[Senate Hearing 109-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-174
ALASKA AVIATION
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 5, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-709 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMint, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 5, 2005..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Barton, Mike, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities.......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Casanovas, Karen E., Executive Director, Alaska Air Carriers
Association.................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Dennis, Jerry, Executive Director, The Medallion Foundation...... 32
Harding, Richard, Senior Vice President, PenAir.................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Secretary, Department of Transportation.. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Poe, Pat, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, Alaska Region.................................. 18
Plumb, Morton V., Director, Anchorage International Airport...... 26
Thompson, Rick, Alaskan Regional Vice President, National Air
Traffic Controllers Association................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Appendix
Brown, Phil, Director, Alaska Region, National Association of Air
Traffic Specialists (NAATS), prepared statement................ 49
ALASKA AVIATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Anchorage, Alaska.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in the
Loussac Library, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman
of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning, I thank you all for being here.
Thank you for making the trip to Alaska. It's an honor to have
you both here to testify today.
As you know, Alaska depends on aviation more than any other
state. Over 70 percent of our cities and towns are reached by
air; that's year-around. And as you know, instead of cars and
buses, we have airplanes and aircraft.
Alaska has 7 times more licensed pilots than the national
average. About 21,000 active pilots; nearly 10,000 registered
aircraft. Our state accounts for 20 percent of the air space
that you administer.
And as our skies get more congested, it's important to
utilize this air space effectively and efficiently.
We have new innovations such as Capstone and Medallion; and
both have had your full support. We thank you for that. I look
forward to your testimony in this regard.
We have very substantial reliance upon the program for
Essential Air Service, as you know, and that Essential Air
Service gives us access to hospitals, mail service, food, and
basic supplies. We've also been working with you on lighting.
It's very difficult to assure essential lighting for Alaska's
rural airports, and we've managed to obtain substantial funds
in the last 4 years, and I'm pleased to say that we have had
additional infrastructure for nearly 50 communities through
that program, and we're hopeful that by the time Alaska reaches
our 50th anniversary of statehood every--every runway in the
state will have runway lights.
I could go on and on listening to the two of you. You're
great friends of Alaska and personally. And I welcome you to
this beautiful state. We have some spectacular weather for you.
Mr. Mineta, Norm. Please have your say.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me, first of all, thank you for the invitation to
appear at this hearing. It's always a pleasure to join you here
in Alaska, particularly when the sun shines most every hour of
the day. I couldn't get over the fact that at 11 o'clock last
night it still seemed like 6 o'clock at home.
The Chairman. Norm, they see us all night in the summer and
we leave tracks in the winter.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mineta. Administrator Blakey and I are here to discuss
several important issues related to aviation in Alaska. The
United States Department of Transportation is very well aware
of the absolutely critical role that aviation plays in the
lives of all Alaskans.
In addition to its important place in Alaskan society,
aviation faces unique conditions here that set it apart from
the Lower 48 in many respects.
Administrator Blakey will testify about the significant
work of the Federal Aviation Administration in promoting and
enhancing safety.
I will speak about the aviation programs that are within my
own offices that have a direct daily impact on aviation and air
service in the State of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my written
statement be included as part of the hearing record.
The Chairman. It will be. Thank you.
Mr. Mineta. The Department of Transportation's Office of
International Aviation and--or Aviation and International
Affairs, has worked to liberalize air service markets
throughout the world, and we have had considerable success. And
in terms of these liberalized markets, they have allowed for
expanded flow of goods and people that benefit our economy and
those of our trading partners.
Since coming into office, the Bush Administration has
executed 17 new Open Skies Agreements, for a total of 71 Open
Skies Agreements with other economies in force at the present
time.
Our liberalization efforts provide the foundation for the
kind of growth in air services that have benefited the Ted
Stevens Anchorage International Airport, which is a natural
transfer for routes between the Lower 48 states, the moving
Asian economies, and Europe.
As a result of these actions, as well as the tremendous
work of the FAA and their Alaska region Administrator, Pat Poe,
and the outstanding leadership of Mort Plumb, the director of
the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, and the
infrastructure improvements that have been made at the airport,
the level of air cargo activity in Anchorage has increased
substantially in recent years.
The number of air cargo landings has increased from less
than 14,000 in 1988, to more than 42,000 in 2004. A more than
threefold increase.
In fact, our recent landmark agreement with China has
resulted in more than 20 additional all cargo flights by U.S.
carriers in and out of Anchorage each week.
We will continue to work actively to open international air
service markets to the benefit of businesses, communities, and
consumers in Alaska, and everyone else in the continental
United States.
As you know so very well, with respect to programs and
activities that are focused within the state, the Department
administers the Essential Air Service Program and sets air
transportation rates for intra-Alaska bypass mail.
I can assure you that the Department is committed to
insuring that air service in Alaska is frequent, safe, and
affordable for passengers and freight shippers, as well as for
the United States Postal Service.
Under the EAS program, the Department provides a safety net
level of air service to the smallest and most isolated
communities. Given that air service is typically the only
access to Alaskan villages, the Department has regarded EAS to
these remote communities as a very high priority; and we give
great weight to the needs and opinions of the affected
communities.
For example, we have just this year increased air service
to Akutan from the prior subsidized level because we recognize
that, with the growth in that market, traffic could not be
reasonably accommodated with the previous lower level of
scheduled service.
Likewise, we also selected Alaska Airlines to provide
subsidized service at Adak, and notwithstanding another
proposal, for a million dollars less per year, because we
recognize the extreme isolation of Adak and the need for jet
aircraft to fly the 1200 miles to Anchorage.
However, the story is different in the Lower 48, and I
would like your support in working with the Congress in making
some much needed structural changes to the program. While some
subsidized communities in the Lower 48 are indeed isolated;
many others are not. I think it is fair to say that subsidized
air service is not truly essential for too many communities in
the Lower 48.
If the program is not refocused on only the communities
that are most in need, the costs threaten to grow even larger.
So I stand willing to work with you and the Committee on ways
we can all make the EAS program better, because it is currently
not structured in a way that makes sense for the current state
of air transportation in our country.
Mr. Chairman, due to your leadership and strong efforts,
Congress passed the Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002,
which significantly revamped the bypass mail system within the
state of Alaska.
The two main goals of RSIA were, one, to increase the
amount of flying with larger aircraft under Part 121 Safety
Standards; and, two, to reduce the Postal Service's
expenditures.
While the industry is still adjusting to the new law, the
early returns are that both of your main objectives are being
met.
RSIA recognized that two central problems with the bypass
mail system had developed since its inauguration. First, a
class of carriers had developed and focused on mail to the
exclusion of passengers and freight. RSI compared air service
in Alaska to a three-legged stool that supports passengers,
freight, and mail service. And it recognized that if there was
focus by any party on only one leg of the stool, such as mail,
the overall stool would be weakened.
Second, RSIA recognized that the longstanding simple mail
rate structure of separate bush and mainline classes of mail
ignored the increasing development of modern turbo-prop
equipment and the potential benefits they presented to
passengers from their greater speed and safety and to the
Postal Service from their lower costs.
To fully realize those advances, RSIA divided the single
bush mail rate into three separate classes. Putting the goals
of larger, safer aircraft in conjunction with reduced Postal
Service expenditures produced a win-win result.
RSIA directed the Department to carve out three separate
bush rates, which we have done. In rough terms, the new Part
121 rate developed by the Department is one half the former
unitary rate; the Part 135 rate is the same as the former
unitary rate; and the seaplane rate is double than the earlier
single rate. The new rates have resulted in more equitable, and
I believe, more efficient air services.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me reaffirm the Department's
commitment to small community air service, especially in
Alaska.
We look forward to working with you and the Members of your
Committee as we continue to work toward these objectives.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Mineta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary,
Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to this hearing. It is a
pleasure to join you here in Alaska. Administrator Blakey, Regional
Administrator Poe and I all appreciate this opportunity to discuss with
you important issues related to aviation in Alaska. The U.S. Department
of Transportation is well aware of the absolutely critical role that
aviation plays in the lives of all Alaskans. In addition to its
important place in Alaskan society, aviation faces unique conditions
here that set it apart from the rest of the United States in many
respects. So we are here today to address a number of the aviation
issues that matter most to your constituents. In that regard,
Administrator Blakey will testify about the significant work of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in promoting and enhancing
safety. But first, I will speak about the aviation programs within my
own office that have a direct, daily impact on aviation and air service
in the State of Alaska.
As an initial matter, the Office of International Aviation has
worked for many years to liberalize air service markets throughout the
world--and we have had considerable success. Liberalized markets allow
for expanded flows of goods and people that benefit our economy and
those of our partners. Recently, we have signed Open Skies agreements
with India and Indonesia and obtained much greater access to China. Our
liberalization efforts provide the foundation for the kind of growth in
cargo services that have benefited Ted Stevens International Airport,
which is a natural transfer hub for routes between the lower 48 states,
the booming Asian economies, and Europe.
In connection with the Department's actions generally to open
opportunities for air cargo activities, in 2004, new federal
legislation was passed that substantially augments the liberal air
cargo transfer rights that existed at Alaskan airports prior to this
legislation due to the Department's earlier actions. As a result of
this legislation, foreign carriers may now transfer and carry
international origin or destination cargo between Alaska and other
points in the United States that was previously prohibited by federal
law.
As a result of the above actions by the Department and the
Congress, as well as the infrastructure improvements made by the
airports, the level of air cargo activity at Anchorage has increased
substantially in recent years. The number of air cargo landings has
increased from less than 14,000 in 1988 to more than 42,000 in 2004, a
more than three-fold increase. As these numbers show, when carriers are
given liberal opportunities to serve an airport and the airport takes
steps to make its facilities attractive, this can lead to substantial
increases in the level of operations at that airport. We will continue
to work actively to open international air service markets to the
benefit of businesses, communities and consumers in Alaska and everyone
else in the United States.
As you know, with respect to programs and activities that are
focused within the state, the Department administers the Essential Air
Service (EAS) program and sets air transportation rates for Intra-
Alaska Bypass Mail. With regard to both of these responsibilities, I
can assure you that the Department is committed to ensuring that air
service in Alaska is frequent, safe, and affordable, for passengers and
freight shippers, as well as for the Postal Service.
It is clear that air service in Alaska, as well as the rest of the
country, has changed dramatically over time. In the days before airline
deregulation, there was a sign outside a Wien Air Alaska station
advising prospective passengers that if they did not arrive within one
hour of the scheduled flight, Wien would bump the passenger in favor of
delivering an extra 200 pounds of mail or freight from its backlog. The
competitive pressure of deregulation was designed to help address such
issues of poor service for passengers, freight, and mail.
In administering the EAS program, the Department ensures that
communities receive a safety-net level of service when they are too
small or too remote to receive market-driven service. Likewise, with
the Department setting mail rates in Alaska, the Department ensures
that carriers are fairly compensated for transporting the mail, and
also that mail, freight, and passenger service work in tandem like the
``separate legs of a stool.''
The critical importance of mail and air service to Alaska's
regional hubs and villages will continue for the foreseeable future.
The Department seeks to ensure that there is an integrated
transportation system that can provide benefit to all. This challenge--
and Mr. Chairman, I do not use the word ``challenge'' lightly--requires
that the Federal Government wisely manage programs affecting intra-
Alaska service.
Essential Air Service Program (EAS)
The Department has administered the EAS program since deregulation
of the airlines in 1978. The laws governing EAS have not changed
significantly since its inception more than 25 years ago
notwithstanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in the
airline industry. Under that program, the Department provides a safety-
net level of air service to the smallest and most isolated communities.
Given that air service is typically the only access to Alaskan
villages, the Department has regarded EAS to these communities as a
very high priority.
Although we take our fiscal responsibilities quite seriously, the
Department has not administered the EAS program in a way as to merely
minimize our expenditures. We give great weight to the needs and
opinions of the affected communities, as mandated by Congress in
section 41733(c)(1)(d) of the statute. For example, we have just this
year increased air service to Akutan from the prior subsidized level,
because we recognized that with the growth in that market, traffic
could not be reasonably accommodated with the previous, lower level of
scheduled service. Likewise, we selected Alaska Airlines to provide
subsidized service at Adak, notwithstanding that there was another
proposal for a million dollars less per year in subsidy, because we
recognized the extreme isolation of Adak, and the need for jet aircraft
to fly the 1,200 miles to Anchorage.
However, the story is different in the lower 48 states, and I would
like your support in working with the Congress in making some much-
needed structural changes to the program. While many communities in the
lower 48 are indeed isolated, many others are not. Many communities are
within 40-50 miles of an airport with plenty of jet service but,
because it might be categorized as a small hub, those communities are
entitled to subsidized air service. And that can be the case even
though many, if not most, air travelers in the community drive to the
nearby airport because they prefer its broader array of prices and
services.
Under current law, a community's eligibility for inclusion in the
EAS program has been based only on whether it was listed on a carrier's
certificate on the date the program was enacted--October 24, 1978. Once
subsidized service was established, there was little incentive for
active community involvement to help ensure that the service being
subsidized would ultimately be successful. I can tell you anecdotally
that many EAS communities in the lower 48 do not even display their
subsidized EAS flights on their homepages, but do show the availability
of air service, especially low-fare service, at nearby hubs. As a
result, EAS-subsidized flights are frequently not well patronized and
our funds are not being used as efficiently or effectively as possible.
As you know, in 2003 the Administration began proposing significant
reforms for the EAS program. Under the Administration's proposal,
communities are asked to become partners in the financing of their air
services. In exchange, they are given a much bigger role in determining
the nature of that service. As a result, currently eligible communities
would remain eligible, but would have an array of new transportation
options available to them for access to the national air transportation
system. In addition to the traditional EAS of two or three round trips
a day to a hub, the communities would have the alternatives of charter
flights, air taxi service, or ground transportation links. Regionalized
air service might also be possible, where several communities could be
served through one airport, but with larger aircraft or more frequent
flights.
Under the Department's proposal, community participation would be
determined by the degree of its isolation from the national
transportation system. The most remote communities (those greater than
210 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport) would
be required to provide only 10 percent of the total EAS subsidy costs.
Communities that are within a close drive of major airports would not
qualify for subsidized air service, but would receive subsidies
constituting 50 percent of the total costs for providing surface
transportation links to a nearby airport with better service.
Specifically, communities within: (a) 100 driving miles of a large or
medium hub airport, (b) 75 miles of a small hub, or (c) 50 miles of a
non-hub with jet service would not qualify for subsidized air service.
All other EAS communities would have to cover 25 percent of the subsidy
costs attributable to the provision of air service.
The proposed small-hub and non-hub criteria are important. Under
current law, communities located within 70 miles of a large or medium
hub are not eligible for subsidized air service, on the principle that
passengers find driving to such nearby service too attractive an
alternative for the subsidized service to compete against. Our proposal
extends that same principle in a measured way to small hubs and non-
hubs offering jet service, applying tighter proximity standards in line
with the smaller size of the alternate service.
We believe that this approach would allow the Department to provide
the most isolated communities with air service that is tailored to
their individual needs. Importantly, it provides communities in the
program greater participation, control, and flexibility over how to
meet their air service needs, and a far greater incentive to promote
the success of those services. In this time of fiscal constraint,
Congress would be recognizing the need to responsibly trim the costs of
the program, while simultaneously protecting the needs of those
communities most deserving of support.
I am well aware that the proposed requirement of a local
contribution has not been well received by many. But this is one of the
few federal programs that does not have any local contribution. In the
Department's Small Community Air Service Development Program, we have
found that many communities are willing and able to make contributions
to improve their local air services. As with that program, the local
contributions in the reformed EAS program would not have to be made by
local governments--for example, local businesses or the state
government could provide the needed financial support. Nonetheless, I
understand the concerns you have expressed about this in the past. In
that respect, I stand willing to work with you and the Committee on
ways we can all make the EAS program better, because it currently is
not structured in a way that makes sense for the current state of air
transportation in this country.
Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 (RSIA)
Due to your efforts, Mr. Chairman, Congress passed the Rural
Service Improvement Act of 2002, which significantly revamped the mail
system within the state. The two main goals of RSIA were to increase
the amount of flying with larger aircraft under Part 121 safety
standards and to reduce the Postal Service's expenditures. While the
industry is still adjusting to the new law, the early returns are that
both of your main objectives are being met.
As background, the Postal Service is responsible for paying for the
delivery of mail within Alaska, as well as ensuring that mail is
equitably tendered to qualifying carriers, while the Department is
charged with setting the rates that the Postal Service pays the
airlines. Under the bypass system, goods bound for the communities,
including critical food and medicine moving as mail, bypass the
physical facilities of the Postal Service. Instead, the bypass shipper
is directed to deliver the mail shipment directly to a particular
airline, where a Postal Service official weighs, tracks, and records
the shipment before its embarks.
RSIA recognized that two central problems with the mail system had
developed since its inauguration. First, a class of carriers had
developed that focused on mail to the exclusion of passengers or
freight. RSIA compared air service in Alaska to a three-legged stool.
It recognized that if there was focus by any party on only one leg of
the stool, such as mail, the overall stool would be weakened. For
illustration, if there is only enough traffic at a village to support
four round trips a week, that village is clearly better off receiving
passenger and mail combination service each of those four days, rather
than mail-only service on two days and passenger-only service on those
other two days. RSIA encouraged just such a result by establishing two
separate pools for passenger and freight carriers for each village.
Passenger carriers transporting more than 20 percent of total
passengers in a village were to share 70 percent of the mail, and
freight carriers transporting more than 25 percent of the freight in a
village were to receive 20 percent of the total mail to that village.
The remaining ten percent of the mail was reserved, for a five-year
transition period, for the carriers that did not qualify for either of
those two pools. RSIA contemplated those mail-only carriers would
either convert to passenger/freight service or go out of business.
Before RSIA, three carriers relied more heavily on mail than any of the
other bush carriers--Bellair, Village Aviation, and Servant Air. Mail
constituted more than 95 percent of each of those carriers' total
traffic, and each carrier has since ceased operations, though Servant
is now operating under new ownership and management. The mail from
those three carriers is now available to support combination passenger
and freight service by the surviving carriers. (For a comparison of
carrier traffic from calendar year 2000, before RSIA, to that of
traffic in 2004, see Appendix A.)
Second, RSIA recognized that the longstanding simple mail rate
structure of separate bush and mainline classes of mail ignored the
increasing development of modern turboprop equipment, and the potential
benefits they presented to passengers from their greater speed and
safety and to the Postal Service from their lower costs. To fully
realize those advances, RSIA divided the single bush mail rate into
three separate classes. Putting the goals of larger, safer aircraft in
conjunction with reduced Postal Service expenditures produced a win-win
result. With respect to saving the Postal Service money, service with
larger bush aircraft is more cost efficient in moving larger volumes of
mail in larger markets.
Previously, the Department had set a single bush mail rate for all
carriers operating equipment with a payload of less than 7,500 pounds
(about 30 seats). RSIA directed the Department to carve out three
separate rates: for 19-seat or larger aircraft operating under the more
stringent FAA Part 121 standards; for smaller aircraft operating under
Part 135; and a separate rate for seaplane aircraft, recognizing the
higher cost of operating to villages accessible only by those aircraft.
The Department has done as RSIA dictated: last year we issued 4 orders
establishing these new rates. In rough terms, the new Part 121 rate
developed by the Department is one-half of the former unitary rate, the
Part 135 rate is the same as the former unitary rate, and the Seaplane
rate is double that earlier single rate. Because larger Part 121
service is operationally limited to the biggest airports and
economically to the largest villages with the most mail, and Seaplane
operations to the smallest, the Postal Service is clearly saving
significant funds from this restructuring of bush mail rates.
RSIA also tried to ensure that passengers at larger villages be
served with larger 19-seat aircraft operating under more stringent FAA
Part 121 operating standards. With the goals of saving the Postal
Service money and encouraging Part 121 service, the Department
established another class rate based on the costs of more expensive 19-
seat Part 121 aircraft, such as ERA Aviation's Twin Otters, which have
short takeoff and landing capabilities lacking in other 19-seat
equipment. Only Twin Otters and smaller Part 135 aircraft are capable
of landing at very short runway airports. Without the Department
creating a mail rate intermediate between the high cost of Part 135
service, and the low cost of regular Part 121 service, those short
runway communities served by ERA's Twin Otters would have lost that
service in lieu of less commodious Part 135 aircraft, and the Postal
Service would have had to pay more for it as well.
I should also mention that the Department has recently granted the
Postal Service an exemption to pay more than the Part 121 rate, but
still less than the Part 135 rate, on a market-by-market basis, in
order to ensure that carriers would continue to operate with Part 121
service to many communities rather than remove seats from aircraft to
fall within the Part 135 rate. Although the exemption is currently on
appeal, and accordingly I am limited in what I can say about it, I do
believe that this decision is consistent with RSIA's aims and helps
ensure that unintended consequences of a three-rate structure do not
redound to the detriment of Alaskan consumers or the Post Office.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me reaffirm the Department's
commitment to small community, and especially Alaska, air service. We
look forward to working with you and the Members of this Committee as
we continue to work toward these objectives. Thank you again. This
concludes my prepared statement. I will now ask that Administrator
Blakey discuss a few safety issues. At the end of her prepared remarks,
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Mail as a Percentage of All Scheduled Traffic for Alaska Bush Carriers
Calendar Year 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Volume
Freight (Mail Volume as a
Carrier & Designator Psgrs. (PEQ) Mail (PEQ) Total Percent of
Carriers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bellair (BEL) 0 65.0 9,466.4 9,531.4 99.32
2. Camai (Villiage, VLA) 52 305.9 14,532.6 14,890.5 97.60
3. Servant (SVA) 0 139.1 5,110.2 5,249.3 97.35
4. Yute (YUT) 6 713.3 17,099.8 17,819.1 95.96
5. Olson (OAS) 9 61.9 1,640.3 1,711.2 95.86
6. Taquan (TQA) 8 6.8 221.9 236.7 93.75
7. Alaska Central Express (YTU) 1/ 0 17,814.1 137,626.8 155,440.9 88.54
8. Illiamna Air Taxi (IAT) 361 419.7 4,516.1 5,296.8 85.26
9. Tanana (TAN) 4,293 510.9 14,928.7 19,732.6 75.66
10. Jim Air (JMA) 347 73.3 1,179.6 1,599.9 73.73
11. Larry's (LFS) 7,681 964 19,482.2 28,127.2 69.26
12. Arctic Transportation (RYA) 0 19,221 30,896.8 50,117.8 61.65
13. Arctic Circle (ASE) 1,242 10,681.4 18,443.9 30,367.3 60.74
14. Baker (BKR) 4,180 57.0 6,480.4 10,717.4 60.47
15. Smokey Bay (SKB) 394 32.1 564.7 990.8 56.99
16. Ellis (ELL) 361 28.7 247.1 636.8 38.80
17. Inland (INL) 566 3.4 352.9 922.3 38.26
18. Frontier (FFS) 41,628 4,929.9 21,003.4 67,561.3 31.09
19. Cape Smythe (CSY) 41,839 5,672.3 19,221.1 66,732.4 28.80
20. Grant (GRT) 61,084 316.3 23,374.0 84,774.3 27.57
21. Hageland (HAG) 82,006 6,698.4 32,813.7 121,518.1 27.00
22. Alaska Seaplane (AKS) 0 1,242.0 4,180.0 5,422.0 77.09
23. 40-Mile Air (WRB) 2,536 942.1 998.8 4,476.9 22.31
24. Spernak (SNK) 67 30.0 27.1 124.1 21.84
25. Wright (WAS) 14,865 2,384.0 4,674.3 21,923.3 21.32
26. Bering (BER) 51,504 9,126.8 15,929.3 76,560.1 20.81
27. Wings of Alaska (WOA) 31,585 3,591.7 8,220.8 43,397.5 18.94
28. Penninsula (PNA) 175,129 6,888.9 39,040.8 221,058.7 17.66
29. Ward (WRD) 66 3.6 13.8 83.4 16.55
30. ProMech (PRH) 38,492 5,378.0 7,527.7 51,397.7 14.65
31. Warbelow (WAL) 33,574 5,526.8 6,125.3 45,226.1 13.54
32. Island Air Service (IAS) 19,621 1,974.5 3,059.1 24,654.6 12.41
33. LAB 25,655 4,948.0 2,221.3 32,824.3 6.77
34. Skagway (SKG) 9,980 1,030.0 453.4 11,463.4 3.96
35. Haines (HNS) 8,251 565.5 352.5 9,169.0 3.84
36. ERA 1/ 435,057 8,779.7 15,304.2 459,140.9 3.33
37. FS Air Service (FSA) 984 70.6 0.0 1,054.6 0.00
38. Gulf Air Taxi (GAT) 399 107.8 0.0 506.8 0.00
39. Katmai (KAT) 7,549 238.9 0.0 7,787.9 0.00
40. Northern Air Cargo (NET) 0 71.9 0.0 71.9 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 1,101,371 121,615.3 487,331.0 1,710,317.3 28.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ Carrier in litigation. An all-cargo operator, its business model was to use B-1900 equipment to transport
mainline mail.
2/ Carrier provided a great deal of service with mainline equipment.
Note: 200 pounds of mail or freight is one PEQ (passenger equivalent).
Mail as a Percentage of All Scheduled Traffic for Alaska Bush Carriers
Calendar Year 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier name T110 Rpax Frt. PEQs Mail PEQs Total PEQs Mail percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olson Air Service 0 28 390 417 93.39
Baker Aviation, Inc. 419 48 1,999 2,466 81.06
Taquan Air Service 2,022 210 4,926 7,158 68.82
Tanana Air Service 2,105 507 4,418 7,030 62.84
Alaska Central Express 0 23,293 39,295 62,589 62.78
Inland Aviation Services 2,468 577 4,673 7,718 60.54
Arctic Circle Air Service 1,851 13,187 19,838 34,876 56.88
Larrys Flying Service 1/ 2,183 367 3200 5,751 55.65
Bellair, Inc. 1/ 0 596 727 1,323 54.96
Arctic Transportation 0 30,228 28,285 58,514 48.34
Village Aviation 1/ 0 5,592 4,169 9,761 42.71
Ellis Air Taxi, Inc. 271 17 202 490 41.30
Cape Smythe Air Service 28,685 4,093 21,298 54,076 39.38
40-Mile Air 343 194 257 794 32.40
Servant Air, Inc. 1,630 53 777 2,460 31.58
Grant Aviation 65,997 582 29,524 96,103 30.72
Bering Air, Inc. 59,804 11,216 30,465 101,485 30.02
Hageland Aviation Service 135,745 9,206 57,619 202,570 28.44
Iliamna Air Taxi 7,902 517 3,284 11,703 28.06
Spernak Airways, Inc. 124 235 104 463 22.53
L.A.B. Flying Service, Inc. 14,053 1087 3,818 18,958 20.14
Yute Air Aka Flight Alaska 11,323 120 2,865 14,309 20.03
Wright Air Service 18,140 3,357 5,316 26,813 19.83
Warbelow 35,565 3,884 9,719 49,168 19.77
Alaska Seaplane Service 2,507 609 713 3,829 18.63
Frontier Flying Service 136,876 9,647 31,414 177,937 17.65
Peninsula Airways, Inc. 202,240 15,571 33,052 250,863 13.18
Island Air Service 14,544 2,962 2,265 19,771 11.46
Wings Of Alaska 33,526 4,565 4,462 42,553 10.49
Promech 25,336 1,915 2,688 29,939 8.98
Skagway Air Service 11,692 984 1,097 13,773 7.97
Smokey Bay Air, Inc. 17,355 2,205 1,551 21,111 7.35
Era Aviation 2/ 362,140 7,169 20,806 390,115 5.33
Katmai Air 10,232 724 0 10,956 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 1,207,078 155,543 375,219 1,737,840 21.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ No longer operating.
2/ About one-fourth of its operation is bush, the rest is mainline.
3/ Carrier's business model is to operate bush or small mainline equipment in mainline markets.
Mr. Chairman, I will now like to ask Administrator Blakey
to discuss the safety issues. And at the end of her prepared
remarks, we will be more than happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Ms. Blakey.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Blakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to a
very distinguished group. It's wonderful to be back here in
Alaska.
I have to say, every time I am here I am overwhelmed with
what a magnificent state Alaska is.
Known as the Final Frontier, from where I sit, it is really
the front door on aviation safety in the United States. I'm
very excited to see what's going on.
When I was here 2 years ago, I made it to the Arctic
Circle. I flew on a Capstone-equipped float plane and on
medivac aircraft as well. Senator Stevens, you've long
maintained from the floor of the Senate that Alaska is unique.
How right you are.
Because of advances in Alaska, it's really a showplace for
what you can do in aviation.
Aviation literally is a lifeline to many of the communities
in this state. And because of that, I very much appreciate the
continued efforts of your Committee to work with us and the
aviation community to make Alaskan aviation as safe and
efficient as possible.
A few years ago it became clear that we needed to take a
different approach to aviation safety in Alaska. The
significant safety improvements that have been achieved in
recent years in Alaska demonstrate the real commitment of
everyone that's been involved. Alaska has become literally a
national asset for innovation.
You know, when I first came to the FAA, we put in place a
strategic business plan--our Flight Plan we call it--with
specific objectives and performance targets. Alaska is the only
state mentioned by name in the FAA's flight plan. This is both
because of the extreme importance of aviation to Alaska, and
the FAA's commitment to continue to work with our partners in
Alaska to keep improving the state's safety record. I'm very
happy to report, it's working.
In 1999, OSHA said that being a commercial airline pilot is
the most hazardous job in Alaska. Not anymore. Since then, the
first phase of Capstone has been successfully completed, and
Phase II is well under way. In 1999, there were only 10 cameras
providing timely weather information to Alaskan pilots. We've
increased that several fold. There are 55 out there now.
What's more, today we have the Medallion Foundation working
with both commercial and with general aviation operators to
spur the implementation of safety concepts. We're also making
inroads in terms of Alaska's infrastructure as well. Back then,
Alaska received 77.8 million in Airport Improvement Program
funds; last year that number was 219 million. Each of these
improvements is turning the tide on aviation in Alaska.
And please indulge me for just a moment to brag a bit more
about our state here. In a nutshell, Alaska is a model for the
rest of us on how to improve, how to translate technology into
safety.
As I said a moment ago, I've flown in a Capstone-equipped
aircraft--in fact, several times--and seen firsthand the type
of information that's provided to the pilot. Let me tell you,
and explain the difference during the flight. Automatic
Dependence Surveillance Broadcast, which most pilots refer to
as ADSB, is key to having a pilot have accurate and timely
information about other aircraft, terrain, and weather. And let
me emphasize that last one: weather is so critical up here.
The initial focus of Capstone's first phase was the YK
Delta area, specifically 160,000 square miles all around
Bethel. This area of the state had historically had an accident
rate that was 2 to 4 times higher than the rest of Alaska. But
in 2003, the accident rate was below average for the rest of
the state for the first time.
From 2000 to 2004, the accident rate of Capstone-equipped
aircraft decreased by 47 percent versus other aircraft without
it.
The numbers would indicate that moving forward with this
exceptional program is a good, solid idea. So we're working on
it. We're working with Phase II which expands to southeastern
Alaska, in the Juneau area; and Phase III extends the program
statewide.
We haven't stopped there. By placing weather cameras
throughout the state, we've certainly come a long way since the
first weather camera was on the roof of your building in
Anchorage. Today, we have 55 cameras throughout the state; an
investment of $7 million. Twelve new sites are scheduled to be
up and running by this October. This concept, I think, is
stunning in its simplicity. Most good ideas tend to come from a
very simple idea when you get down to it.
The pilot goes on-line, and gets two images for each
location. The first shows what a site would look like in a
perfectly clear-day situation. The second shows current weather
conditions. For example, pilots can now learn what the
visibility is in the mountain pass they face, and whether they
want to fly through it before they take off. In many instances,
they may decide not to fly, to hold off on that flight for a
while, depending upon what they see. And that's long before
they set foot in the aircraft. So they really can make good
decisions.
You know, pilots have a maxim that rings especially true:
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air
than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Last year this website got over 2.3 million hits. That
number should increase by another million this year, we think.
Pilots flock to a good idea, and that's just what they're
doing with the weather cameras.
Our safety programs in Alaska need to be nimble, and that's
the approach we're taking. The community here has shown that
it's unafraid to test new technologies, and that's making a
real difference.
Turning to infrastructure investment, we've increased our
AIP investment in Alaska to 131 million a year since 1999. It's
clear that the money is being well spent. And, you know, a
great deal of the credit for safety improvements that have been
made must be given to the users of the system themselves.
I'm pleased you've asked Jerry Dennis from the Medallion
Foundation to appear on the next panel. That organization has
done some really remarkable work, and needs to be applauded.
The Medallion program is voluntary and industry-led, and it's
one that the FAA supports through a grant arrangement. Alaska's
air carriers created the program and are participating because
they voluntarily wanted to exceed FAA requirements; and it's
making a difference. Their success has led to Medallion
creating a component for general aviation as well. Which I have
to say, seems to be greeted with overwhelming enthusiasm by the
GA community.
You've only got to see how insurance companies award
premiums to pilots and carriers of Medallion participants to
understand how seriously this program is being taken. Both
Jerry Dennis and Dick Harding, Medallion's executive director
and president, deserve great credit for the creativity and the
willingness to make a contribution to aviation safety well
beyond the State of Alaska. They're working with the GA
community; they're working with us in Washington to see how
this can expand.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the spirit of aviation in
Alaska, which I think we both agree, was personified by Tom
Wardleigh. He was a master pilot, a master mechanic, and the
elder statesman of Alaska aviation. Tom's vision is now Tom's
legacy. First, I'm pleased to say, that Jan is here today to
share this occasion.
That's why I'm so pleased, with her in the audience, to
announce the creation of a national safety award in his honor.
The first recipient will be announced next year.
You know, Tom urged us to strive for exceptional customer
service, to be a proving ground for new ideas. Tom knew if we
could make an idea work in Alaska with all the challenges here,
it would have benefits throughout the country. And that's
exactly what's happening today. And that's the reason this is a
national award. Because he was right. The many lives he touched
will not soon forget Tom Wardleigh, and that's as it should be.
So, once again, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to be here
in Alaska. I think you can tell. Blue skies, fresh air, and
enthusiasm for aviation. I'll tell you, it's my kind of place.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marion C. Blakey, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration
Good Morning, Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee. It is
a great pleasure to be here today in Alaska to testify, along with
Secretary Mineta and Regional Administrator Poe. Improving aviation
safety and lowering accident rates in Alaska, have been a major focus
of efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over the last
decade, and I'm proud to acknowledge, also by the aviation community in
Alaska. The aviation community here has demonstrated a strong
commitment to safety. After all, the aviation system is what connects
Alaska's cities, towns, villages, businesses and families. I believe we
in the FAA have a good news story to tell about improvements in
aviation safety in recent years, and an even better story to tell about
future efforts to expand and build upon the successes already achieved.
Today I would like to highlight a few areas of interest to the
Committee: the Capstone and Medallion programs, the growing use of
weather cameras, particularly in remote locations, and the very
practical benefits of the Rural Alaska Lighting program.
As I've often said, aviation safety will always be the first
priority at the FAA. Every decision we make is with the safety of the
flying public in mind. Let me begin this morning by describing how
serious the FAA is in pursuing the goal of increased aviation safety in
Alaska. When I first came to the FAA, we put in place a strategic
business plan--we call it our Flight Plan--with specific objectives and
performance targets. The FAA's Flight Plan for 2004-2008 lists among
the safety objectives for the next 5 years a specific objective,
``Reduce Accidents in Alaska.'' The stated strategy is to expand and
accelerate the implementation of safety and air navigation improvements
programs here. It is noteworthy because no other state was listed
individually, only Alaska. Why, you might ask, does the FAA Flight Plan
have a specific objective of improving aviation safety in Alaska? The
answer is simple, Alaska has been called the ``flyingest state in the
union.'' It is a place where schoolchildren board aircraft to travel to
school, instead of a bus. When someone in a village is ill and needs
medical attention, they will most likely be transported to the hospital
via aircraft. As an essential mode of everyday transportation, aviation
must be a safe mode.
A 1999 study by the National Institute on Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) ranked being a commercial airline pilot as the most
hazardous occupation in Alaska. Clearly, a focused, dedicated,
multifaceted, approach to improving aviation safety in Alaska was
needed. I am happy to say the approach we are taking, one that
represents the collective efforts of aviators, the State of Alaska, and
the FAA, is working.
The most promising initiative with potential for broad application
to a range of hazards, including terrain, other airborne traffic, and
weather, is the Capstone demonstration program in the Alaska Region.
Capstone is a technology-focused safety program in Alaska that seeks
near term safety and efficiency gains in aviation by accelerating
implementation and use of modern technology, in both avionics and
ground system infrastructure. The key enabling technology on which
Capstone is based is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B). ADS-B gives an aircraft with the requisite data uplink/downlink and
cockpit display capabilities the same information about other aircraft
in the vicinity as air traffic control now receives. Capstone Phase I,
which began in 1999, included the installation of government-furnished
Global Positioning System (GPS) driven avionics suites in 200
commercial aircraft serving the region around Bethel, Alaska, known as
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region (YK Delta), consisting of over 160,000
square miles. One of the two approved datalink technologies for ADS-B,
the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) also provides an uplink for
weather information via Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B).
The weather data is displayed on the same multifunction cockpit display
used for the ADS-B display of traffic, and for terrain data.
Through 2004 the FAA Alaskan Region Capstone Program has achieved
significant safety and efficiency results. Capstone equipped aircraft
have had a consistently lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft.
From 2000 through 2004, the rate of accidents for Capstone-equipped
aircraft dropped significantly--by 47 percent. Also, the rate of
accidents for Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region-based air carriers has been
falling since 2001, and is now at the lowest rate since 1990.
Historically, the rate of air taxi accidents within the YK Delta has
been 2 to 4 times the rest of Alaska, but in 2003 the accident rate for
the region was below the rest of the state for the first time. That is
real progress.
Phase II of Capstone will expand the coverage to southeast Alaska,
in the Juneau area, and Phase III contemplates expanding the program to
cover the entire state. Also as part of Phase II, additional technology
infrastructure will be deployed. New Area Navigation (RNAV) and
Required Navigation Procedure (RNP) arrival and departure procedures
will continue to be developed for the airports recommended by the
industry for upgrade to Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) access. RNAV
procedures provide flight path guidance incorporated in taxi
procedures, with minimal instructions required during departure by air
traffic controllers. RNP is on-board technology that promises to add to
capacity by allowing pilots to fly more direct point-to-point routes
reliably and accurately. Key benefits of RNAV and RNP include more
efficient use of airspace, with improved flight profiles, resulting in
significant fuel efficiencies to the airlines. An airport-to-airport
Global Positioning System (GPS)/Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
based route structure will be mapped between all IFR airports. Aircraft
avionics equipage is key to an accelerated implementation strategy;
therefore Capstone will continue to pursue affordable avionics so that
aircraft owners will have a range of choices appropriate to their
operational needs. This includes both creating options for equipage and
a strategy to ensure that all aircraft in Alaska are equipped.
In addition to technology improvements, the FAA has also undertaken
safety management and training efforts in partnership with the aviation
community here to increase safety awareness and reduce aircraft
accidents. In joint efforts with the Medallion Foundation, a non-profit
aviation safety organization that provides management resources,
training and support to the Alaskan aviation community, the FAA is
funding a program known as the Five Star Shield program, which is an
enhanced safety management system. The Medallion Five Star Shield
program takes a business-like approach to safety, providing for the
setting of goals as well as planning and measuring performance in
specific areas through the use of system safety concepts. The program
is voluntary, and focuses on establishing and sustaining an elevated
level of safety performance through: the development of a safety
culture that holds safety as a core value; continuous professional
development of individual skills and competence; proactive sharing of
operational control responsibilities; hazard identification and risk
management; and management practices that support the organization's
safety objectives.
The Five Stars in the Medallion Five Star Shield program include
numerous methods for improving safety. To earn the First Star, each air
carrier must establish a safety program which, at a minimum, should
include safety meetings and audits, the use of root-cause analysis,
hazard identification, incident investigations, and a viable emergency
response plan. The Five Star program also requires a classroom training
program for pilots, mechanics and ground service personnel, as well as
required training on a PC-based computer simulator. Two annual check
rides are required to receive this second Star, and annual pilot
proficiency check rides are required to keep the Star. The Third Star
involves operational risk management. A dynamic system that provides
analytical tools as well as a system of checks and balances to
proactively identify hazards and manage risks is required. The carrier
must have an operational risk management system that quantifies the
risks for each flight, including weather, airport, and crew readiness.
The total risk score determines if the flight is conducted normally, if
more management evaluation is required for release of the flight, or if
the flight is cancelled. The Fourth Star concerns maintenance and
ground service operations, requiring specific training and manning
levels. The Fifth Star is an internal audit program, which requires
incorporation of a proactive internal audit system that focuses on the
use of systems safety principles, as well as regulatory compliance.
This is a comprehensive audit program requirement intended to allow the
operator to continuously monitor their operating systems and provide
for continuous improvement. Medallion has specific detailed
requirements.
The FAA is supporting the Medallion Foundation in the
implementation of this program. Once an applicant has received all five
Stars, and passed an independent audit, they may be certified for the
Medallion Shield, which is attested to by a decal displayed on the
aircraft, and can be used on uniforms and promotional materials. In
order to maintain shield status, the operator must successfully pass an
audit each year. If the operator fails to pass the audit, or Medallion
on-site inspectors notice that a specific activity represented by a
star is not being properly addressed on a continuing basis, the star
and shield may be revoked. A direct benefit of the Shield program for
operators is that the insurance industry has agreed to provide
favorable rates for Shield carriers.
It's worth noting here that the FAA and the Medallion Foundation
are not just focused on improving safety in commercial operations, but
are also targeting improvements to safety in the general aviation (GA)
community as well. Our efforts in this area are coordinated through the
Medallion Flyer General Aviation Program, which is proving to be quite
popular among the GA community. Interested pilots begin by submitting
an application to the Medallion Foundation, which will then issue the
pilot a free copy of the FAA ``Back to Basics--Runway Safety'' CD.
After that, the pilot is invited to attend the FLYER Step II course,
which provides access to free usage of Medallion state-of-the-art
flight training devices. During this course, pilots are provided with
tools designed to help establish a personal safety program. They are
also introduced to hazard assessment and risk management techniques.
Pilots also receive important information on flying in ``white out''
and ``flat'' light conditions, risk assessment, pilot/ATC
communications, and Alaska flying tips.
The Capstone and Medallion programs clearly demonstrate that better
information, better training, and better risk-management procedures can
contribute significantly to reductions in aviation accidents and save
lives. People here in Alaska can be very proud of the progress they've
made. Alaska has set an example for the rest of the country.
The on-going and increasing deployment of weather cameras in
numerous parts of Alaska is another beneficial use of technology that
can dramatically improve aviation safety by providing near real-time
information to help with pilot decision making and risk management.
There are currently 55 operational locations for weather cameras, which
stretch into every region of the state, and 12 more operational sites
will be available in 2005. Many of these weather cameras are positioned
in or near mountain passes and other geographical features which are
often used by pilots to navigate on their flights. The other feature of
these cameras that is so beneficial to pilots is that they are often
located at rural airports where there are no weather observers, and no
other means to find out what current weather conditions are prior to
deciding to take off. They are also co-located with automated weather
systems, providing additional visual information previously only
available at those few sites with a weather observer.
These cameras, all of which can be viewed at one website, http://
akweathercams.faa.gov , provide two images from each camera located at
the site. One image is a file photo of the area within the camera's
range on a clear, sunny day. The other image is a real-time photo,
which is refreshed every 10 minutes, of the exact same view as the file
photo. This provides an instant visual comparison of weather
conditions, precipitation, cloud cover, ceiling, and visibility.
The real value in these weather cameras is that they help pilots
decide whether to even begin their flight, based on weather conditions,
rather than have the pilots have to make difficult and hazardous
decisions once they have encountered the deteriorating weather
conditions in flight. Flight service specialists also have access to
the weather camera images, and routinely brief pilots on the weather
camera images when they call for a pre-flight briefing and during their
flight, providing the most up-to-date information on the weather camera
images to help pilots make that ``go or no-go'' decision. During an
independent study conducted between December 2002 and March 2003 by
Parker Associates, Inc., 68 percent of the reported decisions made
based on weather cameras were to cancel or delay a flight due to
weather. Air carriers, commercial operators, and general aviation
pilots can avoid the cost of fuel from flights that must be diverted or
repeated due to bad weather. Cameras have a positive financial impact
on an industry undergoing economic challenges. Our website for the
cameras has received 1.3 million ``hits'' in 2003, 2.3 million ``hits''
in 2004, and we expect the number of ``hits'' to increase by another 1
million this fiscal year--a real testament to how important real time
knowledge of weather conditions is for pilots.
Turning now to another area of interest to this Committee, I would
like to briefly highlight the FAA's Rural Alaska Lighting Program
(RALP). The goal of the Rural Alaska Lighting Program is to install
airport lighting in communities with limited access to 24-hour medical
facilities, to provide better access and improved lighting for
aeromedical services. The Program is comprised of three tiers. Tier One
is Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRLs) or permanent edge lighting
at those airports that meet minimum safety requirements. Tier Two is
portable, battery-powered lights for communities or airports that are
unable to accommodate permanent edge lights. Tier Three is Precision
Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) and Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs)
to support approach procedures at airports.
This program began in 2001 with a study that identified 63
communities needing the improved lighting. Federal funding began in
FY02. In addition to the $35 million that has been appropriated for
this effort so far under the FAA's Facilities and Equipment program,
the Airport Improvement Program has provided the funding for necessary
runway pavement or runway safety area improvements. All of the 63
communities have received at least an interim solution to provide for
24 hour VFR aeromedical access. Twenty-six of the 63 communities have
also received permanent lighting solutions. An additional 19
communities will have permanent lighting solutions by 2010. The final
18 communities have complicated land and/or environmental issues, but
we will continue to work with the State of Alaska to resolve all
outstanding issues.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to mention the great
contributions to aviation safety in Alaska made by a true visionary,
Tom Wardleigh. Mr. Wardleigh shared his vision for the future of
aviation in Alaska with you and all Alaskan aviators in testimony to
this body in 1999. That vision is now part of Mr. Wardleigh's legacy.
The FAA is pleased to announce the creation of a new National safety
award in honor of the late Thomas Wardleigh, Master Pilot, Master
Mechanic, elder statesman of aviation. As with so many of this region's
innovations, Mr. Wardleigh's contribution to aviation safety is now a
national asset. Tom urged the FAA to strive for exceptional customer
service and to be a proving ground for new ideas. He was a visionary
who knew that if we could make an idea work in Alaska with all of its
challenges, it would benefit all of aviation.
Mr. Wardleigh's wife, Jan, is with us today. I hope she is pleased
with our memorial to him. I know that this award has special meaning
for you, Mr. Chairman, as I have been told that you received your
floatplane rating from Tom just a few years ago.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate what I said at the
outset of my testimony today--aviation safety is, and always will be,
the first priority at the FAA. These programs I have discussed are the
leading edge of efforts to improve aviation safety for everyone, and
Alaska is once again showing the way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify today on such an important topic. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Blakey.
Mr. Secretary, we seem to be going through a transition
here now. We've traditionally had the hub-and-spoke type of
transportation for local aviation, commercial aviation, that
was the same, you know, throughout the Nation for a while.
Their hubs and the major airlines flew in those hubs and out of
them on a slope basis. That seems to be changing in our state,
and I don't know if you've noticed it nationally, but as we go
to this new phase now, as you mentioned bypass mail, we're
going to have more direct flights from Anchorage to the
destination that used to go through the hub and then on to the
destination. But the larger cargo planes, they're going to go
straight in. That, I think may increase the demand for
Essential Air Service, as you review it.
Clearly, that is the essential thing for us to maintain the
seats as well as get the mail to the small villages, small
communities for our state. But I would urge you as you go into
the review of Essential Air Service, and I think it does need
review. We look forward to working with you on it, our
Committee. But I urge you to look at the changes here in our
state before you make final decisions on EAS. Has anyone
brought this change to your attention?
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely. There's no question that the hub-
and-spoke system and the embedded costs that it produces for
the airlines is something that they're shifting, and there's a
change in the paradigm of the hub-and-spoke to more point-to-
point. And, as you've indicated, as we go more to point-to-
point, there will be increased use of the Essential Air
Service. And I think that's part of the picture that we're
looking at in the Lower 48 as it--as the increase occurs, the
question about given the limited financial resources and how do
we make sure that we spread it out as evenly and as efficiently
and as fairly as possible. And that's where we would do the
consultation with you and the Committee to see where we go in
the future.
The Chairman. Thank you for that. And I appreciate your
statement.
One question came to my mind. On these Open Skies
negotiations, do you negotiate cargo-only flights?
Mr. Mineta. No, these are all both inclusive of passenger
and cargo. There are some places like in--it was in Indonesia
when we did the Open Skies Agreement, we started with cargo,
and then phased in the passenger piece of it. And so the
passenger piece will kick in in 2006. But we started out with
the cargo only.
So, it can vary from each country, but generally, what we'd
like to get to eventually, is Open Skies for both cargo and
passenger, and--but we will phase it in depending on the
negotiations with the--with that country.
The Chairman. Ms. Blakey, I'm glad you mentioned Tom
Wardleigh. I look forward to working with you on this national
award that will recognize anyone in the country that is worthy
of honoring for contributions to aircraft, airline, and airway
safety. He was not only a great person, he was really the
original person to suggest the Medallion program. But he also
was great fun and my flight instructor. So I miss him very
much.
I do thank you both. I've got a series of witnesses. I look
forward to working with you while you're here.
I think the very fact that you're here will give you an
opportunity to witness even further some of the things we're
doing, both Medallion and Capstone. I actually flew a few years
ago Christmas, one of the first flights into the Bethel region
testing Capstone and it was just a wonderful flight. And I've
seen it improve since then. I wish I've had more time to fly. I
think other people around here can have a great opportunity to
really fly in safety and that is a wonderful thing.
I do thank you also for the cameras. I personally have used
the cameras. I think the public ones most used is the one which
runs through the pass in Lake Clark and from time to time I may
get calls that they may not be functioning properly. I'm
pleased to say Mr. Poe responds and makes it function.
I'm happy to have you here today. And thank you from coming
to Alaska.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I have to say, Norm, I've visited Norm Mineta
Airport. I always thought you had to be dead to have an airport
named after you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I'm glad the two of us are still here.
The next panel is Pat Poe, the regional administrator of
the FAA, the Alaska region; Mike Barton, the commissioner of
the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
I note for the record that the Lieutenant Governor is here,
Mr. Loren Leman. Nice to see you here.
Mr. Poe, in view of the fact that Ms. Blakey has already
testified, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF PAT POE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, ALASKA REGION
Mr. Poe. I don't have an opening statement. But I do have
words I'd like to share with the Chairman and the guests here,
if I might.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Poe. First, I'd like to offer a recall, Mr. Chairman it
was in 1999 I first arrived and had the privilege to testify
before you and others at a hearing similar to this. And that
was a long hearing. That lasted several hours, many people
testified, all on aviation.
At the conclusion of that, you offered comments to the
effect that it was the first time perhaps you had ever seen
government and industry actually working together. And if that
proved to be true, perhaps that would make the difference in
terms of aviation safety.
What I would like to report is what has happened since
then, and what differences have been made and measured.
First, I would say that I came to Alaska, like many people,
I think, for the adventure; but you stay because of the people.
You stay because of the dedication to aviation and the fact
that it's truly the conduit through which commerce moves,
education, medevac, and the transportation system as a whole.
The second thing I learned here was that all of the pilots
are both progressive and aggressive. I mean, I've never met a
bashful pilot yet in Alaska, you don't have to ask for their
opinions, because you're going to get them anyway. And that has
served me very well.
And last, I would say Alaskans expect results and they want
it to be measured, and that is what we have done.
The Capstone program, arguably, is one of the most measured
programs of recent times. The evaluations began before the
first aircraft was ever equipped. To date, we have three
studies that have been done: the University of Alaska in
cooperation with the Mitre Corporation; and most recently
Embry-Riddle University, has produced studies from the
inception through April of 2005.
Capstone Phase I represents now over a million flight
hours. Very strong data upon which to make findings, and as
Administrator Blakey pointed out, the differential between
accidents in Capstone-equipped versus non-Capstone-equipped
airplanes, 47 percent.
The Chairman. We'd like to have copies of that for the
record and perhaps we'll take the summaries and make them part
of this hearing record. *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Poe. I would be delighted, sir. They're here for your
use.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Poe. Second, I would like to mention, just briefly, the
flight following the aspect of Capstone. This is the ability to
track Capstone-equipped airplanes with 1-second updates with
precise accuracy. That has a variety of efficiencies for the
carriers themselves, for the passengers, for the movement of
goods and services. But also in search and rescue it has an
enormous impact.
Two years ago in Marshall, Alaska, night flight, one soul
on board, didn't arrive at the destination, middle of winter.
No emergency locator transmission from the aircraft. Aircraft
had crashed. Practically no way to find it.
The center here in Anchorage ran back the tape using the
technology that the Administrator mentioned, automatic
dependent surveillance broadcast, and pinpointed the accurate
location of the airplane. I've actually met the pilot, the one
that made the flight. Flew to that coordinate, put on night-
vision goggles, and in 3 minutes spotted the airplane; pilot
inside with two broken legs. That's a life saved. Every life
saved, according to OMB, has a measure of $3 million. I don't
think any of us like to think in those terms, but when you look
at programs like Capstone, weather cameras, rural lighting
projects, Medallion, Circle of Safety, the list is long, I'm
pleased that it's long. These programs all work together in
their solution. The safety record is truly extraordinary.
Internationally, I recall the first International Advanced
Aviation Technology Conference that we had here in Anchorage,
hosted by the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, the
University of Alaska in Anchorage, and the FAA. And you, Mr.
Chairman, were kind enough to come and speak at that
conference.
Since then, we have had an additional conference, we've had
multiple visitors from many, many different countries. Most
recently, the World Bank was here. They're looking at what we
have done in Alaska to solve similar needs in the countries
around the world.
I found it interesting and rewarding that Australia has
announced that they will start using ADSB for air traffic
surveillance and separation. They've acknowledged they're the
second country in the world to do that. The first being the
United States of America, right here at our center in
Anchorage, on January 1, 2001, gives you an idea how far into
the future we've traveled together.
Recently, Congress urged the FAA to look at the weather
camera issues in the mountain passes. You've mentioned Lake
Clark Pass, one of our most popular and most necessary
locations. I am pleased to announce that by this time next year
we expect to have Ptarmigan and Rainy Pass cameras installed,
and by the end of that year, operational. Merrill Pass, the
following year. As you know, these are some of the most
terrain-challenged corridors for aviation in Alaska; and
accordingly, they have attending risk.
I think perhaps, in summary, I would say that Alaska, I
think, has chosen to make a difference for itself, and I think
the community has worked together. The State of Alaska, the air
carriers and operators in the audience, the University of
Alaska, the industry, and the FAA have all been working
together toward a common result.
At the outset, when you said perhaps working together could
make a difference, the Administrator has mentioned some of the
remarkable gains in safety. I would just like to highlight one
thing, if I might.
During the decade of the 1990s based on NTSB, National
Transportation Safety Board statistics, we were averaging about
180 accidents a year in Alaska. Year before last, we had 117
accidents. Last year 100. Those are remarkable gains. And the
effort that will be necessary to sustain them is the same
effort that got us this far, and that is, if we all work
together, we'll continue to make improvements.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I've got some questions,
but let's hear first from Commissioner Barton.
STATEMENT OF MIKE BARTON, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you for your personal support of aviation in Alaska over the
years. It's made a difference.
I will confine my remarks primarily to those issues that
impact our rural communities and the 256 rural airports that
the state owns and operates.
Mr. Plumb will address issues relating to the two
international airports operated by the state.
I want to start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for its
ongoing cooperative relationships with the state over the
years.
The Essential Air Service Program remains a critical
support for safe scheduled service with 34 Alaskan communities
out of a total of 216 that are eligible. In some cases, that
service is made possible by this program as the only way that
many Alaskans can get the medical help and other vital services
that they need.
The state has a strategic goal to improve runways at 24-
hour VFR standard in communities that depend on air medical
evacuation. A 1999 Congressional study identified 63
communities that did not have this capability. That list is our
target.
Runway edge lights and identifier lights and precision-path
indicators when installed on a 3,300-foot runway allow 24-hour
VFR access.
Congress has made special appropriations of $38 million for
this program. And with these special appropriations, we've
temporarily improved medical access by deploying portable
emergency lights for helicopter landing zones at all 63
communities. And since 1999, we have improved 26 of the 63
airports to 24-hour standards, and will complete another 14 by
the end of 2008.
Realistically, the entire list of 63 communities should
have 24-hour medical access by 2015. The continuing support of
the Congress and yourself is greatly appreciated.
The FAA and all of those in the aviation community in
Alaska should be commended for their efforts in aviation
safety. The reduction in incidents and accidents that have been
achieved in Alaska is remarkable, and the Capstone program has
contributed significantly to this reduction. You've heard a lot
about this program and will hear more, but please know that the
State of Alaska fully supports an accelerated implementation of
Capstone.
And further, the Medallion program has made significant
contributions to aviation safety.
Although we are blessed with natural bounty, we never like
to see migratory birds on our airports. In fact, we've spent an
inordinate amount of time and money managing this federal
resource at our certified airports. Ironically, we dedicate
State resources to hire federal employees to keep federal birds
off state airports.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Barton. We clearly support more federal participation
in the management of those federal resources.
The application of a National Environmental Policy Act, as
well as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, needs to be clarified. At some point in time, a decision
is made to designate a piece of ground as an airport. It seems
that designation identifies the dominant use and clearly
specifies the objective for a designated piece of land. I'm not
advocating running roughshod over the environment as these
airports are developed. I am advocating common-sense
application of NEPA, 4(f), and other environmental laws for
lands that have long been designated for airport purposes.
With the help of Congress and FAA, the AIP program for
state-owned and operated airports in Alaska has grown from $61
million to $205 million in the last 5 years.
Alaska has benefited tremendously from the AIP program, and
we are grateful, particularly in our rural communities where
our airports are our highways. That's not to say that we don't
have unmet needs. The cost of construction in rural Alaska is
very expensive. At most locations in rural Alaska, the
materials and equipment needed must be barged in from hundreds
of miles away during a very short summer construction season.
We could easily double our AIP investment and still find
ourselves behind. I urge Congress to more fully fund FAA
operations from sources other than the trust fund so that more
of the trust fund can be invested in airport improvements.
In closing, I want to emphasize how important air travel
and the infrastructure that supports aviation is to Alaska.
From our international airports on down to the smallest village
strip, our airport system is simply crucial to the state's
economy, local economies, and the health and well being of all
Alaskans.
Alaska comprises 20 percent of the land mass of the United
States, but has less road mileage than Fairfax County,
Virginia. Our air transportation infrastructure is the glue
that holds our communities together.
Alaskans appreciate the continuing support of the Congress
for aviation and the recognition of the importance of aviation
to Alaska is gratifying as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Barton, Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in Alaska appreciate that you have
convened this field hearing to gain a better understanding of the many
issues unique to Alaska aviation.
I will confine my remarks primarily to those issues that impact our
rural communities and the 256 rural airports that the state owns and
operates.
I would start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for its ongoing,
cooperative relationship with the state over the years. We have found
that our agencies share a common mission of providing the
infrastructure for air transportation in a very large, difficult, and
often inhospitable area. The willingness of the staff at FAA to face
these challenges together with their state counterparts continues to
produce mutual benefits.
Essential Air Service
This government program remains a critical support for safe,
scheduled passenger service to 34 Alaska communities, out of a total of
216 communities that are eligible. In some cases, the service made
possible by this program is the only way that many Alaskans can get the
medical help and other vital services that they need.
The state, in developing our comments on each subsidy offer, gives
careful consideration to the efficacy of the route subsidized, the
carriers competing, and the impact to the community, all with an eye
towards funding the most effective program.
Runway Lighting
The state has a strategic goal to improve runways to a 24-hour VFR
standard in communities that depend on air medical evacuation. A
Congressional study conducted in 1999 identified 63 communities that
did not have 24-hour VFR capability. That list is our target. Runway
edge lights, end identifier lights, and precision approach path
indicators, when installed on a 3,300-foot runway, allow 24-hour VFR
access.
Congress has also made special appropriations of $38 million to the
FAA for this program. We have worked cooperatively with the FAA to
apply these monies to the communities on the list of deficient airports
to install lighting and navigation systems.
With the special appropriations, we have temporarily improved
medical access by deploying portable emergency lights for helicopter
landing zones at all 63 communities. These lights facilitate safer
evacuation by Coast Guard and National Guard helicopters in life and
death situations. A few civilian operators have also become certified
to use these portable lights.
Since 1999 we have improved 26 of the 63 airports to 24-hour
standards, and will complete another 14 by the end of 2008. Twenty-
three more communities will await a permanent solution. There is a plan
in place for them. Realistically, the entire list of 63 communities
should have 24-hour medical access by 2015. At that time, more than
$500 million will have been invested in these communities, including
the $38 million and more than $470 million we are dedicating from the
AIP program to bring those airports up to required standards.
The continuing support of Congress is greatly appreciated.
Safety
The FAA and all of those in the aviation community in Alaska should
be commended for their efforts in aviation safety. The reduction in
incidents/accidents that has been achieved in Alaska is remarkable. The
Capstone program has contributed to this reduction, as well a achieving
a large improvement in access for aviation in Alaska. This improved
access results from the fact that better weather reporting means a
better IFR success rate, and therefore more completed flights. Enough
has been or will be said about this program, but please know that the
State of Alaska fully supports an accelerated transition to a new
national airspace system using space-based navigational aids.
Also, the Medallion program has made a significant contribution to
aviation safety. You will hear much about the good this program has
done, but simply stated, since many state employees fly to all corners
of the state, we all look for the Medallion logo on each airplane we
board.
Wildlife Management
Although we are blessed with natural bounty, we never like to see
migratory birds on our airports. In fact, we spend an inordinate amount
of time and money managing this federal resource at our certified
airports. Ironically, we dedicate state resources to hire federal
employees (USDA) to keep federal birds off state airports. Recent
interpretation of the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 requires that we cease
construction activities if birds are found to be nesting on the
airports. This creates undue hardships, delays, and increased costs
during our abbreviated summer construction season.
We clearly support more federal participation in the management of
those federal resources.
Wetlands
The application of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well
as section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U.S.C. 303(c)), to all airports, including rural airports, needs to be
clarified. At some point in time a decision was made to designate a
piece of ground as an airport. It seems that designation identifies the
dominant use, and clearly specifies the objective for the designated
land.
I am not advocating running roughshod over the environment as these
airports are developed. I am advocating common sense application of
NEPA, Sec. 4(f), and other environmental laws to lands that have been
long designated for airport purposes. A great deal of time and money is
spent on living up to the letter of the law. Stringent application of
these laws results in added cost and protracted delays in needed
projects. Recognition of the primary purpose of lands designated as
airports should be incorporated into the implementation of
environmental laws at airports. We believe that the small footprints of
disturbance from our rural airport construction should allow us to
conduct environmental analyses, rather than a full NEPA statement.
AIP Program
With the help of Congress and FAA, the AIP program has grown from
$61 million to $205 million in the last 5 years. Alaska has benefited
tremendously from the AIP program, particularly in our rural
communities, where airports are our highways, and we are grateful.
This is not to say that we don't have unmet needs. The cost of
construction in rural Alaska is expensive. At most locations, the
materials and equipment needed to construct an airport must be barged
in from hundreds of miles away during a very short summer construction
season. As communities grow and everyone focuses on improved levels of
service such as those identified in the 1999 medical access study, we
could easily double our AIP spending and still find ourselves behind.
I urge Congress to more fully fund FAA operations from sources
other than the trust fund, so that more of the trust fund can be
invested in airport improvements. I suggest, too, that the primary
passenger entitlement formula be reviewed and possibly modified. In
this fiscal year, Alaska's rural primary airports will earn $29 million
in passenger entitlements. Our identified needs list for primary
airports totals $535 million.
TSA
We in Alaska are as concerned about transportation security as any
state in the nation. We fully support the efforts to protect the
traveler and our nation's security. We have many transportation assets,
such as the oil pipeline and terminal, the Port of Anchorage, the oil
fields, and others, the loss or disruption of which would be a severe
blow to our state and the country.
As it is currently structured, the TSA has three separate
organizations in Alaska. We believe that the three organizations could
be streamlined into one to provide consistent security oversight within
Alaska.
We believe, also, that at Alaska's rural airports, transportation
security can be achieved in a more efficient manner than at present.
Transportation security programs at these airports should be based on
threat analysis.
As transportation security is presently implemented at Alaska's
rural airports, oftentimes the number of TSA employees outnumbers other
airport employees. If a threat-based approach were used, security
interests in Alaska could be met with considerably less investment.
Closing
In closing, I want to emphasize how important air travel, and the
infrastructure that supports aviation, is to Alaska.
From our international airports on down to the smallest village
strip, our airport system is simply crucial to the state's economy,
local economies, and the health and well being of all Alaskans.
Across the far reaches of Alaska, our air transportation
infrastructure has become the glue that holds our communities together.
Alaskans appreciate the continuing support of the FAA and the
Congress for aviation in Alaska. This recognition of the importance of
aviation to Alaska is gratifying to all of us.
I thank you for the opportunity today, and will answer any
questions the members may have for me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. As you were talking, it
reminds of a comment that I made--I think that GPS made more
difference to our aviation than any other technology. Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Barton. It certainly has made a tremendous difference.
The Chairman. And Capstone is tied right into that, isn't
it?
Mr. Barton. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. Can you tell me--our Committee is also
reviewing the whole communications pattern now. We're going
into broadband, wireless, and so many new communication
technologies. Are any of them going to affect the concept of
our airways control or things like that, Capstone?
Mr. Barton. I think Mr. Poe is more qualified to answer
that.
Mr. Poe. The answer is yes. When the technology is
affordable and available. By that I mean, for instance, in
Capstone we've already demonstrated that we can take a
Capstone-equipped aircraft, fly outside of any ground-based
navigation aid, and using the system at hand which was General
Dynamics Iridium and go directly from the aircraft to the
satellite, down into our center. Which means, in effect, we can
track and provide air traffic services anywhere in Alaska
without additional ground structure. We, being Capstone and the
FAA, have invested money and are looking at this, and doing the
research on it.
At this point, it's not mature and robust enough to support
that application.
I understand that the Department of Defense is also doing
some work in that regard, and we would hope that their
successes can be passed on to us.
The Chairman. You mentioned Capstone in terms of the second
and third phase. Do you have a plan that you're going to
attempt to take it national?
Mr. Poe. We have a plan that is beyond the concept. In
fact, we have concept options, and we're working diligently
right now with the Mitre Corporation supporting us. We've had
extensive input from the aviation community and interests and
industry here. By this September, it is our intent--ours being
the FAA Alaskan region--to make a presentation of our proposals
and alternatives to the senior management of the FAA in
Washington, DC. Their advice and influence will help shape what
that plan is.
The Phase II plan, which is being implemented in Southeast,
takes advantage of the Wide Area Augmentation System. And the
day that became active, we opened up air space in Southeast
Alaska, 41,000 feet along 1,500 miles of air route, where for
the first time we were no longer held, if you will, hostage to
ground navigation aids. That is the precursor of the
transition, sir, from ground base to satellite technologies in
air traffic services.
The Chairman. The system was partially modified in Alaska
and adapted in test phase; is that true?
Mr. Poe. This system being----
The Chairman. The Capstone?
Mr. Poe. Alaska Airlines--if you're referring to Alaska
Airlines?
Alaska Airlines predated Capstone in using something called
RNP, which is Required Navigation Procedures. And a special
approach down Gastineau Channel into Juneau, Alaska. RNP was
groundbreaking in aviation. That doesn't sound like the right
term in aviation, but it certainly opened up the rest of the
world for that application, and RNP is one of the technologies
and approaches that's being used by Alaska Airlines in other
places in the Lower 48, and it's one that we, the FAA, are
promoting nationwide.
The Chairman. Mr. Barton, have you discussed with the
Department of Transportation and the FAA the impact of this
requirement of 10 percent match from villages for Essential Air
Service?
Mr. Barton. We have not yet, Mr. Chairman. We're watching
that very carefully and intend to enter into that dialogue.
The Chairman. Knowing some of them as I do, I think some of
them can't make that payment. I would wonder if we could work
out some concept of more broader application so that more than
one village would contribute something for that--at least have
some way that there's a pool of money to meet the requirements
for an Alaska match without really imposing on some villages a
match that I don't think they can make.
Mr. Barton. There is no question that a number of the
villages have a great deal of difficulty meeting that match
requirement. We will have to work something out along those
lines.
The Chairman. Are there any other systems being tested now
in the Alaska region that we have not discussed here today?
Mr. Poe. Yes, sir. We've recently completed a test in
Fairbanks, Alaska using laser technology to hold short lines to
prevent runway incursions. That product was available through
the Galaxy Corporation. Under a licensed to Greatland Laser
from Alaska. And the results of that evaluation are just now
becoming available.
The evaluation was done by our technical center in Atlantic
City, New Jersey. The results to date do not appear to justify
the deployment of that technology for hold short lines and
things of that nature.
The areas of improvement have been documented, and that
evaluation is ongoing, and we're working with the manufacturer.
The Chairman. Does that technology have any application to
the rural villages where the needs for lighting is just
imminent?
Mr. Poe. The--I think as it becomes more--if I can use the
term, mature and robust, in that it moves from R&D into a
certified state, I think that technology would have a place in
the inventory. And by ``the inventory,'' I mean the things that
sponsors, such as the State of Alaska, could use in an AIP
grant proposal.
Right now these remain early days for that technology.
The only other thing I might mention, Mr. Chairman, is that
there are different types of community outreach programs that
are going on right now. I think many are the first in Alaska.
The Circle of Safety, which is a consumer awareness and safety
advocacy program. And most recently, an outreach into the
general aviation community to address and focus upon those
things general aviation pilots can do for themselves to the
betterment of their safety record and to the benefit of their
families.
The Chairman. Thank you both for your testimony.
Mike, I'm constrained to ask, how can you tell a Federal
bird from an Alaska bird?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Barton. It's one that's subject to the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. That's the best way.
The Chairman. You made a good suggestion. We will take a
look at that.
Thank you both very much.
Our last panel is the panel of Morton V. Plumb, the
Director of Anchorage International Airport; Rick Thompson,
Alaska Region, Vice President of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association; Jerry Dennis, the Executive Director
of the Medallion Foundation; Richard Harding, PenAir; and Karen
Casanovas, executive director of the Alaska Air Carriers
Association.
I don't know if you can all find a seat there. I'd like to
see if we can just have your comments, and then see if there's
any questions that I should put to you before we finish.
Dick, I know that George has pointed out to me in the paper
yesterday that you announced your 40th anniversary.
Mr. Harding. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mort.
STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB, DIRECTOR, ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
Mr. Plumb. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Mort Plumb, and I'm the director of the
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about
our airport.
Since the beginning of air field operations more than 50
years ago, Anchorage International has grown into the No. 1
airport--cargo airport based on landed gross weight, and fourth
ranking airport in the world based on cargo tonnage. We expect
Anchorage's air cargo operations to continue the growth based
on Asia-U.S. trade, and new federal legislation authorizing
liberalization for foreign and domestic air carriers who use
Anchorage as a transfer hub.
Alaska's strategic position on the Pacific Rim, despite
high fuel prices, is another contributing factor to Anchorage's
cargo ranking. Faced with narrowing margins, many carriers are
capitalizing on the payload versus range equation.
Last week marked the 1-year anniversary of the airport's
new C Concourse, and plans are currently underway for $143
million retrofit of the A and B Concourse to bring them up to
seismic code.
In addition to structural improvements, our airport will
see upgrades from air carriers to include the arrival of the
A380 for FedEx and UPS in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The
airport has been preparing its air field with the help of FAA
LOI funds--thank you--to accommodate these aircraft.
AIP funding formula changes concern us, Mr. Chairman. In
the most recent budget bill, an effort was made to change the
funding formula, and ultimately reduce cargo entitlements in
the Airport Improvement Program, better known as AIP.
Based on this formula change, Anchorage's cargo
entitlements would be reduced from 14.6 million to 6.8 million.
Such a reduction in cargo entitlements would directly impact
Anchorage's ability to provide the infrastructure required to
support the substantial growth in global air cargo traffic in a
national transportation system. It's critical to Anchorage to
maintain a 3.5 cargo entitlement rate with no cap.
Senator Stevens, you were very instrumental in increasing
the cargo entitlement rate from 3 percent to 3.5 percent and
removing the cap for total amount of cargo entitlements funding
to any one airport.
Anchorage is the only airport in the Nation that relies so
heavily on cargo entitlements. Anchorage currently accounts for
nearly 13 percent of all cargo traffic in the United States.
Because Anchorage serves a critical transit point for a large
proportion of the international air cargo to and from the
United States, funding for our airport, our cargo support for
infrastructure is truly a national, not merely a local,
concern.
Congress has proposed raising the passenger facility charge
rate from 3.50 to $8 per plane passenger. For some airports,
increased PFCs can cover cargo entitlement losses. As an
example, Memphis is the second largest cargo airport in the
United States. A formula change would reduce cargo funding for
Memphis by $7.4 million; but they would be able to increase
general airport funding by over 23 million by raising the PFC.
This is not the case for our airport.
The airport, along with Cathay Pacific, would again ask for
your assistance to get the Transit Without Visa Waiver Program
reinstated in Anchorage. After being assured many times that
DHS would reinstate this vital program, to date it remains
suspended.
This program allows passengers traveling from one foreign
country to another foreign country to transit the U.S. without
obtaining a U.S. visa. To date, the program remains suspended.
Unlike all other airports in the nation, the passengers on the
ATP program that fly through Anchorage arrive and depart on the
same aircraft, the same carrier, and the same flight. As to
visa-waiver flights, Anchorage is merely a transfer stop--
excuse me, simply a transit stop, not a transfer stop.
It is Cathay's desire to offer passenger service between
Anchorage and Hong Kong, but they are unable to do this until
the Transit Without Visa Program is reinstated, at least for
secure facilities such as ours.
I would recommend you support a pilot test program at the
Anchorage Airport.
We recommend more flexibility for AIP spending. Current FAA
regulations are very restrictive on the ability of airports to
use their entitlement funding. If the regulations were more
flexible, airports would have the ability to use the funding
more efficiently. For example, special condition 9 of the AIP
grant agreement precludes us from purchasing essential pieces
of equipment using AIP funds.
Federal agency space requirements are problematic for
airports around the country. Federal agencies operating at
airports should be required to pay for space to insure that
space requirements are reasonable, and to encourage the
agencies to use space efficiently, without duplication, and
reduce costs to the airlines.
Airports are increasingly asked to reduce the cost to
carriers and to find new and creative ways to generate
additional non-aeronautical revenues. At the same time,
airports are being asked by federal agencies to increase space
allocated to the agencies. With the exception of TSA, all
agencies have laws in place that require airports to build and
furnish space at no cost to agencies. The function these
agencies provide are invaluable to the safety and security of
our country, but building extravagant and duplicate facilities
for agencies is a waste of scarce resources. So, as long as the
law requires airports to build facilities with no cost to the
federal agencies, there is no incentive for the agencies to be
practical with their requirements.
With regard to TSA, we have a very good working
relationship with the leadership. However, Anchorage has
promised that new security requirements would be reimbursed by
TSA. To date, these commitments have not been fulfilled. In
fact, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport's LOI
application is now No. 23 on the list for funding. To date,
Anchorage has spent 19.6 million to fund TSA-mandated
enhancements at Concourse C, and is projected to spend another
15 million in Concourse A and B.
We are very proud of our float plane accommodations at Lake
Hood. It arguably takes honors as the largest and busiest
seaplane base in the world. Given the critical importance of
generation aviation to Alaska, we would appreciate any possible
support for more or alternate general aviation facilities.
In conclusion, the Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport serves as a critical transit and transfer point for a
large proportion of international air cargo to and from the
United States. Our airport is not merely a part of the national
air transportation system, but a critical international
strategic location.
Senator Stevens, Secretary Mineta, Administrator Blakey,
thanks to all your relentless efforts, we have seen our cargo
entitlements increase and our new cargo legislation adopted to
enhance and maintain our competitive Anchorage in the global
marketplace.
We thank you for your continued support. This is truly an
important contribution you're making to the future economic
well being of our state and the security of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much Mort.
We'll move on. Mr. Thompson is the Alaska Regional
President for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
I guess I'm correct, Dick, you're next in line? We're just
going to go down that line. All right.
Mr. Harding. Me next?
The Chairman. Sorry.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARDING, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PenAir
Mr. Harding. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, guests. Thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today with
regard to my experience with the Capstone program.
The successes described by Administrator Marion Blakey this
morning could not have been achieved without combined effort of
the FAA and the aviation community working closely together.
I came to Alaska as a young pilot in 1970 with a fresh ATP
certificate in my pocket after learning to fly in California. I
believe at that time there were more VORs in the Los Angeles
Bowl area than in the entire State of Alaska. The transition
was like going to a foreign country where few navigation aids
and many of the runways that were what somebody would expect in
a Third World country. Runways have changed a great deal,
especially in the last couple of years with the additional
funding. We've got some excellent runways now. It's not par
with the Lower 48, but we're getting there gradually, and
thanks to the additional funding. The nav aids, however, are
about the same as we had when I came in the 1970's.
In 1977, a group of air carrier operators met with the FAA
and some representatives from UPS Technologies to discuss what
could be done to improve navigation communication in Alaska. We
were told that with the new technology they could produce
almost anything we could conceive. And everything we see today
in Capstone is what we dreamed of then, ADSB stands for
Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcasts. ADSB is automatic
in that there is no pilot input necessary. It's dependent on a
series of satellites rather than high maintenance ground-based
facilities. It gives us capability of surveillance by our
operation centers. Aircraft can see each other and we can be
surveilled by air traffic control.
The unit in the aircraft also has the ability to broadcast
as well as receive. The pilot can select any of three displays
in the cockpit. A moving map display which shows weather,
traffic, or terrain. Today our pilots don't want to fly without
it. Customers, passengers love it.
We had a little old lady that was going to one of the
villages during the beginning stages of this program. She came
up to find out when her plane was going to arrive and she
believed--only about half of our airplanes were equipped, and
she asked, ``Is the airplane that I'm going to be flying in
have Capstone stuff in it?''
One of the advantages in small aircraft is the passengers
can see the panel and can see this moving map. Most flying in
rural Alaska is done with these small aircrafts servicing more
than 200 communities that are not on any road system. Aircraft
have to fly at low altitudes to maintain visual conditions
because there are no low-altitude airways connecting the
villages, nor approaches to the runways upon arrival. The
Capstone program has provided a means with emerging technology
to address both of these issues making aviation in rural Alaska
safer and more efficient to the traveling public. Capstone has
GPS approaches at communities that have no other instrument
approach procedures. In Southeast Alaska Capstone has been
instrumental in designing and creating low-altitude airways
outside of the icing areas that allow aircraft to utilize air
space that was never available before.
Capstone was the first to use the Wide Area Augmentation,
the WAAS system that Congress has previously funded. When the
FAA completes the WAAS testing in the rest of Alaska,
communities will have all-weather access with precision
approaches that were not previously available to them. It will
mean all-weather, 24-hour access to medical services not
available today.
Many of the communities that have instrument approaches do
not have radar coverage to altitudes below 5,000 feet. With
Capstone equipment on board, air traffic control can now see
traffic on the same screen that they can see high-flying radar
targets. This technology enables controllers to merge traffic
safely, as they do in the rest of the country. All progress
accomplished today is in accordance with the FAA concepts for
the future national air space system.
The Capstone program is demonstrating how rapid
transmission to the new NAS can be accomplished. The government
surely cannot afford to operate a system side by side for an
indefinite transition period. So it's essential that the
government and industry continue to work together.
With the Capstone project emerged a council of industry
leaders, such as members of the air carriers, manufacturers,
aviation groups such as Alaska Air Carriers Association, and
several government organizations. This new group, the Alaska
Aviation Coordination Council, developed a 5-year strategic
plan that includes all of the areas that the FAA Administrator,
Marion Blakey, had previously mentioned.
During the time I have been flying in Alaska we have gone
from the oldest, most outdated navigation system to the cutting
edge navigational equipment. We are all working for the same
goal: To improve aviation safety in Alaska.
The Medallion program addresses culture by providing
guidance, getting pilots and management involved in the safety
process. The Capstone program is a technology center of the
partnership. It is necessary on both working together to make a
difference.
We in Alaska aviation have been fortunate to have the
relentless support of Senator Stevens. We have also had the
backing of the FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, and Secretary
Mineta. Together we have reduced the aviation accident rate and
are providing an example of what can be done with a national
air space transportation system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harding follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Harding, Senior Vice President, PenAir
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today
with regard to my experience with the Capstone program. The successes
described by Administrator Blakey could not have been achieved without
the combined efforts of the FAA and the aviation community working
closely together.
I came to Alaska as a young pilot in 1970, with a fresh ATP pilot
certificate in my pocket after learning to fly in California. I
believe, at that time, there were more VORs in the Los Angeles bowl
area than in the entire State of Alaska. The transition was like going
to a foreign country. There were few navigational aids and many of the
runways were what one would expect to find in a third world country.
In 1997, a group of air carrier operators met with the FAA and some
representatives of UPS Technologies to discuss what could be done to
improve navigation and communication in Alaska. We were told that with
the new technology, they could produce almost anything we could
conceive. Everything we see today in Capstone is what we dreamed of
then. ADSB stands for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast. ADSB
is automatic, and no pilot input is necessary. It is dependent on a
series of satellites, rather than high maintenance ground based
facilities. It gives us surveillance capability by our operations
centers, other aircraft, and Air Traffic Control. The unit in the
aircraft also has the ability to broadcast, as well as receive. A pilot
can select any of the three displays in the cockpit, on a moving map
display, weather, traffic or terrain. Our pilots don't want to fly
without it. Our passengers love it. We had one in the beginning that
asked the gate when her flight would be ready and if it had that
``Capstone stuff '' In small aircraft the passengers can usually see
the pilot's panel.
Most of the flying in rural Alaska is done with these small
aircraft, servicing more than 200 communities that are not on any road
system. Aircraft have to fly at low altitudes in visual conditions
because there are no low altitude airways connecting them, nor
approaches to the runways upon arrival. The Capstone program has
provided a means with its emerging technology to address both these
issues, making aviation in rural Alaska safer and more efficient for
the traveling public. The latest independent safety analysis reports
accidents in the Capstone demonstration area have been reduced by 47
percent.
Capstone has initiated the installation of more than 40 GPS
approaches at communities that have no other instrument approach
procedures. In Southeast Alaska, Capstone has been instrumental in
designing and creating low altitude airways, outside of icing areas,
that allow aircraft to utilize airspace that was never available
before. Capstone was the first to use the Wide Area Augmentation System
that congress had previously funded. When the FAA completes WAAS
testing in the rest of Alaska, communities will have all weather
access, with precision approaches, that were not previously available
to them. This will mean all weather, 24-hour access to medical service,
that is not available today.
Many of the communities that have instrument approaches do not have
radar coverage at altitudes below 5,000 feet. With Capstone equipment
on board, Air Traffic Control can now see traffic on the same screen
they see high-flying radar targets. This technology enables controllers
to merge traffic safely, as they do in the rest of the country. All the
progress accomplished to date is in accordance with the FAA concepts
for the future National Airspace System. The Capstone Program is
demonstrating how a rapid transition to the new National Airspace
System can be accomplished. The government surely cannot afford to
operate dual systems side-by-side for an indefinite transition period,
so it is essential that government and industry continue to work
together.
From the Capstone project emerged a council of industry leaders
such as members of air carriers, manufactures, aviation groups such as
the Air Carriers Association, and several government organizations.
This new group, the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council developed a
five-year strategic plan that includes all of the areas FAA
Administrator Blakey had previously mentioned.
During the time I have been flying in Alaska, we have gone from the
oldest, most outdated navigation system, to cutting edge navigational
equipment. We are all working toward the same goal, to improve aviation
safety in Alaska. The Medallion program addresses the culture by
providing guidance in getting pilots and management involved in the
safety process. The Capstone program is the technology side of the
partnership. It is necessary to have both working together to make the
difference.
We, in Alaskan aviation, have been fortunate to have the relentless
support of Senator Stevens. We have also had the backing of the FAA
Administrator Marion Blakey. Together, we have reduced the Alaskan
aviation accident rate and are providing an example of what can be done
in the National Airspace System.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Glad to have you here.
Just go right on down the line. Mr. Dennis.
STATEMENT OF JERRY DENNIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE MEDALLION
FOUNDATION
Mr. Dennis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman Stevens. My name is Jerry Dennis. I
am the Executive Director of the Medallion Foundation. I do
appreciate the fact that the Committee has chosen to have this
hearing here, and specifically would like to thank you for
inviting me to talk to the Medallion Foundation.
More than 32 years ago I came to Alaska as an NTSB
investigator. At that time, the accident rate was much higher.
In fact, during my time with the safety board, I personally
averaged 110 accident investigations a year, which is far more
than the total number of mishaps in Alaska that was attested to
by Mr. Poe just a few moments ago. When you consider that we
had three investigators all averaging about the same, you can
see there's been a considerable improvement.
However, flying in Alaska in the 1970s and 1980s is not
like flying in Alaska today. Or, actually, is it?
In 1979 I was part of the NTSB special study on air taxi
safety in Alaska. Except for the advancements in technology,
almost every item we've discussed in that study has been echoed
in succeeding studies, including the one referenced by the FAA
Administrator in her testimony earlier today. It is significant
that the same problems were identified not by one additional
study, but by 4 separate studies. How can this be?
I believe it is because we are a highly regulated industry
and have been doing the same things over and over again. All
the time using the FAA regulations as our safety net. Einstein
had an interesting definition for ``insanity'': Doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I believe that the Medallion Foundation has broken that
mold, and the key is not additional regulations or another
safety program. But, instead, it is dedicated people armed with
the license to learn in the industry and educating others using
a back-to-basics, one-on-one training philosophy.
A quick review will show that every major reduction in
aircraft accidents has resulted from a change in technology. It
is because of these improvements that the focus has not been on
manufacturers, but on more tangible technological solutions.
However, the accidents are still occurring and the pilot is
still cited as a causal factor in more than 70 to 75 percent of
the mishaps.
The Capstone technology being discussed here today has
reduced accidents and is a wonderful tool. I'm hear to say, the
Medallion Foundation Five Star Shield Program is also a very
valuable tool that is focused on human factors and the
organization. It has also reduced accidents throughout Alaska.
This program is unique in that it was developed by the
industry, not the government. It is based on the belief that
the individuals doing the job usually know more about what is
wrong than anyone else. And 9 times out of 10, they also know
the answer to the problem. The Medallion programs are based on
this concept and they're a step above the regulations. A
voluntary process that has higher safety goals that can be
tailored to each operator based on their needs and
requirements.
Why is this program working? One of the primary reasons is
because it's good business and demonstrates that safety can be
a profit center. The Senior Vice President of PenAir, Mr.
Richard Harding, sitting to my right, has stated on numerous
occasions that the shield program has reduced their
occupational exposure by as much as 60 percent. When you look
at the cost of workers' compensation today, that equates to
real dollars.
Another reason, and a big one, is that the program is
proactive, not reactive. It is based on what people do right,
not how to prevent the last accident.
Another important part of this success story is the
relationship we have with the FAA. This type of program would
have been difficult, if not impossible, just 10 years ago. And
even with this partnership approach, it still took well over a
year to get the inspectors to acknowledge that we had something
to offer.
One other very important advantage that we have over any
government agency is flexibility. We can change things as we
see fit and do it now.
In the past 3 years, we have instituted 6 improvements to
the program. We still have oversight from the FAA, as our
monthly meetings and quarterly reports will attest. But I
believe that the FAA now looks on the Medallion Foundation as a
tool they can use as well.
I firmly believe that given the current evolution of the
program in the next 6 to 9 months, the FAA will be able to use
the Medallion programs to assist in their evaluation of an
operator, and will be able to focus their resources on more
troubled carriers.
I also believe that using our process-based approach and a
viable internal evaluation program will be the basis for a
limited form of self-regulation that may change the nature of
government oversight.
The grant provided by Congress with the sponsorship of
Senator Stevens has already changed aviation in Alaska. I
believe that the programs being developed here, both Medallion,
Capstone, weather cams, and others, will eventually be utilized
in the Lower 48 and other parts of the world as well.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to testify on the subject. I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF RICK THOMPSON, ALASKAN REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thompson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on Alaskan aviation issues.
I'm a 20-year veteran air traffic controller at the
Anchorage Air Traffic Control Center. NATCA has a long history
of supporting new aviation technology and modernizing our
nation's air traffic control system to meet the growing demand
for aviation services.
In Alaska we have a number of unique opportunities to be on
the cutting edge of new technology. Today I'll address issues
affecting those factors. NATCA is not interested in simply
pointing out challenges; we are prepared to offer solutions.
The issues we face are not insurmountable, rather they present
opportunities for aviation stakeholders to provide input and
expertise that allow us to continue to build Alaska's aviation
infrastructure.
The FAA is facing a nationwide air traffic controller
retirement crisis. NATCA has been working secure funds to hire
and train the next generation of controllers. Unfortunately,
the slow pace of hiring has exacerbated the problem. Anchorage
Center is staffed at 88 percent of its authorized control
positions, and 15 percent of the work force will be eligible to
retire in 24 months. The critical aviation network in Alaska
cannot meet the needs of our state if this problem is not
addressed.
This situation has been exacerbated by Anchorage Center new
sector staffing plan in the increase in the Anchorage's
supervisor staffing because they hire directly from the control
ranks. Management at the Anchorage Center unilaterally
instituted a new sector staffing plan. Under the plan,
controller resources are allocated based on meaningless metrics
rather than user demand and safety. This plan does not fit the
dynamic flow of the air traffic system. It has impeded quick
responses to capacity, and consequently, reduced the margin of
safety.
We are open and willing to discuss the best most efficient
use of staff. However, the FAA has rejected our offers to be
included in such discussions. Anchorage Center has also
increased the level of supervisor staff. A year ago there were
12 first-level supervisors, resulting in a ratio of about 10
controllers per supervisor. Today, the agency is hiring a total
of 21 first-level supervisors, for a ratio of 5.5 controllers
per supervisor. I have 2-year-old twins. There is more
supervision of air traffic controllers in Anchorage Center than
there is of my 2-years-olds at their day care.
This does not improve the services in Alaska. This only
serves the bureaucracy, and reduces our ability to deliver
services to our users.
Today we face a number of issues modernizing ATC
infrastructure. Regular preventative maintenance of
communication, navigation, and surveillance systems is needed
to insure the reliability of the NAS. The FAA has decided to
resurrect parts of a failed Alaskan test under the new name
Reliability Center Maintenance.
The agency states that the necessary analysis has been
completed to validate the event-based approach to maintaining
the safety-critical equipment. Yet the decision was made before
our work group chartered to study the problems was ever
convened. NATCA asked that the agency hold an open discussion
with stakeholders prior to implementing this program.
We opposed eliminating 24-hour air traffic control services
at Fairbanks International Airport. Fairbanks Air Traffic
Control Tower is a 24-hour tower and approach control which
handles over 927,000 passengers per year. Fairbanks
International is the economic, transportation, medical,
financial and government hub of Interior Alaska. A reduction of
services is not efficient, effective, or safe.
The cost savings did not justify the safety and economic
impact of reduced services. The FAA/NATCA liaison program
allowed for the involvement of air traffic controllers and
technical experts in modernization efforts. It has resulted in
cost savings, on time deployment, and successful implementation
of new technology. However, on June 28th the FAA informed NATCA
that it is terminating this effort due to budget constraints.
This includes George Lloyd from Anchorage Tricon who has been
serving as the ANB 500 liaison responsible for Capstone and
ADSB for the past year.
NATCA supports the full and complete development of
Capstone initiative to use ADSB as an air traffic control tool
in Alaska. The Capstone program has enhanced the safety of the
entire operations in Alaska. NATCA believes the FAA should
concentrate its Capstone program resources on completing air
traffic control concepts contained in Phase I--approach control
services for Bethel--before moving to Phase II--approach
control services for Juneau.
Aircraft operators in the Bethel area have been looking for
the FAA to provide control surveillance approach control
services in order to increase the capacity of the Bethel
Airport during the special VFR and IFR operations. This goal
can be reached. NATCA supports this objective, and we have
worked to insure these new services can be provided. However,
development problems continue. Last week FAA management made
the decision to turn the Capstone information off Anchorage
Center's radar screens. This was the result of data integrity
problems of unknown origins created by--creating an
unacceptable safety risk. Management was aware of the problems
for weeks, but did not inform the controllers of the mounting
concerns prior to disabling the data.
NATCA recognizes the significant safety potential of the
ADSB technologies in air traffic control tool. However, in its
current state, the Capstone program lacks the proper oversight
and direction needed to be successful in fielding a fully
integrated air traffic control tool.
NATCA is prepared and willing to work with the agency
completing Capstone Phase I and Phase II. I ask that the FAA
fully engage NATCA in the critical discussions that must take
place.
By working together to address the decisions at hand, we
can move rapidly to provide Bethel and Juneau system users to
need services in an efficient and timely manner.
The Capstone office has also created a plan to divest
ground-based navigational aids in Alaska and shut down Alaska's
long-range radars. To my knowledge, this plan was developed
without the input of system users and air traffic controllers
in Alaska. NATCA asks that any plan with such a magnitude and
impact on Alaskan aviation be discussed in an open and public
forum.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on Alaskan
aviation issues. On behalf of NATCA and the Alaskan air traffic
controllers, we look forward to working with you and your staff
to ensure that our air traffic control system remains the
safest and most efficient in the world.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Thompson, Alaskan Regional Vice President,
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Good morning Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify
today on Alaskan aviation issues. I am Rick Thompson, Alaskan Regional
Vice President for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
NATCA represents about 20,000 FAA safety-related professionals in a
variety of positions including air traffic control specialists,
engineers, architects and pilots. I am also a 21-year veteran air
traffic controller at the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ZAN).
I am honored to represent these aviation safety professionals and
to speak on their behalf today. NATCA has a long history of supporting
new aviation technology, modernizing and enhancing our nation's air
traffic control system and working to ensure we are prepared to meet
the growing demand for aviation services. In Alaska, we have had a
number of unique opportunities to be on the cutting edge of new
technology. Today, I want to address a number of issues--Anchorage
Center Staffing, NATCA's involvement in air traffic control
modernization and the Capstone project, air traffic control
infrastructure decisions, and controller retention issues in Alaska.
NATCA is not interested in simply pointing out challenges; we are
prepared to offer solutions. The challenges we face are not
insurmountable, rather they present opportunities for aviation
stakeholders to provide input and expertise that will allow us to
continue to build the aviation infrastructure in Alaska, maintain and
enhance the global leadership we inherited, and meet the needs of our
community.
Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZAN) Staffing
As the Committee is aware, the FAA is facing a nationwide air
traffic controller retirement crisis. NATCA has been working for years
to secure the much-needed funds to hire and train the next generation
of air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, the slow pace of hiring has
only exacerbated the problem. In fact, there are 1,000 fewer
controllers in the FAA than just 2 years ago.
In the December 2004 Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, the
agency states that it plans to hire 1249 air traffic controllers in
FY06. And, for the first time, the agency acknowledged that its prior
hiring policy of one hire for one retirement is not adequate because of
the time needed to train a new controller. Yet, their budget request
provided $24.9 million to hire 595 air traffic controllers. It seems
they only intend to hire the other 654 controllers based on attrition--
contrary to their acknowledgement that one for one hiring is not
adequate. Considering the projected losses in 2005, this plan does not
keep pace with current demand.
At Anchorage Center, there are currently 112 air traffic control
specialists on board, only 88 percent of the number required under the
FAA's system (127). Of those currently on board, 15 percent are
eligible to retire in the next 24 months. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the
critical aviation network in Alaska cannot meet the needs of our state
if this problem is not addressed.
Air Traffic Organization
A primary stated objective of the new Air Traffic Organization was
to reduce the layers of management between Chief Operating Officer and
the delivery of air traffic services (controllers). Specifically, the
stated goal was to reduce from 11 to 6 the layers of management between
the COO and the air traffic controllers. NATCA supported this
initiative. Unfortunately, Anchorage Center is moving in the opposite
direction. About a year ago, there were 12 first level supervisors
resulting in a ratio of about 10 controllers per supervisor. Today,
there are 18 first level supervisors and the agency is planning to hire
another three for a total of 21 first level supervisors or a ratio of
5.5 controllers per supervisor. I have two-year-old twins. There is
more supervision of air traffic controllers at Anchorage Center than
there is of my two-year-old twins at their daycare. Alaska State law
requires one daycare worker per six kids under the age of two, and at
age three it is only a 10-to-1 ratio.
The increase in first level supervisors is costly, inefficient and
only serves to further exacerbate the air traffic controller staffing
problem as supervisors are picked directly from the controller
workforce. It has not made the system or Anchorage Center operations
safer. Now we simply have more people watching fewer people talking to
more airplanes. In addition, the number of second level supervisors has
also increased at Anchorage Center. And, the agency plans to add
another level of management at the top of their three Regional Service
Areas. The ATO was supposed to streamline the system, but in Alaska it
has served only to bloat the bureaucracy, increasing the costs and
reducing our ability to deliver service to our users.
In May 2005, management at Anchorage Center unilaterally instituted
a new ZAN sector staffing plan. Under this plan resources are allocated
based on a meaningless metrics rather than user demand and safety.
Areas are now staffed at 60 percent regardless of the volume and
complexity of traffic. Thus during periods of low traffic volume,
controllers are plugged in when they could be performing other assigned
duties such as training, proficiency work or reading the daily
briefings. Conversely, in times of peak traffic volume when additional
controllers are needed, none are available. The new staffing plan does
not fit the dynamic flow of the air traffic system. In fact, it impedes
quick responses to capacity demands and consequentially reduces the
margin of safety. NATCA and the Anchorage Center controllers are open
and willing to discuss the best and most efficient use of resources and
staff. However, the FAA has rejected our subject matter expertise and
declined to include us in any such discussions or decisions.
Reliability Centered Maintenance
The FAA is radically changing the existing proven system of
maintaining and certifying navigational aids, radars, and air traffic
control communication frequencies. Five years ago, the FAA tested a
revised maintenance program for navigational aids in Alaska called
Corporate Maintenance Philosophy (CMP). Under this program, regular
preventative maintenance of communication, navigation and surveillance
systems was no longer conducted. Only when the equipment failed would
someone be sent for repairs. While that might work for the Maytag
repairman and your washing machine, it did not work for air traffic
control critical equipment, which in Alaska is often in remote
locations with no road access. Ultimately, the number of important
navigational aids out of service because of failures in Alaska
escalated and escalated, and the program failed.
Unfortunately, the FAA has decided to resurrect parts of this
program under a new name, Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). The
agency states the necessary engineering analysis has been completed to
validate the event-based approach of maintaining this safety critical
equipment. Yet, the decision was made before the workgroup chartered to
study the problem ever convened. RCM's purpose is to cut costs by
deferring maintenance on sites that the FAA deems are unimportant or
too costly to maintain. It did not work 5 years ago under CMP and it
will not work today under the new title of RCM.
NATCA is very concerned that the agency is reinstating this failed
program. If the navigational aids, communication frequencies and radars
are not properly maintained, the reliability of the NAS will suffer.
Air traffic routes and approaches to airports may not be available when
needed adding time and financial burdens to the users and the flying
public. Since the aviation system in Alaska is the sole lifeline for
many communities, this program will have a significant impact.
Accordingly, NATCA believes the agency should hold an open forum to
receive feedback from the system users prior to implementation. Our
community understands the importance of a reliable aviation system and
critical decisions should not be made from FAA in Washington without
any input from those who know and understand Alaska aviation.
Fairbanks Air Traffic Control Tower
Fairbanks Air Traffic Control Tower (FAI) is an instrumental flight
rule tower and approach control facility that handles over 927,000
passengers per year. Fairbanks International Airport is the economic,
transportation, medical, financial, and government hub of interior
Alaska. In fact, the airport serves as the alternate for Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport. During low IFR conditions (below
arriving aircraft approach minimums) aircraft scheduled to land at
Anchorage are often diverted to Fairbanks.
The Fairbanks approach control facility also handles traffic to and
from the Fort Wainwright Army Base home of the 1st Brigade, 6th
Infantry Division (Light) and the Eielson Air force Base which is the
northernmost U.S. fighter wing in the world, the 354th Fighter Wing's
A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II and F-16 Viper aircraft. Eielson is also home to
Cope Thunder, the largest aerial exercise in the Pacific region, held
four times a year.
Earlier this year, the FAA announced its plan to eliminate 24-hour
air traffic control operations at 42 towers nationwide as a way to cut
costs. Fairbanks Air Traffic Control Tower is on the list. Initially,
the agency's FY06 budget submission assumed a $2 million cost savings
yet in recent testimony the agency has stated the savings could be $6
million for eliminating services at all 42 towers during the overnight
hours.
NATCA strongly opposes efforts by the FAA to reduce service and
thus reduce the margin of safety. Air traffic is no longer experiencing
the effects of the post September 11, 2001 decline. The agency states
that flight activity during any period where the tower is unmanned will
be handled by the appropriate en route center or TRACON. These
facilities are already doing more with less. In the case of Fairbanks,
Anchorage Center would assume responsibility for activity at the tower.
However, the air traffic controllers at Anchorage Center are not
familiar with the airport and cannot see the runways. They will not be
able to tell a pilot if there is a problem with the weather, debris on
the runways, maintenance on the airport surface, etc. In addition to
commercial traffic, most of these towers handle emergency landings,
diverted passenger flights, delayed traffic, major air freight
operations, and military operations 24 hours a day.
NATCA recognizes the budgetary issues facing the agency and the
industry. In fact, we have offered several cost savings measures--that
do not reduce capacity or safety--to authorizers, appropriators and
agency officials. We believe the FAA's budget is sufficient to meet the
needs of the system but the agency continues to make unwise spending
choices. Turning the lights off in these towers is not efficient,
effective or safe. The cost savings do not justify the safety and
economic impact of reduced service.
Air Traffic Control Modernization
For over a decade, NATCA has been working day and night with the
FAA to move new technologies into the workplace as quickly, efficiently
and safely as possible. FAA modernization is an ongoing process and
NATCA has been directly involved in every technology project from its
inception. This collaboration and teamwork has been instrumental in
ensuring the success of vital technology projects from en route
modernization (Display System Replacement) to runway safety technology
(Airport Surface Detection Equipment). However, on June 28, 2005 the
FAA informed NATCA that it is terminating the liaison program effective
July 29, 2005 due to budget constraints. This includes George Lloyd
from Anchorage TRACON who has been serving as the AND-500 Liaison
responsible for Capstone and ADS-B for the past year.
The liaison program has routinely demonstrated success and has been
commended by FAA management officials and contractors. In fact, a
November 2004 Government Accountability Office report emphasized the
need to involve controllers ``early and throughout FAA's ground systems
approval process.'' The report found that when the FAA did not involve
air traffic controllers and technical experts, its new air traffic
control systems experienced cost over-runs and schedule delays. And
just this week, ATO Chief Operating Officer Russ Chew praised the
collaborative effort that marked the successful implementation of new
technology (ATOP) at New York Center that provides satellite coverage
of oceanic air traffic. The agency's action is short-sighted and will
only hamper air traffic control modernization efforts.
Capstone
NATCA supports the full and complete development of the Capstone
initiative to use Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS-B) as an air
traffic control tool in Alaska. The Capstone Program has enhanced the
safety of visual flight rule (VFR) operations in Alaska's difficult
terrain and challenging weather conditions. However, we are concerned
with the FAA's lack of focus in properly completing ADS-B's
technological development into a fully integrated and useful air
traffic control tool.
A primary goal for ADS-B in Alaska is to become an integrated,
seamless air traffic control tool for the instrument flight rule (IFR)
environment by providing new and expanded radar services via Phase I
(the Bethel area) and Phase II (the Juneau area). As you are aware, the
aircraft operators in the Bethel area have been looking for the FAA to
provide true radar approach control services in order to increase the
capacity of the Bethel Airport during SVFR and IFR conditions. This
goal can be reached. NATCA supports this objective and we have worked
to ensure this new service can be provided remotely by controllers at
Fairbanks approach control.
On December 31, 2000, Yute Air Flight 103 contacted Anchorage
Center requested and received the first ever ADS-B vector for the ILS
18 approach at Bethel. Since that demonstration flight almost 5 years
ago, Alaskan air traffic controllers have been waiting for the FAA to
provide the necessary equipment and staffing so we can provide this
enhanced service.
In September 2002, the FAA Alaskan Region completed a study
recommending a dedicated approach control service for Bethel be
established using ADS-B technology and that the service be provided by
Fairbanks approach control. NATCA supports this decision.
In May 2003, the FAA Alaskan Region finally gave NATCA a notice to
bargain over the numerous issues involved with Bethel approach services
being remote to Fairbanks. With the establishment of a new service a
number of major items must be addressed including control room
equipment, staffing, training, procedures and in this case the needed
approval of the use of Terminal rules (3 nm spacing between aircraft)
versus en route rule (5 nm spacing between aircraft), plus software
functionality enhancements (I.E. 4096 adjustable codes).
NATCA and the FAA Alaskan Region spent a considerable amount of
time and effort and made major progress addressing these issues. Then,
in April 2004 with the Air Traffic Organization's (ATO) implementation,
I received a letter from the FAA withdrawing themselves from
negotiations and consequentially ending productive work on the Bethel
Approach Control project. NATCA remains perplexed by the agency's
action.
NATCA believes that the FAA should concentrate its Capstone Program
resources on completing the air traffic control concepts contained in
Phase I (approach control services for Bethel) before moving to Phase
II (approach control services for Juneau). Under the FAA's scattered
approach to implementation, only 5 of the 10 ADS-B ground based
transceivers in the Bethel area are being used for air traffic control
purposes today.
Rather than working with NATCA in an open and constructive
environment to quickly address the issues inherent in providing new air
traffic control services, the FAA has been increasingly evasive,
secretive and appears to lack the clear direction to quickly complete
Capstone Phase I and Phase II. There are numerous failed past examples
of air traffic control tools and equipment that the agency has tried to
field without controller input. Case in point is the Advanced
Automation System of the 1990s which resulted in an overly complex,
unusable system costing the taxpayers over $1 billon.
NATCA recognizes the significant potential of ADS-B technology as a
successful air traffic control tool. However, in its current state, the
Capstone program lacks the proper oversight and direction needed to be
successful as a fully integrated air traffic control tool. NATCA is
prepared and willing to work with the Agency in completing Capstone
Phase I and II. Respectfully, I ask that the Committee direct the FAA
to fully engage NATCA in the critical discussions that must take place.
By working together to address the many issues at hand, we can move
rapidly to provide the Bethel and Juneau air traffic control system
users and the flying public the needed services in an efficient and
timely manner.
Capstone Phase III/Decommissioning of Alaskan Navaids
The Capstone office hired MITRE Corporation to create a plan for
the divestment of Ground Based Navigational Aids (GBNA) in Alaska. The
report states that ``preliminary results indicate that 83 of 118 legacy
GBNAs (the term for current Navaids) can be divested under this
strategy (approximately 70 percent).'' It acknowledges that this
proposed strategy is different from the current FAA strategy in the
lower 48 in that, ``it implies full Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS) equipage for aircraft based in the state (Alaska) and that it
does not retain a coverage-based backup structure based on GBNAs''. In
addition, the report did not consider military operations.
To my knowledge, this plan was developed without the input of FAA
air traffic, the system users, and the air traffic controllers in
Alaska. MITRE has also informed Anchorage Center that they have been
commissioned by Capstone to study shutting down Alaska's long range
radars beginning with two sites on the west coast.
NATCA asks that any study of such magnitude and impact on Alaskan
aviation be discussed in an open and public forum. That discussion
should at a minimum include the commercial operators, general aviation,
military users, the public at large and the air traffic controllers who
daily operate the system.
COLA vs. Locality Pay for Air Traffic Controllers
The retirement benefits of civilian federal employees stationed in
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and other non-foreign duty locations
outside the contiguous 48 states are lower than their counterparts in
the continental United States. As a result, Alaska continues to lose
experienced air traffic controllers who transfer out of state in order
to qualify for the higher retirement benefits. Accordingly, NATCA
support a transition from cost-of-living allowances (COLAs) to locality
pay.
The U.S. Government pays COLAs to white-collar civilian Federal
employees in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. On August
17, 2000, the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
approved the settlement of Caraballo et al. v. United States, Civil No.
197/27 (D.V.I.). Caraballo was a class-action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs contested the methodology Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) used to determine COLA rates. The settlement resulted in revised
procedures to survey prices, set a base COLA rate for each site, and
created a less volatile process to revise COLA rates.
OPM surveys the prices of over 200 items, including goods and
services, housing, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses in each
of the three primary allowance areas (Alaska, the Pacific Islands, and
the Caribbean) once every three years and in the Washington, DC, area
each year. The current COLA rate for Alaska is 25 percent. The Alaskan
survey will result in a COLA reduction of one percent per year for
federal employees in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau starting in
January 2006. The reductions will continue until the new lower target
rates of Anchorage 13 percent, Fairbanks 16 percent, and Juneau 19
percent are reached. The next OPM survey of Alaska is scheduled for
early 2006.
The significant gap in retirement benefits is a result in the
difference between COLA and locality pay. COLA is authorized by section
5941 of Title 5, United States Code and Executive Order 10000 (as
amended). COLA is based on the difference between the cost of goods and
services in the DC metro area vs. the cost of a similar package of
goods and services in each respective COLA area. COLA is exempt from
federal income tax and does not count toward for federal retirement
benefits.
The provision for locality pay is set in the Federal Employees Pay
Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) and does not apply outside CONUS.
Locality pay is a measure of the cost of labor in a geographic area.
Locality pay is not exempt from federal income tax and is included in
determining federal retirement benefits.
Look at two air traffic controllers under the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS)--one working at Anchorage Center and one
working at Seattle Center--with the same base salary ($90,000/yr.) and
the same pay grade (ATC-10). Upon retirement the Seattle controller
will receive at least $619 per month more in retirement than the
Anchorage controller. This is because the Seattle controller qualifies
for 16.53 percent locality pay which is added into his retirement while
the Anchorage controller receives COLA.
Today, the ``rest of U.S.'' locality rate is 11.72 percent and the
nation's top locality rate (San Francisco) at 26.39 percent. As
locality rates continue to progressively grow so will the disparity in
retirement benefits between the two systems. Historically, COLA has
remained flat but beginning in January 2006, COLA rate reductions will
become a reality. The resulting inequity causes actual and potential
staffing problems in non-foreign areas, especially for employees
nearing retirement.
OPM has stated that they believe the COLA program should be phased
out in favor of a more market-oriented approach to pay. The FAA enacted
locality pay through FAA Order 3550.15 in March 1993. The Order states
that, ``The provisions are expected to aid work force stability and
improve efforts in attracting the skilled and diverse workers needed to
sustain the tradition of FAA achievement.'' NATCA requests your support
in implementing a transition from COLA to locality pay--a transition
that is fair to FAA employees and helps serve the government as a
retention and recruiting tool for Alaska, the Pacific islands, and the
Caribbean.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on Alaskan aviation
issues. On behalf of NATCA and the Alaskan air traffic controllers, we
look forward to working with you and your staffing to ensure that our
air traffic control system remains the safest and most efficient in the
world. I am happy to answer questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Casanovas.
STATEMENT OF KAREN E. CASANOVAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA AIR
CARRIERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Casanovas. Good morning, Chairman Stevens. I'm Karen
Casanovas, the Executive Director for the Alaska Air Carriers
Association. And we are here, again, to educate everyone and
advocate for aviation. And we take this as an honor to speak
before you today concerning crucial aviation issues, and also,
since we know Alaska aviation travel is the way of how we
travel, we'll address the issues and challenges facing
commercial air carriers in our state.
As a pilot yourself, Mr. Chairman, you know that--and
understand that there's a wide variety of services provided by
airlines and transportation companies around this state. We
have the single pilot operator to the turbo prop, to the
rotorcraft, even to the float plane operator. And since there
is a wide and diverse group of carriers performing services
around the state who are fulfilling essential roles in Alaska's
transportation infrastructure, many are already strapped by
rising fuel costs for security demands.
Prior to my current management position, I served in
several capacities for many different air carriers around the
state over the last 30 years, and I, too, can attest to those
varieties in the unique aviation companies which are conducted
under the Federal Aviation Regulations Parts 121 and 135.
Key issues certainly are utilization, maintainability, and
scheduling. And one of the issues we have found recently and a
challenge is on occasion FAA's inability to have manuals
reviewed, equipment improved, or maintenance checks.
Operating conditions continue to be frustrating for airline
operators, and something must be done to stop the downward
spiral in service to the industry. Solutions might include an
evaluation of pending manual approvals for aircraft
certifications and a creation of a process that would utilize
timelines for reviewing, with quantifiable goals to meet those
projects and complete them.
In some locations perhaps financial backing would be needed
to staff additional positions. In Alaska we've been very
fortunate under the leadership of FAA's Regional Administrator
Pat Poe, and also Flight Standards Manager John Duncan. They
have been working with us and have been trying to come up with
solutions to meet the air carriers' needs.
Next, however, since about 70 percent, certainly, of our
communities are not connected to the outside world, or even to
each other, our concerns are with proposed changes to 49 CFR
Part 175 which we feel are not practical and certainly restrict
the fundamental nature of routine travel transportation in
Alaska.
The restriction to only one lighter to destinations where
survival mandates reliable fire-starting equipment certainly is
not enough for passengers traveling for hunting, fishing or any
wilderness activities, or anybody conducting surveying or
construction work. Carrying of more than one lighter on one's
person certainly can be accomplished with the same level of
safety when a passenger is limited to just one lighter.
Also, many rural Alaskans rely on subsistence hunting as
part of their lifestyle, and restricting them to 11 pounds of
ammunition when traveling to remote locations and when there
are no other options to purchase additional ammunition is not
practical. This existing exemption has demonstrated a need in
air transportation for Alaskans and we haven't seen any adverse
history or safety concerns previously.
To further address one more item under the proposal
described, transportation to locations where there's no phone
service is also a concern to us. Requiring air carrier
operators to employ staff to monitor telephones where there is
no practical solution or reason for that, we would also suggest
language exempting this requirement for small aircraft within
the State of Alaska.
Moreover, an obligation to remain in constant communication
between noncertificated airports and the pilot in command is
not achievable, and this rule will likely be violated simply
because commercial carriers will not have the means to comply.
Next on the topic of the proposed National Air Tour Safety
Standards, our association believes the objective to reduce
accidents in the sight-seeing industry will affect scheduled
operators who conduct air tours as part of their business.
The changes will trickle down to other tourism-related
commerce, as well as impact employees of those companies as
they reduce their service or go out of business.
An estimated three quarters of our membership would see a
fallout of between $15 and $18 million over a 10-year period.
Air tours provide higher yields for certificate holders which
subsidize the flat, less profitable margins of Essential Air
Service. Certainly, businesses around the state, even those
that have been in business for 22 years, under this proposed
rule, there would be no guarantee that they would still remain
in business.
Since tourism is the second largest private-sector employer
in the state, our proposal would be to continue to employ
safety programs such as the Capstone and Medallion program. And
results in improved safety lie projects such as this, and also
the implementation of the analysis of the Wide Area
Augmentation System, WASS, to achieve weather reporting and
also training for navigational aids, rather than more
regulatory constraints. We feel that that would be a better
solution.
We would recommend that this NPRM be withdrawn, and funding
continue for both Capstone as well as the Medallion programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Alaska Air Carriers Association
appreciates your co-sponsorship with Senator Inouye of Senate
Bill 84, which would exempt certain sight-seeing flights from
taxes on air transportation.
We also appreciate your continued support for the Medallion
Foundation and--truly a program that is changing the culture of
aviation across the state.
In order to continue to improve aviation safety, however,
we feel we need additional moneys directed toward weather
access and global positioning systems, and those specific
projects outlined in the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council's
Strategic Plan. Regarding weather accesses, Mr. Harding
mentioned previously, it would be certainly a shame to have a
situation in rural Alaska where an 8-year-old girl, for
instance, would be the victim of a domestic violence and maybe
a gunshot wound and she's out in a remote location, and because
pilots don't have access to that weather, they're not able to
provide medical need for her in a timely manner.
Only through trust and collaboration with our partners in
the government for the future will we be able to create a
valuable, safer environment for passengers here in the State of
Alaska.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment today.
Do not hesitate to call on the Alaska Air Carriers Association
as a resource for future aviation issues.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Casanovas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen E. Casanovas, Executive Director, Alaska
Air Carriers Association
Good morning Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee. My name
is Karen Casanovas and I am the Executive Director for the Alaska Air
Carriers Association. It is an honor to speak before you today
concerning crucial issues facing aviation commerce. Since air travel is
a way of life for Alaskans, I'll address the issues and challenges
facing commercial air carriers in our state.
Our organization's mission is to provide educational training,
advocate for the interests of aviation in the public process, and act
as a facilitator of aviation-related information. Additionally, we
provide resources for insurance, security, safety, air-space, or
weather reporting issues and act as a conduit between government and
industry leaders. Our Association (AACA) was founded in 1966 and
represents over 160 commercial air carriers and businesses throughout
the nation.
As a pilot yourself, Senator Stevens, you are aware of the wide
variety of services provided by the aviation industry in our state.
With a current grim economic situation for several of our members, the
Alaska Air Carriers Association membership firmly believes that the
Federal Government officials in high level decision-making positions
should support aviation businesses not hinder them. Air carriers
performing services around the state are fulfilling essential roles in
Alaska's transportation infrastructure and are already strapped by
rising fuel costs and security demands.
Prior to my current management position, I served in various
capacities for Alaskan air carriers, having spent over 30 years in this
industry, and can attest to the existing widely diverse types of
operations in Alaska. There are many different and unique aviation
companies that are conducted under parts 121 and 135 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs). They are single engine airplanes to turbo
prop equipped aircraft or rotorcraft and float plane operators. Some
current proposals, however, would ignore these differences in operating
requirements.
Key issues for air carriers are throughput, resource utilization,
reliability, availability, maintainability and scheduling. Without
government staff to check-off mandated federal requirements, an air
carrier is not able to utilize their aircraft. This in turn causes lack
of reliability to meet customer needs, and therefore affects their
bottom line by not being able to maintain the demand for their
services.
One challenge facing the industry today is the FAA's unavailability
for manual reviews, equipment approvals or maintenance checks.
Operating conditions continue to be frustrating for airline operators
and something must be done to stop the downward spiral in service to
the industry. Solutions include an evaluation of pending manual
approvals or aircraft certifications, and the creation of a process
that utilizes timelines for review with quantifiable goals for
completing these projects. In some locations, financial backing is
needed to staff additional positions.
Next, since 70 percent of our communities are not connected to the
outside world or even each other, our concerns are with certain
proposed changes to 49 CFR Part 175, which are not practical and accrue
from the fundamental nature of routine air transportation in Alaska.
The restriction of only one lighter to remote destinations where
survival mandates reliable fire-starting equipment is not enough for
passengers traveling for hunting, fishing, wilderness recreation,
surveying or construction work. Carrying of more than one lighter on
one's person can be accomplished with the same level of safety provided
when a passenger is limited to only one lighter.
Many rural Alaskans rely on subsistence hunting as part of their
lifestyle and restricting them to 11 pounds of ammunition when
traveling to remote locations and where there are no regular options
for purchasing small arms ammunition is not practical. The existing
exception has a demonstrated need in Alaskan air transportation with no
adverse safety concerns or history.
To further address the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) 02-11654, previously described, transportation to locations
where there is no phone service it is not realistic to require all air
carriers to have personnel monitoring telephones. Requiring these
operators to employ staff to monitor phones is not practical and we
suggest language exempting this requirement for small aircraft operated
with the State of Alaska. Moreover, an obligation to remain in constant
communication between a non-certificated airport and the Pilot-in-
Command is not achievable and this rule will likely be violated simply
because commercial operators will not have the means to comply.
On the topic of the proposed National Air Tour Safety Standards,
(FAA-1998-4521) our association believes the objective to reduce
accidents in the sight-seeing industry will affect scheduled operators
who conduct air tours as part of their business. These changes will
trickle-down to other tourism related commerce, as well as impact
employees of these companies as they reduce service or go out of
business. An estimated three quarters of our membership would see a
fall out of between 15-18 million dollars over a ten-year period. Air
tours provide higher yields for certificate holders, which subsidize
the flat, less profitable margins of essential air service.
Since tourism is the second largest private sector employer in the
state, our proposal would be to continue to increase safety through
programs such as Capstone and the Medallion Foundation. Results in
improved safety lie in projects such as further analysis of the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) to achieve weather reporting and
training in use of navigational aids, rather than more regulatory
constraints. We recommend that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) be withdrawn and that funding continue for both the Medallion
and Capstone programs.
Senator Stevens, the Alaska Air Carriers Association appreciates
your co-sponsorship with Senator Inouye of Senate Bill 84, which would
exempt certain sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation. We
also appreciate your continued support of the Medallion Foundation, a
program that is changing the culture of aviation in Alaska. In order to
continue to improve aviation safety, however, we need monies directed
toward weather access and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and those
specific projects outlined in the Alaska Aviation Coordination
Council's strategic plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment today and do not hesitate
to call on the AACA as a resource for aviation issues in the future.
The Chairman. That's a very fine list of items that you've
covered.
I'm sorry that my Co-Chairman, Senator Inouye is not with
us. He had a personal problem that prevented him in coming to
Alaska at this time.
What would you say the No. 1 priority of the association is
on this list of objectives?
Ms. Casanovas. Providing infrastructure for transportation
throughout the state. Currently, we have about roughly 67
airports that are GPS-equipped, and if we could have the
additional approximately 219 airports which are awaiting the
GPS procedure development, I think that would certainly be a
case where we could have some assistance. One hundred million
over 4 years could certainly provide the state and transition
us from what we see as inadequate navigational aids right now
to providing full coverage and, again, through the Capstone
program, we can then have the ADSB and the other portions of
that which are so valuable to the carriers around the state.
The Chairman. Mr. Plumb, you too had a nice long list of
suggestions and items to cover. What's your No. 1 priority?
Mr. Plumb. Mr. Chairman, I would say to insure we have our
funding for our cargo entitlements would be No. 1, and
reinstatement of the ATP program would be No. 2.
The Chairman. Are we ready for this enormous plane that's
coming here? This--what is it? 380?
Mr. Plumb. Yes, sir. We've been preparing for 5 years. And
thanks to your support and an LOI letter of intent for $51.2
million, we have--we have a plan for Group 6 routing or the
A380's, more commonly known. It will be coming down the--what
is now today or tomorrow will be runway 7; yesterday or a week
ago it was 6. But 7 Right will be a Group 6 capable. We will
have the capability to come up a Kilo taxiway to Romeo, up
Romeo that serves UPS and Federal Express, and the new taxiway
Yankee will also have. So we will have a complete circuit and a
runway for Group 6 aircraft.
The Chairman. You've really been very complimentary of the
Capstone and Medallion. We're going to deal with Medallion
again this afternoon. But are there any things that you think
we can do in Washington to assist in the concept--and I'm
talking to Harding right now--the concepts of either Capstone
or Medallion to carry them further?
Mr. Harding. We certainly appreciate all the support that
you've given us. We have a request for further funding on the
Medallion; and, of course, that is always helpful.
We've talked to Mr. Sabatini about taking some of the
concepts that we're using in the Medallion and using them in
other programs, and we cannot do that with the funding that we
get for Alaska. However, that funding is for what we're doing
in Alaska. But any of the programs that we develop we're
certainly willing to share with anyone else that you suggest.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Harding. And we really appreciate your continued
support.
The Chairman. Thank you. We'll be back looking at that.
And talk about Medallion, Mr. Dennis. Have you visited
other states? Are we going to see an expansion of Medallion in
other states as we have--we anticipate Capstone will go forward
in other states?
Mr. Dennis. Senator, we've talked about that with several
other individuals, including Mr. Sabatini and Administrator
Blakey.
We're looking more in relation to using the Medallion
concept as a template and doing it as a regional basis, because
it is a partnership. It is something that needs to be done in
concert with the FAA because the programs do impact the FAA.
And we need their support, as well as the local support, for
the development of a program that is applicable to a local
area.
Florida is certainly not like Alaska. Texas, Southern
California, each one has unique problems. But the process, the
concepts and the templates, they are transferred.
The Chairman. The concept really is this voluntary
participation by the industry in areas and entities involved in
the industry, getting together to try and find out if they
could have a different approach to safety and work it out with
the FAA so that you could experiment on concepts that would
reduce accidents and injuries, sufficiency in compliance with
the FAA. Isn't that the concept?
Mr. Dennis. That is, in essence, what we're discussing,
sir, yes. But it's a voluntary program. It's above the
regulatory requirements. It must meet the regulatory
requirements, obviously, but it is over and above the
regulatory requirements and it takes it a step above. Even from
the--apart from the one RGA fire program. That also is a
voluntary program which has its roots within the five-star
program that initially was developed.
The Chairman. How much time has it taken for the individual
industry participants to really work out the Medallion? What's
been the workflow of the voluntary commitment of time?
Mr. Dennis. That would depend, sir, entirely upon the
operator. And recognizing that we have carriers, we have 66
different carriers within the program right now, and they range
in complexity from Alaska Airlines and PenAir, Frontier Flying
and a number of larger carriers, down to single-pilot
operations. Single-pilot operation, quite obviously, it's more
onerous on them because of their particular workload in just
running their business. So we're modifying, that's why I
mentioned that this is developed and we have this one-on-one
concept where we do go out and work with the operator and try
to take the burden off of them, we've tried to meet the
requirements that have been set forth by us in our Memorandum
of Agreement with the FAA.
The Chairman. Mr. Thompson, I think as Chairman of Commerce
I'm spending more time now on the question of the future
airways for the United States, airways management, than I ever
dreamt I would. We're coming into a new era with regard to
spacing, with regard to the type of equipment we're using and
to the whole system of integration almost on an automatic
basis.
When we look at this--I don't know how to say this without
sounding a little negative, but I was initially approached by
your organization to oppose Capstone all together. Now your
testimony is that you're prepared to accept it, but you want to
be more involved from a controller activity to sort of
regulated. Am I misunderstanding?
Mr. Thompson. I don't think that--yeah, I don't think
you're directly getting me on that point. I can't say what the
Capstone initially started, what the policy was. I'm not aware
of--I've been a regional vice president for NATCA up here for
almost 8 years. And we've always supported the concept--again,
when we look at it from an APC perspective there's two pieces
of Capstone: There's the VFR aspect, which the people--
gentleman in here have all testified. It works fabulous from my
understanding of it. It's an incredible tool, video map and
such.
Then there's the air traffic control aspect. Since we're
talking about moving IFR airplanes and separating them with the
same use of radar, which we are, it's a fabulous tool. But it
has to work seamlessly with the radar, and controllers have to
be able to have the communication systems in place. In Bethel
that's not a problem because the terrain is flat, we can speak
to the pilots. As you go to Southeast in Juneau, some of these
low-altitude routes that some of the people have testified here
today, I'm aware are in place. But if they fly IFR at 2,000
feet down the fjords of Southeast, today there's no
communication system for the air traffic controller to speak to
them if there's an issue or if they're needed to--missed
approach or such. I understand there's methods to get there,
and we want to get there. NATCA absolutely does.
I firmly believe 100 percent that providing approach
control services to Bethel will be fabulous to the users and
the public. Once we can sequence the special VFR with the IFR--
Juneau same thing, once we can see to the ground with Capstone
technology, and along with multilateration, I think it's going
to be a fabulous tool. What we're really asking for is that the
agency engage with us in those discussions.
The Chairman. With the advent of the new small jet,
business jet, personal jet, we're all familiar with them,
they're going to be--I call them the mosquito fleet is coming
in. Small, six to nine passengers, a jet, probably faster than
before, very efficient. Made of composite materials. Lighter
weight. And fast--not only faster, but really smaller so it's
going to be a very interesting challenge. I think we have to
work together to make sure that that system we can transition
into a new system without delays, because, very clearly, 10
years from now, the estimate is there will be twice as many
aircraft in the airway system.
I look forward to working with you. I think we all have to
work together.
I'm reminded a friend of mine told me of a Pacific northern
pilot that flew into Juneau for year after year after year. And
one day he flew in and it was clear and quit.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Seeing is believing. That Capstone system on
a flight into Juneau, I've also flown in with that. It makes
one tremendous difference. I hope we can incorporate all of
these new advances into our system in Alaska. I look forward to
working with all of you. We'll review all the comments you've
made.
These hearings--we'd hoped we would have more Senators
here, but the 4th of July is still a problem getting other
Senators to come. But a copy of this record will be provided to
every Member of our Committee and to those committees that have
any intersection with the problems we've discussed. For
instance, the Finance Committee and others.
And I look forward to working with you as we go through the
year in terms of the legislation before our Committee that will
affect us all.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Phil Brown, Director, Alaska Region, National
Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to review with you today the National Association of Air
Traffic Specialists (NAATS) assessment of future challenges facing the
Alaska aviation community. Much of our work over the last several years
has continued to focus on maintaining equal or better service for
Alaska's flying public. The crucial services provided by Flight Service
Station (FSS) personnel are essential to aviation in Alaska. Likewise,
air traffic control and all of its associated functions in the FSS are
government responsibilities--especially in Alaska where aviation is
often the only lifeline for our communities. I will focus my remarks
today on these subjects.
The unique environment of Alaska means that our aviation community
warrants increased attention. National aviation guidelines and
evaluation formulas need to be continually adjusted to work in our
great State so that Alaska aviation does not suffer under a one-size
fits all policy. Mr. Chairman, when tough issues arise in the Senate,
your well-known motto has always been, ``Do what's best for Alaska.''
There is no doubt that much of the cutting edge technology that you are
being briefed on today will serve Alaska aviation well in the near and
distant future. Having said that, one must not lose sight of the basic
foundation this wonderful technology is being built upon. Clearly,
there is nothing that replaces the Flight Service Station person on the
ground providing often life-saving assistance to Alaska's bush pilots,
air carriers, military pilots and recreation flyers. Mr. Chairman,
well-trained, experienced human capital is the mortar holding this
foundation together and maintaining this professional federal workforce
is without a doubt, ``what is best for Alaska.''
Mr. Chairman, the dedicated men and women who make up the federal
FSS workforce are the integral key to saving lives and maintaining the
safest Alaska aviation infrastructure possible. The Flight Service
Station employees are often referred to as the ``other controllers.''
Air traffic control conjures up images of dimly lit rooms, lined with
rows of dark screens, displaying a myriad of blips and lines. Each
scope monitored by passionate individuals devoted to keeping apart an
endless stream of traffic, issuing precise instructions, carefully
formulated to protect the thousands of lives represented by the targets
flowing in every direction. This is the image most people have of the
dedicated individuals who monitor the skies for potential conflict. No
less dedicated, yet almost unknown outside the aviation community, are
the ``other controllers.'' Those air traffic control specialists
devoted to helping pilots avoid the innumerable weather phenomena that
are just as hazardous to aviation safety as other traffic. These, Mr.
Chairman, are the individuals who work in the Flight Service Stations
(FSS) across the nation; this workforce is the mortar that bonds the
foundation of the safest aviation infrastructure in the world. Weather
is a factor in an overwhelming majority of aviation accidents. Even
with advances in technology, rapidly changing weather patterns still
present a significant danger to flight safety. Flight Service Station
professionals, working in highly technical environments, scan a
kaleidoscope of weather charts and constantly updating weather data
assisting pilots, both before and during flight to avoid potential
dangers. Nowhere else in the nation are these potential weather dangers
more prevalent than in Alaska where pilots navigate airspace one-fifth
the size of the entire United States and half of the country's
coastline.
A major challenge facing the Alaska aviation community is
maintaining this invaluable human capital in the Federal Flight Service
Stations throughout our last frontier. While the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) continues to struggle with reorganization and
restructure in the new Air Traffic Organization (ATO), the
privatization/outsourcing juggernaut commonly known as ``A-76''
continues to move forward. Mr. Chairman, this ill-advised and misguided
``A-76'' initiative places aviation safety in the hands of a ``lowest
bidder.'' We believe this presents a clear and present danger to
aviation safety in Alaska. While federal FSS air traffic control
specialists in Alaska are currently exempt from this privatization/
outsourcing initiative, there is no reasonable expectation or mandate
preventing FAA officials from expanding their privatization efforts
into our great state.
Currently, the entire FSS community outside Alaska is in immediate
danger of losing their Federal Government careers. Many of these
dedicated men and women started their careers in the military and have
spent a lifetime serving their country in the federal service. Now,
many are in danger of losing their health and retirement benefits only
months and in some cases days away from reaching their retirement
goals. Mr. Chairman, it is simply wrong to toss aside employees and
their families in this fashion. I respectfully encourage you, Mr.
Chairman, to take a close, in-depth look at this entire outsourcing/
privatization effort of America's FAA Flight Service Stations. We are
certain that the inaccurate cost-savings figures being touted by FAA
representatives, the empty promises of ``soft landings'' for federal
employees and the outright raiding of government employee pensions will
shock and dismay you.
Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago when the FAA was closing down
and consolidating Flight Service Stations throughout Alaska the flying
public rose up in opposition. Hearing this public outcry, Mr. Chairman,
you asked a question that still echoes through the halls of the FAA
today, ``What don't you understand about equal or better service?''
Your wise and insightful actions then laid the foundation for keeping
our remote Flight Service Stations in Alaska open and lead to the
develop of an Alaska Rotation Plan that addressed difficult staffing
issues. Unfortunately, the Alaska Rotation Plan and our Alaska remote
Flight Service Stations are under attack by FAA management once again.
Absent any plausible rationale or cost-savings projections that have
been shared with us, FAA management is systematically dismantling the
Alaska Rotation Plan. Moreover, even as we speak today, plans are being
executed to place kiosk stations at remote Alaska locations that will
eventually replace the remote FSS. Mr. Chairman, this ``kiosk concept''
of self-serve air traffic control is the same plan that prompted your
now infamous statement over 12 years ago . . .``What don't you
understand about equal or better service.'' What's more disturbing Mr.
Chairman is that it appears to be some of the same individuals
revisiting this concept now that were involved then. History, truly
does repeat itself and we respectfully request that you follow this
matter closely. Replacing the experienced Flight Service Station
professionals on the ground at remote locations with self-serve kiosks
simply does not equate to ``equal or better service.''
In conclusion, I thank you today Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee for your time and for holding these hearings. Clearly, we
have major challenges facing the Alaska aviation community. While
finding a balance between cost-effectiveness, equal or better service
and aviation safety is a daunting task; it is a task that we can and
must achieve together. The National Association of Air Traffic
Specialists sees this as an important and dynamic time in Alaska
aviation history and we stand ready, willing and able to work in
collaboration with the FAA and the aviation community toward achieving
these goals.