittee. In partnership
with, first, Mr. Gingrich and then Mr. Klinger, we have
vigorously overseen and inquired into the need for keeping our
air traffic control technology the best in the world and ahead
of the state of the art and ahead of the growth of aviation in
this Country for safety and for efficiency purposes.
There is a tendency to think of air traffic control as a
static activity; you put it in place and then you come back 10
years and you change it out. That is not true. FAA has
installed, Mr. Chairman, over 70,000 pieces of technology in
the past 15 years to keep ahead of the state of aviation, of
the growth of aviation, of the needs to reconcile weather with
travel and with efficiency and with effectiveness. Air traffic
control is not a snapshot but, if you will, a movie, continuous
progression over a period of time. To keep it progressing
requires research, development, testing, and funding.
The FAA, on the one hand, is criticized because it didn't
put technology in place fast enough; on the other hand because
it moved too quickly and didn't sufficiently test. I think FAA
gets it just about right. My experience over these 20-plus
years is that the FAA is very cautious, isn't going to put
anything in place until it is fully checked out, until
controllers are comfortable with the technology they are
putting in place.
And FAA has also learned something over the years: of
involving the air traffic controllers and the system
specialists who have to maintain the equipment at the very
earliest stage, as you are designing the system, not after it
is all designed, engineered and the equipment purchased or the
contracts let. But, rather, get them involved early on, as
learned with STARS, when it took way too long from the time you
push a button on the control panel for the image to appear on
the scope. You can't have a .25 second wait; you need that
information now when you have an object traveling at 500 miles
an hour, 7 miles in the air, when there is no curb to pull
over, lift up the hood and see what is going wrong.
So I appreciate all that is moving along in FAA. I used to
get a monthly report on all the systems, but FAA isn't doing
that any longer, unfortunately. The newest development is that
of the Chief Operating Officer, Russ Chew, who has had a great
career at American Airlines and has brought the advantage of
his experience in the private sector to help FAA identify
costs, the third leg of this modernization triangle that we
need to untangle. Nothing will kill modernization faster than
an underfunded system, an inadequately funded system.
We are going to need the continued modernization in order
to cope with the growth of aviation, as you, Mr. Chairman,
pointed out in your opening statement and as Ranking Member
Costello did. Very light jets, more regional jets, more point-
to-point service, shifting from short-haul, under 300 miles, to
long-haul service that is far more valuable for the airlines,
it is going to put new strains, new stresses on the system.
We have to evaluate, once again, the en route structure
that is way out of date. FAA is working on putting in place a
much more streamlined en route system, but they are way behind
in doing it; consolidating TRACONs and accommodating this
growth. And in this regard, it is important to keep in mind
that the Southern California TRACON handles more air traffic
than all of Europe combined. That is an awesome responsibility.
An awesome responsibility for us on the Subcommittee, for the
FAA to maintain that technology ahead of the growth of
aviation, to accommodate that growth.
I look forward to this hearing, the information we will
develop from it, and thank you and Mr. Costello for calling the
hearing.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Further opening statements? Mr. Petri?
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be
very brief. I just want to commend you and thank you for having
this very important hearing on a subject that has been before
this Committee for many years now. There is nothing going on as
far as the Federal role in aviation that is more important than
to get this right, and I thank you for this oversight hearing.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Additional members seek recognition?
Mr. LoBiondo?
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. As the Chairman has so ably pointed out,
we are managing an air traffic control system with technology
and procedure developed in the 1970's or before that are not
suited to the traffic demands of today. As a result, more and
more flights are delayed, thousands of gallons of fuel are
wasted, and airlines are losing money, and the flying public is
inconvenienced.
In order to keep our aviation system safe and efficient, we
need to step up our investment in the next generation of air
traffic systems. Sinking more and more money into keeping
legacy systems operational is severely undermining our ability
to make the investments we need to make in modernization. As we
move to reauthorize the trust fund next year, I look forward to
working with the Chairman and the Committee to free up money
for modernization efforts through operational savings and
creative financing methods.
Finally, as we move forward with the next generation of air
traffic control systems, I expect that the FAA's technical
center, which is located in the second congressional district
of New Jersey, will play the central role in development of
this technology. I have received assurances that will be the
case, and I intend to monitor the issue closely to ensure the
FAA follows through.
Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman for his
interest and action on this very serious issue.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.
Any other members seek recognition from the Subcommittee?
[No response.]
Mr. Mica. No further opening statements from members of our
panel.
We do have one member witness today, and we are pleased to
have joining us from California's 35th District Representative
Maxine Waters. And we will grant her the customary five
minutes.
So, welcome, and you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Costello, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Aviation. I thank you for allowing me to testify during this
hearing on ``Air Traffic Control Modernization: The Present and
the Future.''
My congressional district is home to Los Angeles
International Airport, the fifth busiest airport in the world.
It is also home to the Western Pacific Regional Office of the
FAA's Air Traffic Organization, commonly referred to as ATO.
The modernization of our Nation's air traffic control system is
of tremendous importance to me and my constituents, as well as
the millions of travelers who fly into and out of my district
every year.
The FAA is proposing to restructure the ATO and three
service areas: Eastern, Central, and Western. Under the FAA's
proposed plan, the Eastern Service Area Office would be in
Atlanta; the Central Office would be in Forth Worth; and the
Western Office would be in Seattle. The six regional offices
that would be adversely affected by this reorganization are in
Anchorage, Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, New York, and Los
Angeles. I believe that this plan represents a step backwards
in the agency's mission to provide the safest, most efficient
airspace system in the world.
The FAA maintains that the restructure will yield savings
of $360 million to $460 million over 10 years. I question these
optimistic projections. Despite requests, the FAA has failed to
disclose the analysis that support these projections.
Congress cannot assess the agency's estimates without being
given access to the full report of the ATO Structure and
Process Evaluation and proper time to review it. I would also
recommend a third-party review or audit of the projected
savings.
Under the proposed restructure, the relocated ATO employees
would spend more time in travel and less time doing their jobs.
More air travel by the ATO employees themselves would be needed
to support and administer California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Nevada projects and facilities from a Seattle office. That will
result in less work, more travel expenses, and diminished
safety margins.
Although I have seen varying estimates, approximately 400
ATO employees nationwide would be reassigned to the three new
service area offices. At least count, about 86 employees in the
Los Angeles Regional Office will be given directed
reassignments to an office 1500 miles away. Their choice will
be to leave LA or to leave the FAA.
The reorganization plan affects highly trained and
qualified employees, the FAA needs to make the national air
system as safe and as efficient as possible. It is not just
secretaries and bookkeepers affected by the restructure; civil
and electrical engineers are being given the ultimatum. These
engineers are the men and women of our government's air traffic
system who work with radars, navigation equipment,
communication systems, and other technology that keeps planes
in the air moving safely to their destinations.
Under the plan, there would be a dramatic loss of
intellectual capital from the FAA. The loss of civil and
electrical engineers who would choose early retirement or
resignation, rather than relocation, would strain the
administration of air traffic, airspace, and engineering
activities in the Western Pacific Region. This brain drain
would adversely affect the safety of the flying public.
Southern California is among the world's busiest airspaces
and serves more passengers than any other region in the United
States. Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control,
which provides radar air traffic approach control services to
all arriving and departing aircraft for most airports in
Southern California, is the busiest approach control in the
world.
Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Oakland, and Southern
California are among the fastest growing sites of air travel in
the United States. All of these airspaces and facilities are
currently served by the Los Angeles Regional Office. Under the
proposed restructure, they would all be served by Seattle.
An ATO Service Area office needs to be close to Southern
California facilities to provide immediate and expert
attention. A Service Area Office 1500 miles away will result in
neglect of these huge and critical facilities. Experience tells
us that facilities located near headquarters and regional
offices receive better programs and quicker services than
outlying facilities. Distancing the service operations away
from Los Angeles is folly.
When a controller in a tower flips a switch to turn on a
radar, that radar had better turn on. If it doesn't, someone
from the regional office had better respond quickly. Neither
the controller, the pilot, nor the air passengers will find
solace that a repair has been delayed because the closest
Service Area Office is over 1500 miles away.
In conclusion, we all know that our Nation's need for air
travel will continue to grow in the coming decades. This growth
in air traffic will require trained and experienced FAA
employees. These employees will be able to provide the best
possible service if they are located near important air travel
hubs like LAX.
Modernizing the FAA should not be done at the expense of
FAA employees or those who depend on their services. If the
Subcommittee believes that the FAA should invest more resources
in modernizing facilities and equipment, then the Subcommittee
should seek an increase in resources for the FAA. Cutting FAA
administrative services in order to increase funding for
modernization is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I would urge the members of this Subcommittee to support
the existing nine regional offices of the ATO and exercise your
oversight responsibilities to ensure that the FAA does not
implement this reduction in force. I look forward to working
with the Subcommittee on Aviation to ensure the continuing
safety and efficiency of air travel at LAX and throughout the
United States.
And I have full testimony that I will submit for the
record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the lady's entire statement
will be made part of the proceedings.
We do have about two minutes, if any members have any
questions for Ms. Waters. No?
And I will say we have looked into the issues you have
raised. We do have an initial response from FAA we will be glad
to share with you and make part of the record also.
And then also I would like to extend to you we will have
some of the people who have made these decisions on our panel.
I can ask for unanimous consent, if you would like to come back
and sit on our dias, and at the end of questions by the members
of the panel, we would be glad to have you participate.
Unfortunately, we do have about six minutes left for two
votes, so what we are going to do is we are going to recess the
hearing for 20 minutes. We will return at approximately 3:00.
At that time, I expect to see all the witnesses at attention
and ready to testify.
So the Subcommittee will stand in recess until that time.
Thank you again.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. The Subcommittee will come to order.
We do have our first panel, and that consists of Mr.
Russell Chew, Chief Operating Officer of the ATO of the Federal
Aviation Administration; Mr. Robert Pearce, Acting Director of
the Joint Planning and Development Office of FAA; Mr. Gerald
Dillingham, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the
U.S. General Accountability Office; Mr. Todd Zinser, Acting
Inspector General of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation; and Mr. Amr ElSawy, Senior Vice
President and General Manager, Center for Advanced Aviation
System Development, with The MITRE Corporation.
And I will introduce each of you now. We will hear firs
from Mr. Russell Chew, Chief Operating Officer of the ATO of
FAA.
I think most everybody has been here. If you haven't been
here before, if you have any lengthy statements or material you
would like made part of the record, please request so through
the Chair. We will give Mr. Chew a little bit more time because
he has got more to chew on.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. But the rest of you we will try to keep you to
the five minutes and then get to some questions.
So, with that, let's hear our COO, Mr. Russell Chew.
Welcome, and you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL CHEW, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC
ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ROBERT PEARCE,
ACTING DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION; GERALD
DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S.
GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; TODD ZINSER, ACTING INSPECTOR
GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; AMR A. ELSAWY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT, THE MITRE CORPORATION
Mr. Chew. Thank you. And we have submitted a more lengthy
written testimony.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Mr. Chew. Well, good afternoon, Chairman Mica, Congressman
Costello, and members of the Subcommittee. Bob Pearce and I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify about our
Nation's future air traffic system.
You have been with us every step of the way--even before
the enactment of the VISION 100 Century of Aviation Act--and we
are most grateful for your continued leadership and commitment
to this historic effort.
Bob is going to talk to you about the JPDO's vision. I am
going to talk to you about the actions we take today and how it
affects the air transportation system of tomorrow.
The Air Traffic Organization was created in 2004 as a
result of your efforts, and today we can report real results.
We are focusing on operations, costs, productivity, and sound
fiscal management, and by operating more like a well-run
business, we are able to field new technologies on time and on
budget. In fact, last year, 92 percent of our schedule goals
were met for 31 of our major programs and 97 percent of our
major acquisition programs met budget goals.
In addition to holding the line on cost, we must continue
to maximize the efficiency of today's airspace, while working
on the system of the future. Our work in the last year has
reduced fuel costs for our airline customers, increased
capacity, increased and improved safety, all while beginning
the transition to the satellite-based system of tomorrow.
In 2005, we doubled the capacity of our high altitude
airspace with a program we call DRVSM and launched a new tool
called URET--and completed that this year--that allows pilots
and controllers to maximize the airspace, predict potential
conflict between the airplanes earlier, and allow them to use
more efficient flight paths.
The increase in high altitude airspace allows us to offer
more of our airline customers access to fuel-efficient routes,
saving airlines about $5 billion over the next 10 years. That
estimate could be conservative in light of current oil prices.
Estimated savings to the aviation industry from URET in 2005
were 25 million miles in aircraft travel, and about $175
million in operating expenses.
And we have expanded Area Navigation, what we call RNAV.
Those are procedures to airports, including Atlanta, Dallas/
Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Washington-Reagan National, Washington-
Dulles, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, Reno, Cleveland, and
Ft. Lauderdale. These RNAV procedures provide flight path
guidance that is communicated directly to the aircraft's
avionic systems, requiring only minimal air traffic
instructions.
Now, this significantly reduces the routine controller-
pilot communications, allowing more time on the frequency for
pilots and controllers to handle other safety-critical flight
activities. But RNAV procedures also use more precise routes
for takeoffs and landings, which saves fuel. In fact, airlines
operating out of the world's busiest airport, Atlanta, expect
to save more than $39 million a year thanks to RNAV.
Now, we are also implementing RNP, which is Required
Navigation Performance. Now, RNP uses onboard technology that
allows pilots to fly more direct point-to-point routes. That
technology is reliable, accurate, and reaches all aspects of
the flight, departure enroute, arrival, and approach. For
example, in 2005, we partnered with Alaska Airlines to
implement new RNP procedures for their approaches at Palm
Springs International Airport, which is located in very
mountainous terrain. Now, under the previous conventional
procedures at Palm Springs, planes could not land unless the
ceiling and the visibility were at least 2300 feet in terms of
height and three miles of visibility.
With the new RNP procedure, air carriers with properly
equipped airplanes can now operate with a ceiling and
visibility as low as 734 feet and just one mile of visibility.
This lower landing minima has allowed Alaska Airlines to
``save'' 27 flights between January and November of 2005, and
these flights, which would have otherwise had to divert to
Ontario, California, had an added distance of about 70 miles.
Traffic Flow Management, what we call TFM, is the ``brain''
of the NAS and is the reason that we could handle more traffic
at our major airports in 2005 than in 2000, without the long
delays that made the summer of 2000 the worst on record. The
TFM system is the Nation's single source for capturing and
disseminating traffic information for the purposes of
coordinating traffic across the aviation community.
As the NAS is impacted by severe weather, congestion, and/
or outages, the TFM system provides timely information to our
customers to expedite traffic and minimize system delays, and
we estimate that TFM provides about $340 million in benefits to
our customers every year through delay reductions. We are also
currently introducing the new Airspace Flow Management
technology to reduce the impact of delays incurred during the
severe weather season of the summer. Now, combined with the
modernization of our en route systems, these systems will allow
for flexible routing around congestion, weather, flight
restrictions, and help controllers to automatically coordinate
flights during periods of increased workload.
The future of satellite navigation is here with Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B. ADS-B will replace
ground-based radar systems ultimately and revolutionize air
navigation and surveillance, and has the potential for broad
operational applications for both pilots and controllers. We
requested $80 million in fiscal year 2007 for the ADS-B program
and, on June 7th, Bob and other members of the FAA Joint
Resources Council approved a number of key initiatives as the
program moves forward. This transformational technology is one
of the key building blocks of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System.
Meanwhile, the ATO has continued to improve its
organizational structure, yielding considerable operational
improvements and cost savings. The ATO completed the
outsourcing of the Flight Service Stations, the largest non-
Defense outsourcing ever in the Federal Government, which will
save about $1.7 billion over ten years.
Further organizational realignments are underway, with the
ATO staff support in the nine FAA regions being consolidated
into three service areas, which we expect to result in over
$460 million in savings over the next ten years. Overall, ATO
executive staffing has been reduced by over 20 percent, and
management has been reduced by about 10 percent.
But the largest percentage reduction is occurring in the
non-safety positions. For controllers, we met our goal of 2
percent productivity improvement in the en route service unit
and a 4 percent improvement in productivity in the terminal
service unit. These achievements translated into lowering our
labor costs by 1.5 percent from 2004, even as ATO provided a
5.1 percent salary increase.
To stay on target, we needed a detailed business strategy.
Our new business score card, which we call the Strategic
Management Process, is what was fully implemented in fiscal
year 2005 and how we accomplished these. We are using the score
card to formulate our fiscal year 2008 capital budget, and the
ATO has specific initiatives to drive our operation.
There are four areas: achieving organizational excellence,
enhancing financial discipline, increasing capacity where
needed, and ensuring a viable future. The JPDO is partnering
with us on this. These goals include a well defined metric set
that have the focus of safety, efficiency, productivity, and
cost; and they are communicated to every level of our
workforce--from vice presidents to the technicians and
controllers in the field--so that everyone understands the
direction we are headed and the targets we are shooting for.
So, now, that concludes mine, and it is over to Bob for the
JPDO.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We will hear next from Robert Pearce, who is the Acting
Director of the JPDO of FAA.
Welcome, and you are recognized.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Costello,
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, under the leadership
of Transportation Secretary Mineta, FAA Administrator Blakey,
and the entire Senior Policy Committee, the JPDO announced
STARS as the focal point for coordinating transformation of the
air transportation system across the Federal Government, as
well as with the private sector. And with a strong partnership
with Russ and the entire ATO, I have great confidence that we
can achieve the kind of transformation envisioned by this
Subcommittee.
Our vision for the Next Generation System is not limited to
increased capacity. It is one which encompasses the whole
experience of the air traveler, from the moment the passenger
arrives at the curb of his departure airport to their exit from
their destination airport. So the Next Generation System
includes security, safety, efficiency, and environmental
compatibility. And as we assess the constraints facing this
system, we have found that focusing on just one aspect--air
traffic control, environment, airport security--will not get
the job done. Each element of the system is indelibly tied to
others and all must be addressed; otherwise, we shift the
problem, we don't solve it.
So the transformation will involve researching and adopting
new technologies, changes in policy, adjustments to roles and
responsibilities, and organizational change. It is important to
understand we are doing this large and complex job in a public-
private partnership. Individuals from the agencies are working
together with about 200 private sector individuals from the
newly formed NGATS Institute, and between government and
industry I think we have assembled a very incredible team.
JPDO is achieving accomplishments towards this
transformation. Last year, the JPDO brought the 2025 vision
into focus, and through careful analysis we showed we are on
track to achieve two to three times the capacity of today's
system. This year we have defined the operational concept and
enterprise architecture that adds meat to the bones of that
vision. The block-to-block, or air traffic portion, is
undergoing review right now by our stakeholders, and the curb-
to-curb version that will include security in airports is under
development right now. These documents help create a real
target for us to aim at and help organize the many technical
and policy issues that we have to face over the next several
years.
But just defining that future vision certainly is not
enough, and we have not stopped there. We have also created and
released a roadmap that lays out the pathway, including time
lines and transition sequences and so forth, that get us to the
2025 system. Based on the roadmap, we developed an initial
portfolio of modernization, research, policy efforts that need
to be performed, and we are busy adding detail to that,
including analyzing costs and benefits to that roadmap. In
fact, we are holding some investment analysis workshops with
the private sector through the Institute to make sure we better
understand the benefits and costs, and so that we can optimally
sequence the transition to NGATS.
I have to say the benefits assessments are clearly showing
that NGATS is worth the effort and will deliver enormous value
to the Nation. Last year, the JPDO conducted its first
preliminary interagency review, where it identified examples of
how interagency collaboration could really deliver next
generation capabilities now, not in the 2025.
As a result, we moved ahead with plans to accelerate
development of key NGATS projects like ADS-B and SWIM, which,
as Russ said, are in the 2007 presidential request and have
been approved through the Joint Resources Council. The re-plan
of the NASA aeronautics program also reflects the longer term
research needs of NGATS.
I would like to pause for a minute on ADS-B. As Russ
mentioned, ADS-B is a significant project for the future, and
it is intended to eventually replace radar surveillance in the
NAS with a cooperative surveillance system that is aircraft
broadcasting on their GPS defined location. Ultimately, it is a
much cheaper and more accurate system. But for it to make
sense, it is both the hardware, the avionics on the aircraft,
the transceivers on the ground, as well as the applications,
such as pilots doing self-separation between aircraft in low-
visibility conditions, that create the benefits.
And the reason I bring this up is because I think it is
instructive as to how we need to go about doing the
transformation. Fielding more capable infrastructure while
researching ever-more advanced applications is what is going to
deliver the performance and deliver the transformation. So it
is definitely a process, an evolutionary process of building a
little and delivering performance.
This year we are building on the success of that first
program review, and we have provided guidance to the agencies
and are working with them right now in the 2008 budget. Our
strategy this year is to fully understand the Federal
investment and to make sure we do the realignment and fill the
gaps that are necessary to accelerate implementation.
We are also working closely with Russ and the ATO in
restructuring the Operational Evolution Plan. This effort is
going to provide a very efficient way for Russ and I to make
sure that the FAA commitments to modernization and change are
aligned in the NGATS vision.
We are also working internationally. We have active
collaboration now with China, Japan, and Europe. NGATS has to
work globally, and we are committed to making that a reality.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the
Subcommittee on this critical endeavor. This concludes my
testimony. I look forward to comments, and thank you for the
opportunity.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Our next witness is Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues at the GAO.
I want to take just a moment to commend Mr. Dillingham and
his team of professionals at GAO for some of the work they have
done for the Subcommittee and for me recently. One of those is
the impact of the unmanned aerial systems and also very light
jets, their impact on our national airspace system, and also
for their work on reviewing the cost of airport infrastructure
projects and improvements needed to accommodate the new Airbus
380.
I do appreciate your work on those issues for me, and,
again, your fine team of professionals, and recognize you now
for your testimony. Welcome, sir.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Mr. Costello, and
members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here this
afternoon to share with you the preliminary results of our
studies of the ATO and the JPDO that you have asked us to
undertake for this Subcommittee.
With regard to the ATO, the ATO has undertaken many
initiatives to address the long delays and tremendous cost
growth that plagued the modernization program for the past two
decades. For example, ATO has instituted a revised acquisition
process that includes more senior management oversight and
accountability. As you have heard Mr. Chew say, one result of
this and other initiatives is that, for the first time in
recent history, ATO has met its goals for acquisition
performance for each of the past two years. To its credit, ATO
has also made improvements in its financial management of the
ATC modernization program.
Mr. Chew also mentioned that the ATO expects to realize
hundreds of millions of dollars through cost savings
initiatives such as consolidating regional office
administrative functions and contracting out flight service
station operations.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that, based on well-designed
business and safety cases, these types of initiatives could be
expanded to include decommissioning additional legacy
navigation aids and consolidating some air traffic control
facilities. These kinds of initiatives have the potential to
generate significant savings without compromising the safety or
efficiency of the system.
Mr. Chairman, along with the successes, there are some
challenges on the horizon for ATO. The first challenge for ATO
is that of institutionalizing the progress that has been made
in operating as a performance-based organization. This is key
to extending this progress beyond the current FAA and ATO
administration.
Second, ATO must continue to do what is necessary to meet
its established goals for costs, schedule, and performance for
its major acquisitions. And, third, ATO must ensure that it has
access to the personnel and skills that will be necessary to
implement NGATS, keeping in mind that NGATS will be one of the
Government's most comprehensive and technically complex
undertakings in recent times.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to JPDO and NGATS. The JPDO
has also made notable progress in planning for NGATS. Its
efforts have included extensive collaboration among the partner
agencies, private sector stakeholders, and the international
aviation community. The JPDO has also established a robust
suite of models to support the technical planning needed for
NGATS.
However, there are some critical issues that need to be
addressed. High on the list is the appointment of a director
for JPDO. JPDO has been without a permanent director for nearly
six months. Permanent leadership is critical to maintaining
program momentum and stakeholder commitment. Another challenge
is that JPDO lacks any real authority over agency budgets, and
largely relies on part-time and pro bono staff. This situation
could become a serious problem in the relative near term as
JPDO's need for staff and fiscal resources increases.
Mid-range technology development presents another
challenge. At this point, it is unclear which Federal agency or
private sector entity will plan, conduct, and pay for the
research to develop a given technology from a basic level to a
level that could be demonstrated in the national airspace
system.
Another challenge is the timing of the development and
refinement of the enterprise architecture. The enterprise
architecture is the blueprint for NGATS and will identify the
technologies that will constitute the system, as well as their
development and implementation sequence. It will also be the
basis for estimating the total cost of NGATS.
To date, only preliminary cost estimates are available. One
of these estimates indicates that the cost to both continue to
operate the current NAS and transition to NGATS will require an
increase of about $900 million each year over FAA's current
appropriation. This means that FAA will need a budget of at
least $15 billion each year between now and 2025. Mr. Chairman,
this could be a low estimate.
It is important that the money is available when needed.
Our work on the current modernization program has shown that
when ATC technologies receive fewer resources than called for
in the planning documents, and those resources are not made
available when needed, it was a contributing factor to
significant delays in getting the technologies into the
national airspace system, as well as significant cost
increases.
Mr. Chairman, these are all important and difficult
challenges, but because this transformation is critical to the
Nation's economic well-being, failure or significant delays in
implementation cannot be an option. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimony.
Now we will hear from Mr. Todd Zinser, Acting Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation.
Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.
Mr. Zinser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Costello, members
of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify
today and we commend the Subcommittee for holding this
important oversight hearing.
While there is considerable debate about how to finance
FAA, there is almost universal agreement that changes are
needed to meet the demand for air travel. At this
Subcommittee's request, we examined progress to date with the
JPDO. Today I will limit my testimony to three points and
request that my full statement be submitted for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Zinser. First, some perspective on FAA's fiscal year
2007 budget request and key modernization projects. FAA is
requesting $2.5 billion for its capital account, which is $50
million less than last year's request and more than $500
million less than the authorized level. This is the fourth year
that funding requests are below authorized levels. As we noted
before, increasing operating costs have crowded out the capital
account. Most of FAA's current capital account focuses on
keeping things running, not new initiatives, and only about 55
percent of the capital account actually goes for air traffic
control systems.
I would like to highlight two ongoing multi-billion dollar
projects that will be critical to the Next Generation System.
First, ERAM, with a price tag of $2.1 billion, replaces the
brain or central nervous system at facilities that manage high
altitude traffic. This year is critical for ERAM because FAA
plans to spend $1 million a day on the program, but, more
importantly, if not kept on track, there will be a cascading
impact on FAA's ability to deliver future systems.
Second is FAA's FTI program. It is an effort to replace and
reduce the cost of FAA's entire telecommunications system for
air traffic control. It has a life-cycle cost of $2.4 billion.
We have concerns about the FTI program and whether or not it
can be delivered on time. We have made recommendations to FAA
to help FTI get on track. FAA has agreed with our
recommendations and we will be following up to make sure this
important program gets done.
My second point is that while the JPDO has made progress,
considerable work remains to align agency budgets and plans.
Central to the JPDO's mission is the alignment of agency
resources. This is a complex task since each agency conducts
research for its own mission. We looked at three of the JPDO's
eight integrated product teams and found a lot of coordination,
but so far little alignment of budgets. We found product team
leaders have no authority to commit agency resources and often
have no products other than plans. The JPDO expects to do much
more in time for the fiscal year 2008 budget, but right now it
is hard to assess alignment because JPDO's progress reports do
not provide details of ongoing research projects and budgets at
other agencies.
My third point focuses on the actions needed to shift from
planning to implementation. Mr. Chairman, right now the key
questions for the JPDO to focus on what the new office can
deliver, when, and how much it will cost. Our prepared
statement outlines nine actions that we believe will help shift
JPDO initiatives from a research agenda to implementation. I
will briefly touch on a few of them.
One is leadership. The position of the JPDO director is
currently vacant. FAA needs to find the right person, a leader
whose stature and experience is commensurate with the mission
at hand. Getting to the Next Generation System is an
extraordinarily complex undertaking. I am not sure what the
appropriate analogy is--the Apollo program of the 1960's or the
Navy nuclear submarine program of the 1950's--but NGATS will
require an extraordinary effort from all of us, and it is too
important to the Nation to not apply our best talent and
effort.
Two is getting Congress reliable cost information. Last
year, the Administration promised this Subcommittee that they
would provide some clarity on the cost this year. That has not
been accomplished. This will be critical in the upcoming debate
about how to best finance FAA. Cost data is needed in three
vectors: research and development that will be needed,
adjustments to existing projects such as ERAM, and cost to
implement NGATS initiatives.
Three is developing and implementing mechanisms for
alignment. The JPDO is working with OMB to develop an
integrated budget document that provides a single business
case. As part of this, the JPDO has promised to provide OMB in
the next several months with an architecture for the Next
Generation System, as well as a list of programs and other
agency budget it intends to leverage.
Four is risk management with the Next Generation System.
Given FAA's past track record with modernization projects and
potential investments for NGATS, the JPDO and ATO need to
articulate what they intend to do differently and what skill
sets are needed. There is a lot of discussion right now in FAA
and industry about whether a lead systems integrator would be
needed to help integrate new and ongoing systems and manage the
transition. Models for a lead systems integrator vary
throughout the Government. Questions about the roles,
responsibilities, and costs would need to be examined for such
an approach.
Mr. Chairman, once requirements have been established, the
JPDO will have to put together a focused human factors effort
that integrates NASA and FAA human factors research. And that
concludes my statement, and we would be happy to answer any
questions that the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We will hear from our last witness, Mr. Amr ElSawy, Senior
Vice President and General Manager for the Center for Advanced
Aviation System Development with the MITRE Corporation.
Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.
Mr. ElSawy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Costello, members
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me. I have submitted a
statement I would ask to be included for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. ElSawy. Mr. Chairman, in addressing the Committee
today, I will focus on the opportunities that lie ahead for the
JPDO efforts and how they have the potential for changing the
way that air traffic management services are provided in the
United States and around the world. Specifically, I want to
address how those changes would be reflected in the
architecture of today's system and what we must do now to plan
for the transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System.
Any updates that we make to the architecture of an
operational system require coordination and synchronization of
changes that involve people, procedures, and systems. We must
have a clear understanding of the capital and the operating
costs related to the implementation of those changes, and
today, in an era of limited resources and increasing demand, we
must also understand, as we have heard from the other
witnesses, the resultant productivity, cost, safety, capacity,
and efficiency benefits.
The changes that are needed to address the projected future
demands on the air transportation systems cannot and will not
happen all at once. History has taught us that ``big bang''
approaches of the planning and development of systems do not
succeed, and that those responsible for the operation must
drive the change to the future.
For example, NASA's aviation research programs and results
will need to be ready to transition into an FAA development
program that is adequately funded to mature the research and
work with industry on operational integration. The FAA must
have a clear understanding of the readiness of the research
results and a serious, funded, plan for the inclusion of that
research into an operational safety-critical system. Any gaps
in the handoff between the research and implementation will
significantly undermine the success of the JPDO initiative.
Today, traffic levels and delays have returned to levels
seen prior to September 11th of 2001 in many areas of the
Country. Those areas include airports in Chicago, Atlanta,
Washington area, New York area, Las Vegas, South Florida. There
have also been increases in traffic in smaller airports in many
areas of the Country.
Beyond this year, commercial and general aviation will
continue to see changes. The NAS will likely continue to see
traffic growth, changes in traffic patterns between major
airports and metropolitan areas, and changes in the mix of
aircraft that make up the traffic. In addition, unmanned
aircraft systems, very light jets, and commercial space
launches will need to be accommodated in the future NAS, each
bringing its own challenges for the operation of airspace,
controller workload, and system complexity. Projections
developed by DOT, FAA, and MITRE indicate that, by 2013, 16
airports and 7 metropolitan areas will need additional capacity
to meet the expected demand.
In order to meet the needs of this dynamic marketplace, the
FAA and the aviation community need to reach rapid consensus on
the key enabling capabilities and to implement changes in
technology, procedures, avionics, and policy that can,
together, increase operational efficiency and productivity.
We believe that the following actions are the foundation
for the Next Generation System and should be funded and started
now:
First, to take advantage of aircraft capabilities and
avionics to implement the FAA's roadmap for performance-based
navigation. This is a significant change because it is
equivalent to adding precise navigation lanes in the sky
without requiring additional ground-based equipment. Mr. Chew
talked about the importance of RNAV and RNP.
Second, accelerate the implementation of the airspace
changes to be more flexible and to accommodate the expected
growth in traffic and new airspace users such as unmanned
aircraft systems. Again, this has the real effect of
streamlining traffic flows into congestion areas and providing
more efficient arrival and departure paths for all users. Small
investments by the FAA result in a significant benefit for the
users and the system as a whole.
Third, emphasize the enhancement of automation and decision
support tools to enable controllers to handle more traffic by
presenting them with automated conflict-free problem
resolutions, thereby increasing system capacity and
productivity and improving safety and the quality of service
provided to the customers. With the on-schedule completion of
the software development of the En Route Automation System, now
is the time to plan and fund the next increment of the
automation capabilities and NGATS extension.
Third, to develop a firm plan for the implementation of
air-to-ground data link that will enable controllers and pilots
and their respective ground and onboard aircraft automation
systems to exchange digital messages that yield efficiency,
productivity, and safety improvements.
Fourth is to improve the traffic management capabilities
that Mr. Chew talked about.
Fifth, to transition to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast system.
Sixth, to use advanced simulation technologies to train the
new controller workforce.
Seventh, to maintain a strategic view of the investment in
airport infrastructure and runways.
And, finally, to develop and implement policies that enable
improved access to airports through the use of modern and
improved avionics and procedures instead of ground-based
infrastructures.
Mr. Chairman, these actions will position us to meet the
increasing demand and improve the overall productivity and
efficiency of the system. Implementing these changes will keep
the United States as innovators and leaders of the global
aviation community.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank you, and I thank all of our panel of
witnesses. We will turn to some questions now, and I had
offered to let Mrs. Kelly go first. She is ready. Mrs. Kelly?
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Mr. Chew and Mr. Pearce. I want to talk
with you about a serious concern that I have with the FAA's
treatment of Stewart International Airport in my district. A
new tower came online last Friday. We have been waiting a long
time for this new tower, and I appreciate the FAA's assistance
in making that happen.
What I can't appreciate, however, was the FAA's decision to
tell Stewart officials last week they couldn't take the radar
they have from the old tower and put it in the new tower. Since
then, the controllers in the new tower at Stewart have been
landing planes with no radar whatsoever because of a glitch in
the software of the new radar system.
An air traffic controller up in New York is quoted in our
local newspapers as saying the action by the FAA was, and I
quote, ``asinine.''
To refresh your memory, Mr. Chew, the FAA itself decided to
install the TARDIS radar system in the Stewart tower after they
had conducted a special evaluation of the airport's needs in
November of 1999. Following that, the DOT Inspector General
examined the FAA's actions and determined that TARDIS was
assisting the controllers at Stewart. This recent decision has
put us in a situation where the FAA is prohibiting the use of
equipment, onsite equipment that they themselves installed and
the IG has said assists our controllers at Stewart. I think it
is absurd, Mr. Chew.
So while we are having a hearing down here in Washington
about FAA's plans for the future, back in my district the FAA
has forced Stewart Airport to return to the past, back to the
pre-1999 radar standards in the air traffic control tower, back
to binoculars. Can we end this stalemate right now? Can the FAA
give Stewart Airport and its controllers the permission that
they need today to move the radar system from the old tower to
the new tower until they get what they need in the new radar
system from you later this year?
Mr. Chew. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Kelly. That was easy. Mr. Chew, I hope you really mean
that.
Mr. Chew. I do.
Mrs. Kelly. I would have preferred to have gotten that
confirmation last week, when I wrote a letter to the FAA, but I
do appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Chew. I don't want to impugn the people who are trying
to make those decisions. When we found that the software glitch
that you spoke of would take several months to rectify, that is
when the decision was changed. But we do appreciate the
situation that Stewart is in, and we will support that.
Mrs. Kelly. I am somewhat concerned still about the time
line for the new radar system that is coming online. The RACD-2
was supposed to be delivered and installed before that new
tower was opened, and I know they held back on opening the new
tower, hoping that system would be in.
Now, since you will now allow us to move the TARDIS system
there, I hope that the airport officials will be hearing that
it won't be until November that we get that new system. I want
to make sure that the FAA doesn't use the existence of this
TARDIS as an excuse to push back the delivery date for the
RACD-2. I think that is very important for the safety of our
people at Stewart.
Mr. Chew. Yes. In fact, it was the desire to move ahead to
the new system that was really the original genesis for saying
let's not move the old system. So I will get an answer for you
for that and we will get back to you.
Mrs. Kelly. As soon as possible, I think that will be
helpful. But if you will allow us to move the TARDIS system,
that is a big plus, and I am very grateful for your answer of
yes. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. She quit while she was ahead, huh?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. Mr. ElSawy, let me ask you a few questions,
please. There has been a lot of discussion, both the Chairman
mentioned in his opening statement and others have talked about
the comparison between the design and implementation of the
Next Generation system versus what is going on in Europe. So
tell me, in your judgment, are we behind what they are doing,
as far as design and implementation in Europe? Can you make the
comparison for us?
Mr. ElSawy. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I think the short
answer is no. If you think about progress and how we are making
progress, it is really made through implementation of
capabilities And let me just take you through where we are in
the United States.
First of all, GPS. Satellites are up, they are running. We
have one of the most accurate augmentation systems in the world
providing global coverage and enabling access to over 5,000
airports in the United States, providing access to rural
communities. That is unique to the United States. Other
countries are trying to emulate and copy that, which I think is
going to be very effective for reducing the cost of the
infrastructure in the future.
The implementation of the airspace changes, the RNAV, RNP
implementations that are going on today; the implementation of
the conflict probe in 20 centers in the United States is first
in the world and the decision to move ahead with the
implementation of ADS-B to allow a completely different
generation of applications to be implemented; the way that we
run traffic based upon VFR capacities in the airports versus
IFR capacities; the cost of our system.
In short, I think that we are making a lot of progress in
building the foundations necessary for the future. The
Europeans are in fact ahead in terms of building a governance
structure to manage their planning activities, but I don't
think that in terms of implementation that they are ahead.
Mr. Costello. Thank you. The corporation that you work for
made an analysis of our Government using an LSI, and I wonder
if you might talk a little bit about the analysis that your
corporation did and the potential risk associated with using an
LSI and what recommendations that you would have should the
Government decide to go in that direction.
Mr. ElSawy. Certainly. Thank you.
Let me just refer to my notes. A couple of points I think
are very important. In looking at complex acquisitions, we
realize that, as we looked at acquisitions across the
Government, a couple of things characterized failed programs:
certainly, that the requirements were unrealistic, too complex,
or too rigid and unstable; that there was a lack of operating
systems engineering and architecture established; that there
was insufficient weight given to the prior performance in
contractor selection; there was an insufficient commitment to
ensure adequate and stable funding; and that program management
did not adequately anticipate risk.
And we believe that successful programs, first of all,
require a strong government program office that is capable of
having a peer relationship with the prime contractor or the
systems engineering and program management; there has to be
careful attention paid to foundational elements, including the
architecture and the standards; and there has to be an emphasis
on risk management and risk reduction.
The bottom line is that the Government really cannot and is
unable to transfer its risk to a lead systems integrator or
prime systems integrator. The Government has to know what it
wants specifically. The successes that you have mentioned in
the FAA, whether it is in the free flight program with the
implementation of URET or the traffic management advisory
system or the implementation of ERAM, really demonstrate that
you have to know what it is that you want, you have to be able
to manage the risk, you have to maintain the requirements, and
you have to have strong government oversight.
So, without those things, I don't think any model would
work, and certainly the LSI model, as we have seen around the
Government and the DOD, has lots of issues. My understanding is
that DOD is also going to complete a comprehensive analysis of
their experience, which will be available in September of 2006.
Mr. Costello. In your written testimony you call upon the
FAA to accelerate their implementation of airspace changes. You
heard me and others talk about the 70 percent cut in the
airspace redesign program. I wonder if you might talk a little
bit about the, in terms of potential capacity, the benefits in
fuel savings for airlines, how significant is the FAA airspace
realignment or redesign program and how significant are the
setbacks, taking into consideration the 70 percent funding
cuts?
Mr. ElSawy. And I think that, again, without referring to
specific programs, we believe that the airspace changes are
probably perhaps among the single most important changes and
the cheapest changes that can be done to the system, because an
efficient airspace structure enables runways to be used more
efficiently; enables departure and arrival routes to be
established more efficiently.
As we have seen in Atlanta, it enables us to implement new
procedures and to, in fact, coordinate the traffic flows in and
out of major areas. Los Angeles was the same way. Florida, the
Florida airspace optimization project was a perfect example
where, with changes in procedure and airspace structure, small
investments by the FAA yielded tremendous investments and
benefits to the specific airlines.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a few other questions for the other
panelists, but I have run out of time, so hopefully you will
come back for a second round.
Mr. Mica. OK. We will come back.
Let me pop a few out here.
I heard some different figures on cost. Two critical things
in all of us getting to more modern system in the next
generation is cost. I think--well, one of the witnesses was
talking about $900 million additional dollars. Was that
Dillingham? Fifteen billion dollars over--and that was supposed
to be a low estimate. That is correct? What does that get us
and where does that get us?
And then after you, Mr. Chew.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I think I should preface my
comments by saying right now all of these estimates are soft,
to say the least. What is missing is the enterprise
architecture, which is due out soon, which will in fact tell us
what kind of technologies are going to be involved and give us
a better handle on costs.
Mr. Mica. So you are just guessing about a billion more a
year.
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are not guessing, we are reporting
what some studies have in fact said.
Mr. Mica. Does that give you a full architecture to begin
implementing next----
Mr. Dillingham. You need a full architecture to be getting
closer to a cost that you can count on. I don't think FAA or
JPDO would stand behind any numbers at this point. And when I
said it was a low cost, even those low estimates aren't
including some of the things that would normally be included.
So the need to have these workshops that they are planning over
the rest of the summer will be also part of the input that goes
into it. But clearly it is going to be an expensive
proposition.
Mr. Mica. So we talked about some implementation, 15 and
6--we might do it by 2021 as opposed to 25? Is that in this
calculation or is that just a coincidence, the 15 years you
picked?
Mr. Dillingham. I am sorry, I am not sure what you are
referring to.
Mr. Mica. I thought you said it would take about 15 years,
about $15 billion.
Mr. Dillingham. That is the schedule for the end of NGATS
or NGATS being in place. Of course, as soon as NGATS is in
place, the next NGATS is going to start as well. So that is
just a time frame, and with that an annual $15 billion.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chew, people are accusing you of robbing
Peter to pay Paul with really not much money. Right now, very
small amounts or no money is going into sort of Next Generation
and some of these other projects. Actually, we cited two. We
are, what, $2.4 billion, $2.5 billion capital. How do you
respond to those charges? And then--obviously, this is going to
take more money, and we don't know exactly how much. That has
been testified to. And at some point you are going to have to
come up and tell us how we are going to get there. But
obviously that is going to take significant additional capital
contribution. Do you want to comment?
Mr. Chew. Yes. As far as robbing Peter to pay Paul--I will
take that part first--it is important to note that one of the
things we have done since we started the ATO was to do a very
complete review of our major capital programs. We have, in
fact, reviewed over 60 of them. That review has caused us to
cancel and restructure the capital programs to a savings in the
last two years in capital of over $450 million.
It is very important that when we invest in NGATS, when we
want to reach goals, that those goals are clear and simple. The
worst thing we could do is invest in the wrong thing. We need
to invest in the right thing. That means we have to make those
investments carefully. And we don't want to make them just
because we think it might be a good idea; we need JPDO to help
us prove that it is the right idea. And once we do that, what
we are doing now--and what you will hear about next week from
the Administrator--is we are going to build a plan to get from
the current national aviation system to NGATS; and that is a
plan with milestones and achievements based upon the
capabilities that the JPDO sets before us.
But we have to understand that the emerging new markets,
things like very light jets, the UAVs, will add some
uncertainty to that number. So I think what we will end up
providing you in the long run is probably a number with some
uncertainty around it, maybe a range of numbers. Is it going to
be expensive? Yes. But can we economize on many of the current
programs we have today? Yes.
But the one thing about this architecture is this
architecture has to be complete. It has to include not just the
next generation system, it also has to include what we are
doing with our old generation system. And as you mentioned
before, it has to include the plan of how many people and
facilities it is going to take to actually execute this over
the next 20 years.
Mr. Mica. Just for the record, I didn't mean to be critical
of you, I wanted to just throw out some of the criticisms I
have heard and that have been lodged against FAA and your
actions, because from the first day you took office I asked you
to do exactly what you did, make those critical decisions, call
a halt to the dog chasing its tail with these developmental
programs that didn't go anywhere, the huge amounts of money we
were spending and not getting hardware and tangible results
for. So you have done an excellent job in that regard. I just
have to put that caveat in there.
My final question, and I do want to yield to other members.
Mr. Pearce, push-backs, have you seen any? Your success
depends on a whole bunch of agencies working together. What is
the real story? Are we getting any push-backs? Be honest. Whole
truth, nothing but the truth.
Mr. Pearce. It is a very complex undertaking. We have made
the most progress in really defining what I would say the core
NAS transformation, the ATC elements and so forth, and I think
we have developed an extremely good working relationship with
sort of the home organization, FAA, and understanding. In fact,
the reason----
Mr. Mica. But you don't have any real teeth yet. This is
the low hanging fruit, and to get to where there are hard
decisions----
Mr. Pearce. Absolutely. What we need to do and what we are
doing is in fact laying out the architecture, laying out the
kind of putting the roadmap in place, and then, with the
ability we have, holding people accountable to those objective
documents. So that is what we are working in cooperation with
the agencies, and we are not getting push-back.
I would say that what we need is perhaps to move a little
faster with more application of people and other resources from
the agencies so that we can get that document, those analyses
in place. But we are not getting push-back on the process or
push-back on the need or the willingness to align once that is
in place.
Mr. Mica. Well, I can't get into the European model, but if
we have another round, I have some more questions.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess, first, Mr. Chew. First, your reviews here look
like we are starting to change direction on acquisition. That
is good. And as you perhaps have heard, I mean, for years I
have always said there is only one agency worse than the
Pentagon at acquisition, and that was the FAA. And perhaps now
you are at least up to their level, and maybe hopefully better.
So that is a good, promising sign.
When are we going to get a nomination or director for JPDO?
It sounds like that is absolutely critical. Is there no one in
the whole wide world here? I mean, it has been six months. What
is going on?
Mr. Chew. Yes. It is hard to get the right person. However,
I am pleased to say that we are well along that process. In
fact, I am conducting three interviews this week on this very
position. So I think that we had a false start in the
beginning. Somebody who we thought was possibly very interested
didn't work out at the very last minute, so we lost some time
there. But I think we are going to be very, very close here; we
have some good candidates on the block and with at least three
to six interviews coming up over the next three weeks, I think
we are going to be able to move quickly.
Mr. DeFazio. On STARS, my understanding is the original
plan was 170 sites, and you are apparently now limiting, or at
least in the short-term, deployment to 60 sites. What is going
to happen to the other 110 sites?
Mr. Chew. Each one of those locations, as they--we don't
want to change the system just to change it, but as they come
up for a need to change, that is when we consider whether or
not that facility should be changed or should be included in a
nearby facility that may already have a STARS system. So there
is considerable improvement in both reliability of the system
and the backup systems if in fact we do some of what has been
termed co-locations or consolidations of terminal radar
facilities.
So those are actually done on a case-by-case basis and
through a very rigorous process of scrutiny on exactly what
that would mean. So that is what those systems would be. And,
in fact, if that system came up for replacement and it was
determined that either the adjacent facility was too far or
wouldn't work very well, then it would be--we would actually
have to deploy a STARS system to that location.
Mr. DeFazio. So you mean came up, meaning where they were
on the schedule for deployment of STARS, is that what you mean?
Because most of these people are working without modern
equipment, as far as I know.
Mr. Chew. No, it is actually a combination of capacity, the
maintainability of the system that is currently there, how much
traffic they actually run, and whether that system that is
currently there really needs to be changed or whether it is
very reliable, even in its current state.
Actually, the current radar systems that we have in all the
terminal facilities are not one system, they are in various
states of being modernized; some have new processors, some have
new back room displays and some have new front room displays.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. So we are not buying vacuum tubes from
Eastern Europe any more?
Mr. Chew. No. Thankfully, we are not doing that any more.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I am glad to hear that.
One last question. And I understand that there is a
problem, and it might not--I guess I could both have Mr. Zinser
address this and you, but apparently the new communications
contract is not going well. I understand that we had some
significant disruption in Chicago because of a failure of what
seems to me like a fairly simple thing, which is
telecommunications. I understand we have some DOD contractor
involved in doing that and are not using one of the operating
companies. So what is going on there?
Perhaps Mr. Zinser raised whatever concerns he might have
about that and then you could respond.
Mr. Zinser?
Mr. Zinser. Yes, sir. I think you are referring to the FTI
program.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Zinser. In the report we issued, the main point that we
were making is that the project is schedule-driven, that is, it
is a significant logistical undertaking. In our view, the FAA
and the contractor were not implementing a schedule that was
going to actually result in all the cost-savings that they had
projected. There are four parts to it: there is installing the
new equipment, accepting the new equipment at each site,
cutting over to the new equipment from the old, and then
disconnecting the old. They were planning out the first and
second part on basically a quarterly basis, and there were some
coordination problems with the old system and it was falling
behind schedule. And if you fall behind schedule on a project
like this, you are not going to get the expected cost savings.
The service disruptions that you are referring to did occur
on particular sites, and we have a review going on that right
now to kind of drill down on those and see what is happening.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Chew?
Mr. Chew. Yes. In fact, out of our new scrutiny that we
placed on these projects, it was very good that not only did we
discover this very early in the process of the cut-overs, but
we appreciate the Inspector General's help, actually, in
identifying some of these areas we need to look at.
Let me just mention two things there. One is that the
schedule of installation was very aggressive. The good news is
that was a fixed price contract, so the contractor doesn't get
paid until the new service is accepted at the site. But the
savings doesn't come until we quit having two services and we
disconnect the new service--connect the new service and
disconnect the old service.
So the good news on the new service acceptances is that we
are not only at, but we have now exceeded our 700 level per
month on acceptance. So the field is in fact ramping up and we
are very happy with that result so far.
The disconnects are more difficult, and the original
disconnect schedule was not based on cost-savings, it was based
on convenience. So we are reordering the disconnect so that we
can get the savings earlier. And on that I am happy to report
that we have also been auditing this with our new finance
department at ATO, and I am very happy to say that so far the
savings that we projected for this program actually--and it is
a small sample size, so we don't know how the average will end
up, but are actually as good or better than we project.
So I think that the taxpayer will be very pleased as this
recovery plan rolls out, and given what I have seen, I think we
can expect the savings that we see and the recovery plan, I
think, is on track. The next two months are critical for us,
and we are very, very focused on getting this thing back on
track.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hayes. [Presiding] Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chew, I was very impressed with your very rapid,
affirmative response to Mrs. Kelly's question, and so it is
very tempting for me to ask for the use of an FAA plane and
instructor so I can get my instrument rating.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers. But, of course, I won't do that, because that
would not be proper.
Let me, first of all, say that this is one of the most
upbeat hearings I have had on this topic. I have endured some
terrible hearings over the past decade on precisely this issue,
and I think, from everything I hear, I believe you are getting
a handle on it, and it sounds like it is progressing well. I am
very concerned about the lack of funding for the FAA at the
current time, and I am very worried about starving the FAA and
not permitting them to do a good job on this, because I believe
it is absolutely crucial.
And having made those editorial comments, I have very
little other to ask, because my questions are primarily
technical, and it would be more suitable to get those answered
in a briefing, rather than take up the time of everyone here.
So, with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, with the
understanding that, at some other time, I will take up my
questions with you separately.
Mr. Hayes. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
Mr. Matheson is recognized.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know Mr. Costello talked a little bit earlier about the
funding of the airspace design, the situation with the funding
there, and wanted to get a sense from you of the impacts of
this funding shortfall and how it is affecting schedule. And I
was interested--and I know if you are going to be able to
answer specifics--how that is affecting the process that has
been going on for a number of years now regarding the FAA
looking at airspace design in terms of the Northern Utah
Airspace Initiative, something started about five, actually,
six years ago.
First, I want to thank the FAA for briefing my staff on
this in May. It was very helpful to get some information on the
project. This is a project where the FAA has proposed a
scenario, put it out for comment. A couple of major airlines
have expressed concerns about the design, as has the Salt Lake
City Airport Authority. It is my understanding that the FAA, in
response to the Salt Lake City Airport's alternative proposal,
engaged MITRE Corporation to do a study to look at the Salt
Lake City Airport proposal, and I am wondering if you know what
the status is, where that MITRE study is, and if there is an
opportunity to review the MITRE study.
Mr. Chew. I apologize, I don't have that at hand, but I
would be happy to make sure that gets to you so we can initiate
a discussion on what can be done.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that. When we had--when my staff
was briefed by the FAA, one thing we were told is that the FAA
was in something called a strategic pause and would know what
the next steps of this overall process were going to be some
time in the second week of June. And I have also heard from the
Salt Lake Airport that they have received some conflicting
information about the timing of the status of the project. So
with these funding issues in doubt, I am wondering if you do
have a sense of what the status of the project is or schedule,
if there is any insight you can offer there.
Mr. Chew. Well, I think the only insight I can offer is
that, as was mentioned before, the airspace redesign projects,
while they may involve some new displays and things, and so
there is some capital or F&E budget requirement, most of it is
funded by the operating budget. And as we all know, there were
priorities in the recision that gave us some pause about which
ones we could fund this year.
Now, I will say that those projects that got pushed to the
lower part of the priority and that were suffering delays from
this year are back on the docket for doing it in 2007, and our
submission of a budget in 2007 is meant to put those back on
track. Most all the analytical work was already done for those;
it was implementation money and training and these things that
are part of the operating budget.
So if there is any delay, and I am not sure that is the
case, but assuming that there is a delay, my expectation is,
given our budget climate for 2007 and what our operating budget
looks like, if we get our request and there isn't any kind of
unanticipated recision of some kind that is needed, that we can
put these back on track.
Mr. Matheson. I think that the one item I would leave with
you is that I am anxious to make sure that the FAA, even though
it came up with its original proposal for design, is willing to
consider alternative proposals by either the airport authority
local groups that would make traffic flow more efficient but at
the same time avoid noise impacts over wilderness areas, which
the concern about the current proposal and play, let alone
densely populated areas under the FAA's proposal. So I would
certainly encourage that openness.
I have some specifics that are probably better for me to
give you in written form, just like Dr. Ehlers, so if I could
just submit some written questions to you as well, I will yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. [Presiding] Thank you.
And Mr. Costello moves that we keep the record open for at
least a period of two weeks for additional questions to be
submitted, and we would appreciate response from the panelists.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chew--thank all of you all for being here.
Sorry I missed the early part--if you had to prioritize the top
two or three ATC modernization upgrades the FAA can make over
the next three to five years, what would those be?
Mr. Chew. I think we are doing them, actually. It was
mentioned by Mr. Zinser that ERAM was an important program for
us to watch. ERAM, or En Route Automation, will become our
future platform for what is the real brain, the guts of how we
keep airplanes separated today.
Now, the good news is that has been somewhat modularized,
so it is on schedule and, in fact, may be slightly under-budget
right now. So we are very, very focused on that program and
deploying that one, and we don't want to impose new
requirements on it as they come up or that program could
suffer. So what we are doing is, as we look at what is planned
for the future, we are looking at what phases of the post-
initial deployment will be needed for that.
FTI is another one, because we have program alongside ADS-B
in modernization that we call the Systemwide Information
Management System. That, in fact, is this notion of information
sharing, much like the Internet of today. FTI is not just
important from a cost-saving perspective. FTI lays down the
infrastructure for the Internet for aviation system, which
would connect airplanes and airlines and business jets and even
general aviation into the system.
And once you plug that into the system, we can create
applications that are valuable to making the system running
better and create it better for the customer using the system.
So I think that is a very--not only getting FTI on track, but
being able to make use of that FTI system with the new
Systemwide Information Management System, what we call SWIM.
So those two programs are very important, along with FTI,
and those are not only on our radar screen, we are monitoring
those very, very carefully.
All of our programs are part and parcel to what is
happening with that. With ADS-B on the horizon, we have retimed
and scaled back our future long-term radar needs, because we
believe that as we develop those requirements over the next
year, ADS-B, that program will tell us exactly how many radars
we will need in the future, if any. And I suspect there will
always be something there, at least for the next 10 or 15
years. But all those programs are working in concert with each
other, and an integrated plan of how that all fits together,
along with how many facilities we will have, things like that,
is part of all of our focus with JPDO and further. So I would
put those three up at the front.
Mr. Hayes. Having said all that, that is a lot of good
expensive cockpit management, sophisticated equipment. What
happens to the VFR guy in all this? What are your long-range
plans for VFR and those good folks?
Mr. Chew. Well, the VFR and the general aviation customer
is extremely important to us and the growth of that industry.
We don't anticipate that some of these very, very difficult and
very high-tech requirements will be required by every airplane
in the system, because there will be need for some of these VFR
airplane, whether it is for recreational use or non-
recreational use, to have use of airspace without those
constraints. It is the really, really busy metropolitan areas
that will become the most constrained, and they are the ones,
and those areas, that will need the most technology and
modernization to be applied to it.
So we see differing requirements for different segments of
aviation.
Mr. Hayes. So VFR will still be a big part of what you do
and not going to be phased out as a result of--a lot of this
high-tech equipment keeps your head down in the cockpit, which
is not always a good thing.
Mr. Chairman, they didn't announce they were opening Reagan
National before I got here, did they?
Mr. Mica. No, but one thing that hasn't been announced, but
we will be having a meeting that we talked about, and I think
it will be around the 17th, not the first week we get back, and
we will have two of the three principals committed to talk
about that and some other pending issues.
Mr. Hayes. I want to make sure I didn't miss it. I thank
you and I yield back my time.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Costello, did you want to take a quick shot?
Mr. Costello. Well, Mr. Oberstar is coming in. Let me just
ask----
Mr. Mica. Well, we could adjourn now.
Mr. Costello.--a couple of quick questions.
We could, but I don't think that would be a good idea.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. Mr. Zinser, let me say that in your prepared
statement you note that you have seen cost estimates and we
know that the JPDO, in industry workshops, have talked about
cost, they have thrown some figures out. I wonder what sort of
funding gap--we have heard others talk about the funding gap. I
wonder what, from your perspective, what the funding gap is and
when can this Subcommittee expect to see cost estimates from
the FAA?
Mr. Zinser. Mr. Costello, I guess I would say a couple of
things about the cost estimates. I think that the numbers that
you have heard today are in the ballpark. There are a couple of
things going on right now that are very important. One is the
work that is being done to try to build a single business case
so you can see what all the different agencies are doing, what
they have ongoing, and what this program can leverage in terms
of the work already going on in other agencies. I think that
that has some dollar implications.
Mr. Costello. So the numbers we have heard today, they are
in the ballpark?
Mr. Zinser. Yes, sir. My concern is that you have to find
out what you are going to spend it on. The ATO does deserve all
kinds of credit for not going out and wasting money on projects
that we don't need. However, if you give an agency a bunch of
money before you know what you are spending it on. We are
asking for trouble and the money could be wasted.
Mr. Costello. Agreed.
I yield the balance of my time in this round, the next five
minutes, to Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate the questioning that he has offered.
At the outset of my remarks, I referred to the cooperation
and ultimate involvement of air traffic controllers in
developing STARS very early on, after a number of stumbles.
FAA, in a previous administration, realized that they needed to
engage controllers in the design, in the--before the engineers
got in and said this is the way it is going to be, consult with
the controllers and say how do you think it ought to be. There
is certain expertise they have, certain expertise that
engineers have.
But then as I reviewed Mr. Zinser's testimony and a letter
that just recently came to my attention from GAO to our
colleague, Sheila Jackson-Lee. I am troubled. The IG statement
says the union that represents controllers is not yet
participating in JPDO efforts for a variety of reasons, but
needs to be. History has shown that insufficient attention to
human factors can increase the cost of acquisition and delay
much needed benefits. We have demonstrated that in numerous
hearings in years passed.
Problems in the late 1990's with FAA's STARS were directly
traceable to not involving users early enough in the process,
which I just referred to. And then the IG goes on to say that
FAA expects the controllers' role to change from direct
tactical control of aircraft to one of overall traffic
management. I know that is still somewhat theoretical, but one
of some concern as to how well thought out these changes are.
And the letter from GAO, which was signed by Dr.
Dillingham, said that the controller who had been acting as
liaison was among the controllers who returned to his facility,
and since that time no active controller has participated in
planning for NGATS.
Mr. Chew, aren't we missing an opportunity here? Why aren't
controllers being actively engaged in this process?
Mr. Chew. Mr. Oberstar, I actually share your exact
perspective on the need to get the people who have to use the
system to be part of it, whether it is a controller or a
technician who touches that equipment.
Now, the good news is that while we have canceled our
liaison program, what is important is that we involve the
controller, not necessarily the union. The air traffic
controller gives us two really important parts, and one of them
is the human factors piece that goes into this of any new
system.
Now, the JPDO, which is right now modeling what kinds of
things we will need in the future, isn't even close to that at
this time, so the involvement of the actual human in the loop
in design is yet to happen as that concept of operation is
developed. Now, as that idea matures into something that we
want to actually test with people attached to it, then it
becomes very important to do that, and we in fact, in things
that we do today, even without a liaison program, do involve
actual air traffic controllers in the process, even though it
is not in the liaison program.
For instance, the Houston terminal and en route airspace
redesign this year, we included air traffic controllers in that
design process. We also included them in this year's
productivity evaluation in terms of workload of the current
system. And we are testing some new en route simulation
training devices that MITRE helped to develop, and we are using
actual air traffic controllers in that.
So I just want to differentiate between air traffic
controller and the union, because the liaison program was a
union program to involve air traffic controllers, but we have
other mechanisms to involve them, and we very much value that
involvement.
I will say that the liaison program was very, very
inefficient, especially when you need someone for just a little
bit of time. Where we have massive programs where you touch the
controller like the DSR program, which was a whole replacement
of the display system that the controller sees, the keyboards
and things, that is already done and that is over, so those
aren't needed anymore. But any time we develop a new one, where
there is an interface that really requires hands-on, I would
agree with you.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, I am glad to hear your response, rather
extensive, but whether involvement of controllers is through
the union, NATCA, or through controllers just as--whether tower
or TRACON or en route controllers--as individuals is very, very
important. I remember in the development of the software for
STARS, there were many problems that developed where the
contractor had to go back and change things because FAA had not
engaged controllers in evaluating what the engineers had
designed, and that led to delays, to cost increases.
I note in your testimony the reduction in deployment of
STARS from the planned 170 to 60 sites, and I know there is
some consolidation going on at the smaller TRACONS, which was a
problem that surfaced in the course of the transportation
appropriations bill last week. Nobody had an idea of what was
going on, why these consolidations. Had there been a briefing
for the Committee--not necessarily a hearing, but a briefing--
so that we understand what you are doing, that confrontation on
the floor could have been avoided.
But tell me. So you have picked 60 sites. On what basis? I
know we have the top 50, but some of those top 50 are not among
the 60. So what goes into the 110? Are they left with ARTS III?
Is it ARTS IIIE? Is it a color ARTS? What are you going to have
in those 110 and how are you making that decision?
Mr. Chew. So the decision on exactly what they need in the
future--the reason we took the STARS program and we broke it
into useful segments was because we had some that knew we had
to do, they were critically needed for either the capacity of
the radar system or it was getting so old it wasn't
maintainable.
Because the radar systems throughout the rest of the 110
are at different stages, both in terms of modernization--Are we
going to build a new tower there? Is that an old display with a
new processor? Is it an old processor with a new display?--each
one of those is considered and prioritized according to that.
So it is a function of how much is needed, how much traffic is
there, whether the traffic forecast can be supported by the
system there.
And that is what is part of the next phase. In fact, we
renamed the STARS program because it isn't just about putting
the new STARS there; we have actually found that some of the
older systems that are currently there have been upgraded to
the point they are extremely reliable. For instance, some of
our busy sites, while we were developing STARS, the Common ARTS
system in four of the cities, the major cities, have been
upgraded to the point that if we put STARS in there, there may
have been no discernible benefit for a long time. So we made a
lot of----
Mr. Costello. Well, that is what some of the controllers at
MSP were saying to me at the TRACON, that if you put OLLEY in,
which was an L3 color, and just bracket it on to their existing
system, that you would have the equivalent of STARS.
Mr. Chew. That is right. So, in fact, when that would
become a candidate that needed replacement for whatever reason,
whether the building was getting old or the system was getting
old, we would evaluate what the best value is to the system in
putting that in, rather than just saying, well, let's just make
it STARS because we have it.
Mr. Costello. Well, we need to have a much longer
conversation about that matter so we can better understand how
you are making these decisions.
What is the relationship between growth in operations and
decisions you are making in the JPDO and in the development of
your new system? For example, what has been the growth in
operations? I am not talking about passengers, but growth in
operations--which is important for air traffic control--in the
en route, in TRACONS, in towers? And within those categories
are some facilities growing faster since 2001 than others? Will
aircraft equipment changes have different effects at differing
facilities?
For example, the four passenger jet that we are going to be
seeing in large numbers produced in the United States can be
operated at ever-smaller runways--ever-shorter runways, I
should say. And that may increase operations in some areas
where you haven't had increases and not at others. So what
assessment have you made of growth in operations, at the
various three major facilities, approach control, towers, en
route centers, and do you notice disparities within facilities
that require equipment upgrades?
Mr. Chew. It is very different than it was 10 years ago.
Post-9/11, the marketplace has changed, and there have been new
business models that have emerged. So what you are seeing is
that the airports that were crowded before, some of them are
becoming even more crowded even faster, and some are not
growing at all. Probably the most recent example of high growth
and all of a sudden no growth was Washington Dulles, because of
a new carrier entrant there that suddenly spiked the number of
operations, and now that operations is down.
Now, when you are planning the system forward, both
operationally, both for safety reasons and financially, you
really do need good forecasts, and to do that you need to study
the different emerging business models, for instance, the
business models for the very light jets. And we have been
engaged in not only looking at those new business models, but
trying to find which business models make sense at what
airports, and the airports--we are actually looking at redoing
our airports plan to engage some of these newer models and to
see whether or not our old perspective on the 35 largest
airports or busiest airports needs to be revised in the future
so that we are more sensitive to these emerging needs of the
local communities and some of the smaller communities that
suddenly may be experiencing growth from the new business
models. So that is very important not us.
Mr. Costello. Well, I am encouraged to see that you are
making those evaluations, making those judgments. There are
other factors, of course, with the A380 entering in service.
O'Hare Airport manager tells me that they are prepared, they
are ready; their runway is going to be able to accommodate the
new aircraft, they are readying the terminal to accommodate
passenger deplaning and planing.
But what about the airspace? What have you seen of modeling
at Toulouse by Airbus of the wake vortex created by the 380,
and what will be the effect in the airspace of wake vortex and,
therefore, on separation? We are not going to have hundreds of
them flying in the airspace at one time, but we are going to
have some, and there is going to be a wake vortex effect. What
is it and what effect does it have on your operations?
Mr. Chew. And, in fact, we are extremely aware of and
plugged into what the emerging requirement, yet to emerge
requirement is on what the wake vortex turbulence requirement
of separation will be for the A380. That is actually still in
some controversy, but the procedures for separating airplanes
with needing longer wakes is actually a very well defined
procedure even today, as we have different wake turbulence
separations for size airplanes, made easier by the fact that
there won't be a lot of them all at once, which will help us to
accommodate that.
Mr. Costello. Well, thank you. There are many more aspects
of these issues that I would like to pursue, but I realize time
is----
Mr. Mica. And we will welcome questions.
I am going to do a quick couple of questions round, and
then if people have other questions, we will either get to them
or submit them.
Let me just touch on a couple of points. First of all, I
have heard the issue raised that there is not enough air
traffic controller employee input into some of these
technological changes. Now, I have been out there and I have
talked to some of the people about some of the problems in
delays in bringing about the new technology, and part of it I
viewed--and I think I discussed this with you--that the tail
was wagging the dog.
And I welcome the input. I think these are the people that
have to provide us with input because they work these systems
day in and day out. But at some point somebody has to make a
damn decision, and that is what I have wanted you to do, and
you have done. So we are not turning this into just a continual
go back to the drawing board effort.
And, also, some of these technological changes do dilute
some of the need for having as many personnel, and some of them
actually provide better safety backups than the human factor.
So I want to see these technological improvements put in place
with decisions that are developed again with input, but not
that being a delay factor. And you have done that, so I thank
you.
This contract--Mr. DeFazio is gone--the telecommunications
contract. Didn't he raise that? I was on the phone. OK. I want
that to move forward. There have been delays in that. I
understand that some of that went beyond the expectations.
If we have to have the Inspector General follow that--I
don't want the vendors who now have the telecommunications
service and who benefit by not having the new installation by
getting more money from the old system and keeping the old
system in place that doesn't do the job. In fact, if I have to,
I will direct you to that effort. And I have seen some of those
people up here trying to screw up the process, and that has got
to stop too.
The benefit to that is having twenty-first century modern
communications system that works and that is installed. That is
the first benefit, where the backup systems, redundancy,
whatever. And the second part of that is that we save money.
And the quicker is installed, we save money. So it may not be
as much as we looked at in the beginning, but we are going to
get the damn system done, and I expect tough oversight. And if
I hear anybody trying to deep-six that, I will sic my dogs on
them. All right.
I do have further questions about the schedule, and I do
want to submit them, because, again, I think it is time for us,
as soon as we get the schedule gel, and then we can look at the
costs, I think that it is important that we develop that time
frame. I am understanding that I am going to get a clearer
picture of that, and then basically a printout of where we are
going and that we will have accountable milestones, costs, and
schedule. OK? All right, so that will be the last thing that I
require.
And I will submit the balance of my questions for the
record.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Dillingham, in your written statement you note that
there are no current controllers involved or working with the
Next Generation Initiative, and I wonder if you might tell us
why that is and why is it important that the controllers be at
the table and be involved with the Initiative.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Costello, I think this is, in part,
what was being discussed a few minutes ago in that there was a
liaison program between NATCA, the controllers' union, and ATO
for technological developments, and that program was terminated
in 2005 and the controllers were returned to the boards. At
that point in time, the controller who worked with JPDO was
also a part of those controllers that returned to the boards.
And I think Mr. Oberstar pointed out that it is very
important, especially from a human factors point of view, that
you involve those individuals that are going to be working that
equipment, and particularly in this JPDO NGATS environment,
where there is going to be a shift in the responsibilities of
the controllers. It will be a different air traffic management
system and they will have different responsibilities than they
have now. So it is very important that the controllers or
controller expertise be a part of the development of the
system.
JPDO has indicated that--and Mr. Chew has also indicated
today that-when they need controller expertise, they will find
that expertise and they will have it and use it. We don't, at
this point, know how that is going to happen, but we assume
that there is a way that it will happen.
But the Chairman makes a good point as well, in that you
need controller input, but you don't need a situation where
input is such that it stops or delays the implementation of
technology. So you need to strike a balance, and it is very,
very important.
Mr. Costello. It is important that the controllers be at
the table.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
Mr. Zinser, you mention in your written testimony, you talk
about the human factor and the importance of workforce safety
and the implications that that has, and I wonder if you might
comment on that, as well as the relationship between JPDO and
the FAA. Do you believe it is adequate? And if not, what do you
recommend be done to strengthen it?
Mr. Zinser. In terms of human factors and safety, these are
many issues that need to be analyzed and understood to get the
expected increases in capacity the fundamental mission of the
FAA and the air traffic controllers is safety. Their job is to
make sure that the planes are separated and operated safely. We
cannot lose sight of that. Any changes you make in procedures
or how traffic is separated, is a safety issue. .
In terms of the relationship between the FAA and the JPDO,
I think the JPDO has done what they are supposed to have done
at this point--it is still evolving. The point we made about
the FAA finding leadership for the JPDO is very important, and
I think that the things that they have going on right now, such
as working with OMB to come up with their business case and
coming up with the architecture, are going to be very important
steps. We are anxious to see what they come up with.
Mr. Costello. Final question, and then I have a comment for
Mr. Chew.
But, Mr. Pearce, the FAA consolidation, the facility
consolidation as a part of JPDO, is that a mandate or a mission
that the JPDO has taken on? Have you been given the
responsibility? Is it a mandate of the JPDO, the facility
consolidation?
Mr. Pearce. No. I mean, there is no mandate on the JPDO to
do consolidations. It is certainly the role of FAA to look at
that. Our perspective is one of meeting the goals for the
future of air transportation, and if consolidation helps us
along that way, then that will certainly be a part of the plan.
But consolidation in and of itself is not a goal of the JPDO.
Mr. Costello. Can you see the goal of accomplishing,
tripling the capacity by 2025 without consolidation?
Mr. Pearce. The challenge of tripling capacity is finding
the right technologies and getting those technologies to the
system that allow the productivity of the controller, the
automation, that interface to be there. Consolidation can
certainly help in that regard in terms of getting the right
people together in the right facilities, with the right
automation and so forth, but it is not--like I said, it is not
a--we haven't determined exactly the ways in which that would
need to take place and, like I said, it is not a goal, in and
of itself, to do consolidation. So we really do have to do the
architecting to see how the people interface with the
automation and then what the right level of those facilities
are to come to that determination.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Chew, let me associate myself with the remarks made by
the Chairman in the job that you were doing. We have confidence
in what you are doing and will continue to work with you. Let
me say that in the transportation appropriations bill in 2006,
and then again this year, in the House version, the Congress
encouraged the FAA to move forward to install the ASDEX radar
system at O'Hare and to implement the RNAV arrivals and
descent. Yet, I have been told that the FAA has not taken any
action to move forward on these initiatives at O'Hare, although
you have moved forward at other airports with less traffic.
And I just want to tell you that we still have caps, as you
know, at O'Hare on a number of flights and the delays persist.
I will be following up with you with some written questions
that I would ask that you would respond as quickly as possible
concerning those issues.
And on a related topic, we are focused here today talking
about the year 2025, but there are steps that we can take today
that will and can dramatically impact capacity and the airline
fuel costs within a few years, and I would say that
accelerating the deployment of RNAV and RNP procedures and
supporting airspace redesign efforts are two prime examples.
And, Mr. Zinser, let me say that I will be in touch with your
office to review the progress being made on near-term
solutions, and there is no question that it is critical that
the Congress keep these important near-term projects on track.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Let me get Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Zinser, regrettably, your recent report on the status
of FAA's telecommunications infrastructure, FTI, has been
mischaracterized by some interested parties. I wanted to
confirm that your report did not raise any safety issues
involved with implementation of FTI. Is that correct?
Mr. Zinser. That is correct, sir. Our report did not
include any safety issues identified.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Let me just--everybody has had a final word here.
We were talking about where we were in JPDO, and one of the
things that was mentioned--I think someone raised a question
about Europe--in my opening statement I made some comments we
ought to look at it, and then they raised questions about it,
and then you commented, Mr. ElSawy, that, as far as
organization, they were ahead of us.
Don't you see us needing to get to some point where we sort
of have some teeth in this and some organization that can make
decisions and move forward? Because right now you don't have
that capability. You know, like I said, they are picking low-
hanging fruit. I mean, aren't we getting pretty close to where
we are going to need that?
Mr. ElSawy. I think, as I mentioned, in Europe, what they
have chosen to do is to basically let out a contract to a
consortium of 32 companies of industry to do the initial
planning for the JPDO or for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, and they have developed a fairly
comprehensive governance model for how those companies interact
with each other.
I think in the United States, with the interagency
agreements, the work that the JPDO is currently doing on the
concept of operations the development of the architecture, and
then working with the NGATS Institute really should focus on
that activity of how industry will engage in the future, how
the contracts will flow, and then, at the appropriate time,
what is the right balance between industry participation and
government participation. So I think we are getting there.
Mr. Mica. The other thing is maybe in talking with Mr.
Chew, I don't know when we come up with the cost, there will be
costs absorbed by other agencies, too. Looking at that whole
picture, we may get a better idea of how we may need to put
some other authority together to make things happen.
Mr. ElSawy. I think Inspector General Zinser really hit the
nail on the head in the sense that the budget process that
drives the JPDO governs the progress and governs our ability to
really have an integrated plan. This is a very complicated
process; it is really an experiment in government in the sense
of coordinating the budgets and the projects and the programs
with multiple agencies, multiple authorities, multiple years,
different missions. So it is fairly complex.
Mr. Mica. But then you have got the other part of the
equation is getting the compliance and setting some
implementation. I mean, there is cost involved to air
carriers,----
Mr. ElSawy. Absolutely
Mr. Mica. --to general aviation, to a whole host of folks.
And we are going to have to have some teeth, we are going to
have to have some deadlines, and we are going to have to have
some implementation schedule that is going to be tough.
Well, again, we will have additional questions. A very
interesting hearing. We got some great witnesses today who
provided us, I think, at least with a good status report.
Hopefully we can get the balance of the blueprint in additional
meetings and hearings.
There being no further business before the Subcommittee
today, again, we thank you, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]