[Senate Hearing 109-1142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1142
OVERSIGHT OF THE JOINT PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-066 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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
Kenneth R. Nahigian, 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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona Virginia, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA BOXER, California
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 25, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 50
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 2
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Witnesses
Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D., Director Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Dobbs, David A., Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and
Special Program Audits, Department of Transportation........... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Porter, Dr. Lisa J., Associate Administrator for Aeronautics
Research, National Aeronautics and Space Administration........ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Appendix
Aerospace Industries Association of America, prepared statement.. 61
Air Line Pilots Association, International, prepared statement... 63
Bunce, Peter J., President/CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA), prepared statement......................... 64
Cote, Dave, Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell prepared statement 66
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 61
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to Hon. Marion C. Blakey....................................... 68
OVERSIGHT OF THE JOINT PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. We'll call the Committee to order. There are
some folks on the way. It is a very busy morning this morning.
I think there was a series of about 15 to 17 hearings this
morning, all over the Hill and so people will be coming and
going. Ranking Member is on his way and I think I'll get my
statement out of the way before he gets here and then we'll
start taking testimony.
I'd like to thank everybody for coming today and I'd like
to welcome Senator Rockefeller back, if it--well, he has had a
back operation and he is kind of struggling with his health
right now, but he is a brave man and a strong man and we sure
appreciate everything that he contributes to this committee and
I'll talk to this empty chair for awhile. I won't pay him any
compliments once he gets here. I accused--I don't think he has
a watch in is office. He just runs his office with a calendar
and today is Tuesday.
The Vision 100, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act
of 2003, we directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan
for the Next Generation Air Traffic Control Systems. That
system needs to accommodate the growth in airline passengers as
well as the innovation of unmanned aerial systems, among
others. The JPDO, which I call ``jump-do,'' was created to
leverage the expertise and resources within the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as NASA and the White
House. The question is whether that leveraging is equating into
an integrated, manageable pool of resources. Is it essential?
The involved agencies and industry work together to solve the
complex challenges involved in the next generation system.
The second question is, can it be done sooner than 2025, as
currently planned? We have serious competition in Europe and it
will be a race on time and resources to fully modernize and
establish the future system. This topic will be especially
important in the upcoming months, as we work on the next FAA
reauthorization bill. Congress is going to have to make some
tough decisions in order to meet the projected increases in air
traffic volumes, in hands of system safety infrastructure and
increase the efficiency of the air traffic control system. I
want the agencies involved, those on the panel and those in the
audience, to be on notice that we'll be keeping your feet to
the fire on modernizing this system. Every agency, from the FAA
to the Department of Defense, needs to keep their eye on the
ball, as this committee will keep a close eye on the progress.
We can no longer afford to simply maintain the status quo. The
economic importance and safety improvements associated with a
modern and efficient air system are boundless. While the
Committee understands this is an incremental process and not a
turn-of-the-switch procedure, it will be turning its attention
and spotlight your way in the coming year. Again, I want to
thank everybody for coming today.
As I looked at this challenge that we have before us and of
course, with the Chairman of the Full Committee here, knowing
how important this is, that this is going to take many
agencies, it is going to take probably a series of hearings
that we've never seen before, to get Congress to move and to
engage Congress, not just a little bit but also into the
challenge that we have before us. We know that we've got to do
things differently now. New technologies are here. New
technologies will happen while we're in the process. We have to
be very agile and very versatile in order to take advantage of
those and it will take people, not only of vision but also
courage before we really re-do this whole system and make it
move us into a new era of air traffic control, for passenger
safety, not only how it relates here on a terrestrial means, so
to speak, but also how it interlaces with our travel in space.
So it involves people that think big and broad and deep. So I
thank you for coming this morning and now I turn to my good
friend from Alaska and the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Burns. I'm
pleased you are holding the hearing. I'm glad to see these
witnesses here to discuss this office and nice to see you back,
Administrator Blakey. We've discussed a lot--the situation in
Alaska. Seventy percent of our cities can be reached only by
air, year-round and we have to have a modern system to assure
safety, not only for our people traveling but the medical
evacuation process that we use is by air. When I first became
Chairman of the Appropriations, the first hearing that I held
was in Alaska on safety and I'm delighted that the FAA has been
a partner in really improving the situation in Alaska. At that
time, I found out that one out of every 11 pilots in our state
was losing his or her life in commercial aviation. I think that
programs like Capstone and the Five Star Medallion Program,
which Administrator Blakey, you have participated in, have
really helped a great deal in bringing us a new concept of
safety. Now we have to make sure that we have planning for the
development of new systems and staying ahead of the game as we
go. So, I look forward to working with the Chairman and to
listen to your statements here this morning. I am delighted you
took the time to be with us today, Marion. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
being here today and now we'll call on the Administrator of the
FAA, the Hon. Marion Blakey. Thank you for coming this morning.
I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Blakey. Is the red light on? There we are, thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Burns and Chairman Stevens, for all the
ongoing attention you all give to these vitally important
matters in aviation. I do appreciate the opportunity to testify
about the future of aviation and how we are going to advance
it. It is a pleasure to discuss the Joint Planning and
Development Office and the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. We have testified before this committee several times
about the creation of the JPDO. I'll start thinking of it as
``jump-do,'' Mr. Chairman, and its drive to create the NextGen
System. To be sure, this is a very ambitious undertaking,
requiring strong support from Congress as well as our
stakeholders and our colleagues in the Executive Branch, if we
are to be successful. We all know how important it is to
modernize our aviation system but I'd like to leave you today
with a clear sense of the progress we're making in achieving
that goal. These two charts that I have up here on each side of
the table, I think present a startling picture, not only of
where we are but of what is certain to come.
These charts are Exhibits A and B and they tell the tale of
why we must modernize, and what will happen if we fail to.
[Senator Rockefeller enters.]
Ms. Blakey. Good morning, Senator Rockefeller. I'm just
illustrating the charts that we have on each side as to why we
have a case for modernization. These graphics essentially show
the density of traffic. They highlight operational hotspots
when congestion can lead to inefficiencies and frankly, not
just inefficiencies but genuine safety concerns across the
national airspace system. The chart on the left represents
today. It is your left, my right here. The right shows 2025,
with three times the traffic level we have now. The warmer
colors, as you would expect, yellow and red, show the busiest,
most complex flows of traffic. Cooler colors--green, blue,
gray--represent flows that are less congested. In 20 years it
is pretty obvious: the hotspots dominate. Bottom line? If we
fail to modernize, we can't handle the traffic density you're
looking at. The red and to some degree, the yellow, literally
cannot be handled by human intervention. That is only going to
be handled through automation and obviously, we are going to
have to be able to move ahead and avoid that.
The FAA and the JPDO are tackling this challenge on two
fronts: focusing on the 2025 end state while delivering near
term operational benefits. Using advanced technology to make
existing capacity work more efficiently, we can provide relief
today while helping to lay the foundation for the NextGen
System.
Last year, we accelerated the development of some of the
key building blocks for the NextGen System. These include
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or ADS-B band
network-enabled operations. ADS-B you all have heard me talk
about before. I'm a true believer. It is a revolutionary
technology that uses GPS to transmit real-time surveillance
data to controllers and to pilots, substantially improving
situational awareness and allowing smaller separate distances
between aircraft while maintaining the highest level of safety.
As Chairman Stevens knows all too well, it has been very
successfully demonstrated in Alaska through the Capstone
Program and we are moving forward now with nationwide
deployment. Aircraft equipped with ADS-B have had a
consistently lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft. In
fact, in the years from 2000 to 2005, the rate of accidents for
ADS-B-equipped aircraft in Alaska, dropped by almost 50
percent. Network-enabled operations--they also show similar
promise, especially in making our NextGen System more secure.
As the demand for aviation continues to increase, it is clear
that everyone in the system must have clear lines of
communication. With NEO, as we call it, the left hand always
knows what the right hand is doing and we are able to minimize
duplication so that everyone pulls in the same direction. This
is especially important when we are thinking about security in
the sensitive airspace around the Capitol, where the concept
has already been demonstrated successfully. We showed how you
could connect seven systems from a series of Federal agencies,
including FAA, DOD and DHS and how sharing information--and
this is from Legacy Systems, I would point out--in real-time,
helps agencies respond to a security incident much more quickly
and effectively. When you are justifying an expense to the
taxpayer, it just makes good business sense to show how the
major players are pooling their brainpower and developing and
deploying together. The JPDO, of course, is not an implementing
or an executing agency so the FAA is working closely with our
counterparts to develop an implementation schedule for the
operational changes required as these NextGen technologies are
deployed. Rather than starting from scratch, we will use the
FAA's highly successful Operational Evolution Plan, the OEP as
it is known, as a framework. The OEP was created long before
the NextGen initiative began as a 10-year rolling plan to
develop new capacity for our busiest airports. It has helped to
add runways and redesign airspace in areas where the taxpayer
would get the biggest bang for the buck. And, I'm happy to say,
over the years, time and again, it has worked. We've deployed
12 new runways since 1999 and I want to repeat that because 12
new runways since 1999 is huge by any standards and there are
more on the way. We are now, therefore, expanding the focus of
this very successful plan, the OEP, to include the NextGen
System so we will have a seamless approach. Now we are calling
it the Operational Evolution Partnership--the bridge from the
OEP today to the NextGen System of tomorrow. But the label, of
course, is honestly unimportant. What is important--the bottom
line, is that this is a successful way to deploy and its new
construct will serve as the roadmap from today's NAS to
tomorrow's NextGen System.
Over the last few years, we have gone to great lengths to
operate the FAA like a business and I know you all have heard
me talk about this time and again. That does mean setting very
specific goals and measuring our success. For the first time
this year, we will be incorporating progress toward the NextGen
System into our flight plan in a much more robust way. The
current 5-year business plan for the FAA was released just last
week for public comment, as we do every year and it includes
several major initiatives to support the NextGen
transformation. Progress reports on each goal and milestone are
posted monthly to the web and we've linked the bonuses for the
FAA employees to the achievement of these goals. When you tie
success to a paycheck, success tends to happen and I'm
confident it will continue to do so.
So how do you tie all these pieces together? One of the
major deliverables for the JPDO include one of the critical
elements in defining the NextGen System itself. It is the
development of an agreed concept of operations, CONOPS. This
document will provide the basic operational description of how
the NextGen System will work. It will help us develop the
requirements and capabilities associated with the air
transportation system of 2025. It is essentially a sketch of
things to come and underscores how the new system will improve
upon what we have today. Make no mistake; the concept of
operations will guide investment decisions, both in research
and systems deployment.
I am pleased to announce that the first phase of the
Concept of Operations was released yesterday. It is on our
website, of course, that is the primary way to access it but I
did bring a copy of the document with me today as well. We're
looking for comment. We're looking for stakeholders to provide
additional input, although they have provided substantial input
already on other phases. As we receive their comments, they
will be released over the next several months. We expect to
complete it by early next year in a final form.
The importance of developing a modernized system is also
quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable
effort, as you all well know, is underway. I am also happy to
say that last week at Fernborough, where Chairman Stevens and I
were both over there for various activities having to do with
our European counterparts, we were able to reach an agreement
with the European Commission, to coordinate our modernization
programs. This agreement provides the framework for developing
a more effective, performance-based air navigation system
between the United States and Europe. It is the right thing for
safety. It is the right thing for efficiency and if we've
learned anything, a seamless sky can supercharge our economy
and Europe knows that as we do. So, we both have a great deal
of energy behind that and in signing this agreement with
Jacques Barrot, I think he was as pleased as I was.
With all of this said, let me emphasize that cost is going
to be a vital factor in all of this. We cannot create the Next
Generation System that is unaffordable. We are working,
therefore, with the Next Generation Institute, which represents
all of the commercial sector, all of our stakeholders, to hold
several workshops, from their vantage point as well as ours, so
that the critical assumptions and uncertainties underlying any
cost benefit analysis, can be scrutinized and validated by the
industry. The first of these workshops, focusing on commercial
aviation, I'd have to say was surprisingly helpful to all
involved. It set the stage for collaborative development of our
assumptions about operations and equipage. We will also be
meeting with the general aviation community and with the
airport communities in the next couple of months.
Today, we are making technological advancements and laying
the groundwork for the NextGen System. No question about it, a
lot of challenges remain. We know, for example, if we are to
see the benefits of the Next Generation System fully realized,
the FAA's financing system is going to have to be reformed.
Nevertheless, we remain focused, knowing that our plan for the
Next Generation System must succeed.
Aviation continues to expand at an exponential rate. You
can see that from these charts and we have no choice but to be
ready. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am concluding my
testimony. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marion C. Blakey, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration
Good morning Chairman Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and the
work we are doing together to develop and deploy the Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) while providing operational and
safety enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today.
Our Nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its
own success. We created the most effective, efficient and safest system
in the world. But we now face a serious and impending problem, one that
the FAA and this committee are well aware of. Demand for air services
is rising, and could as much as triple over the next two decades. While
the industry downturn following the attacks of September 11 temporarily
slowed the growth in the aviation industry that began in the late
1990s, demand is growing rapidly. And we have to be ready to meet it.
The warning signs are everywhere. Flight delays and cancellations
have reached unacceptable levels. Other issues, ranging from
environmental concerns to the complexities of homeland security are
placing additional stresses on the system.
If we fail to address issues such as increased capacity in a
deliberate and focused way, we will suffocate the great engine of
economic growth that civil aviation has become.
The FAA and the JPDO have taken a dual track yet complementary
approach, keeping our eyes focused on the NextGen Vision while using
existing technology to provide important and tangible operational
benefits now and in the future to users of the National Airspace System
(NAS). We are finding ways to make existing capacity work more
efficiently through advanced technology and operational improvements,
with many of these efficiencies not only providing relief today but
helping to lay the foundation for the Next Generation System.
The JPDO now serves as a focal point for coordinating the research
related to air transportation for agencies across the Federal
Government, including the Departments of Transportation, Commerce,
Defense and Homeland Security, as well as NASA and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. The initiative achieved important
milestones in 2005 toward designing the NextGen system. The JPDO
completed its internal organization and created eight government/
industry Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to break this large and
complex project into manageable strategies. These strategies focus on
those aspects of aviation that hold the keys to capacity and efficiency
improvements--airport infrastructure, security, a more agile air
traffic system, shared situational awareness, safety, environmental
concerns, weather and global harmonization of equipage, and operations.
The Teams work closely with our stakeholders to ensure that they have
an early window into the planning process and that we take full
advantage of their expertise every step of the way. Further
accomplishments to date are highlighted in the recently published
``2005 Progress Report to the NGATS Integrated Plan'' that was
transmitted to Congress on March 10 as required by Vision 100.
We need the best minds in America across both the public and
private sectors working on the task of creating a NextGen system. To
achieve this, we have established a Next Generation Air Transportation
System Institute (the NGATS Institute) that allows stakeholders to get
directly involved in the transformation process. And, while the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) is the host for the Institute,
it is co-chaired by the presidents of the Air Line Pilots Association
and the Air Transport Association and open for participation by all
segments of the industry.
What truly sets this new structure apart is that it minimizes
duplication of effort and resources among Federal agencies and
maximizes the input of the private sector toward a common goal--the
creation of a NextGen system.
One of the common misconceptions about the NextGen initiative,
however, is that we have to wait until 2025 to start seeing the
benefits. FAA is currently implementing a system known as Required
Navigation Performance (RNP). RNP uses on-board technology that allows
pilots to fly more direct point-to-point routes reliably and
accurately. RNP is extremely accurate, and gives pilots not only
lateral guidance, but vertical precision as well. RNP reaches all
aspects of the flight--departure, en route, arrival, and approach. For
example, in January 2005, in partnership with Alaska Airlines, we
implemented new RNP approach procedures at Palm Springs International
Airport, which is located in very mountainous terrain. Under the
previous conventional procedures in use at Palm Springs, planes could
not land unless the ceiling and visibility were at least 2,300 feet and
three miles. With these new RNP procedures, air carriers with properly
equipped aircraft can now operate with a ceiling and visibility as low
as 734 feet and one mile. This lower landing minima has allowed Alaska
Airlines to ``save'' 27 flights between January and November, 2005--
flights which would have otherwise had to divert to Ontario,
California--an added distance of at least 70 miles. Given the current
state of fuel prices, savings such as this can mean a great deal to an
airline's bottom line, to say nothing of passengers' schedules and
convenience.
Establishing an initial Network-Enabled Operations (NEO) capability
is a high priority for the JPDO and its member agencies, given its
fundamental importance to the success of the NextGen System. Current
efforts focus on identifying the network architecture and enacting
standards for information and safety data sharing. The Department of
Defense (DOD) has already invested considerable resources in
information technology and telecommunication research focused on NEO
and information access and sharing. FAA, as well as the Departments of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Commerce, are committed to developing
network-centric information architectures that draw on the lessons
learned by DOD. The opportunity now exists to synchronize these
efforts, especially in the areas of data interoperability and
compatible network-to-network interface mechanisms, and two on-going
DOD initiatives--the synchronization of DOD and DHS classified networks
and DOD's development of its Net-Centric Enterprise Services--will
serve as templates for this effort.
The benefits of this technology are clear. In 2005, the JPDO, FAA
and an industry team showed how network-enabled concepts developed for
military customers can be applied to Air Traffic Management. The Joint
Network-Enabled Operations Security Demonstration connected seven
existing Air Traffic Management and security systems distributed over
12 different locations. It showed how sharing information in real time
across air traffic, air defense, and law enforcement domains could
improve coordination and help agencies respond to a security incident
more efficiently--thereby lessening the need for evacuations and
scrambling fighter jets. The exciting part of the NEO demonstration is
that it enabled communication between agencies' current networks,
eliminating the need to throw out all the individual legacy systems and
create a brand new mega-system, which would be prohibitively expensive.
As a part of the ``spiral development process'' for NEO, an approach to
systems development that makes continuous improvements and changes
throughout the development process, the JPDO is planning a second joint
agency NEO demonstration. In Fiscal Year 2007, the FAA will participate
in the second NEO demonstration under the System Wide Information
Management (SWIM) program. The President's budget proposal for Fiscal
Year 2007 requests $24 million for SWIM. FAA's investment in the second
NEO demonstration will allow us to apply lessons learned to the
acquisition phase of SWIM. SWIM will provide a secure NAS-wide
information web to facilitate a transition toward network-based air
traffic operations and allow the FAA to lead and participate system-
wide in network-enabled operations with system users, global air
navigation service providers and other government agencies.
In its Fiscal Year 2007 budget request, the Administration proposed
targeted investments, in addition to SWIM, to promote early
implementation of core elements of the NexGen system. Additional
initiatives that will serve as building blocks of the new system will
be added to the mix as the Enterprise Architecture is fully developed
and system requirements are established.
One of our most promising initiatives with potential for broad
operational applications is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B), a technology that could replace ground-based radar systems and
revolutionize air navigation and surveillance by providing radar-like
separation procedures in remote areas that cannot currently be served
by radar; by providing near real-time, in-the-cockpit, aeronautical
information such as weather and notices to airmen; by enabling capacity
gains by reducing existing separation standards in all domains and
airspace classifications; by supporting increased capacity through
user-executed airborne spacing, sequencing and separation operations;
and by providing improved information for traffic flow management and
fleet management--all while reducing our infrastructure costs. ADS-B
uses GPS satellites and ground-based transmitters to allow aircraft to
broadcast their positions with greater frequency and accuracy than our
legacy radar systems. Moreover, with ADS-B, future pilots will see
exactly what the air traffic controller sees. For Fiscal Year 2007, the
President's budget includes $80 million for the FAA for the ADS-B
program to begin moving toward nationwide deployment.
The ADS-B system was the key enabling technology for the Capstone
demonstration program in Alaska. Capstone is a technology-focused
safety program 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, with the goal of
reducing the exceedingly high accident rate in Alaska for small
aircraft operations, which was nearly five times greater than the
national average. Through 2005, the program achieved significant safety
and efficiency results. The use of ADS-B information by the Bethel
Airport Traffic Control Tower continues to provide benefits to all
Bethel operators by enhancing the ability to better balance arrival
flows and demand when weather conditions at the airport deteriorate
below visual flight rules conditions. Aircraft equipped with ADS-B have
had a consistently lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft. From
2000 through 2005, the rate of accidents for ADS-B-equipped aircraft
dropped significantly--by 49 percent. That is real progress, and we
will build on this success as we expand the use of ADS-B elsewhere in
the country.
One of the first uses of ADS-B technology outside of Alaska will be
in the Gulf of Mexico. We have recently signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with the Helicopter Association International (HAI),
helicopter operators and oil and gas platform owners in the Gulf of
Mexico to improve service in the Gulf. Using ADS-B technology,
helicopter operators will transmit critical position information to the
Houston Center, enabling unprecedented Air Traffic Control services in
the Gulf. This technology will also develop new air routes with
improved separation standards for high altitude airspace.
These new technologies and procedures are vital both to improving
our air traffic system today and to building the NextGen system of
2025. To ensure we deliver these benefits as quickly as possible, FAA
is incorporating NextGen goals and targets into the agency's strategic
planning process in a much more comprehensive way. The draft FAA Flight
Plan for 2007-2011, released for public comment just last week,
includes several major initiatives that support the transformation to
the NextGen system. And we've added the NextGen symbol in the Flight
Plan to easily identify each initiative that supports the modernization
of the National Airspace System.
As a result, the Flight Plan will now capture explicitly what we
must do in the near term through the Integrated Product Teams to
achieve the NextGen vision. In other words, it helps us to identify the
pipeline and funding to implement new technologies and incorporate the
operational concepts that will serve as the foundation for the NextGen
system. This will provide both an internal process for ensuring
commitments are met and an external process for communicating the FAA's
progress to our stakeholders.
We recognize that there are many challenges in converting the
JPDO's vision of the NextGen system into reality. Because the JPDO is
not an implementing or executing agency, the FAA and the other JPDO
partner agencies must work closely with the JPDO to develop an
implementation schedule for the operational changes required as new
technologies are deployed to realize the NextGen vision. We intend to
use the construct of our existing Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) to
help us. However, we will expand the scope of the OEP from a ten-year
rolling plan focused exclusively on capacity to a plan that will take
us from the configuration of today's National Airspace System (NAS) to
tomorrow's NextGen system. In the new Operational Evolution Partnership
(OEP), JPDO transformational operating concepts will be identified,
rigorously evaluated, prototyped, and tested so they can be ready for
transition into the NAS. Required operational implementation schedules
will be tracked, as well as dates by which initiatives must be funded
in order to meet those schedules.
The NAS and NexGen Enterprise Architectures will provide the
backbone of this new OEP by specifying roadmaps for system and
certification requirements, operational procedures, program phasing,
and prototype demonstrations. This Operational Evolution Partnership
will be the mechanism by which we inform our owners, customers, and
aviation community of our plans and progress toward the JPDO vision,
while assuring that the JPDO and the FAA are jointly on-track to
deliver the NextGen system.
Cost will be a vital factor: we cannot create a NexGen system that
is not affordable. We are working with the NGATS Institute to hold
several workshops with our stakeholders so that the critical
assumptions and uncertainties underlying any cost benefit analysis can
receive scrutiny and validation for future use. The first of these
workshops, focusing on the commercial aviation sector, was very helpful
and has set the stage for a collaborative development of our
assumptions on such issues as operations and equipage. We expect
similar such engagement as we meet with representatives from other
segments of the industry, such as the General Aviation Community. Of
course, even after we develop the basic assumptions, we will continue
to work closely with the industry as we develop the cost models.
Our vision of the NextGen system is not limited to increased
airspace capacity. Rather, it is one which encompasses the whole air
travel experience--from the moment the passenger arrives at the curb of
his departure airport to his or her exit from their destination
airport. The NextGen system includes security, safety, and efficiency
of passenger, cargo and aircraft operations. Technology will change the
way America flies, and aircraft will be able to use information
technology in a more robust way, with enhanced cockpit, navigation and
landing capabilities, and far more comprehensive and accurate knowledge
of real-time weather and traffic conditions.
The NextGen system will be more flexible, resilient, scalable,
adaptive, and highly automated. The NextGen operational vision is not
just related to the air traffic management system alone, but also
includes the preservation and growth of airports, heliports, and other
future landing and departure facilities to incorporate fully the
emerging system's benefits. This system will be built on a far more
robust information network than anything we have seen to date, ensuring
that the right information gets to the right person at the right time,
while keeping the Nation safe and the flow of traffic running smoothly.
Finally, we will put more information directly into the cockpit of
intelligent aircraft through sensors and satellites linked together
through network communications.
One of the major products for the JPDO, and indeed, one of the
critical elements in defining the NextGen initiative itself, is the
development of the Concept of Operations and the Enterprise
Architecture. These documents define each NextGen function, what the
requirements will be, and how it will evolve. They are absolutely
essential to the future development of the NextGen system.
The Concept of Operations is a document that provides the basic
operational description of how the NextGen system will actually
function. This kind of explanation, offered in one document, will be
critical to developing the specific requirements and capabilities for
our national air transportation system in 2025. In a sense, the Concept
of Operations is like an architect's preliminary drawings--it outlines
what the system will look like, how it will function, and what its
capabilities will be.
However, to adequately lay the groundwork and basic plans for the
NextGen system requires another step in the process, developed
concurrently with the Concept of Operations, and that's the Enterprise
Architecture. The Enterprise Architecture represents the actual plan
for how the NextGen system will be developed, much like a set of
blueprints. This includes the systems that will be needed, the timing
for their deployment, and how they will work together.
Both of these documents, the Concept of Operations and the
Enterprise Architecture, are essential to defining the NextGen system
and will guide the future investment and capabilities, both in terms of
research and systems development. The JPDO has made considerable
progress on both products, and I am pleased to say that the first phase
of the Concept of Operations was released this week on the JPDO
website. It is now available for review and comment by our
stakeholders, and we are anxious to receive their feedback. Other
phases of the Concept of Operations will be released in the next few
months, along with the Enterprise Architecture. We expect the completed
versions of each set of documents to be complete by early next year.
The importance of developing this system of the future is also
quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable effort is
well underway. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the
United States. Creating a modernized, global system that provides
interoperability could serve as a tremendous boost to the aerospace
industry, fueling new efficiencies while creating jobs and delivering
substantial consumer benefits. Alternatively, we could also see a
patchwork of duplicative systems and technologies develop, which would
place additional cost burdens on an industry already struggling to make
ends meet.
We are working to avoid that future by seeking out partnerships
with our international counterparts. This year we have established
steering groups with China, Japan, Canada and Mexico to facilitate
cooperative activities on the design of the NextGen system. These
groups are moving forward to pursue joint initiatives, such as ADS-B,
SWIM, and Enterprise Architecture which are aligned with the required
performance-based systems.
In addition, I just returned from the Farnborough Air Show, where I
concluded an agreement with Jacques Barrot, the Vice President of the
European Commission, which formalizes cooperation between the NextGen
initiative and its European counterpart, the Single European Sky Air
Traffic Management Research (SESAR) program. The FAA and the EC intend
to identify opportunities and establish timelines to implement, where
appropriate, common, interoperable, performance-based air traffic
management systems and technologies. This coordination will address
policy issues and facilitate global agreement within international
standards organizations such as ICAO, RTCA and Eurocontrol, and
contribute greatly to the success of this critical initiative.
Our overarching goal in the NextGen initiative is to develop a
system that will be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of
users--very light jets and large commercial aircraft, manned and
unmanned aircraft, small airports and large, business and vacation
travelers alike, while handling a significantly increased number of
operations with a commensurate improvement in safety, security and
efficiency. Research will continue to help us find the right balance
between a centralized satellite and ground system and a totally
distributed system, where aircraft ``self-manage'' their flight with
full knowledge of their environment.
The current technological and operational improvements are positive
steps down the road to building the NextGen system. If we are to see
the benefits fully realized, however, it is absolutely imperative that
we reform the financing system for the FAA. Over the next few years we
will work to achieve better cost management; determine the best
solution for our aging and deteriorating facilities; and, conduct
research on convective weather to reduce flight delays associated with
summer storms. We strive to improve efficiency, while searching for
innovative ways to provide safer services even more efficiently.
However, we need to establish the financing of our current and future
operations based on actual costs and investment requirements that will
realize tangible benefits and increasing efficiency. As we decide how
to wisely invest in our future, we will continue to work closely with
our customers, our employees, and of course, Members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you and I would caution--you know, all
the things that you took us to. Are these charts available to
members of this committee?
Ms. Blakey. They are.
Senator Burns. They are?
Ms. Blakey. Yes.
Senator Burns. Today?
Ms. Blakey. I hope we have them up there in color for you.
We intended to.
Senator Burns. It would help because I think there are
probably a lot of Members of Congress that are not aware of the
challenges that we face and these are pretty stark realities as
we look here. Also, everything that you mentioned in there--let
me warn that everything we do as we take off on this expedition
is going to have to include the private sector. We can sure
experience paralysis by analysis and we don't want to get into
that kind of a situation either, because we know that we have
to make progress.
Senator Rockefeller has joined us today and I would assume
that you have a statement and we would look forward to that
before we call on Dr. Porter.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your usual
courtesy. I do have a statement. I worked on it last night. It
is quite long. I think the mood in the room would decline as I
continued although it is a very positive statement and I also
cannot stay all that long. I have to hear my favorite FAA
Administrator, so I will decline your invitation with thanks.
Senator Burns. Well, we've got the room leased for all day
if you want to--no matter how--if you still wanted to make a
statement.
Senator Rockefeller. We'll just put it in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
We all recognize that the U.S must significantly expand the
capacity of our Nation's air transportation system to make sure that we
continue to have the most effective, safe and secure aviation system in
the world. The Administrator understands the great importance of
meeting the challenge to modernize our airspace system, and I want to
commend her for her continued leadership in this effort.
This year is critical with the scheduled completion of needed
roadmaps that will provide the blueprint for the future National
Airspace System. As we head into FAA Reauthorization, the FAA and
entire Administration must continue to communicate closely so that
Congress can properly assist this effort in the coming months.
I will be watching as the Next Generation Air Traffic System
architecture is completed and the business case for this effort is
developed. Too many times in the past, we have spent recklessly on the
FAA's modernization efforts--often with exploding budgets providing
mixed results at best. Adequate funding continues to be a major concern
and we cannot afford to shortchange this effort. You must make clear
what steps need to be taken and all of the stakeholders have to work
together to make these plans become a reality.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Administration will
not be providing Congress with a proposal to change the financing of
the agency's operations this year. I know that the Administrator has
been working very hard to finalize this proposal, and I hope that the
Administration decides very early next year on this or Congress will
not have time to review this proposal.
The improved efficiencies to be gained through airspace
modernization will provide billions of dollars in increased
productivity to U.S. and global businesses. Air carriers will see fuel
costs reduced--aiding their bottom lines, and more direct routing will
certainly lead to additional environmental and economic benefits.
It is vital to our position as the global leader in the aviation
industry that our modernization initiatives are a success, and I look
forward to doing what I can to help you meet this goal.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate
that very much and I look forward to working with you as we
work on this huge undertaking.
We have with us this morning, Dr. Lisa Porter, Associate
Administrator of Aeronautics Research, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF DR. LISA J. PORTER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AERONAUTICS RESEARCH,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the status of the NGATS, the Next
Generation Air Transportation System. NASA is committed to
working with our partners at the JPDO to provide the high
quality, cutting edge research and technical excellence
required to develop the NGATS.
The future air traffic management system must be scalable
to support increased capacity as well as flexible to
accommodate the wide variety of air vehicles that will fly
within the system. New concepts and technologies must be
conceived and developed that will completely transform the
over-arching structure that will coordinate thousands of
vehicles operating in the national air space at any given time.
NASA's air space systems program will therefore focus on
developing revolutionary concepts, capabilities and
technologies that will enable significant increases in the
capacity, efficiency and flexibility of our national air space
system. We will develop and explore fundamental concepts and
integrated solutions that will address the optimal allocation
of ground and air automation technologies necessary for the
NGATS. We will also develop and validate algorithms, concepts
and technologies to enable high-capacity efficient and safe air
portal systems for the ground and terminal area domains.
However, it is critical to recognize that the challenges we
face in developing the future air transportation system, are
not limited to air traffic management alone. Increasing the
capacity of the ATM system by factors of two or three will be
nothing more than a theoretical exercise if we do not
simultaneously address the substantial noise emissions
efficiency and performance challenges facing the air vehicles
of the future. These are issues that cannot be worked in
isolation. A holistic approach to vehicle design will be
required in order to address multiple and often conflicting
design requirements. Therefore, a key focus of NASA's
fundamental aeronautics program will be the development of
physics-based, predictive design tools that will enable the
rapid evaluation of new concepts and technologies and it will
accelerate their application into a wide variety of future air
vehicles. This capability will only be possible if we are
dedicated to both the pursuit of cutting-edge research across
the core aeronautics disciplines and the integration of that
research to enable multidisciplinary tools and technologies.
The noise emissions efficiency and performance of air vehicles
are all interrelated through core disciplines, such as
materials, structures, aerodynamics, acoustics, combustion and
controls. Furthermore, as we look toward the future at the
projected increases in air traffic and future system
capabilities, we must make a firm commitment to conduct the
research necessary to ensure that our high safety standards are
not compromised. NASA's aviation safety program will therefore
focus on developing cutting edge tools, methods and
technologies intended to improve the intrinsic safety
attributes of aircraft that will be operating in the evolving
NGATS. We will conduct research that focuses on improving the
inherent resiliency, life cycle durability and maintenance of
modern aircraft and associated onboard systems. We will also
pursue flight deck related technologies that will ensure that
crew workload and situation awareness are both safely optimized
and adapted to the future NGATS' operational environment.
Finally, taking into account the advanced automation and
autonomy capabilities envisioned by NGATS, we will pursue
methodologies to enable an aircraft to automatically detect,
avoid and/or safely recover from an off-nominal condition that
could lead to a loss of control. NASA has interacted closely
with the JPDO during the past several months to ensure proper
alignment of our research plans with the needs of the NGATS. We
have solicited input from the JPDO during both our preliminary
technical planning last fall and our rigorous review process
this past spring. We have employed a research program
formulation process that put our researchers in charge of
writing technical proposals with input from other government
agencies and from the private sector, through a Request for
Information, commonly referred to as a RFI. These proposals
were reviewed by panels of government subject matter experts,
including JPDO members, who evaluated the proposals based on
their technical, management, resource and partnership plans.
Our thorough proposal review process ensured that the proposed
research plans were technically credible and well aligned with
the NGATS vision. This level of coordination and cooperation
will remain an ongoing element of our strategic partnership
with the JPDO.
Now, obviously a vision as revolutionary and ambitious as
that of the NGATS will face some significant challenges in the
coming months and years. Technically, the most important near-
term challenge is the development of the enterprise
architecture. While each agency has been able to vector its
research portfolio in the right direction according to the
goals articulated in the NGATS vision, the establishment of
detailed system requirements that flow from enterprise
architecture, will allow each member agency to better refine
its R&D plans. Given that every agency has budget constraints
and always will, the establishment of an enterprise
architecture will be critical to ensure that each agency can
prioritize its R&D investments in the manner that provides the
maximum return on investment for the JPDO. The JPDO intends to
provide a preliminary enterprise architecture by the fall of
2006.
In conclusion, NASA's Aeronautics Research Directorate is
investing in high-quality, cutting-edge research in areas that
are appropriate to NASA's unique capabilities in order to
enable the NGATS vision. We have aligned our research portfolio
to meet this challenge with an efficient allocation of
resources in an unwavering commitment to technical excellence.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Porter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Lisa J. Porter, Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics Research, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the status of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS). NASA is committed to
working with our partners at the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) to provide the high-quality research and technical excellence
that is required to develop the NGATS.
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) is currently
undergoing a comprehensive restructuring to ensure that we have a
strategic plan in place that enables us to pursue long-term, cutting-
edge research for the benefit of the broad aeronautics community. The
three principles guiding this restructuring are as follows: (1) We will
dedicate ourselves to the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the
core competencies of aeronautics in all flight regimes; (2) We will
focus our research in areas appropriate to NASA's unique capabilities;
and (3) We will directly address the fundamental research needs of the
NGATS while working closely with our agency partners in the JPDO.
Regarding the third principle, one of the research challenges that
NASA will directly address will be that of Air Traffic Management
(ATM). While our current ATM system has served the country well, there
are critical shortcomings that prevent it from meeting anticipated
future demands. The future ATM system must be scalable to support
increased capacity as well as flexible to accommodate the wide variety
of air vehicles that will fly within the system. New concepts and
technologies must be conceived and developed that will completely
transform the overarching structure that will coordinate thousands of
vehicles operating in the national airspace at any given time.
However, it is important to recognize that the challenges we face
in developing the NGATS are not limited to ATM alone. For our air
transportation system to continue to function, future air vehicles will
need to address substantial noise, emissions, efficiency, and
performance challenges. These are issues that cannot be worked in
isolation--a holistic approach to vehicle design will be required in
order to address multiple and often conflicting design requirements.
Furthermore, as both the vehicles and the airspace system become
increasingly complex, we must make a commitment to conduct the research
necessary to ensure that our high safety standards are not compromised.
Therefore, NASA's ARMD will conduct the long-term, cutting edge
research that will be necessary to ensure revolutionary capabilities
for both the air vehicles of the future as well as the air
transportation system in which they will fly. Gone are the days when
one can design innovative vehicles without consideration of the
airspace, and the converse is, of course, equally true. We have four
major programs--the Airspace Systems Program, the Aviation Safety
Program, the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, and the Aeronautics Test
Program--each of which contributes to the research needs of the future
air transportation system, as described in more detail below. NASA has
constructed a balanced research portfolio that draws upon our NASA-
unique capabilities to address ATM, vehicle, and safety-related
research challenges--all of which must be worked in order for NGATS
vision to be realized. Funding levels among the programs have been
balanced to ensure that our intellectual stewardship of the core
competencies of aeronautics is not compromised.
ARMD has interacted closely with the JPDO during the past several
months to ensure proper alignment of our research plans with the needs
of the NGATS. Specifically, we have solicited input from the JPDO
during both our preliminary technical planning last fall and our
rigorous review process this past spring. ARMD has employed a research
program formulation process that put NASA researchers in charge of
writing technical proposals with input from other government agencies
and the private sector through a Request for Information (RFI). These
proposals were reviewed by panels of government subject matter experts,
including JPDO members, who evaluated the proposals based on their
technical, management, resource, and partnership plans. The researchers
were provided detailed feedback from these reviews and used this
feedback to further refine their proposals. The proposals then
underwent a second review. Our thorough proposal review process ensured
that the plans were technically credible and well-aligned with the
NGATS vision. This level of coordination and cooperation will remain an
ongoing element of the ARMD strategic partnership with the JPDO. In the
final step, we used a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) as the means to
solicit research proposals for foundational research in areas where
NASA needs to enhance its core capability. The competition for the NRA
awards is open to both academia and industry. The NRA was released on
May 24th, and the initial proposals were due July 7th. The NRA will
remain open to enable us to conduct an additional round of proposal
evaluations later in the year.
Finally, in addition to conducting research that directly addresses
NGATS challenges, we have placed a strong emphasis on active
participation in the JPDO, providing personnel, analysis tools, and
funding to directly support its functions and activities. NASA is
actively involved in all the organizational elements of the JPDO, from
the Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) and the Evaluation and Analysis
Division (EAD) up through the Senior Policy Committee (SPC), which
oversees the work of the JPDO and is chaired by the Secretary of
Transportation.
Airspace Systems
The objective of the Airspace Systems Program (ASP) is to develop
revolutionary concepts, capabilities, and technologies that will enable
significant increases in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of
our National Airspace System (NAS)--an objective that is clearly
aligned with the JPDO's vision of the NGATS. The ASP consists of two
projects: the NGATS ATM: Airspace Project and NGATS ATM: Airportal
Project.
The Airspace Project will develop and explore fundamental concepts
and integrated solutions that address the optimal allocation of ground
and air automation technologies necessary for the NGATS. The project
will focus NASA's technical expertise and world-class facilities on
addressing the question of where, when, how, and the extent to which
automation can be applied to moving aircraft safely and efficiently
through the NAS. Research in this project will address Four-Dimensional
(4-D) Trajectory Operations including advances in the science and
applications of multi-aircraft trajectory optimization that solves the
demand/capacity imbalance problem and manages the separation assurance
requirement. We also will conduct research to explore Dynamic Airspace
Configurations that address the technical challenges of migrating from
the current structured, static homogenous airspace to a dynamic,
heterogeneous airspace that adapts to user demand and changing
constraints of weather, traffic congestion, and a highly diverse
aircraft fleet. Ultimately, the roles and responsibilities of humans
and automation touch every technical area and will be addressed
thoroughly.
Working in close collaboration with the Airspace Project, the
Airportal Project will develop and validate algorithms, concepts, and
technologies to enable high-capacity, efficient and safe airportal
systems for the ground and terminal area domains of the National
Airspace System (NAS). Currently, the growth of air traffic demand and
fleet diversity is causing the operational volume at hub airports to
rapidly approach their maximum capacity. The research in this project
will develop solutions that safely integrate surface and terminal area
air traffic optimization tools and systems with 4-D trajectory
operations. These tools and systems will be aimed at mitigating the
growing constraints at the Nation's hubs (adverse weather, noise,
emissions, wake vortex hazards, etc.) and will contribute toward
significant increases in airport throughput.
Substantial leveraging of research across the two projects will
occur in areas such as computational science and engineering, applied
mathematics for system optimization, trajectory design and conformance,
automation design, and adaptive air/ground automation. Ultimately, the
results of the two projects will be integrated to ensure gate-to-gate
solutions that are aligned with the NGATS needs.
Aviation Safety
Through the vigilance of industry and government, the U.S. Air
Transportation System is widely recognized as one of the safest
transportation systems worldwide. Looking toward the future at the
projected increases in air traffic and future system capabilities, this
vigilance must continue to meet both public expectations for safety and
the full realization of the NGATS. The Aviation Safety Program (AvSP)
will help meet these future challenges by developing cutting-edge
technologies intended to improve the intrinsic safety attributes of
aircraft that will operate in the evolving NGATS. There are four
projects in the AvSP: Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM),
Aircraft Aging and Durability (AAD), Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck
(IIFD), and Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC).
The IVHM and the AAD projects will focus on improving the inherent
resiliency, life-cycle durability, and maintenance of modern aircraft
and associated onboard systems. The IVHM project will conduct research
to advance the state of highly integrated and complex flight critical
health management technologies and systems. Potential benefits include
reduced occurrence of in-flight system and component failures, and
onboard systems capable of self-detecting and self-correcting anomalies
during a flight that could otherwise go unattended until a critical
failure occurs. The AAD project will develop advanced diagnostic and
prognostic capabilities for detection and mitigation of aging-related
hazards. The research and technologies to be pursued will decrease the
susceptibility of current and next generation aircraft and onboard
systems to premature deterioration and failures, thus greatly improving
vehicle safety and mission success.
New capabilities envisioned for the NGATS such as Super Density
Operations, Aircraft Trajectory-Based Operations, and Equivalent Visual
Operations pose potential safety challenges for ensuring optimum crew
workload distribution and application of advanced flight critical
automatic and autonomous systems. The AvSP will conduct research on
advanced vehicle-based capabilities to address potential unintended
consequences that could compromise vehicle or system safety. The IIFD
project will pursue flight deck related technologies that will ensure
that crew workload and situation awareness are both safely optimized
and adapted to the NGATS future operational environment. A key
component of this research will be investigating methods to
automatically monitor, measure, and assess the state of the crew
awareness to their assigned task. The IRAC project will conduct
research to advance the state of aircraft flight control automation and
autonomy in order to prevent loss-of-control in flight, which is the
accident category that currently has the highest number of aircraft
accidents. Taking into account the advanced automation and autonomy
capabilities as envisioned by NGATS, the research will pursue
methodologies to enable an aircraft to automatically detect, avoid,
and/or safely recover from an off-nominal condition that could lead to
a loss of control. A key component of the research will be to develop
technologies that would enable an aircraft control system to
automatically adapt or reconfigure itself in the event of a failed or
damaged component.
Fundamental Aeronautics
The Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FA) is dedicated to the
mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of
aeronautics across all flight regimes. These regimes span rotorcraft
and subsonic fixed wing vehicles, supersonics, and hypersonic flight.
Future aircraft in the NGATS will need to be quiet and clean to
meet stringent noise and emissions regulations. Additionally, these air
vehicles will need to meet challenging performance requirements to make
them economically viable alternatives to the existing fleet. A holistic
approach to vehicle design will therefore be required in order to
address multiple and often conflicting design requirements. This in
turn requires substantial improvements in our current ability to
predictively design aircraft.
Today's design tools can be used for incremental improvements to
existing engines and airframes. However, because they are based on
empirical knowledge obtained over a long history of small design
improvements, they cannot be used to design truly innovative engines
and air vehicles. A key focus of FA will be the development of physics-
based Multidisciplinary Design Analysis and Optimization (MDAO) tools
that will provide the ability to evaluate radically new vehicle
designs. They will also enable the ability to assess, with known
uncertainties, the potential systems impact of innovative technologies
and concepts. Advancements at the system level will continue to be
incremental without them. The development of such tools requires a firm
commitment to both the pursuit of long-term, cutting-edge research
across the core aeronautics disciplines and the integration of that
research to enable multidisciplinary tools and technologies. The noise,
emissions, efficiency and performance of air vehicles are all
interrelated through core disciplines such as materials, structures,
aerodynamics, acoustics, combustion, and controls.
We must acknowledge that these future challenges are so substantial
that we cannot falter in our commitment to conduct high-quality,
cutting-edge research to address fundamental scientific and engineering
issues in such areas as noise source characterization, combustion
chemistry, alternative fuel chemistry, turbulence modeling, materials
design, and active flow control. Only by taking a strategic and
comprehensive approach to air-vehicle research will we be able to
ensure the future of air transportation in this country.
Aeronautics Test Program
NASA has established the Shared Capability Asset Program (SCAP),
which includes the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP). The ATP ensures the
long-term availability and viability of the set of aeronautics test
facilities, working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S.
aircraft industry, considers being of national strategic importance.
Several of these facilities will be critical in supporting research
that directly addresses the research needs of the NGATS. These include
ground test facilities that are used to simulate adverse weather
conditions, to measure engine and airframe noise, and to measure engine
emissions.
Evaluation and Analysis
In addition to conducting research that directly addresses the
challenges of the NGATS, NASA provides a direct role in evaluating and
analyzing proposed systems-level NGATS concepts and architectures. NASA
personnel are key members of the JPDO Evaluation and Analysis Division
(EAD), which is now an inherent entity within the JPDO. Many of the
sophisticated simulations and models being used by the EAD to evaluate
concepts to ensure that we will be developing a system that will most
efficiently and effectively meet the needs of tomorrow's air
transportation system have been developed by NASA. Likewise, NASA
employs these tools to evaluate the impacts of its own research program
upon the national objectives for transformation.
Challenges for the JPDO and the Way Ahead
The JPDO's vision for the NGATS is revolutionary and ambitious, and
therefore faces some significant challenges. Programmatically, the most
obvious challenge is that of preserving the strong cooperation that
currently exists among the member agencies for the next twenty years.
Such cooperation is often personality-driven, but it must be sustained
as individuals in each organization come and go. It is therefore
imperative that the JPDO remains focused on close cooperation at all
levels. Currently, this is accomplished at the technical level through
the multi-agency IPTs and the joint architecture council. From an
oversight perspective, a senior interagency board is in place to
support the SPC and ensure that high-level leadership is engaged in all
critical aspects of the NGATS development. All member agencies of the
JPDO must remain committed to supporting these processes, and the
processes themselves must continue to evolve as the NGATS development
matures.
A perhaps less obvious but equally important challenge is the
necessity to not compromise technical integrity as the JPDO faces the
reality of maintaining ``advocacy'' among stakeholders. In other words,
the JPDO must be willing to adjust technical goals and milestones if
research results determine that it is necessary to do so. The JPDO
cannot succumb to political pressures of overselling or overstating
system-level goals that are found to be technically or economically
infeasible. A commitment to technical integrity will be critical to the
long-term success of the JPDO.
Technically, the most important near-term challenge is the
development of the Concept of Operations and the Enterprise
Architecture. This step is necessary to establish system-level
requirements that are clear, verifiable, and attainable. While the
capabilities articulated in the JPDO's NGATS vision have enabled each
agency to vector its research portfolio in the right direction, the
establishment of detailed system requirements will allow each member
agency to better refine its R&D plans. Given that every agency has
budget constraints, and always will, the establishment of an Enterprise
Architecture will be critical to ensure that each agency prioritizes
its R&D investments in the manner that provides the maximum return on
investment for the JPDO. The JPDO intends to provide a preliminary
Enterprise Architecture by the fall of 2006.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NASA's ARMD is investing in long-term, cutting-edge
research in areas that are appropriate to NASA's unique capabilities in
order to enable the NGATS vision. We have aligned our research
portfolio to meet this challenge with an efficient allocation of
resources and an unwavering commitment to technical excellence.
I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Dr. Porter. We've been
joined by Senator Lott, who has joined the Committee and is
very active on this committee. Do you have a statement at this
time or----
Senator Lott. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to hear the witnesses and then I'll have some questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. We are joined today
also by Mr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO. Gerald,
thank you for coming today. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Rockefeller, Chairman Stevens, Senator Lott, Senator Snowe. My
testimony this morning focuses on the preliminary results of
our study of JPDO's efforts to plan the Next Generation Air
Transportation System and the challenges associated with that
planning effort. I will also identify some key challenges
related to implementation of the Next Generation System. As
you've heard from the previous witnesses, the JPDO has made
notable progress in carrying out its mandate to plan the Next
Generation System. We generally agree with that assessment. Mr.
Chairman, there are, however, some critical challenges that
need to be addressed. High on the list is the appointment of a
director for JPDO and a chairman of the Senior Policy
Committee. JPDO has been without a permanent director for
nearly 6 months and the recent departure of Secretary Mineta
leaves another senior-level policymaking unit of JPDO without
permanent leadership. We think a permanent and stable
leadership is critical to maintaining program momentum and
stakeholder commitment.
Another challenge is that the JPDO lacks any real authority
over agency budgets and generally relies on part-time
volunteers. This situation could become a serious problem in
the very near future, as the JPDO's need for staff and fiscal
resources increases. Technology development presents another
challenge. At this point, it is unclear which government or
private sector organization will plan, conduct, and pay for the
research to advance technologies that will be needed for the
Next Generation from a fundamental level to a level that could
be demonstrated in the national airspace system.
Another challenge is one that the Administrator mentioned
in her testimony, as well as Dr. Porter, that is the critical
nature of the timing of the development and refinement of the
enterprise architecture. The enterprise architecture is the
blueprint for the Next Generation System that will determine
the technologies that will make up and be used in the system as
well as their development and implementation sequence. Mr.
Chairman, the development of the enterprise architecture is
also the first challenge I want to point out with regard to the
implementation of the Next Generation System. The architecture
will be an important element used in determining what the
transformation to the Next Generation will cost. To date, only
very preliminary cost estimates are available. One of these
estimates indicates that the cost to both continue to operate
the current national airspace system and transition to the Next
Generation will require an increase of about $1 billion dollars
a year between now and 2025, over FAA's current appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, this estimate is considered by some analysts as a
low estimate and the need comes at a time of severe resource
constraints for the entire Federal budget. Our work on the
current modernization program has shown that if an ATC
technology received fewer resources than called for in the
planning documents and those resources were not made available
when needed, it was a contributing factor to delays in getting
those technologies into the National AirSpace System as well as
significant cost increases.
Another challenge for the Next Generation implementation is
for FAA to institutionalize the progress that it has made with
regard to managing and acquiring major ATC systems. Although
there is more work to be done, for the first time in over a
decade, the agency met its acquisition performance goals for
the past 2 years in a row. To its credit, FAA has also made
cost control a key component of its management philosophy. FAA
will be challenged to continue to find ways to cut operating
costs. Mr. Chairman, we believe that based on well-designed
business and safety cases, the cost savings initiatives that
FAA has already identified could be expanded. For example,
Congress and FAA could consider an independent mechanism, such
as a BRAC-like commission, to re-examine the usefulness and
cost effectiveness of FAA's existing infrastructure assets.
This kind of initiative has the potential to identify
significant cost savings opportunities without compromising
system safety or efficiency--savings that could be used to
offset the cost of the Next Generation System.
Finally, FAA must insure that it has access to the
personnel and skills that will be necessary to implement the
Next Generation. This will be one of the government's most
comprehensive and technically complicated initiatives in recent
times. To ensure that it has the necessary expertise to
implement the Next Generation, FAA should continue to explore
options, including the use of lead systems integrators. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, and members of the Subcommittee,
these are all very difficult challenges but this transformation
to the Next Generation is critical to the Nation's economic
well-being. Failure or significant delays in implementation
cannot be an option. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dillingham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to
discuss the status of efforts by the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO) to plan for and coordinate the transformation of the
Nation's current air traffic control (ATC) system to the ``next
generation air transportation system'' (NGATS)--a system intended to
safely accommodate an expected tripling of air traffic by 2025.
Authorized in 2003, JPDO is housed within the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), whose Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is
responsible for modernizing and operating the Nation's current ATC
system.\1\ According to Vision 100,\2\ the legislation that authorized
JPDO, the transformation to NGATS will be completed by 2025 with the
assistance of seven organizations that make up JPDO's senior policy
committee: the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and
Homeland Security; FAA; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. As JPDO plans the transformation to NGATS and
coordinates the related efforts of its partner agencies, FAA will be
responsible for both implementing the transformation and safely
operating the current ATC system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
My statement today focuses on three key questions. (1) What is the
status of JPDO's efforts to plan for NGATS? (2) What key challenges
does JPDO face in moving forward with its planning efforts? (3) What
key challenges does FAA face in transitioning from the current ATC
system and in implementing NGATS? My statement is based on our analysis
of documents provided by JPDO and its partner agencies; the
perspectives of agency officials and stakeholders with whom we have
spoken; the results of a panel of experts that we convened; and our
review of relevant literature, including JPDO's December 2004
integrated plan and March 2006 progress report. The statement also
draws on our prior work on FAA's program for modernizing the national
airspace system, which we have listed as a high-risk program since
1995.\3\ To assess JPDO's framework for facilitating coordination among
its partner agencies, obtaining the participation of non-federal
stakeholders, and conducting technical planning for NGATS, we compared
JPDO's practices with those that we have found to be effective in
facilitating Federal interagency collaboration and enterprise
architecture \4\ development.\5\ We also reviewed the National Research
Council's 2005 report on JPDO, which provided a technical assessment of
the research, development, and technology components of JPDO's
integrated plan. Later this year, we expect to issue a report on our
assessment of the status of JPDO's efforts to plan for the development
of NGATS. We are performing our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
The following summarizes our findings to date:
JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination
with its partner agencies and non-federal stakeholders that is
consistent with the requirements of Vision 100 and with several
practices that our previous work has shown can facilitate
Federal interagency collaboration and enterprise architecture
development. Vision 100 established JPDO as a planning and
coordinating body and outlined elements for creating NGATS and
managing the related work. These elements, which make up JPDO's
framework, include an integrated plan that provides a vision
for NGATS, an organizational structure and processes for
leveraging the resources and expertise of Federal and non-
federal stakeholders, and an enterprise architecture that
defines the specific requirements for NGATS.
JPDO faces leadership, leveraging, and commitment challenges
as it moves forward with planning for NGATS. Currently, two
leadership positions critical to JPDO's success are vacant:
JPDO has not had a permanent director for over 6 months, and
since the Secretary of Transportation resigned, the senior
policy committee has been without a permanent chairperson. In
addition, despite early successes in leveraging its partner
agencies' resources and expertise for NGATS initiatives, JPDO
may have difficulty continuing to do so because its partner
agencies have a variety of missions and priorities in addition
to NGATS, and JPDO does not yet have formal, signed agreements
with the agencies on their respective roles and
responsibilities. JPDO also faces the challenge of convincing
non-Federal stakeholders that the government is fully committed
to NGATS because, in the past, the government has discontinued
work on new technologies for the National Airspace System,
including one technology in which a non-federal stakeholder had
already invested.
FAA faces challenges in institutionalizing recent
improvements in its management and acquisition processes, as
well as in obtaining the expertise and resources needed to
implement NGATS. First, the successful implementation of NGATS
will depend on FAA's incorporating the improved processes into
its organizational structure and culture. Second, FAA may not
have the expertise needed to manage the NGATS implementation
effort. Our work has identified, and FAA is considering, two
approaches for addressing this challenge--contracting with a
lead systems integrator and obtaining technical advice from
federally funded research and development corporations. Third,
FAA will need resources to implement NGATS, some of which may
have to come from savings in operating and maintaining the
current ATC system.
Background
In late 2003, recognizing that the current approach to managing air
transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally
obsolete, Congress created JPDO to plan NGATS, a system intended to
accommodate the threefold increase in air traffic demand expected by
2025. JPDO's scope is broader than that of traditional ATC
modernization in that it is ``airport curb to airport curb,''
encompassing such issues as security screening and environmental
concerns. Additionally, JPDO's approach will require unprecedented
collaboration and consensus among many stakeholders--Federal and non-
federal--about necessary system capabilities, equipment, procedures,
and regulations. Each of JPDO's partner agencies will play a role in
the transformation to NGATS. For example, the Department of Defense has
deployed ``network centric'' systems,\6\ originally developed for the
battlefield, that are being considered as a conceptual framework to
provide all users of the National Airspace System--FAA and the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--with a common view of
that system.
Vision 100 required the Secretary of Transportation to establish
JPDO within FAA to manage work related to NGATS. The Director of JPDO
reports to the FAA Administrator and to the Chief Operating Officer
within ATO. JPDO began operating in early 2004.
JPDO Has Made Progress in Planning for NGATS
JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination with
its partner agencies and non-federal stakeholders that is consistent
with the requirements of Vision 100 and with several practices that our
work has shown can facilitate Federal interagency collaboration and
enterprise architecture development. This framework includes an
integrated plan, an organizational structure, and an enterprise
architecture.
As Required by Vision 100, JPDO Developed an Integrated Plan and
Reported on the Progress of That Plan
Vision 100 calls for the development of an integrated plan for
NGATS and annual updates on the progress of that plan. JPDO's partner
agencies developed an integrated plan and submitted it to Congress on
December 12, 2004. The plan includes a vision statement for meeting the
predicted threefold increase in demand for air transportation by 2025
and eight strategies that broadly address the goals and objectives for
NGATS. In March 2006, JPDO published its first report to Congress on
the progress made in carrying out the integrated plan.
The integrated plan is consistent with effective collaboration
practices we have identified. According to our research on Federal
interagency collaborations, agencies must have a clear and compelling
rationale for working together to overcome significant differences in
their missions, cultures, and established ways of doing business. In
working together to develop JPDO's integrated plan, the partner
agencies agreed on a vision statement to transform the air
transportation system and on broad statements of future system goals,
performance characteristics, and operational concepts.
JPDO Developed an Organization for Involving Federal and Non-Federal
Stakeholders
Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult
with its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public.
Accordingly, JPDO established an organizational structure to involve
Federal and non-federal stakeholders throughout the organization. This
structure includes a Federal interagency policy committee, an institute
for non-federal stakeholders, and integrated product teams (IPT) that
bring together Federal and non-federal experts to plan for and
coordinate the development of technologies that will address JPDO's
eight broad strategies.
JPDO's senior policy committee was formed and is headed by
the Secretary of Transportation, as required in Vision 100. The
committee includes senior-level officials from JPDO's partner
agencies and has met three times since its inception.
The NGATS Institute (the Institute) was created by an
agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies
\7\ and FAA to incorporate the expertise and views of
stakeholders in private industry, state and local governments,
and academia. The NGATS Institute Management Council, composed
of top officials and representatives from the aviation
community, oversees the policy and recommendations of the
Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus
positions on critical NGATS issues. In March 2006, the
Institute held its first public meeting to solicit information
from the public and other interested stakeholders who are not
involved in the council or the IPTs. These types of meetings
are designed to address the Vision 100 requirement that JPDO
coordinate and consult with the public.
The IPTs are headed by representatives of JPDO's partner
agencies and include more than 190 stakeholders from over 70
organizations, whose participation was arranged through the
Institute.
Figure 1 shows JPDO's position within FAA and the JPDO structures
that bring together Federal and non-federal stakeholders, including the
Institute and the IPTs.
JPDO's organizational structure incorporates some of the practices
we have found effective for Federal interagency collaborations. For
example, our work has shown that mutually reinforcing or joint
strategies can help align partner agencies' activities, core processes,
and resources to accomplish a common outcome. Each of the eight IPTs is
aligned with one of the eight strategies outlined in JPDO's integrated
plan, and each is headed by a partner agency that has taken the lead on
a specific strategy. Our research has also found that collaborating
agencies should identify the resources needed to initiate or sustain
their collaborative effort. To leverage human resources, JPDO has
staffed the various levels of its organization--including JPDO's board,
the IPTs, and technical divisions--with partner agency employees, many
of whom work part time for JPDO. Finally, our work has shown that
involving stakeholders can, among other things, increase their support
for a collaborative effort. The Institute provides for involving non-
federal stakeholders, including the public, in planning NGATS.
JPDO Has Begun to Leverage the Resources of Its Partner Agencies for
NGATS
Vision 100 requires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related programs
across the partner agencies. To address this requirement, JPDO
conducted an initial interagency review of its partner agencies'
research and development programs during July 2005 to identify work
that could support NGATS. Through this process, JPDO identified early
opportunities that could be pursued during Fiscal Year 2007 to
coordinate and minimize the duplication of research programs across the
partner agencies and produce tangible results for NGATS. For example,
one identified opportunity is to align aviation weather research across
FAA, NASA, and the Departments of Commerce and Defense; develop a
common weather capability; and harmonize and incorporate into NGATS
those agency programs designed to seamlessly integrate weather
information and aircraft weather mitigation systems. In addition, the
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) \8\ and System Wide
Information System (SWIM) \9\ programs at FAA were identified as
opportunities for accelerated funding to produce tangible results for
NGATS. JPDO is currently working with the Office of Management and
Budget to develop a systematic means of reviewing the partner agencies'
budget requests so that the NGATS-related funding in each request can
easily be identified. Such a process would help the Office of
Management and Budget consider NGATS as a unified Federal investment,
rather than as disparate line items distributed across several
agencies' budget requests.
JPDO's effort to leverage its partner agencies' resources for NGATS
demonstrates another practice important to sustaining collaborations.
Our work on collaborations has found that collaborating agencies, by
assessing their relative strengths and limitations, can identify
opportunities for leveraging each others' resources and thus obtain
benefits that would not be available if they were working separately.
JPDO's first interagency review of its partner agencies' research and
development programs has facilitated the leveraging of technological
resources for NGATS. The budget process under development with OMB
provides a further opportunity to leverage resources for NGATS.
Consistent with Vision 100, JPDO Is Developing an Enterprise
Architecture
Vision 100 requires JPDO to create a multiagency research and
development roadmap for the transition to NGATS. To comply with Vision
100, JPDO has been working on an enterprise architecture and expects to
complete an early version of the architecture by September 2006. Many
of JPDO's future activities will depend on the robustness and
timeliness of this architecture development. The enterprise
architecture will describe FAA's operation of the current national
airspace system, JPDO's plans for NGATS, and the sequence of steps
needed for the transformation to NGATS. The enterprise architecture
will provide the means for coordinating among the partner agencies and
private sector manufacturers, aligning relevant research and
development activities, and integrating equipment.
JPDO has taken several important steps to develop the enterprise
architecture--one of the most critical planning documents in the NGATS
effort. For example, JPDO has drafted a concept of operations--a
document that describes the operational transformations needed to
achieve the overall goals of NGATS. JPDO has used this document to
identify key research and policy issues for NGATS. For example, the
concept of operations identifies several issues associated with
automating the ATC system, including the need for a backup plan in case
automation fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of different
stakeholders during an automation failure, and the level of monitoring
needed by pilots when automation is ensuring safe separation between
aircraft. As the concept of operations matures, it will be important
for air traffic controllers and other affected stakeholders to provide
their perspectives on this effort so that needed adjustments can be
made in a timely manner. JPDO officials recognize the importance of
obtaining stakeholders' comments on the concept of operations and are
currently incorporating stakeholders' comments into the concept of
operations. JPDO expects to release its initial concept of operations
by the end of July.
Another step that JPDO has taken to develop the enterprise
architecture is to form an Evaluation and Analysis Division (EAD),
composed of FAA and NASA employees and contractors. This division is
assembling a suite of models to help JPDO refine its plans for NGATS
and iteratively narrow the range of potential solutions. For example,
EAD has used modeling to begin studying how possible changes in the
duties of key personnel, such as air traffic controllers, could affect
the workload and performance of others, such as airport ground
personnel. According to JPDO officials, the change in the roles of
pilots and controllers is the most important human factors issue
involved in creating NGATS. JPDO officials noted that the Agile
Airspace and Safety IPTs include human factors specialists and that
JPDO's chief architect has a background in human factors. However, EAD
has not yet begun to model the effect of the shift in roles on pilots'
performance because, according to an EAD official, a suitable model has
not yet been incorporated into the modeling tool suite. According to
EAD, addressing this issue is necessary, but will be difficult because
data on pilot behavior are not readily available for use in creating
such models. Furthermore, EAD has not yet studied the training
implications of various NGATS-proposed solutions because further
definition of the concept of operations for these solutions is needed.
As the concept of operations and enterprise architecture mature, EAD
will be able to study the extent to which new air traffic controllers
will have to be trained to operate both the old and the new equipment.
To develop and refine the enterprise architecture for NGATS, JPDO
is following an effective technology development practice that we
identified and applied to enterprise architecture development. This
phased, ``build a little, test a little'' approach is similar to a
process we have advocated for FAA's major system acquisition programs.
This phased approach will also allow JPDO to incorporate evolving
market forces and technologies in its architecture and thus better
manage change. Consequently, additional refinements are expected to be
made to the enterprise architecture.
As Required by Vision 100, JPDO Has Begun Efforts to Estimate the Costs
of NGATS
Vision 100 requires JPDO to identify the anticipated expenditures
for developing and deploying NGATS. To begin estimating these
expenditures realistically, JPDO is holding a series of investment
analysis workshops with stakeholders to obtain their input on potential
NGATS costs. The first workshop, held in April 2006, was for commercial
and business aviation, equipment manufacturers, and ATC systems
developers. The second workshop is planned for August for operators of
lower-performance aircraft used in both commercial and noncommercial
operations. The third workshop, planned for early September, will focus
on airports and other local, state, and regional planning bodies.
Although these workshops will help JPDO develop a range of
potential costs for NGATS, a mature enterprise architecture is needed
to provide the foundation for developing NGATS costs. Several unknown
factors will drive these costs. According to JPDO, one of these drivers
is the technologies expected to be included in NGATS. Some of these
technologies are more complex and thus more expensive to implement than
others. A second driver is the sequence for replacing current
technologies with NGATS technologies. A third driver is the length of
time required for the transformation to NGATS, since a longer period
would impose higher costs. JPDO's first draft of its enterprise
architecture, expected in September 2006, could reduce some of these
variables, thereby allowing improved, albeit still preliminary,
estimates of NGATS' costs.
Although the enterprise architecture for NGATS is not yet complete,
both FAA and its Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee (REDAC) have developed preliminary cost estimates, which
officials of both organizations have emphasized are not yet endorsed by
any agency. FAA estimates that the facilities and equipment cost to
maintain the ATC system and implement the transformation to NGATS will
be about $66 billion, or about $50 billion in constant 2005 dollars.
The annual cost would average $2.7 billion per year in constant 2005
dollars from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2025, or about $200
million more each year than FAA's Fiscal Year 2006 facilities and
equipment appropriation.
REDAC's Financing NGATS Working Group has developed a $15 billion
average annual cost estimate for NGATS that includes costs not only for
facilities and equipment but also for operations; airport improvement;
and research, engineering, and development--the remaining three
components of FAA's appropriation. As table 1 indicates, the working
group began with FAA's facilities and equipment estimate and went on to
calculate the remaining costs for FAA to maintain the current ATC
system and implement the transformation to NGATS. REDAC's estimate for
NGATS's total cost averages about $1 billion more annually than FAA's
total appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006.
Table 1: FAA's and REDAC's Cost Estimates for NGATS
(Dollars in billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA REDACa
------------------------------------
Total Average Total Average
NGATS annual NGATS annual
cost cost cost cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities and equipment $50.5 $2.7 $50.5 $2.7
Operations b b $162.1 $8.5
Airport improvement b b $67.5 $3.6
Research, engineering, and b b $12.4 $0.7
development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total b b $292.5 $15.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of FAA and REDAC information.
a This is the working group's estimate under its ``base case'' scenario,
which assumes that FAA's operations cost would increase between 2006
and 2010, but then become constant through 2025 as productivity
increases offset the higher cost of increased demand. The working
group also calculated a lower-cost ``best case'' scenario and a higher-
cost ``worst case'' scenario using differing assumptions of
productivity gains.
b FAA did not estimate these costs.
Besides being preliminary, these estimates are incomplete--FAA's
more than REDAC's because FAA's does not include any costs other than
those for facilities and equipment. An FAA official acknowledged that
the agency would likely incur additional costs, such as for safety
certifications or operational changes responding to new NGATS
technologies. Additionally, FAA's facilities and equipment cost
estimate assumes that the intermediate technology development work,
performed to date by NASA, has been completed. As I will discuss
shortly, it is currently unclear who will now perform this work, but if
FAA assumes responsibility for the work, REDAC has estimated additional
FAA funding needs of at least $100 million a year. Furthermore, neither
FAA's nor REDAC's estimate includes the other partner agencies' costs
to implement NGATS, such as those that the Department of Homeland
Security might incur to develop and implement new security
technologies. Finally, these estimates treat NGATS's development and
implementation period as an isolated event. Consequently, the costs
drop dramatically toward 2025. In reality, officials who developed
these estimates acknowledge that planning for the subsequent ``next
generation'' system will likely be underway as 2025 approaches and the
actual modernization costs could therefore be higher in this timeframe
than these estimates indicate.
JPDO Faces Leadership, Resource, and Commitment Challenges as It Moves
Forward with Planning for NGATS
JPDO faces several challenges in planning for NGATS, including
addressing leadership vacancies, leveraging resources and expertise
from its partner agencies, and convincing non-federal stakeholders that
the government is fully committed to NGATS.
Two Key JPDO Leadership Positions Are Vacant
JPDO has not had a permanent director since January 2006 and, with
the recent resignation of the Secretary of Transportation, the senior
policy committee is without a permanent chairperson. Our work has shown
that, to overcome barriers to interagency coordination, committed
leadership by individuals at the top of all involved organizations is
critical. Leadership will also be important to provide a ``champion''
for JPDO and to sustain the partner agencies' focus on and
contributions to the transformation to NGATS. Moreover, without a
chairperson of the senior policy committee, no one within JPDO is
responsible for sustaining JPDO's collaboration and overseeing its
work.
These vacancies raise concerns about the continued progress of JPDO
and NGATS. After ATO was authorized, we reported that without a chief
operating officer, FAA was unable to move forward with the new air
traffic organization--that is, to bring together the ATC system's
acquisition and operating functions, as intended, into a viable
performance-based organization (PBO).\10\ This PBO was designed to be
part of the solution to the chronic schedule delays, cost overruns, and
performance shortfalls in FAA's ATC modernization program. We believe
that filling the two vacant positions is critical to ensure continued
progress for JPDO and NGATS.
Leveraging Resources and Expertise Poses a Challenge over Time
JPDO officials view leveraging the partner agencies' resources and
expertise as one of their most significant challenges. According to
JPDO officials, leveraging efforts have worked well so far, but JPDO's
need for resources and expertise will increase with the development of
NGATS, and for at least two reasons, JPDO may have difficulty meeting
this need. First, JPDO's partner agencies have a variety of missions
and priorities in addition to NGATS, and their priorities may change.
Recently, for example, NASA reduced its aeronautics budget and decided
to focus on fundamental \11\ research, in part because the agency
believes such research is more in keeping with its mission and unique
capabilities. These changes occurred even though NASA's current
reauthorization act requires the agency to align its aviation research
projects to directly support NGATS goals. In light of the changes, it
is unclear what fundamental research NASA will perform to support NGATS
and who will perform the development steps for that research--that is,
the validation and demonstration that must take place before a new
technology can be transferred to industry and incorporated into a
product. JPDO and FAA officials said that not enough is understood
about NASA's plans to assess the impact of NASA's action on NGATS, but
many experts told us that NASA's new focus on fundamental research
creates a gap in the technology development continuum. Some believe
that FAA has neither the research and development infrastructure nor
the funding to do this work. As I previously mentioned, REDAC, in a
draft report, estimated that FAA would need at least $100 million
annually in increased funding to perform this research and development
work. REDAC further estimated that establishing the necessary
infrastructure within FAA could delay the implementation of NGATS by 5
years.
Second, JPDO may have difficulty leveraging its partner agencies'
resources and expertise because it does not yet have formal, long-term
agreements with the agencies on their roles and responsibilities in
creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they are working to
establish memorandums of understanding (MOU) signed by the heads of the
partner agencies that will broadly define the partner agencies' roles
and responsibilities at a high level. JPDO is also developing more
specific MOUs with individual partner agencies that lay out
expectations for support on NGATS components, such as information
sharing through network-centric operations.
Obtaining the specialized expertise of some stakeholders poses an
additional challenge for JPDO. Air traffic controllers, for example,
will play a key role in NGATS, but their union is not participating in
JPDO. Currently, the ATC system relies primarily on air traffic
controllers to direct pilots to maintain safe separation between
aircraft. Under NGATS, this premise could change and, accordingly, JPDO
has recognized the need for human factors research on issues such as
how tasks should be allocated between humans and automated systems and
how the existing allocation of responsibilities between pilots and air
traffic controllers might change. The input of current air traffic
controllers who have recent experience controlling aircraft is
important in considering human factors and safety issues because of the
controllers' familiarity with existing operating conditions.
The air traffic controllers' labor union, the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA), has not participated in NGATS since
June 2005, when FAA terminated a labor liaison program that assigned
air traffic controllers to major system acquisition program offices and
to JPDO. FAA had determined that the benefits of the program were not
great enough to justify its cost. The NGATS Institute Management
Council includes a seat for the union, but a NATCA official told us
that the union's head had been unable to attend the council's meetings.
According to JPDO officials, the council has left a seat open in hopes
that the controllers will participate in NGATS as the new labor-
management agreement between NATCA and FAA is implemented.
Convincing Non-Federal Stakeholders That the Government Is Fully
Committed to NGATS Presents Another Challenge
Convincing non-federal stakeholders that the government is fully
committed to NGATS poses a challenge because, in the past, the
government has stopped some modernization efforts, including one in
which an airline had already invested in supporting technologies.
Specifically, FAA developed a datalink communications system that
transmitted scripted e-mail-like messages between controllers and
pilots. One airline equipped some of its aircraft with this new
technology, but because of funding cuts, among other things, FAA
canceled the program. Moreover, as we have reported,\12\ some aviation
stakeholders have expressed concern that FAA may not follow through
with its airspace redesign efforts and are hesitant to invest in
equipment unless they are sure that FAA will remain committed to its
efforts. One expert suggested that the government might mitigate this
issue by making an initial investment in a specific technology before
requesting that airlines or other industry stakeholders purchase
equipment.
Stakeholders' belief that the government is fully committed to
NGATS will be important as efforts to implement NGATS technologies move
forward. Achieving many of the benefits of NGATS will require users of
the system--airlines and general aviation--to purchase NGATS-compatible
technologies, such as ADS-B. This new air traffic surveillance system,
which JPDO has identified as one of the early core technologies for
NGATS, requires aircraft to be equipped with components that will be
implemented in two phases. FAA anticipates significant cost savings
from the implementation of the first phase, but the airlines do not
expect to benefit until the second phase is complete. The technology
should then allow pilots to fly more precise routes at night and in
poor visual conditions. Another early core technology for NGATS, SWIM,
is also intended to produce benefits for users, but again, it is not
expected to do so for many years. Non-Federal stakeholders' support for
these and other NGATS technologies will be important, and their support
will depend, in part, on their assurance of the government's full
commitment.
FAA Faces Institutionalization, Expertise, and Resource Challenges as
It Transitions to NGATS
FAA faces challenges in implementing NGATS, including
institutionalizing recent improvements in its management and
acquisition processes, acquiring expertise to implement highly complex
systems, and achieving cost savings to help fund NGATS technologies.
Institutionalizing Recent Improvements in Management and Acquisition
Processes Will Be Critical to the Successful Implementation of
NGATS
With the establishment of ATO and the appointment of a Chief
Operating Officer (COO) for it, FAA put a new management structure in
place and established more businesslike management and acquisition
processes to address the cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls
that have plagued ATC modernization over the years. Under the new
structure, FAA is a flatter organization, with fewer management layers,
and managers are in closer contact with the services they deliver. FAA
has also taken some steps to break down the vertical lines of
authority, or organizational stovepipes, that we found hindered
communication and coordination across FAA. For example, the COO holds
daily meetings with the managers of ATO's departments and holds the
managers collectively responsible for the success of ATO through the
performance management system.
FAA has revised its management processes to increase
accountability. For example, it has established a cost accounting
system and made the units that deliver services within each department
responsible for managing their own costs. Thus, each unit manager
develops an operating budget and is held accountable for holding costs
within specific targets. Managers track the costs of their unit's
operations, facilities and equipment, and overhead and use this
information to determine the costs of the services their unit provides.
Managers are evaluated and rewarded according to how well they hold
their costs within established targets. Our work has shown that it is
important, when implementing organizational transformations, to use a
performance management system to assure accountability for change.\13\
Finally, FAA is revising its acquisition processes, as we
recommended,\14\ and taking steps to improve oversight, operational
efficiency, and cost control. To ensure executive-level oversight of
all key decisions, FAA has revised its Acquisition Management System to
incorporate key decision points in a knowledge-based product
development process. Moreover, as we have reported, an executive
council now reviews major acquisitions before they are sent to FAA's
Joint Resources Council.\15\ To better manage cost growth, this
executive council also reviews breaches of 5 percent or more in a
project's cost, schedule, or performance. FAA has issued guidance on
how to develop and use pricing, including guidelines for disclosing the
levels of uncertainty and imprecision that are inherent in cost
estimates for major ATC systems. Additionally, FAA has begun to base
funding decisions for system acquisitions on a system's expected
contribution to controlling operating costs. Finally, FAA is creating a
training framework for its acquisition workforce that mirrors effective
human capital practices that we have identified, and the agency is
taking steps to measure the effectiveness of its training.
Since 2004, FAA has met its acquisitions performance goal--to have
80 percent of its system acquisitions on schedule and within 10 percent
of budget. To sustain this record, FAA will need to institutionalize
its reforms--that is, provide for their duration beyond the current
administration at FAA and ATO by ensuring that the reforms are fully
integrated into the agency's structure and processes at all levels and
have become part of its organizational culture. Our work has shown that
successfully institutionalizing change in large public and private
organizations can take 5 to 7 years or more.\16\
Despite Recent Process Improvements, FAA Faces Challenges in Obtaining
the
Expertise Needed to Implement a System as Complex as NGATS
In the past, a lack of expertise contributed to shortfalls in FAA's
management of ATC modernization projects. Although the personnel
flexibilities that Congress authorized in 1995 allowed FAA to establish
criteria for outstanding performance and match industry pay scales for
needed expertise, industry experts have questioned whether FAA will
have the technical expertise needed to implement NGATS--a task of
unprecedented complexity, according to JPDO, FAA, and other aviation
experts. In 2004, we found that FAA could not ensure that its own best
practices were consistently used in managing acquisitions and, as a
result, its major acquisitions were still at risk of cost overruns,
schedule slippages, or performance shortfalls.\17\ These findings are
consistent with concerns about the expertise of acquisition managers
governmentwide. According to a 2005 study by the Merit Systems
Protection Board,\18\ at least 50 percent of the government personnel
who currently manage technical contracts reported needing training in
areas such as contract law, developing requirements, requesting bids,
developing bid selection criteria and price determinations, and
monitoring contractor performance.
Recognizing the complexity of the NGATS implementation effort and
the possibility that FAA may not have the in-house expertise to manage
it without assistance, we have identified potential approaches for
supplementing FAA's capabilities. One of these approaches is for FAA to
contract with a lead systems integrator (LSI). Generally, an LSI is a
prime contractor that would help to ensure that the discrete systems
used in NGATS will operate together and whose responsibilities may
include designing system solutions, developing requirements, and
selecting major system and subsystem contractors. The government has
used LSIs before for programs that require the integration of multiple
complex systems. Our research indicates that although LSIs have certain
advantages, such as the knowledge, understanding, skills, and ability
to integrate functions across various systems, their use also entails
certain risks. For example, because an LSI may have significantly more
responsibility than a prime contractor usually does, careful oversight
is necessary to ensure that the government's interests are protected
and that conflicts of interest are avoided. Consequently, selecting,
assigning responsibilities to, and managing an LSI could pose
significant challenges for JPDO and FAA.
Another approach that we have identified involves obtaining
technical advice from federally funded research and development
corporations to help the agency oversee and manage prime contractors.
These nonprofit corporations are chartered to provide long-term
technical advice to government agencies in accordance with various
statutory and regulatory rules to ensure independence and prevent
conflicts of interest.
FAA officials indicated that they are considering at least these
two approaches to help address any possible gaps the agency may have in
its technical expertise. Given the complexity of implementing NGATS, we
believe that FAA's consideration of these approaches to filling any
gaps in its technical expertise is appropriate. We believe that either
of these approaches could reduce the risks associated with implementing
NGATS.
FAA Will Require Resources to Implement NGATS
The cost of operating and maintaining the current ATC system while
implementing NGATS will be another important challenge in transitioning
to NGATS--a system that, as noted, is broader in scope than the current
ATC system and will require funding for security technologies and
environmental activities as well as ATC technologies. Although
additional funding for the current ATC system and for NGATS may come
from increased congressional appropriations, some industry analysts
expect that most of the funds for implementing NGATS will have to come
from savings in operating and maintaining the current ATC system.
FAA is currently seeking to reduce costs by introducing
infrastructure and operational efficiencies and expects to use the
savings from these efforts to help fund the implementation of NGATS.
For example, FAA has begun to decommission ground-based navigational
aids, such as compass locators, outer markers, and nondirectional radio
beacons, as it begins to move toward a satellite-based navigation
system. In Fiscal Year 2005, FAA decommissioned 177 navigational aids,
claiming savings of $2.9 million. According to one expert, FAA could
additionally generate revenue from these sites by leasing them for
warehouses or cell phone towers. FAA also expects to reduce costs by
streamlining its operations. For example, it is consolidating its
administrative activities, currently decentralized across its nine
regions, into three regions, and anticipates an annual savings of up to
$460 million over the next 10 years. Our work analyzing international
air navigation service providers has shown that additional cost savings
may be possible by further consolidating ATC facilities such as
terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities and ATC centers.
According to one estimate of potential FAA savings, consolidating the
existing 21 air route traffic control centers into 6 centers could save
approximately $600 million per year. Finally, FAA expects to save costs
through outsourcing. For example, it outsourced its automated flight
service stations to a private contractor and expects to achieve savings
of $1.7 billion over 10 years. In addition, it expects savings of $0.5
billion from 400 staffing reductions that occurred between the time the
outsourcing began and the time the new contract was actually
implemented. The agency expects to receive $66 million--the first
installment of these cost savings--in Fiscal Year 2007.
Until FAA has completed its estimates of both NGATS costs and the
cost savings it will be able to achieve between now and 2025, it will
not be able to determine how far these cost savings will go toward
financing NGATS. Nonetheless, one analyst has preliminarily estimated
that FAA's expected savings through infrastructure and operational
efficiencies will fall far short of the amount needed to finance
NGATS.\19\ While more information is needed to estimate the amount of
any shortfall with greater confidence, these preliminary and incomplete
estimates signal the extent of the resource challenge.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be pleased to
answer any questions that you and members of the Subcommittee may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Individuals making key contributions to this statement include
Kevin Egan, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, David Hooper, Heather Krause,
Elizabeth Marchak, Edmond Menoche, Faye Morrison, Taylor Reeves, and
Richard Scott.
ENDNOTES
\1\ Although ATO is immediately responsible for modernizing the ATC
system, we will refer to FAA throughout this statement because it
encompasses JPDO and is ultimately responsible for the modernization
effort.
\2\ Pub. L. 108-176, Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, December 12, 2003.
\3\ ATC modernization has remained on our high-risk list since
1995. See GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2005).
\4\ An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for
understanding and planning complex systems. The NGATS enterprise
architecture will provide the means for coordinating among the partner
agencies and private sector manufacturers, aligning relevant research
and development activities, and integrating equipment. The enterprise
architecture will describe the current national airspace system, NGATS,
and the sequence of steps needed to implement the transformation to
NGATS.
\5\ GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) and GAO, Federal Aviation
Administration: Stronger Architecture Program Needed to Guide Systems
Modernization Efforts, GAO-05-266 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005).
\6\ Network-centric systems aim to exploit technical advances in
information technology and telecommunications to improve situational
awareness and the speed of decision-making.
\7\ The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit
unit within the Aerospace Industries Association.
\8\ ADS-B is a surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft's
identity, position, velocity, and intent to other aircraft and to ATC
systems on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and controllers to have
a common picture of airspace and traffic. By providing pilots with a
display that shows the location of nearby aircraft, the system enables
pilots to collaborate in decision-making with controllers, safely
allowing reduced aircraft separation and thereby increasing capacity
within the national airspace system.
\9\ SWIM is expected to help in the transition to network-centric
operations by providing the infrastructure and associated policies and
standards to enable information sharing among all authorized system
users, such as the airlines, civilian government agencies, and the
military.
\10\ GAO, National Airspace System: Current Efforts and Proposed
Changes to Improve Performance of FAA's Air Traffic Control System;
GAO-03-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
\11\ NASA uses the term fundamental to refer to research that
includes continued long-term, scientific study in core areas such as
physics, chemistry, materials, experimental techniques, and
computational techniques to enable new capabilities and technologies
for individual and multiple disciplines.
\12\ GAO, National Airspace System: Transformation will Require
Cultural Change, Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available
Management Tools, GAO-06-154 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005).
\13\ GAO-03-542.
\14\ GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA's Acquisition Management Has
Improved, but Policies and Oversight Need Strengthening to Help Ensure
Results, GAO-05-23 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2004).
\15\ GAO-05-23.
\16\ GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
\17\ GAO-05-23.
\18\ U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Contracting Officer
Representatives: Managing the Government's Technical Experts to Achieve
Positive Contract Outcomes (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2005).
\19\ Aviation Management Associates, Inc., The ``No New Money''
Scenario for the Next Generation Air Transportation System,
(Alexandria, VA: Oct. 1, 2005).
Senator Burns. Thank you and we appreciate the good work
that you've done and the testimony that you've offered this
committee over the years. It has been very, very good and very
solid and put in a language that we can all understand.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. We appreciate that very much. Now we have
Mr. David Dobbs, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation, down
at the Department of Aviation. Thank you for coming this
morning. I look forward to your comments.
Mr. Dobbs. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we
appreciate----
Senator Burns. You might want to get into that microphone.
Mr. Dobbs. I'm sorry. Is this better?
Senator Burns. And by the way, Senator Snowe has joined the
Committee. Do you have a statement or?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. I do. I'll just include it in the record.
Senator Burns. Without objection, that will be done.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Mr.Chairman, for convening this hearing to
explore the reasons behind some of the delays in modernizing
our air traffic control system.
The evolution of the next generation of air traffic control
systems must not only utilize the cutting edge technology that
would greatly improve the safety of our crowded skies, but we
must not overlook or alienate the incredibly skilled workforce
that is so vital to maintaining and operating that same
technology.
The creation of the Joint Planning and Development Office,
in conjunction with the Air Traffic Organization, is one that
reflects the vast changes that have taken place within our Air
Traffic Control System, and the critical need to address those
same changes. As many of our controllers age and consider
retirement, and the Federal Aviation Administration fails to
sufficiently reinvest in their personnel, new technology is
looked to as a replacement for many of our human resources. I
will not pass judgment on the validity of this thought process,
but I do have serious concerns about the potential ``Safety
Gap'' that could arise. If the technologically based ``Next
Generation Air Traffic System,'' or NGATS [En-Gatts] is not due
to be in place until the year 2025, and a startling number of
our Controllers, 25 percent according to an article in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, are eligible to retire by the end of
this year, then where does that leave us insofar as securing
our skies? At the TRACON in Chicago, for example, nearly half
of those controllers are eligible to retire. With O'Hare
Airport as the busiest airport in the country according to the
FAA's recently released statistics, if only half of those
controllers in Chicago were to opt for retirement, that would
result in nearly a 25 percent cut in controller personnel.
Imagine a potential ``perfect storm'' with increased
enplanements, more regional and very light jets in the air, and
fewer controllers watching our skies and directing traffic.
Worse than gridlock in our skies, it would be an accident
waiting to happen. A potentially catastrophic accident.
Our aviation industry is vital to our Nation's economy, and
the global economy. If we are ill-prepared to accommodate more
operations, more passengers, and more cargo, we will be left
behind by other nations better suited to do just that. That is
unacceptable. But an inability to navigate our skies could have
a tremendous impact on our industry; delaying the delivery of
air cargo, escalating numbers of runway incursions, and raising
the question of safety in the minds of our flying public. This
sort of hit would be a knock-out blow to many in the aviation
industry; one they could not survive a second time.
I am encouraged that the JPDO office is serving as a
warehouse for all the relevant agencies that, on their own,
would never be able to come together on such an ambitious
project. I urge them to speed along any advancements that are
ready for even partial implementation. However, we must be
certain that the industry is adequately consulted as we move
forward on the NGATS proposals. If JPDO's European counterpart,
SESAR, is actively courting the industry as they advance their
own new paradigm for air traffic management, we must
realistically consider following suit. We cannot allow European
aerospace and aviation interests to drive their modernization
efforts while we here in America have a bureaucracy developing
our proposal with little or no input from private industry. I
believe that amounts to handing over a competitive advantage to
foreign interests, which must be guarded against in this global
marketplace.
America has always been at the forefront of aviation, the
measuring stick by which other nations evaluate their own
systems. We must do all we can to retain that position. I look
forward to the testimony of our esteemed panel today. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Dobbs. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. DOBBS, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOR AVIATION AND SPECIAL PROGRAM AUDITS, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dobbs. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the JPDO and plans for
the Next Generation System. We know this is a priority for the
Subcommittee. Today, I'll limit my testimony to three points.
First, the important role JPDO plays in leveraging resources. A
multi-agency approach is critical for a number of reasons. One
is that 70 percent of FAA's research budget of about $130
million goes for safety not air traffic management research.
Two, FAA is requesting $2.5 billion for its capital account,
which is $50 million less than last year's request and more
than $500 million less than the authorized level. More
importantly, FAA's capital account now focuses on keeping
things running, not new initiatives and only about 55 percent
of that capital account actually goes for new systems. As
Administrator Blakey pointed out, despite the tight budget, two
important projects in 2007 are included in FAA's FY 2007 budget
request: ADS-B and SWIM. We agree that ADS-B has tremendous
potential for changing the way that air traffic is managed.
I would also like to highlight ongoing multibillion-dollar
projects that will be critical to NGATS. ERAM, with a price of
$2.1 billion, replaces the brain or the central nervous system
at facilities that manage high altitude traffic. This year is
critical for ERAM as FAA plans to spend $1 million a day on the
program and if not kept on track, there could be cascading
impacts on FAA's ability to deliver future systems. FAA's FTI
program is an effort to replace FAA's entire telecommunications
systems for air traffic. We have raised concerns that FTI will
not be completed on time. We have made recommendations to FAA
to help FTI get back on track. Right now, the key issues focus
on developing an effective transition plan and realistic master
schedule, improving coordination between the contractor and FAA
field offices, and updating cost and benefits. FAA is currently
taking positive steps in addressing these issues.
My second point is that while the JPDO has made progress,
considerable work remains to align agency budgets and plans.
Central to JPDO's mission is the alignment of agency resources.
This is a complex task, as each agency conducts research for
their own mission.
We looked at three of the JPDO's eight integrated product
teams and found a lot of coordination but so far, little
alignment on budgets. The Product Team Leaders have no
authority to commit agency resources and often have no
products, other than plans. Right now, it is hard to assess
alignment because JPDO's progress reports do not provide
details on ongoing research projects or budgets at other
agencies.
My third point focuses on actions needed to shift from
planning to implementation. Mr. Chairman, right now the key
questions for the JPDO to focus on is what the new office can
deliver, when, and how much it will cost. Our prepared
statement outlines a number of actions that we believe will
help shift JPDO initiatives from a research agenda to
implementation. I'll briefly touch on a few of them. One is
getting Congress reliable cost information. Last year, the
Administration promised that they would provide some clarity on
the cost issue; that has not been accomplished. Right now, this
subcommittee and stakeholders need reliable costs for the next
5 years, which corresponds to the next FAA reauthorization.
This cost data is needed on three vectors: research and
development that will be needed to meet FAA's requirements,
adjustments to existing FAA projects, and costs to implement
NGATS initiatives. Two, is developing and implementing a
mechanism for alignment. JPDO is working with OMB to develop an
integrated budget document that provides a single business case
for various research efforts. As part of this, JPDO has
promised to provide OMB with an architecture for the Next
Generation System as well as a list of programs in other agency
budgets it intends to leverage. This should be done soon. We
understand that the JPDO is meeting with OMB later today to
start this process. Third, is risk management. Given FAA's past
track record with modernization projects and the potential
billion dollar investments for NGATS, the JPDO and ATO need to
articulate what they intend to do differently and what skill
sets are needed. While it is true that FAA's management of
major acquisitions has improved, developing and implementing
the next generation system is an incredibly complex
undertaking.
There is a lot of discussion right now in FAA and industry
about whether a lead systems integrator will be needed to help
integrate new and ongoing systems and manage the transition.
Experts tell us that a lead system integrator is most
successful when the government has a clear understanding of
what it wants to buy. And finally, conducting sufficient human
research to support anticipated changes. History has shown that
insufficient attention to human factors can increase the cost
of acquisitions and delay much needed benefits. For example,
the JPDO envisions the controller role changing from direct
tactical control of aircraft to one of overall traffic
management. There will also be significant human factor
concerns for pilots who will rely more on systems on board
aircraft. Once requirements have been established, the JPDO
will have to put together a focused, human resource effort that
integrates both NASA and FAA human factors work.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dobbs follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Dobbs, Assistant Inspector General for
Aviation and Special Program Audits, Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Joint Planning and Development Office )(JPDO)
and the plans for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
The JPDO was mandated by Congress to develop a vision for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) in the 2025 timeframe and
coordinate diverse agency research efforts. This office was established
within FAA; also participating are the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security. Thus far, we
have focused primarily on the JPDO's air traffic management efforts
that involve NASA, DOD, and Commerce.
There are a number of compelling reasons for moving toward the Next
Generation Air Transportation System. The current Air Transportation
System has served the Nation well, but FAA reports that the current
system (or business as usual) will not be sufficient to meet the
anticipated demand for air travel. Last year, over 700 million
passengers used the system, and this number is forecasted to grow to
over 1 billion by 2015.
Because of the forecasted growth in air travel, the JPDO needs to
continue to work on what can be done much sooner than the 2025 time
frame. It will also be important for the JPDO to show tangible benefits
to airspace users from its efforts. We have made this point before, and
it was a key theme of the JPDO/industry workshop on costs in April.
The JPDO's mission is critical given that FAA conducts little long-
term air traffic management research and the fact the most of the
Agency's current $2.5 billion capital account goes for keeping things
running. However, the cost of NGATS remains uncertain and much work
remains to refine costs, align diverse agency budgets, and set
expectations for airspace users with respect to milestones, equipage,
and anticipated benefits. In addition, FAA and JPDO need to transition
from planning to implementation, and we have identified a range of
actions that will help them do so.
My remarks today will focus on three points:
JPDO's critical role in leveraging resources in light of
recent trends in FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development
(RE&D) and Facilities and Equipment (F&E) accounts.
JPDO progress to date in aligning agency budgets and plans,
and
Actions that will help the JPDO keep moving forward in both
the short and long term and shift from planning to
implementation.
The JPDO has an Important Role in Leveraging Resources for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System
The JPDO is expected to develop a vision for the next generation
system and has established ambitious, much needed goals to accommodate
three times more air traffic and reduce FAA operating costs. The JPDO
also expects a shift from today's ground-based system to an aircraft-
based system and to significantly enhance controller productivity
through automation. To do so, a multi-agency approach--as outlined in
Vision 100--is critical given the current deficit environment,
competition for Federal funds, and FAA's tight budget. Moreover,
leveraging of scarce resources is essential because FAA does not
conduct much long-term air traffic management research.
FAA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for Research, Engineering, and
Development
FAA is requesting $130 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, a
decrease of $6.6 million from last year's appropriated level of $136.6
million. This includes $18 million specifically for the JPDO. Figure 1
illustrates the makeup of the Fiscal Year 2007 RE&D request by major
lines of effort.
As shown above, almost 70 percent of FAA's research budget
submission, or $88 million, focuses on improving safety--not new air
traffic management initiatives. This includes projects on fire safety
and aging aircraft systems, which focus on preventing accidents and
making them more survivable. The remaining funds are requested for
efficiency, environmental research, and mission support efforts.
FAA is also requesting research funds from its airport account for
safety and efficiency issues. FAA is requesting $17.8 million in Fiscal
Year 2007 for research in areas of, among other things, airport
pavement and airport markings. In addition, FAA is requesting $10
million in Fiscal Year 2007 for cooperative research projects with
airports, including efforts to enhance safety and improve airport
lighting.
Perspectives on FAA's Capital Account and Progress and Challenges with
Key Modernization Projects
The Capital Account. FAA's capital account--or the F&E account--is
the principal vehicle for modernizing the National Airspace System. It
represents about 18 percent of the Agency's Fiscal Year 2007 budget
request of $13.7 billion. For Fiscal Year 2007, FAA is requesting $2.5
billion for the F&E account, which is $50 million less than last year's
appropriation. This is the fourth consecutive year that funding
requests for the capital account are below authorized levels called for
in Vision 100.
As we have noted in previous reports and testimonies, FAA's
increasing operating costs have crowded out funds for modernization.
Further, only about 55 percent of FAA's Fiscal Year 2007 request for
F&E (or $1.4 billion) will actually go for acquiring air traffic
control systems, while the remainder will be spent on personnel,
mission support, and facilities. This is illustrated in Figure 2.
The majority of FAA's capital account now goes for keeping things
running (i.e., sustainment), not new initiatives. A review of the top
10 projects by dollar amount in the Fiscal Year 2007 request shows that
while some projects will form the platforms for future initiatives, the
bulk of funds are requested for projects that have been delayed for
years and for efforts to improve or maintain FAA facilities or replace
existing radars.
Over the last several years, FAA has deferred or canceled a number
of projects as funding for the capital account has remained essentially
flat. This includes efforts for a new air-to-ground communication
system, controller-pilot data link communications, and a new satellite-
based precision landing system. FAA has also postponed making decisions
on projects like the billion-dollar Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System.
In spite of a lack of clarity about the next generation system, FAA
is requesting F&E funds for two projects that are considered ``building
blocks'' for the next generation system. These are not new programs and
have been under development or been funded in previous budgets.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is a
satellite-based technology that allows aircraft to broadcast
their position to others. In Fiscal Year 2007, FAA is
requesting $80 million for this. In prior budgets, ADS-B was
funded under the Safe Flight 21 Initiative, which demonstrated
the potential of ADS-B and cockpit displays in Alaska and the
Ohio River Valley. FAA expects to award a contract for the ADS-
B ground infrastructure in 2007. FAA has a lot of work ahead to
quantify and set expectations for the benefits it and airspace
users can expect from ADS-B.\1\ Airspace users will have to
equip with new avionics to obtain benefits, and FAA may have to
rely on a rulemaking initiative to help speed equipage. This
illustrates why the JPDO must address complex policy issues as
well as research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first phase of ADS-B implementation, known as ADS-B out is
expected to replace many ground radars that currently provide
surveillance with less costly ground-based transceivers. But
implementing ADS-B out is just the first step to achieving the larger
benefits of ADS-B, which would be provided by ADS-B in. ADS-B in would
allow aircraft to receive signals from ground-based transceivers or
directly from other ADS-B equipped aircraft--this could allow pilots to
``see'' nearby traffic and, consequently, transition some
responsibility for maintaining safe separation from the controllers to
the cockpit.
System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is a new
information architecture that will allow airspace users to
access securely and seamlessly a wide range of information on
the status of the National Airspace System and weather
conditions. It is analogous to an internet system for all
airspace users. FAA is requesting $24 million for this program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Fiscal Year 2007.
Progress and Challenges with Key Air Traffic Control Modernization
Projects. We are not seeing the massive cost growth and schedule delays
we have seen with FAA major acquisitions in the past because of this
Administration's more incremental approach to major acquisitions and
decisions to defer several complex and challenging efforts.
Last year, we reported that 11 of 16 major acquisitions accounted
for cost growth of $5.6 billion.\2\ Most of this cost growth occurred
before the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization. The cost
growth was also a reflection of efforts to re-baseline programs, which
identified costs that had been pent up for years and were not reflected
in prior cost estimates. We are updating our work on the 16 major
acquisitions and the challenges they face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OIG Report Number AV-2005-061, ``Report on the Status of FAA's
Major Acquisitions: Cost Growth and Schedule Delays Continue To Stall
Air Traffic Modernization,'' May 26, 2005. OIG reports and testimonies
can be found on our website: www.oig.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many efforts are maturing, and completing them within existing cost
and schedule parameters is critical to allow room for future
initiatives. Only one ongoing modernization project, FAA
Telecommunications Infrastructure, has the potential to reduce FAA's
operating costs, which is a top priority within the Agency. We would
like to highlight two multi-billion-dollar programs that require
attention.
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) is intended to
replace the Host computer network--the central nervous system
for facilities that manage high-altitude traffic. FAA is
requesting $375.7 million for ERAM, which is this program's
peak single-year funding level according to FAA's Capital
Investment Plan. With an acquisition cost of $2.1 billion, this
program continues to be one of the most expensive and complex
acquisitions in FAA's modernization portfolio. The monthly burn
rate for ERAM will increase from $28 million a month in Fiscal
Year 2006 to $31 million per month in Fiscal Year 2007. This
year is critical for ERAM because the system is scheduled to
begin real-world testing. Should ERAM experience cost increases
or schedule slips, the problems would have a cascading impact
on other capital programs and directly affect the pace of
efforts to transition to the next generation system.
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI). FAA is
requesting $28 million in Fiscal Year 2007 toward its effort to
replace its entire telecommunications system for air traffic
control, including radar and controller voice circuits. Between
Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress
appropriated $556 million for FTI (from the capital and
operating accounts).
In our recent report to FAA, we concluded that FTI is a high-
risk program--with a FAA reported lifecycle cost estimate of
$2.4 billion ($310 million estimated acquisition costs and $2.1
billion estimated operations costs) through 2017.\3\ Only
months after being re-baselined in December 2004, the program
fell behind its revised schedule and has not recovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OIG Report Number AV-2006-047, ``FAA Telecommunications
Infrastructure Program: FAA Needs To Take Steps To Improve Management
Controls and Reduce Schedule Risks,'' April 27, 2006.
The primary purpose of the FTI program is to lower operating
costs. It also forms the basic infrastructure for NGATS
initiatives, like SWIM, and is important for FAA's ongoing work
with Lockheed-Martin on flight service stations. However,
expected benefits from reducing operating costs are eroding
because of schedule problems. For example, FAA did not realize
$32.6 million in expected savings in Fiscal Year 2005 (due to
the limited progress made in disconnecting legacy circuits). In
addition, the estimated cost savings of $102 million for Fiscal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2006 is at risk.
In our April report, we found that FTI was not likely to meet
its planned completion date, December 2007, because FAA had not
developed a detailed, realistic master schedule for all
critical steps, including identifying when each service will be
accepted, when services will be cut over to FTI, and when
existing (legacy) services will be disconnected. Without a
realistic master schedule, it will be difficult to obtain a
binding commitment from the FTI contractor, Harris Corporation,
to complete the transition by any specific point in time.
We recommended, among other things, that FAA develop both a
master schedule and an effective FTI transition plan and
validate FTI cost, schedule, and benefits. FAA agreed with our
recommendations and commissioned the MITRE Corporation \4\ to
conduct an independent assessment of FTI's schedule and
transition performance to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The MITRE Corporation functions as FAA's federally funded
research and development center.
MITRE completed a limited assessment of FTI schedule risk and
concluded FTI will not be completed as planned in December
2007, but is more likely to be completed later in 2008. Also,
MITRE underscores the need to focus Harris' resources and FAA's
field resources on achieving timely cutovers and increased
disconnects of legacy services, both of which are important for
realizing cost-savings. However, we have observed that a
significant number of FTI services that have been accepted by
FAA could not be cutover, thus requiring considerable re-work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and causing an increased backlog.
We are currently reviewing FAA's effort to develop an effective
transition plan and a realistic master schedule. We note that
FAA's Joint Resources Council--FAA's decision-making body for
major acquisitions--is planning to meet in August 2006 to
review revised FTI cost estimates against a newly validated
schedule. We see several key issues that FAA needs to address.
They include determining the number of existing legacy circuits
and the funding requirements needed to maintain those circuits
until FTI is complete, improving coordination between Harris
and FAA field offices, and updating cost and benefits based on
actual and projected legacy and FTI network costs.
It is important to recognize that FAA's existing investments will
heavily influence NGATS requirements and schedules. In fact, ongoing
projects, like ERAM and FTI, will form important platforms for JPDO
initiatives. Enclosure A provides details on selected modernization
projects that will likely play a key role in moving toward the next
generation system. FAA will have to assess how JPDO plans affect
ongoing projects and determine which ones need to be accelerated or re-
scoped.
Progress Is Being Made in Coordinating Diverse Agency Efforts but
Considerable Work Remains To Align Agency Budgets and Plans
The law requires the JPDO to coordinate and oversee research that
could play a role in NGATS. Central to the JPDO's mission--and making
it an effective multi-agency vehicle--is alignment of agency resources.
This is a complex task, and the law provides no authority for the JPDO
to redirect agency resources. Enclosure B provides information on
potential agency contributions to the JPDO and each agency's area of
expertise.
The Department has played an important role in coordinating various
efforts by chairing the Senior Policy Committee. This committee was
established by Vision 100 and includes deputy secretary level
representatives from the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security,
and the Secretary of the Air Force. It also includes the FAA and NASA
Administrators. This committee provides high-level guidance, resolves
policy issues, and identifies resource needs. Each participating agency
conducts research tailored for its specific mission.
The JPDO's March 2006 progress report to Congress outlined various
accomplishments to date, including the establishment of multi-agency
teams and the NGATS institute (a mechanism for interfacing with the
private sector) as well as a demonstration of network-enabled
operations for security purposes. However, the report did not provide
details on specific ongoing research projects at FAA or funding that
the JPDO expects to leverage at other agencies. Without this
information, it is difficult to assess progress with alignment of
budgets.
The majority of JPDO's work is done through eight Integrated
Product Teams (IPTs) that focus on eight strategies, such as how to use
weather information to improve the performance of the National Airspace
System. The teams are composed of members from FAA, other Federal
agencies, and the private sector. Enclosure C provides information on
the JPDO's IPTs.
The National Research Council recently examined JPDO plans and was
critical of the IPT structure.\5\ The Council's report found that even
though the teams have multi-agency participation, they are functioning
primarily as experts in specific disciplines rather than as cross-
functional, integrated, multidisciplinary teams organized to deliver
specific products. One of the report's recommendations was that the
IPTs be reduced in number and made more ``product driven.'' Although we
have not reached any conclusions on how to best structure the IPTs, we
do agree that a more product-driven focus would be an important step
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Research Council, ``Technology Pathways Accessing the
Integrated Plan for a Next Generation Air Transportation System,''
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our audit work on three IPTs shows that there is considerable
coordination but little alignment of agency budgets to date. Moreover,
the IPT leaders have no authority to commit agency resources to JPDO
efforts and often have no products other than plans. The following
illustrates progress and challenges to date with the three IPTs we
examined in detail.
The Weather IPT is led by the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), an agency of the Department of Commerce.
FAA, NASA, DOD, and NOAA are all conducting weather research
tailored for their specific missions. Thus far, this team's
efforts have focused on contributions to FAA's Traffic Flow
Management Program (which assists traffic managers to optimize
air traffic by working with airlines). NOAA is also helping the
JPDO refine its concept of a fully automated system.
Integrating new, up-to-date weather forecast systems into
planned automation efforts will be challenging.
We note that JPDO has not yet determined if a considerable
amount of applied research and development conducted by NOAA at
the Office of Atmospheric Research and the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service could be
leveraged for next generation initiatives. We have shared our
concerns about taking full advantage of weather research
conducted by others with the JPDO, which recognizes it can do a
better job.
The Shared Situational Awareness IPT is led by DOD. All
participating agencies are adopting network-centric systems.\6\
As noted earlier, FAA is developing its own network system
called SWIM. While there are considerable opportunities for
leveraging net-centric efforts, there is also potential for
duplication of effort. Challenges here focus on taking an
approach pioneered by DOD and applying it specifically to air
traffic control to get benefits in terms of enhanced capacity
and delay reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A net-centric system uses internet protocols to transfer data.
An active role by DOD is vital because it is both a provider
and a consumer of air traffic services. Thus far, work with
this IPT has focused almost exclusively on maximizing agency
network capabilities in DOD, such as the Global Information
Grid, which is a net-centric communication system DOD is
developing for global use. Moreover, DOD's real-world
experiences and the lessons it has learned in sharing data
(from air and ground systems) in actual operations and in real-
time have not been fully tapped and will prove invaluable in
reducing cost and technical risks in developing the next
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
generation system.
Another area where DOD could provide expertise is with sensor
fusion \7\ which is the integration of information on an
aircraft's position from radar and non-radar sources, such as
satellite-based systems. While fusion could help reduce
separation between aircraft, it will be technically challenging
to integrate radar and satellite-based systems (which have
different update rates and levels of accuracy) to manage
traffic in high volume airspace, particularly in the vicinity
of airports. DOD expertise with target acquisition and sensor
fusion for weapons targeting could prove helpful for the JPDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For additional views on sensor fusion or fusion tracking see
our audit report ``Terminal Modernization: FAA Needs To Address Its
Small, Medium, and Large Sites Based Upon Cost, Time, and Capability''
(AV-2005-016, November 23, 2004).
The Air Traffic Management IPT is led by NASA. It is
expected to play a key role by helping develop the automated
systems to boost controller productivity. The bulk of this work
will be funded by NASA, which has conducted the majority of
long-term air traffic management research over the last few
years. \8\ FAA has neither planned nor budgeted for this type
of research. Major challenges focus on establishing
requirements and gaining a full understanding of the risks
associated with developing and acquiring these new software-
intensive systems before making financial commitments. This is
important because future automation efforts will be a major
cost driver for the Next Generation System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For additional details on the FAA/NASA relationship and funding
profiles, see our testimony entitled ``Observations on the Progress and
Actions Needed To Address the Next Generation Air Transportation
System,'' (CC-2006-032, March 29, 2006).
Even though NASA is restructuring its aeronautical research
program and spending less than in the past, the JPDO and NASA
are working on several complex concepts for new automation
systems (for monitoring multiple aircraft trajectories,
tracking separation minima, and responding to weather events)
and the timing of research efforts. This work will be funded
through NASA efforts on airspace systems (with a Fiscal Year
2007 requested funding level of $120 million). However,
experience shows that NASA will need a much clearer picture of
FAA's requirements (i.e., performance parameters for new
automated systems) to better support the next generation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
system.
Several Actions Are Critical for the JPDO To Make Progress in Both the
Short and Long Term and Make the Transition From Planning to
Implementation
Key questions for FAA and the JPDO to focus on include what the new
office can deliver, when, and how much this transition will cost. They
are central questions in the discussion about how to best finance FAA
and will shape the size, requirements, and direction of the capital
program for the next decade.
Moving to the next generation system is important to meet the
demand for air travel, change the way FAA provides services, and help
control operating costs. However, it is also a high-risk effort. To
make progress and successfully shift from planning to actual
implementation, several steps are needed.
Leadership. The position of the JPDO Director is currently
vacant--FAA needs to find the right person to lead this effort.
Leadership will be important to align diverse agency efforts
and bridge the gap between the Air Traffic Organization's (ATO)
near-term planning horizon and the JPDO's longer-term mission
to transform the National Airspace System. We understand that
FAA is interviewing candidates and will be making a selection
very soon.
Finalizing Cost Estimates, Quantifying Expected Benefits,
and Developing a Roadmap for Industry. The JPDO's progress
report to Congress did not address funding requirements and
complex transition issues. Moving to the next generation system
will require significant investments from FAA (new ground
systems) and airspace users (new avionics). FAA is conducting
workshops with industry to develop program costs.
We have seen some preliminary estimates developed by the ATO
and a working group of FAA's Research, Engineering, and
Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), but they have not been
finalized or approved by senior FAA management. There are
considerable unknowns, and costs depend on, among other things,
performance requirements for new automation and weather
initiatives and to what extent FAA intends to consolidate
facilities. The following Figure illustrates a very preliminary
estimate of the implications for FAA's capital account from
Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2012--the focus of the FAA
reauthorization--from the April JPDO/Industry workshop.
These ATO estimates presented that moving forward with NGATS
would cost $4.4 billion between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal
Year 2012 over and above the current CIP plan. These
preliminary numbers do not distinguish between development
efforts, adjustments to existing programs, or implementation of
new initiatives.
A key short-term cost factor for NGATS is the level of
development funding that will be required to take efforts from
other agencies (like NASA) and successfully transition them
into the National Airspace System and meet FAA's safety and
certification requirements. The REDAC working group is raising
concerns about this in light of NASA's restructuring of its
aeronautics research portfolio and plans to focus on more basic
research. To accommodate changes in NASA investments, the REDAC
working group estimated in its draft report that the JPDO will
need approximately $100 million annually for development.
FAA will have to analyze information from the JPDO/industry
workshops and the REDAC working group and provide Congress with
expected funding requirements and when the funding will be
needed. When transmitting this information to Congress, FAA
should provide cost data on three vectors--research and
development needed (including demonstration projects),
adjustments to existing projects and estimates for implementing
NGATS initiatives. This will give decision-makers a clear
understanding of NGATS costs.
An important theme from the recent JPDO workshop was the need
for FAA to clearly define the expected benefits from NGATS
initiatives, particularly for projects that require airspace
users to install and equip with new avionics, such as ADS-B.
Airspace users have a much shorter horizon for the return on
investment from new systems than FAA, and incentives (i.e., tax
incentives, financing options, or targeted deployments for
users that equip early) will likely be needed to spur equipage.
At the April workshop, industry participants asked FAA for a
``service roadmap'' that: (1) specifies required equipage in
specific time increments; (2) bundles capabilities with clearly
defined benefits and needed investments; and (3) uses a 4- to
5-year equipage cycle that links with aircraft maintenance
schedules. It will be important for FAA to provide industry
with this information.
Establishing Connectivity Between JPDO Plans and ATO
Efforts. This is important because the JPDO, as currently
structured, is a planning and coordinating organization, not an
implementation or program-execution office. At the April JPDO/
industry workshop, industry asked for a much stronger link
between ATO and JPDO plans.
Although the JPDO's progress report discusses new capabilities
such as ADS-B and SWIM, the ATO is responsible for managing
those efforts and establishing funding levels, schedule, and
performance parameters. The ADS-B and SWIM projects are not yet
integrated into ongoing communications and automation efforts
but need to be. If the JPDO and ATO are not sufficiently linked
and clear lines of accountability are not established, cost and
schedules for NGATS will not be reliable and expected benefits
will be diminished or postponed.
Linking JPDO and ATO efforts is challenging because NGATS
projects cut across the ATO's different lines of business
(i.e., terminal and en route) and will require adjustments to
ongoing projects managed by different ATO vice presidents.
For example, SWIM is envisioned as an Agency-wide effort, and
planning documents show that SWIM will interface with at least
12 ongoing projects, including FTI which is managed by the Vice
President for Technical Operations. Also, SWIM will need to be
integrated with ongoing projects to revamp systems for
controlling high-altitude traffic managed by the Vice President
for En Route and Oceanic Services. Projects managed by the Vice
President for Terminal Services (to modernize both controller
displays used in the vicinity of airports and weather systems)
will also be affected. It will be important to establish clear
lines of accountability for linking JPDO efforts to ATO
programs and resolving differences between the two
organizations.
We shared our concerns about effectively linking the JPDO and
ATO and establishing clear lines of accountability with the
Chief Operating Officer and the Acting Director for ATO
Planning earlier this year. They recognize the need for close
coordination and are examining ways to better link the two
organizations. One step that is underway is to adjust the
Operational Evolution Plan (the Agency's capacity blueprint) to
reflect JPDO efforts. This is an important matter that will
require sustained management attention.
Developing and Implementing Mechanisms for Alignment. As
noted earlier, there is considerable coordination among JPDO
participating agencies but little alignment of budgets and
plans. There is a need for mechanisms to help the JPDO align
different agency efforts over the long haul. This will help
identify the full range of research that can be leveraged by
the JPDO--not how much NGATS will cost to implement.
The JPDO recognizes that more needs to be done and is working
with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop an
integrated budget document that provides a single business case
(a document similar to the ``OMB Exhibit 300'') to make sure
efforts are indeed aligned.\9\ As part of this, the JPDO has
promised to provide OMB this summer with an architecture for
the Next Generation System, as well as a specific list of
programs in other agency budgets it intends to leverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OMB Exhibit 300 was established by OMB as a source of
information on which budgetary decisions could be based so that they
are consistent with Administration and OMB policy and guidance.
The JPDO's ongoing efforts to develop an enterprise
architecture,\10\ or overall blueprint for the next generation
system, will help in setting goals, supporting decisions,
adjusting plans, and tracking agency commitments. The
architecture will also show requirements from FAA and the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and where various
agency efforts fit in the next generation system. It will prove
helpful in the future in resolving difficult policy decisions,
including who pays for what elements of the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Enterprise architecture links an organizations strategic plan
to the programs and supporting systems in terms of interrelated
business processes, rules, and information needs. This includes the
transition from the ``as-is'' to the ``to-be'' environment.
The JPDO is taking an incremental approach to architecture
development and plans to have an initial version this summer.
However, considerable work remains to link current systems with
future capabilities and develop technical requirements,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly for new concepts for automation.
Until these actions are taken, it will be difficult for the
Congress and aviation stakeholders to determine if the JPDO is
leveraging the right research, if funding is adequate for
specific efforts, or how projects will improve the U.S. air
transportation system and at what cost. Therefore, we think the
JPDO should include in its periodic reports to Congress a table
of specific research projects with budget data for FAA
developmental efforts, as well as budget data of other agencies
it is leveraging and how that ongoing research is supporting
the JPDO.
Developing Approaches for Risk Management and Systems
Integration. Given that the transition to NGATS is a high-risk
effort potentially involving billions of dollars, the JPDO and
FAA need to articulate how problems that affected past
modernization efforts will be mitigated and what specific skill
sets will be required. The JPDO's recent progress report did
not address this issue.
The central issue focuses on what will be done differently
from past modernization efforts with NGATS initiatives to
ensure success and deliver much needed benefits to FAA and
airspace users. FAA faces a wide range of risks, such as
complex software development and complex systems integration
and engineering challenges with NGATS initiatives and existing
FAA projects.
To help manage the transition to the next generation system,
FAA is considering whether or not a lead systems integrator--a
private contractor who would help link new and existing systems
and help manage other contractors--will be required. DOD has
relied on this approach to guide its development of complex
weapon systems. Models for using a lead system integrator
throughout the government differ with respect to roles and
responsibilities. We note that FAA has relied on systems
engineering and integration contractors in the past to help
integrate modernization projects, but questions about the
roles, responsibilities, and expected costs will need to be
examined before a decision is made.
Clarifying and Updating Approaches for Industry
Participation as the JPDO Evolves. The JPDO established the
NGATS institute specifically to allow for industry
participation in shaping the Next Generation Air Traffic
Management System. Currently, industry representatives are
participating in JPDO IPTs. For example, the JPDO's progress
report noted that over 140 industry and private sector
participants (from 66 organizations) are involved in IPT
planning efforts.
Industry has expressed concern that participation in JPDO
activities might preclude them from bidding on future FAA
acquisitions related to NGATS because it may create an
organizational conflict of interest. Generally speaking, FAA's
Acquisition Management System precludes contractors from
competing on production contracts if the contractor either
participated in or materially influenced the drafting of
specifications to be used in future acquisitions for production
contracts or had advanced knowledge of the requirements.
FAA is aware of industry's concern and is working to ensure
that industry participation does not result in organizational
conflicts of interest. Recently, the JPDO revised the
contracting mechanism with the institute to address this issue.
Specifically, the JPDO and the institute have committed to
develop procedures related to organizational conflict of
interest concerns, and methods to avoid them. Putting these
procedures in place will help get and sustain the desired
expertise from industry and help prevent problems in the
future.
We think the JPDO needs to continue to foster awareness of
potential conflicts of interest among IPTs and its contractors
to identify information that might later lead to conflicts of
interest. It will be particularly important for FAA and the
JPDO to monitor these matters as the role of the JPDO evolves
and various efforts shift from planning to implementation.
Examining and Overcoming Barriers to Transforming the
National Airspace System That Have Affected Past FAA Programs.
Our work on many major acquisitions shows the importance of
clearly defined transition paths, having expected costs (for
both FAA and airspace users), and determining benefits in terms
of reduced delays. This is particularly the case for
initiatives that require airspace users to equip with new
avionics.
For example, FAA canceled the controller-pilot data link
communications program specifically because of uncertain
benefits, concerns about user equipage, cost growth, and the
impact on the Agency's operations account. The inability to
synchronize data link with other modernization efforts, such as
the multi-billion-dollar ERAM program, was also a factor.
Other important barriers to be overcome include how to ensure
new systems are certified as safe for pilots to use and getting
the critical expertise in place at the right time. Problems
with FAA's multi-billion dollar Wide Area Augmentation System
were directly traceable to problems in certifying the new
satellite-based navigation system.
FAA's certification workforce has participated in IPT
meetings, but considerable work remains to determine how air
and ground components will be certified and the corresponding
impact on requirements. This is a complex task. We agree with
industry that FAA's certification workforce needs to be
actively engaged with JPDO initiatives.
Developing a Strategy for Technology Transfer. Technology
transfer--the movement of technology from one organization to
another--is a central issue for the JPDO because the law
envisions new capabilities developed by other Federal agencies
(or the private sector) being transitioned into the National
Airspace System. The JPDO will have to pay greater attention to
this matter as it moves forward to reduce development times
with NGATS initiatives.
Our past work shows that FAA has experienced mixed results in
transitioning systems developed by others into the National
Airspace System. For example, FAA ultimately abandoned work on
a new controller tool developed by NASA (the Passive Final
Approach and Spacing Tool) for sequencing and assigning runways
to aircraft because of complex software development and cost
issues.
As we noted in our review of FAA's Free Flight Phase 1
Program, the use of ``technology readiness levels'' could be
useful to help assess maturity of systems and ease issues
associated with the transfer of technology.\11\ Both NASA and
DOD have experience with categorizing technical maturity. This
could help reduce cost, schedule, and technical risk with
implementing JPDO initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OIG Report Number AV-2002-067, ``Free Flight Phase 1
Technologies: Progress to Date and Future Challenges,'' December 14,
2001.
Conducting Sufficient Human Factors Research To Support
Anticipated Changes. The JPDO is planning to make fundamental
changes in how the system operates and how controllers manage
traffic to accommodate three times more aircraft in the system.
Currently, the union that represents controllers is not yet
participating in JPDO efforts for a variety of reasons but
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needs to be.
History has shown that insufficient attention to human factors
can increase the cost of acquisition and delay much needed
benefits. For example, problems in the late 1990s with FAA's
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System were directly
traceable to not involving users early enough in the process.
The need for focused human factors research extends well
beyond the traditional computer-machine interface (such as new
controller displays) and has important workforce and safety
implications. For example, FAA expects the controller's role to
change from direct, tactical control of aircraft to one of
overall traffic management. There also will be significant
human factors concerns for pilots, who will be expected to rely
more on data link communications. It will be important to have
sufficient human factors analysis and studies to ensure that
the changes envisioned by the JPDO can be safely accommodated.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of this Subcommittee might
have.
Enclosure A
Key Platforms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Status and Key Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Modernization: FAA has struggled with how to complete
Standard Terminal Automation terminal modernization. STARS, which so
Replacement System (STARS), far has cost $1.3 billion for only 47
Common Automated Radar sites, was envisioned as the
Terminal System (Common centerpiece of terminal modernization.
ARTS): Controller work- Because of technical problems and
stations that process schedule delays with STARS, FAA decided
surveillance data and display to deploy another system, Common ARTS,
it on the screen to manage as an interim solution at over 140
air traffic in the terminal facilities in several configurations.
environment. FAA is rethinking its approach to
terminal modernization and recently
decided to field STARS to only five
additional sites. A decision affecting
the remaining 100-plus sites has been
postponed for over a year. FAA needs to
address problems with aging displays at
four large sites, including Chicago and
Denver, and resolve how it will
complete terminal modernization and
what additional capabilities will be
needed as it works with the JPDO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
En Route Automation With an estimated cost of $2.1 billion,
Modernization (ERAM): ERAM is one of the largest and most
Replaces the Host computer complex acquisitions in FAA's
hardware and software modernization portfolio. Progress is
(including the Host backup being made with the first ERAM
system) and associated deliverable--a backup system for the
support infrastructure at 20 Host computer. However, the bulk of the
En Route Centers. work focuses on development of the
first major ERAM software release,
which involves developing over 1
million lines of code. A number of new
capabilities (e.g., dynamic airspace
management and data link) depend on
future enhancements to ERAM that have
yet to be defined or priced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Telecommunications FTI is FAA's effort to transition from
Infrastructure (FTI): multiple telecommunication networks to
Replaces existing a single new network for the purpose of
telecommunications networks reducing operating costs at more than
with one new network. 4,400 facilities. As of May 31, 2006,
FAA reported 5,925 FTI services
completed with 14,555 remaining.
According to a recent MITRE study, FTI
is not likely to be completed by
December 2007. Moreover, FAA is still
in the process of determining the
number of existing service requirements
that will need to be maintained until
FTI is complete. As a result, expected
FTI benefits with respect to savings
are eroding. Key issues for FAA include
developing an effective transition plan
and realistic master schedule,
negotiating a contract extension for
the existing legacy system with
Verizon, and revising and validating
FTI cost and benefit estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Traffic Flow Management Infrastructure
modernizes the hardware and products and services are designed to
software used to manage the support the Traffic Management
flow of air traffic. Specialists and Traffic Management
Coordinators to optimize air traffic
flow across the National Air Space
System. The specialists and
coordinators analyze, plan, and
coordinate air traffic flow through
continuous coordination with the
airlines and the use of surveillance
sources, weather information,
automation, and display subsystems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure B
Potential Agency Contributions
The following table provides perspectives on the wide range of
research being conducted at agencies that participate in the JDPO for
their specific missions. We note that only some of the ongoing research
will be applicable to the JPDO's efforts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Key Area of Leverage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD DOD has an extensive and diverse
Research and Development (R&D) base,
including research in new aircraft,
composites, imaging systems, and data
exchange systems for all services. DOD
has requested $73 billion overall for
R&D in Fiscal Year 2007. The JPDO is
particularly interested in DOD's
broadband communication networks, such
as the Global Information Grid. DOD
planned upgrades to the Global
Positioning System Constellation will
be critical to civil aviation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce/NOAA Commerce is requesting $1.1 billion for
research in Fiscal Year 2007. NOAA is a
part of Commerce and is responsible for
the National Weather Service; the
National Environmental Satellite, Data
and Information Service; and Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research. NOAA
requested $533 million in Fiscal Year
2007 for R&D. The JPDO is seeking from
NOAA probability weighted forecast
capabilities, a national uniform
weather database of forecasts and
observations, and transparent automatic
adjusted traffic management for
weather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA For years, NASA has conducted the
majority of long-term Air Traffic
Management research, including
automated controller tools and human
factors work. NASA has requested $724
million for aeronautical R&D in Fiscal
Year 2007. The JPDO is looking to NASA
to develop automated aircraft metering
and sequencing and dynamic airspace
reconfiguration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland DHS contributes expertise in the areas
Security (DHS) of security and netcentric initiatives.
The Agency has requested $1 billion in
Fiscal Year 2007 for Science and
Technology R&D. FAA is looking to DHS
to develop automated passenger and
cargo screening, hardened aircraft
security, and flight control overrides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure C
Integrated Product Teams
IPTs are multi-agency teams that are defining the specific concepts
and capabilities and are coordinating the actions necessary to make
possible the transformation in each of the eight strategies articulated
in the NGATS Integrated Plan. The following provides a listing of the
JPDO's IPTs and the agency responsible for leading each team.
1. Develop Airport Infrastructure To Meet the Future Demand--
led by FAA.
2. Establish an Effective Security System Without Limiting
Mobility or Civil Liberties--led by DHS.
3. Establish an Agile Air Traffic System--led by NASA.
4. Establish User-Specific Situational Awareness--led by DOD.
5. Establish a Comprehensive Proactive Safety Management
Approach--led by FAA.
6. Develop Environmental Protection That Allows Sustained
Aviation Growth--led by FAA.
7. Develop a System-Wide Capability To Reduce Weather Impacts--
led by Commerce/NOAA.
8. Harmonize Equipage and Operations Globally--led by FAA.
Senator Burns. Thank you and I appreciate your report. We
will be looking at that. Like I mentioned before, we have many,
many committee meetings on the Hill this morning and Members
have to attend all of them, it seems. I'm going to lead off
with the Chairman of the Full Committee, Senator Stevens, and
he has a few questions and then I will move to Senator
Rockefeller and as they have other meetings to go to also and
then to Senator Lott. Then I will kind of bat clean up.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
start with you first, Mr. Dobbs. I think you are pressing the
agencies too hard and I certainly hope that the OMB and--you
don't push this agency to make decisions before we know where
the money is coming from. If we make decisions now, based upon
what the budget looks like it could afford, we're not going to
have a modernization program at all. We've got to find some way
to define how to raise this money and meet with the industry
and get the participants to understand how much is going to be
available from the private sector as opposed to how much is
going to be Federal before we decide what limitations we're
going to put on these agencies from a budget process. So I hope
you'll warm them. You are going too fast, to demand what you've
just demanded over that period of time.
Mr. Dobbs. No, that wasn't my intent, I think the first
thing the FAA needs to do is to, as the Administrator said, is
get the architecture--or blueprint--completed, which will set
out a list of requirements that FAA will be able to work with
to determine funding requirements. FAA should have a final cut
at that very soon, within weeks. This is a very important point
and I apologize if you misinterpreted my statement.
The Chairman. Well frankly, I disagree with you because
what we need to do first is find out if there is a funding
mechanism that can produce what we need and if so, then get the
architecture to fit the funding concepts. I don't think you can
go into this with the point of view of having OMB saying, this
is the amount of money we've got for the next 10 years. We've
got to have a funding mechanism in this or the system
modernization is going to not go forward. So I hope you won't
really--the way I understand what you've said, was, it is their
duty to come up with some budgets right now and make the
architecture fit into the budget.
Mr. Dobbs. No, I didn't mean to imply that. My comments
focus on getting a handle on ongoing research.
The Chairman. I'm glad, if that was not your impression. I
apologize if that is not your meaning, not what you meant to
convey.
Mr. Dobbs. I just want to clarify my remarks. We understand
that financing is important and that additional resources will
be needed. With respect to alignment OMB will put together a
single business case so we can all identify what other agencies
can contribute in terms of research. This will help FAA
leverage much needed resources as envisioned by the law. It
won't set limits with respect to funding for implementation in
any way. It will just identify in a clearer picture, how NASA
and DOD research will help the FAA. Hopefully, it will also
help this committee identify where other resources can be
leveraged.
The Chairman. Yes, well we're going to try to do that. Dr.
Porter, I appreciate your statement. This enterprise
architecture--am I to understand now that they worked out with
FAA and other agencies, that NASA is going to be a part of,
really the center of, developing that architecture?
Dr. Porter. The architecture is actually developed through
the JPDO's EAD--EAD stands for----
The Chairman. Could you close those doors, please? And can
you pull that mike back a little toward the doctor? I'm not
hearing you.
Dr. Porter. Sure. The Engineering and Architecture division
of the JPDO is actually what is designing the architecture, so
it is not just NASA but there are members of NASA that are part
of that JPDO effort. So NASA and FAA personnel, as well as
members from other agencies, are participating to put that
architecture together.
The Chairman. Ms. Blakey, when we look at this from the
point of view of planning for the future, is this right? JPDO
is going to be the centerpiece of planning for the whole
expansion into the modern phase, the re-making of the airway
system?
Ms. Blakey. Essentially, yes. It is the planning and
coordinating office that will bring together the relevant
agencies. We've talked a lot about, this morning, about the
airspace and certainly air traffic control and that aspect of
this is absolutely front and center. It is critical. But as we
all recognize, security has got to be embedded in this new
system and therefore, we are coordinating with Homeland
Security. The needs of the military, are also front and center
when you would go through this. So it is a very important that
we work, not just the planning function and coordinating
function, but that we are also reaching out through the
Institute and bringing to the fore, the work of the private
sector. So that is the Institute's agenda and that's the
functionality it has. It will be doing a great deal of the work
in terms of systems integration and in terms of the work of
monitoring and evaluating and eventually quality control.
The Chairman. I hope you send that chart on the right to
OMB today with somebody. If they don't understand what's
coming, we're in real trouble. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, what
we've got to do is find some way as this goes forward, to have
more of a meeting of the minds, some roundtable discussions.
Get away from the hearings and let's try to keep our pace and
learn what is being developed. I am really concerned about the
funding. I think the funding is going to be overwhelming and it
cannot be driven by budget considerations, it has to be driven
by need and we have to develop a funding mechanism to meet the
needs of this modernization that is not constrained by the
budget process. It will, over a period of years, meet the
budget process but it cannot be constrained in initial years or
it won't get off the ground. Mr. Dillingham, by the way, we've
got a town in my state named after you or you carry it's name.
I'm glad to see a Dillingham here.
Mr. Dillingham. I was hoping I was a relative but it didn't
turn out that way.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It could well be. It could well be. I'm a
little worried about your comment about BRAC, because BRAC
thrown into this process now, before we really understand the
architecture and the funding capabilities, would be a mistake.
I hope that we get some timing on this, that makes sense in
terms of really realizing we may have to put some additional
money into this existing system to let it expand a little and
pick up some of the strain and move from that level rather than
to try and build on what we've got now. There is an adjustment
phase in this modernization program, which I think relates to
what Ms. Blakey is talking about, about the high-tech concepts
of bringing it in. Our experience in Alaska was that a lot of
pilots didn't want to experiment with Capstone. Today, they are
falling all over themselves to get it and I think we have to
find ways, to find places to test some of these new systems
before we put all of our money into them. There is no question
that ADS-B has worked in our state and I hope it works
nationally the way it has worked in our state. But without that
experimental phase, I don't think the South 48, as we call it,
would ever have gone into ADS-B. We've proven that it works in
Alaska. There are other components to this new architecture
that have to be proven, too. That is why I think we really have
to pace this and pace funding toward the full realization of
the modernization and set some realistic goals of when this
must be turned on. I don't think you have one yet, do you, Ms.
Blakey? Is there a date certain that this system has to be
operable?
Ms. Blakey. No, I think we really see it phasing in and
some of the sort of, if you will, the backbone technologies,
like ADS-B, coming on earlier. As you know, we are deploying
ADS-B in places around the country where we really can both use
the technology to the greatest effect. We're going in now to
the Gulf of Mexico, where there is no radar coverage and that
is going to be a very exciting development. So we will see
these systems prove themselves, develop and then we will be
able to attach functionality and add on additional technologies
as we go. We are looking at the year 2025 as being a, if you
will, a goal, but there is really no end state in this as we
all know. It evolves over time and certainly the next 10 years
are going to be very critical.
The Chairman. By that time, I'll be older than Strom
Thurman, OK?
Ms. Blakey. And you'll still be flying in the system, Mr.
Chairman, I'm confident of that.
The Chairman. What I want to do is get some timeframe built
into this so we know where the gates are in terms of the stress
that cannot be carried by the existing system. Once we know
where that gate is, then we've got our first target we have to
meet. I do believe we can meet it if we get rational about
financing. Financing ought to be up front and should not be the
constraint on the system, as I see it outlined here this
morning. Maybe you didn't intend to leave me that impression
but I have the impression that financing is going to drive
modernization rather than modernization driving the need for
finance. I hope that's the way it comes out. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Rockefeller?
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that
is the point, Administrator Blakey. I would just ask you three
questions. I agree, I took from the IG's statement that a
certain hostility toward--on the other hand, if you one look
around government, it is replete with systems that are
designed, budgeted, failures emerge, more money is added and
that is the subject of a hearing that nobody ever wants to
have. But from your point of view, you've got a lot of new
things you want to do, satellites, all kinds of things. You
want to get a lot of them done in the next 3-5 years. So my
question, to give you a chance to answer this, is how do you
plan to go about that? It would seem to me that money is always
a problem. You never have enough money. You are always having
to cut and that's our fault and the White House's fault and not
your fault because you're the one who suffers from it. How do
you--it would seem to me that you need to decide what you want
the most, what you have to have. Then you figure out how much
it is going to cost, to the best of your ability and then, you
have to proceed to try and get it with the stakeholders, so to
speak, onboard with that. The control is that the airlines,
general aviation, etcetera and then you also have to make that
they are going to use this stuff, respond to this stuff and you
know, they are not always willing participations. The trip out
to Herndon and your place out there as opposed to most other
places, is very interesting because what you have there, other
places might not be able to put to use, simply because of the
lack of training and skills. So in 3-5 years, you want to get
certain new technologies in. In generic terms, how do you plan
to do that, with the caveats I've just added? People on board,
people to use it and do you agree with the idea that you have
to figure out what you want first and then how much it is going
to cost, second? And then if we don't give you the money, then
it is our fault and the White House's fault?
Ms. Blakey. Well, we're not looking immediately to
establish fault here, I'll go to what we----
Senator Rockefeller. I'm not looking for that. I'm just
trying to be helpful to you.
Ms. Blakey. I understand. I think that probably the best
things I can point to in terms of how we intend to do this go
the following. I absolutely agree 200 percent with your sense
that you have to accept some things are going to take priority
and other things you have to set aside. I was delighted when
Dr. Dillingham pointed out that we have been able to maintain,
for the last several years, all of our capital investment
accounts, our major acquisition programs, on budget and on
schedule. That, given the FAA's previous track record, is no
mean feat and it was done, in part, by focusing like a laser on
those programs that are important and not trying to fund every
single thing that, at one point, was in the portfolio. I think
that has proven to be extremely successful and our major
components that are going toward the Next Generation system,
such as ERAM that Dr. Porter mentioned. The system, if you
will, the backbone for the En Route system, is on track and on
budget. So from a very practical standpoint, we are working
very hard as a business to do this. We also have a great deal
of confidence in the way that the JPDO is processing with the
concept of operations--what exactly do you expect the system to
be able to do? And then having the enterprise architecture,
which really spells out what the technologies are and how they
will work together. The final thing I would point to is that we
have had great success with the highly specific roadmaps. As
you know, we are running the FAA with a very businesslike
approach, driven by metrics. Everything from our flight plan,
which spells out exactly what we've got to accomplish in the
next year and we report on it quarterly and our bonuses are
tied to it--right through to the operational evolution plan,
which is a 10-year plan. For every year, we know what the
benchmarks are. We either hit them or we don't and we're
working very hard to again, deliver on those specifics. So
we're going to use that approach. The operational evolution,
now partnership, which will continue to be linked right into
the concept of operations and the enterprise architecture and
we will be able to see what the benchmarks are. I have no doubt
about the fact that this is going to be something that we have
to consult our stakeholders on very closely, because you can
move faster or more slowly. Some of it is a question of their
own business case for equipage, for example. Does it make sense
to put on the aircraft the necessary technologies to take full
advantage of the kind of satellite-based system we are talking
about? There are tremendous cost benefits in this but
businesses are going to have to be a part of that decision.
Senator Rockefeller. I'm running out of time. Let's suppose
that it begins to work. You've got to decommission a lot of
technology.
Ms. Blakey. Yes.
Senator Rockefeller. And that's not an easy thing to do,
legacy technology. People have been living with it forever. Do
you see that as a problem?
Ms. Blakey. I'm sure it will be a problem, I think, for two
reasons. One, people are very wedded to what is and what has
worked for so long and that is essentially ground-based radar.
We have a tremendous amount of ground based radar that could be
decommissioned and it is part of making the business case for
this system. You do have to substantially move to a satellite-
based system with a good backup. The second thing about it is,
and it has certainly proven to be an issue in recent
appropriations discussions in just in the last few weeks, that
it is extremely difficult to get political backing as we move
to consolidate and co-locate so that we can pull our costs down
and allow more room for these new systems. It is a question of
political will. I think you--as a concept, people tend to favor
it until it affects their district and their state and that has
proven challenging.
Senator Rockefeller. Final--I'll change my final one to go
back to the first one. I indicated that throughout Federal
Government--and it really is a grisly story that somebody
should win a Pulitzer Prize on, of what the Federal Government
wants, whether it is in the intelligence field or anything and
then what they end up paying for it, DOD, etcetera. I mean,
it's just--we've gotten mad about so many things for so long
that we no longer get mad enough to do anything about it. But
it occurs to me, when I ask the question, I'm not sure how much
you have run into that kind of problem, either because you
haven't made steps this big or because you think that you can,
in fact, anticipate once you've decided what you want, how much
something might cost. Just because DOD--something, you know,
Lockheed Martin runs something up three times the cost because
they have delays and they didn't do the work in the beginning
or because there was false bidding or whatever, etcetera. It
doesn't mean that you have that problem or that you have had
that problem or that you would have that problem with this. Is
this more discrete, more definable, that you can avoid those--
this is what it is going to cost, and oh by the way, 3 years
later, it's going to cost twice as much or whatever.
Ms. Blakey. Honestly, I think it is always a challenge. I
am very, very happy with our acquisition track record and the
fact that we have not allowed requirements creep and other
kinds of things to begin to inflate costs of current programs.
That has required a lot of discipline. But honestly, Senator,
much of this is to come and it would probably be overreaching
on my part to say that we know we can avoid those kinds of
problems, particularly when, in some cases here, you are going
where no one has gone before. Therefore, some of the
technologies, as you begin to do the demonstrations and deploy
them, may turn out to not be as promising as we'd hoped and
those will be sunk dollars. But on the major implementation, I
do believe that if you are able to apply a highly disciplined
process to it, that we can learn how to proceed. We've got some
people who have worked on big programs coming in from Defense
and from other parts of industry, to help us on this. I think
we've got a pretty good team from that standpoint.
Senator Rockefeller. You expect to save money if you get
this all in place. One thing I start worrying about right away
is that that saved money go back into investment opportunities
for the FAA, as opposed to going back into the General
Treasury. I mean, you may not be here by that time. I just want
you to tell me that you would never allow such a thing, from
any town or city in Alabama or anywhere else in the world.
Ms. Blakey. I'm flexing my muscles. I'll do my best. We all
are very concerned about the fact that we need to be able to
invest in the system and I think we all agree that changing our
system of financing is critical for this. We are right at that
point. We're going to have a very challenging year in front of
us because all the taxes and fees that support the aviation
trust fund are up in a year from this September. So we have got
literally a matter of months to figure out how we can best set
up financing so it does allow for the kind of investment that
is clearly needed. And there are mechanisms that could do that.
Senator Rockefeller. I thank you and I thank the Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Lott?
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing and thank all of the witnesses for being here.
Madame Administrator, it is good to see you again. I appreciate
your leadership at FAA and I want to commend you for what you
are doing in a variety of areas and encourage you to continue.
I have been interested in this hearing because I do know that
effort is being put into the future but I am concerned about
making sure that this is just not a bunch of acronyms and
meetings that don't really produce anything. We have a problem
here and it is going to grow with every passing year. So we do
need to come to some conclusions and get some actions and some
results. I know that you are being squeezed with budget and I
know you're trying to implement cost savings, which is never
easy and actively opposed by some of your own people. But at
some point, we've got to quit trying--I mean, trying to find
savings is all very well and good but when you are trying to
implement a whole new program, the Next Generation, you're
going to have to figure out how we're going to pay for this.
One of my big disappointments in this Administration, frankly,
has been the lack of proper attention to transportation, which
I think is one of the critical areas for the Federal
Government. I mean the whole package: highways, bridges,
airports, air traffic control modernization system, railroads,
passenger trains, ports and harbors, navigable streams--the
whole package. I really think it is one of the few things the
Federal Government has a prime role in and I hope that you will
push, within the Administration, within the Department of
Transportation, and on OMB to face up to this task. In December
2000, I met with the incoming President and his to-be Chief of
Staff. It was the former Secretary of Transportation. One of
the subjects we talked about and I thought we were going to
focus on, was a modern air traffic control system because I was
concerned about where we were headed and what needed to be
done.
Well, this is turning into a speech or lecture, but I just,
I think we are going to have to face up to this. I think that
on the money, we're just going to have to find a way not just
to look for savings, which we always should. If you've got a
legacy infrastructure that really is a throwback to another
era, you need to begin to phase that out. You've done some
things in control towers and so forth--that has led to some
savings, which we haven't always liked in Congress, including
me. But I think we're going to have to decide we're going to
put money into this and I'm not talking about necessarily new
taxes and fees. I'm talking about General Budget. This is of
interest to the general public and you're not just going to
increase fees any further. You're all going to try it and we're
going to reject it and you're going to talk about more ticket
taxes and stuff like that. We aren't going to do that. This is
about modernization of a critical system that is important for
the future, the economic development and growth of America and
we're just going to have to toss a Rubicon and decide in the
big picture? Look, I'm a cheap hulk and all of that, but $18
billion over a period of years, to do what we need to do is not
a big amount of money. We're arguing right now on a bill that
will, over the next 10 years, cost $268 billion and we've
sloughed it off like it was chicken feed. So I think we need to
come to terms, in Congress, in the Administration, FAA,
Department of Transportation, OMB and the White House, we're
going to have to put money into this and we're not going to
charge a bunch of new fees to make it happen. It's going to
come out of the General Treasury. That's my opinion. But let me
just--I do want to say to you again, you need to think about
the funding problem, how we're going to do it and you need to
make some recommendations. The OMB is going to shoot you down.
We're going to shoot you down so maybe you ought to have a
multiple choice list and maybe you'll find one or a combination
of all the above that we can achieve. I agree with Senator
Stevens that we have to figure out how to pay for this. We're
going to have to do this. Let's do it right and let's figure
out how we're going to pay for. So let me just ask a couple of
questions. How are you doing with the implementation of new ATC
technologies, for instance?
Ms. Blakey. For the current situation we are in, I think
we're going very well, as a matter of fact. One of the things
that we have concentrated on is looking at procedures and
looking at ways we can set up operationally to take full
advantage of what we have out there. That means that we have
begun putting in place what is called RNAV and RNP procedures
at a number of our critical airports and they have really
delivered a tremendous amount of efficiencies. It is just much
more precise, using satellite-based technologies and
capabilities that are already built into the aircraft right
now, today, to get a lot more capability into places like
Atlanta, for example. Delta has been saving tremendous amounts
of money using these new routes into Atlanta, just as one
example. The same thing is going on in Dallas-Fort Worth and I
could start naming airports around the country where we have
genuinely increased capacity. When we talk about technologies,
the ERAM system is hitting its milestones precisely on target.
Now this is the brain, if you will. It is changing out the host
for the upper route airspace. But we've had other successes
that I am very pleased about. The new technology that governs
aircraft across the oceans--it is now in place both in the
Atlantic and in the Pacific and it is coming on board in
Alaska. This is allowing us to know much more precisely where
aircraft are, way out there when before we really were relying
on radio technology and very mechanical, procedural things. At
this point, we have software that is allowing us to space
aircraft much more precisely coming in to our coasts and it is
making a big difference. I could mention a few other
technologies that we are using--URET, which allows controllers
to probe where an aircraft will be 20 minutes further into the
system and determine whether or not a much more desirable route
is available. A year ago, we dropped the vertical separation in
the airspace. A huge step--the compression of upper airspace
from 2,000 to 1,000 feet allowed again, a great deal more in
terms of efficient use of the airspace. The final thing I would
say, going to these newer technologies, which are reality
today--I do want to say ADS-B is in place in a number of
places--UPS is using it in Louisville. In that one airport
alone, because the aircraft are able to have a very smooth,
continuous descent approach, which uses a glide as much as
anything--they are getting a 30 percent reduction in terms of
noise below 6,000 feet, which is huge for a community and a 34
percent reduction in emissions and literally, a million fewer
gallons of jet fuel in a year. Now, these are benefits that are
very real and tangible and we are delivering them in the system
today. I point to those statistics because I think they are
very concrete examples of things that we are putting out, that
are working and as I say, a delivery of what we had promised at
the outset.
May I make one comment, Senator Lott, on your thought about
financing because I do believe you are quite right. This is
going to be a big challenge for this coming year and it is not
necessarily about raising taxes--more money, although to invest
in this system at some point, there is going to have to be
additional investment, no question. But it is also about the
ability to have predictability, have a revenue stream that ties
the costs and the revenue together and makes it a business-like
operation that means you do have a sensible investment flow. I
think, one of the problems we have had over the years in terms
of making these capital investment programs work, is the
fluctuations in funding so that you are revved up and then you
have to step down. Contractors are laid off, things don't
happen and then you try to jump back up. You have warehoused
equipment that is not deployed and on it goes. So anything we
can do as we are thinking about financing reform, to make it
predictable and tie those costs to the revenue and tie it to
the investments that we are committed to, I think, will be a
tremendous improvement regardless of the level of funding.
Senator Lott. Thank you for your leadership and I know what
you said made a lot of sense. We look forward to working with
you on this.
Ms. Blakey. Thank you.
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Lott. I want to follow up
here with Mr. Dillingham. In your testimony, you review not
only the management structure but also the interagency
involvement to this point. What do you believe are the three
top issues that JPDO must overcome in the short term, to
fulfill its mission, so to speak?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I think the first thing is
the progress that JPDO has made to date, the progress that FAA
has made to date, needs to be institutionalized and by that, I
mean systems and agreements need to be put in place so that
when you have a change of Administrator at FAA or if you have a
change of Secretary of Transportation or you have a change of
leadership in any part of the JPDO organization, that there is
some continuity there and we don't have to start from scratch.
We need that commitment. We need it formalized in some way.
I think the second thing is what everyone has been talking
about, that is to complete this planning process in an
innovative way, so that there is a basis for stakeholder
involvement. There is a basis for estimating the cost of this
and arranging or putting in place the financing for it. As we
mentioned, without the financing and some commitment on the
part of the government, this could go south in a hurry. I think
another element is something that the Administrator mentioned
in her testimony--that is the importance of international
harmonization. It is important for our aviation industry and it
is important for worldwide transportation that there be a
harmonized and seamless air transportation system. So those are
the three top things that I think are important at this point.
Senator Burns. Right now, is it structured--do they have
enough autonomy? Do we have an estimated cost of this JPDO in
order to be effective?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, the structure that has been put in
place so far----
Senator Burns. I think they've got to be autonomous in some
way or other to survive the change of leadership in the
Department of Transportation or FAA or any other part, OMB or
anywhere else.
Mr. Dillingham. What we understand is happening, Mr.
Chairman, is that there is in process a Memorandum of
Understanding between the constituent agencies that will, in
some way, institutionalize, formalize the relationships as they
continue to participate. You also heard them mention that they
are working with OMB, which is very important, in that they are
trying to have a situation where all of the constituent
agencies would identify those projects that are NGATS-related
or Next Generation related and OMB could consider them as a
package, rather than individual projects. The Administrator
also mentioned an MOU between the EC and the United States. So
in fact, these things are beginning to be institutionalized and
we think that is really critical because of changing
administrations--you don't want to start from zero again.
Senator Burns. I agree with that. Dr. Porter, getting
research to a mature point where the private sector can take
over is very important. I guess my question would be, does your
agency plan on assisting the JPDO with development or
developmental validation like prototyping and demonstration of
new technologies and this type of thing, on how these new
technologies will work? What is NASA's plan? How do they fit
into this JPDO?
Dr. Porter. That was a very broad question. I think you're
actually--you're really trying to focus, however, on the
development of the technologies.
Senator Burns. That's right, the technologies because I
know it is--today, technologies are developed in a shorter time
period, before we even get them in place, why, they are out-of-
date, so to speak. How do we remain agile and versatile so that
we can take advantage of some of those situations?
Dr. Porter. What NASA tends to do is invest very heavily in
the fundamental research that is going to be required to enable
this NGATS that we are talking about today. There are a lot of
things that, while we've talked about the technologies that do
exist today, such as ADS-B that can be taken into the near term
and put forward, there is a lot that we have to do and NASA is
uniquely qualified to do it, to answer fundamental questions we
don't have answers for today. For example, human automation and
the roles that humans in automation will play as we go to this
more and more complex system. There are fundamental research
questions that have to be answered in that regard. That is just
an example. There are a whole host of them. So this vision that
has been articulated by the NGATS--I don't want to give the
impression that we can just turn the switch on and everything
is already solved and it is just an integration challenge.
There is a lot that has to be done at the fundamental level in
research, in order to answer key questions, to enable those
concepts and technologies that are going to take us there. The
technologies that exist today that are based on the knowledge
we have today are not sufficient. There is a lot that still has
to be done and that is our role and we intend to do that. So if
we abdicate that responsibility, we would argue that the NGATS
cannot be achieved because what it is trying to do is truly
revolutionary. It is not an incremental step forward; it is a
revolutionary step forward. So our commitment from the air
traffic management to the safety, to the air vehicle research
itself that I talked to you about, is very broad and it is very
committed and it is very committed toward the cutting edge, to
address the challenges that we face for the vehicles in terms
of their safety as well as their noise and their emissions and
their performance that we talked about earlier as well as the
air traffic management challenges. It is a very, very
challenging fundamental research issue that we have to address.
Senator Burns. It seems to me that the private sector will
have a role to play in this.
Dr. Porter. Absolutely, absolutely and I believe that the
Administrator made that clear when she was explaining about the
NGATS Institute and she referenced the CON OPS, which was
heavily--the institute was heavily involved in terms of getting
the feedback back into that as well as the enterprise
architecture. The reason why that is such a complex challenge
is that it is not just the government that's devising, that it
is also with input from the Institute and their members, which
of course, are some of the world's experts, our industry
partners.
Senator Burns. Tell me, Administrator Blakey, where are we
on the structure of the--and getting people in place, the right
people in place, as far as the JPDO is concerned?
Ms. Blakey. I think things are going very well. We've
certainly got a talented team of people from all the agencies
that are involved and we've been very pleased about the level
of commitment that we have seen. I think all the agencies
really understand that it is in their self-interest as well as
a critical thing for the Nation, to transform this system. We
are on the cusp of selecting a new director. I am pleased to
say that we took this very seriously because we realized the
challenging aspects of this position and we went out with a
search firm and looked very thoroughly and we are at the final
stages of making that selection. I think we will be able to
announce a new director within days. That is my expectation.
There obviously are clearances and all those sorts of things
that we don't entirely control. The other thing I would point
to is the Institute. The Institute is, I think, becoming a very
robust organization of our private sector stakeholders who are
not only collaborating with the JPDO, they have a formal
structure where they have a governing board, they have a
director and they also have very significant organizations
participating in it. In this case, the Association of Airline
Pilots, ALPA and the ATA, the Air Transport Association, also
working with the AIA. So you have a very strong institutional
commitment from industry as well as a lot of individuals. They
are at the point now where they are going to begin to draw down
funds from the JPDO for demonstration projects. They will be
accepting contracts to undertake the projects as well spend the
contributions they made.
Senator Burns. Do you think that we have enough dollars in
there to complete the mission?
Ms. Blakey. We don't have enough dollars right now to
complete the mission.
Senator Burns. Do we have an estimate of what it is going
to cost or what is going to be our yearly commitment?
Ms. Blakey. We are working toward that with these workshops
that we are conducting. We have another one coming up with the
general aviation community and another coming up with the
airport community in the next several months. The cost analysis
that we have already done with the corporate sector, the
airline community, as well as these other two still to come, I
think will give us a much more granular sense of cost. It is
not just the question of Federal dollars invested. It is also
the question of how quickly the private sector wants to step up
into this new system with all of the costs and the benefits
that are going to go to them. There is an estimate that Dr.
Dillingham mentioned before, that one of the committees that
has been working closely with us has estimated it will require
approximately a billion dollars additional investment a year.
But obviously that can be front loaded, back loaded and some of
this again, goes to where are the benefits and when do we get
them?
Senator Burns. Well, that figure sure caught my attention,
a billion dollars a year, plus I don't know where we're going
to find it right now but I believe that we'll have to rely on
some estimates coming out of the JPDO once it is finally--it is
finalized and the structure has been set. I think Congress
should know about that right away. Mr. Dobbs, the Next
Generation vision includes some migration from ground systems
to airplanes and right now if I hear anything at all, as I
travel, and I do a lot of it between here and Montana, mostly.
We hear that with our airplanes in the air have a lot more
sophisticated technology than our ground operations. Now to
implement these ground systems, investments will be required by
both the FAA and industry stockholders and will require a joint
public private ownership plan. Do you believe there is
sufficient industry participation to develop the necessary
joint ownership of the plan and if not, what steps should be
taken to strengthen that involvement of private industry? In
other words, the investment coming in from private sources.
Mr. Dobbs. Without question, industry participation is
critical. I think the FAA is definitely on the right track and
the NGATS institute was set up to get industry participation. I
think the Administrator mentioned prototype efforts in the Gulf
of Mexico. The airline industry, for example, has mentioned
that they would like some clarity about when they need to
equip. They would like that linked to their maintenance
schedule and they would like a little bit more information on
the benefits that they would get from moving forward with ADS-
B. Clearly, ADS-B could be revolutionary with the things that
it could do in terms of safety and capacity. It is really a
matter of having the air carriers be able to afford it. So,
they just need sort of a plan, a roadmap. That is what they
told us.
Senator Burns. I don't think you're just going to have the
air carriers participate. I think there is going to have to be
other participants, too. Dr. Porter, I forgot to ask you a
while ago, you know, we were talking about the R&D that goes on
in NASA. I know that your budget has been drastically cut over
there and that would tell me that funds for the efforts to go
to mars have been sort of scaled back. With these scale backs,
how has that budget, these cuts, how has that affected the work
that you do in research and development?
Dr. Porter. You're correct that the budget, of course, has
been cut, the aeronautics budget, in particular. The overall
NASA budget has gone up. The importance of what we're doing now
is ensuring that what we do is of high quality. So regardless
of budget, we have to ensure that we have principles in place
that are sound and logical and drive the decisions that we make
and then we apply our budget accordingly. Some of those issues
have been brought up earlier today. Those core principles have
been established. We have put together our program according to
those principles and now we're confident that given that, we
can apply a budget in an efficient and logical and cogent
manner. So it is important, I think, not just to look at budget
but also to ask, how is that money being spent? And of course,
both of those elements are important and I think we have a
smart and efficient way of going forward that allows us to
address these challenges we talked about, the research
challenges for NGATS and do that in a manner that uses the
money well.
Senator Burns. I was going to say, on NGATS, that won't--
these cutbacks wouldn't affect the work that you are doing in
that area?
Dr. Porter. We have firmly--one of our core principles, we
have three core principles and one of our core principles is to
focus and make sure we are firmly aligned in the fundamental
research needs of NGATS. So regardless of budget, that will be
one of our principles.
Senator Burns. Mr. Dillingham, I know that GAO has held
forums and meetings regarding the JPDO for the NextGen System.
You are also having meetings, I guess, with the Europeans. What
are the Europeans currently planning and how is their plan
different from ours?
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have looked at the
European counterpart known as SESAR. They are in the very early
planning stage. I think they began their planning stage in
March of 2006 and we've been planning now, going on 2 years. I
think that the recent MOU that was signed is sort of a landmark
kind of occurrence in that it means that the European community
and the U.S. will be working together more so than they have in
the past, with a formal understanding of trying to make sure
that we have international harmonization and standards
development. So the Europeans are using a different process but
they are aiming for the same thing and our position has always
been that it is not the process that's important, it is the
outcome and right now, the outcomes are aimed at the same
place.
Senator Burns. Are they very serious about systems that are
inter--that will talk to each other?
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. Interoperability is a main----
Senator Burns. That's the word I was looking for and it
didn't come.
Mr. Dillingham. Right. I practiced it before I came.
Senator Burns. Maybe I should!
Mr. Dillingham. It is one of the main elements, both for
the U.S. and for EC because again, the transportation system,
the worldwide transportation system, is an economic driver on
both sides of the ocean. So although there is competition,
there is cooperation as well.
Senator Burns. When you're looking for words, you know, the
human brain is a wonderful thing. It starts working the very
instant you are born and it does not stop until that red light
comes on, right here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. I just, drawing down to some conclusion
here, to end this hearing, I'd just like, in your opinion and
I'd like for all three of you to respond to this. As of right
now, if you had three things that you wanted addressed today to
take care of, what would they be? Three things with regard to
JPDO. What would they be right now, what would be your concerns
and I'd just start with you, Mr. Dobbs.
Mr. Dobbs. I think obviously, would be to figure out how to
finance it. I think, too, it is important to finish the
enterprise architecture and third, would be to maintain
stakeholder involvement because you need both the government
and industry right now. Many participants are volunteers right
now, from different agencies and industry. We need to maintain
that involvement over the long haul.
Senator Burns. Mr. Dillingham?
Mr. Dillingham. I thought you were going to skip me, Mr.
Chairman, since I answered one like that.
Senator Burns. You didn't practice this one, is that it?
Mr. Dillingham. No, no. I agree with the IG that we need to
first of all, complete the plan and that plan is the baseline
for all things that we need to do after that, including cost
estimation. I think it is also important that we maintain the
progress that we've made, with regard to keeping acquisitions
on time and on budget and institutionalize that progress. Also,
institutionalize the relationship between the constituents of
the JPDO. I think those things are first and foremost to keep
us on schedule.
Senator Burns. Dr. Porter?
Dr. Porter. OK, they stole all my answers. I think the most
important thing is the enterprise architecture, which I
highlighted in my testimony. That is critical and it has to be
done right. I would say as a sub-bullet to that, we don't want
to rush that for the sake of meeting a timeline. I think the
JPDO has done the right thing by saying, let's get it right
first. If we don't get that right, we're going to spend a lot
of time on the back end, fixing what we didn't think about up
front. So I think they are doing a great job and the NGATS
Institute's involvement is critical, as you mentioned. The
industry involvement in that endeavor, leveraging the expertise
that industry has in that is critical. I think the need to have
the leadership sustained and Administrator Blakey had mentioned
that we are hopefully going to be hearing about a new director
soon. That is good because you've got to get that stabilized
and also sustaining the partnerships. We really do have a great
partnership among the agencies. That has been working very
well, but I think Mr. Dillingham's point is a very good, that
you want to have a mechanism of institutionalizing that. I
don't really like that word but I think ensuring that is a
solid commitment that stays forward, regardless of who is
there. Personalities come and go and you want to have that
passion and commitment. I've been very impressed by the passion
and commitment of the current members and we want to sustain
that. This is going to take a 20-year committed and focused
effort. I think we all are very cognizant of that and that is
why there are a lot of people working long hours to ensure this
sustains. But it does have to be formalized or I guess,
institutionalized as Gerald had mentioned. So I think I hit
three points and if not, I'm sure I talked long enough.
Senator Burns. Well, I would tell you. This is just a
personal opinion and observation here. I agree with you that
we've got some awfully good people. The stars are lined up
right because we've got some awfully good people in the right
places now. As this becomes one of my top priorities in the
Congress and as we get this kicked off for the next generation,
we've been the beneficiaries of strong leadership, especially
in the Administrator and I'm going to ask her about her three
things. I just think we've just got some awfully good people in
the right places right now to get some really powerful things
done. That's why I--I'm worried more about the process, get it
in place, don't experience paralysis by analysis and to move
forward and to be flexible and agile as we do. I just believe
that we've got those kinds of people here in place now.
Administrator Blakey?
Ms. Blakey. Well, thank you and I think----
Senator Burns. You're the one that has to do all this, you
know. You're the do part. You're at the jump. You've got the do
part.
Ms. Blakey.--the jump do. I figured I'd be the rear end on
that. Well, I'll tell you. We're certainly all working together
on this and believe me, the do part has got a lot of partners.
So I'm grateful for that. I guess what I would say, in addition
to echoing everything that was said at the table here, is it
all does come down to leadership on three fronts. I think we do
need, of course, to have a strong and committed organization
and the directors. I want to, by the way, thank our Acting
Director, Bob Pearce, who has stood in and done a yeoman's
duty. Bob is right here behind us and he has really done a
wonderful job over the last 6 months. So we have benefited from
him and I think we will continue to benefit from the strong
work of the Institute and the JPDO staff. I think it is also
critical that we have leadership on all of our parts, from the
Administration and from the Congress, as we address this
financing issue. It will not be easy. It never is when we're
talking about trying to change the way we pay for things. I
mean, it is as straightforward as that. It is all about the
pocketbook and that is going to make this a tough year where
leadership is concerned. Folks stepping up, is going to be
huge. And then the final thing; it is a 20-year vision and goal
we're pursuing and I have to say that the leadership of this
committee--I remember where the JPDO came from--remember this
was in Vision 100? And I must also mention the leadership of
this President. I wish Senator Lott were here. I would have to
say that this President has certainly backed the JPDO and has
backed all of our efforts. The Administration's support has got
five agencies of government pulling at the same rope and that
is no small thing. So I hope on all fronts, we'll continue that
kind of leadership. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Let me assure our witnesses today that I'm
going to do everything that I can do to make sure that you get
great support from the Congress. The more that we communicate
with colleagues, especially here on the Senate side, on the
challenge ahead and the more clear they are about this issue
will enable us, I think, to secure the funds that we will need
to make--not only develop the new technologies but make the
transition. As Mr. Dillingham has recounted, it is going to
cost more money and especially in the transition. So let me
pledge to you that you'll have as much cooperation and support
from Congress as I can possibly muster as we move forward and I
thank you for your testimony. You'll be called upon again.
There will be other hearings. We'll have other hearings, with
stakeholders, with the private sector, with other folks that
will be involved in this here in this hearing room. Then the
job of putting the organization into a mode of success--let's
don't structure something that is structured to fail. That's
what we have to be very, very careful of. So I appreciate the
testimony of everybody today. I would imagine there will be
other people on the Commerce Committee that will have
questions. I would, if you have questions from individual
members of this committee, if you would respond to the
Committee and to the individual Senator, I would appreciate
that. We'll leave the record open for a couple of days right
now. If you have other statements that you would like to make
part of the record, why we'll do that also. And again, thank
you for coming this morning and this hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
As the Aviation Subcommittee has begun to focus on the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), I believe
we will find few issues as critical for the future of our National
Airspace System (NAS) as the need to modernize our air traffic control
system. In 2003, I was an original cosponsor of the legislation that
created the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to spearhead
this effort, and I have watched with interest as they have been
established and began their mission.
While most reports of the progress of the JPDO to date have been
positive, this is a critical period for the modernization effort and I
am hopeful that the involved agencies will respond positively to any
criticism they receive to make this effort a success. We must ensure
that the industry stakeholders are properly included to help bolster
this effort and that the JPDO continues to have broad multi-agency
participation to move forward with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NGATS).
We also must be certain that this process is as safe as possible
while providing the promised benefits for our citizens and industry. I
look forward to working with the witnesses to make certain that the
JPDO receives the necessary support from Congress to effectively
modernize our air traffic control system and position the Nation to
have the world's leading air transportation system in the 21st Century.
______
Prepared Statement of the Aerospace Industries Association of America
A safe, secure and efficient air transportation system is essential
to the United States' prosperity, competitiveness, and national
security. Approximately 10 percent of the U.S. economy is directly tied
to aviation. The industry is a strong driver in our Nation's economic
growth, and it will take on increased importance as air traffic triples
over the next 20 years. But for that to occur, fundamental,
transformational improvements to our Nation's air transportation
infrastructure are essential to address the known capacity constraints
in our current system. Since our current system is operating close to
the point of gridlock, it is critical that our country develop and
implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) in a
timely manner.
Members of the Aerospace Industries Association are strong
proponents of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and are
constructively engaged to help make the transformational NGATS a
reality. The AIA represents more than 100 large companies and 170
smaller business suppliers, and we operate as the largest trade
association in the United States across three sectors: civil aviation,
space systems, and national defense. The export of aerospace products
provides our Nation's largest trade surplus ($40 billion in 2005), and
U.S. companies continue to invest heavily in R&D, spending more than
$50 billion over the last 15 years. Maintaining U.S. aviation
leadership is critical to our national economic health and national
security.
Since the JPDO was created, they have built a consensus around its
vision for the next generation air transportation system. But now that
the vision creation stage is nearing completion, JPDO and the
respective agencies must expeditiously embark on the task of turning
that vision into an executable implementation plan and ensuring that
plan is implemented on schedule.
AIA commends the JPDO leadership and participants for their
accomplishments in establishing this remarkable enterprise and creating
a vision for the future. Bringing these organizations together to
collaborate and leverage individual agency expertise and resources
gives the United States a powerful opportunity to achieve the goal of
transformation of the air transportation system. The inclusion of non-
Federal government stakeholders, bringing added viewpoints, knowledge
and expertise to the JPDO through the NGATS Institute, is also a
significant accomplishment for both the government and private sectors.
It is imperative that the JPDO effort succeed. But this enterprise
is unprecedented and achievement of its goal involves management of a
process that is highly complex with challenging inter-agency and
stakeholder integration. Understandably, we are learning as we go and,
in addition to the successes, we are learning what changes are required
to achieve the desired result: implementation of NGATS.
The AIA, like all JPDO participants and stakeholders, is committed
to the JPDO and its mission. JPDO must succeed. From our evaluation of
JPDO's process, products, and progress to date, continued attention
must be focused in the following areas for JPDO to achieve its
challenging goal.
Authority: Creating and implementing a national plan that crosses
over the jurisdictions of numerous agencies and departments is a
monumentally challenging task. The JPDO's and our country's success in
this endeavor depends upon the Administration and Congress ensuring
that the appropriate level of responsibility, authority and imperative
exist to properly manage and conduct the integrated activities at the
JPDO and the agencies. Now that a consensus vision has been
established, the need for adequate JPDO authority is even more crucial
as it addresses the ``development'' of NGATS: defining and implementing
the policies, requirements, and system designs for the supporting
agencies to advance the NGATS construct. JPDO-participating agencies'
commitment to, and programmatic alignment with, JPDO and NGATS requires
explicit alignment to the JPDO and NGATS goals, and a demonstrated
commitment to the associated research and capital needs. To ensure
success, the JPDO and participating agencies need to be accountable for
NGATS progress through appropriate Administration and Congressional
oversight to ensure adherence to programmatic commitments and
interagency coordination.
Funding: JPDO and the associated NGATS research, development and
implementation must be fully funded, as needed and when needed. It is
critical that Congress and the Administration properly address
infrastructure commitments. Creative means may be necessary to finance
and incentivize infrastructure improvements in both government and the
private sector. R&D for NGATS is heavily frontloaded and the timetable
is, by necessity, ambitious, both to initiate deployment in the near
term and for completion by 2025. It is estimated that an additional
$200-300 million of transitional research is needed each year in vital
areas such as air traffic modernization, environment and safety in
order to implement NGATS. Most of NGATS research will be through NASA
but other agencies will also play a role. Not only must this vitally
important NASA R&D be appropriately funded, NASA must evidence its
fiscal and programmatic commitment to this rigorous endeavor. A failure
to adequately fund and conduct this important research in a timely way
could result in significant delays or problems developing and
implementing the NGATS.
JPDO Leadership: The JPDO has acted without a full time Director
since early 2006. The interim management team has performed well under
very difficult circumstances. However, in order to ensure that the JPDO
moves forward, it is imperative that an effective long-term leader be
appointed as soon as possible to guide the NGATS effort forward through
this demanding phase. NGATS Institute has brought over 200 private
sector participants into the JPDO to execute studies, demonstrations
and other activities in support of JPDO. JPDO has embraced this
partnership and should work with the private sector to enhance this
unique enterprise.
Program Alignment/Integration/Management: Achievement of NGATS is
an intricate process, involving several Federal agencies' programmatic
integration. One of the greatest potential risk areas is the lack of
sufficient program integration across the various agencies. Agencies'
relevant programmatic sectors should have strong links to the JPDO to
ensure continuity and consistency in development between the planning
at JPDO and the planning and execution performed at the respective
agencies. The schedules and resource requirements must be realistic,
accounting for both input and capabilities of both government and
industry stakeholders. Robust systems integration tools should be
consistently used. Additionally, clearly visible and traceable
alignment of Federal funding should be established for this multiagency
effort. NGATS-related funding must be identified and unimpeachable for
the mission effort to be undeterred and on schedule. Both JPDO and
other appropriate personnel should be rewarded for achieving NGATS
goals.
In summary, the JPDO effort is an unprecedented government-industry
partnership. Its uniqueness requires government and industry
stakeholders to break the bounds of precedent and truly achieve a new
level of cooperation and partnership. One thing is certain: our entire
Nation will reap the positive benefits of JPDO/NGATS success. Just as
certainly, our entire Nation will suffer the negative impacts if the
JPDO/NGATS effort is allowed to fail.
______
Prepared Statement of the Air Line Pilots Association, International
I am Captain Duane E. Woerth, President of the Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA). ALPA represents the professional
safety and security interests of 61,000 pilots who fly for 40 airlines
in the United States and Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to submit
a statement for the record to discuss issues of great importance to the
FAA, as the Air Traffic Service provider, and the pilots and operators
that use the system, as we work to collaboratively modernize the
National Airspace System (NAS) into the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NGATS).
Jim May, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, and I
co-chair the NGATS Institute Management Council (IMC). We are charged
with leading industry involvement and support for NGATS. To that end,
we provide insight, experience and input to the JPDO with our 16 member
NGATS IMC and the NGATS Institute Executive Director. The IMC provides
a broad and impressive set of industry perspectives, expertise, and
experience--ranging from airlines and airports to the academic
community.
I am proud to serve as the IMC Co-Chair with Jim May. Working
together, this IMC has formed a collective personality and really
stepped forward to engage the issues and support JPDO. The IMC and
their member organizations have worked hard to provide the JPDO
Integrated Product Teams (IPT's) with the industry expertise,
experience and input they need.
There are over 200 industry participants working as unpaid
volunteers on the 8 IPT's. This is a testimony to our commitment to the
JPDO and this critically important mission to build the NGATS and make
it a success. Our pilots and our airlines are engaged intensely at all
levels. We are in it for the long haul to do whatever it takes to get
it done and get it done right. Success of NGATS is both critical and
crucial to all of us. We are determined to succeed.
Over the past 75 years, the NAS has changed greatly. Following the
collision of two airliners over the Grand Canyon in 1956. the air
traffic control system transformed from separating flights using radio
position reports to a system of positive control based on radar. The
introduction of jet powered airliners made air travel affordable and
available to the world. With the introduction of the Global Positioning
System (GPS), navigation is moving from ground-based navigation aids to
a satellite-based navigation system.
All of these changes have two things in common. They have made air
travel safer, and they were successfully accomplished when there was a
collaborative relationship between the government and the private
sector. ALPA and the NGATS Institute are actively working with the FAA
and the JPDO to ensure that NGATS is yet another example of a
successful collaboration leading to fundamental change in the NAS.
However, the continued road toward the implementation of NGATS will
require an additional element--a national resolve. Just like the
development of the interstate highway system during the 1950s and
1960s, NGATS is a major technological and transformational step
forward. National resolve is required to continue the operation of the
current system while we research, develop, and implement NGATS.
A sustained funding stream demonstrates national resolve. In 1997,
recently retired Secretary of Transportation Mineta chaired the
National Civil Aviation Review Committee (NCARC). NCARC recommended the
FAA's funding and financing system receive a Federal budget treatment
that ensured revenues from aviation users and spending on aviation
services were directly linked and shielded from discretionary budget
caps. This would ensure that FAA expenditures would be driven by
aviation demand. While some movement has been made on this issue, this
recommendation has not been fully implemented. With the Aviation Trust
Fund expiring in 2007, the issue of a sustained funding stream is even
more urgent. Without a national resolve, the funding of NGATS is
uncertain, and will most certainly cost more and take longer to
implement. Implementing NGATS is in the vital national interest of the
United States.
NGATS has the potential to revolutionize the NAS and our air
transportation system, but only if private industry and government work
together. Through collaboration, we have made major strides in the
almost 102 years since the Wright Brothers first flew. However, the
next 20 years could see major changes in aviation. Forecasted increases
in air traffic of two to three times today's traffic cannot be met in
today's NAS. The changes will be not be easy and will require much work
and effort.
Through the NGATS IMC, we are supporting the JPDO in developing a
plan for 2025. Your funding commitment is crucial to the NAS of the
future. But in the nearer-term, we believe the FAA is under funded and
needs the resources to deploy foundational technologies such as
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), Performance Based
Navigation, more commonly know as RNAV/RNP, and additional airport
infrastructure including airport surface management.
ADS-B is a key enabler for the move to space-based navigation and
surveillance. ADS-B uses the highly accurate GPS position and
broadcasts it to controllers and other aircraft. As the replacement for
the traditional surveillance radar, ADS-B reduces the FAA's dependence
on an expensive radar system that is nearing its service life. Now is
the time to invest in ADS-B rather than spending money in the future to
extend the life of an aging technology.
As the NAS traffic continues to expand, the increased use of space-
based RNAV and RNP procedures will enhance the capacity and efficiency
of the NAS while maintaining the high level of safety that currently
exists in our system. RNAV and RNP procedures in the en route
environment will allow multiple lanes of aircraft to flow throughout
the system while the development of new RNAV and RNP departure and
arrival routes will decrease delays in the terminal area. These new
procedures will provide greater accuracy, result in decreased spacing
between aircraft, and reduce the impacts of noise and other
environmental concerns.
These technologies will not meet our capacity expectations if
airport infrastructure is not improved. The nations biggest airports
will need a surface management system to meet the capacity needs. ADS-B
technology, combined with cockpit moving map displays of the airport
and enhanced surface displays in the tower, will allow pilots and
controllers to work together to more efficiently manage traffic in the
terminal area.
However, the U.S. cannot develop NGATS in isolation. Aviation is a
major driver in the world economy. Transportation of passengers and air
cargo in the global environment must be seamless. Therefore, ALPA is
working with industry partners and regulatory agencies in North
America, Europe, and the Far East to ensure airspace operations,
technologies, and procedures are globally harmonized. With a globally
harmonized airspace system, America's transportation system and our
economy will truly benefit in terms of capacity, efficiency, and
safety.
In 1931, ALPA's founders chose the motto ``Schedule with Safety.''
On July 27, as ALPA celebrates our 75th birthday, the safety of the
NAS--past, present and future, remains the Line Pilot's number one
focus.
I appreciate this opportunity to place this statement into the
record on this crucial issue to the economic vitality and well being of
the United States and Canada. The Air Line Pilots Association,
International is proud to help lead the Aviation Industry in this
collaborative effort in building the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. It is imperative that Congress supports the JPDO initiatives
while continuing to fund the FAA's nearer-term critical infrastructure
requirements. Your support will enable the collaboration of industry
and government partners to deliver the next generation air
transportation system that is vital to our national interests.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Bunce, President/CEO,
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Rockefeller, on behalf of the
over fifty-five members of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA), I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to share our views on the critically important issue of
modernization of our Nation's air traffic management system.
Over the past several months the conflicting positions among
different sectors of the aviation industry have made it clear that much
work is needed to find common ground as to the future funding of the
FAA and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF). It should be noted
however, that even in this time of great debate, there is one issue on
which all sides agree--the critical need to transform and increase
capacity in our Nation's air traffic management system by taking
advantage of the tremendous technological advances in digital
information transfer pioneered by the United States military.
Our most advanced aircraft no longer fly via cables and pulleys.
Rather, today's high performance general aviation and commercial
aircraft use fly-by-wire technology and a multitude of other computer
assisted mechanisms. Why then, do we still rely on ground-based radar,
a technology created in the World War II era to maintain order in our
Nation's skies? The United States can and must modernize. If we do not,
we will be faced with increasing air traffic control delays in the
congested airspace surrounding our Nation's major airports.
The United States, however, is not the only government attempting
to modernize air traffic control services. The European Union is moving
aggressively to modernize its own infrastructure and set the world
standard for air traffic management through the SESAR (Single European
Sky ATM Research) project, which would streamline technological,
economic and regulatory processes in order to create a single European
sky from the current patchwork of systems.
Under SESAR, the EU is applying significant resources to Air
Traffic Management (ATM) research and implementation. While this is a
welcome development for global aviation safety, we must recognize that
this effort challenges U.S. leadership in ATM research and development.
Mr. Chairman, the modernization of our Nation's air traffic control
system is critical to the future of the U.S. aviation industry and to
the well-being of our dynamic economy. Although the flight path to
modernization has and will continue to face many challenges, we must
address those challenges head on and persevere in the creation of a new
state-of-the-art ATM system. As such, my testimony will focus on two
main areas; the ongoing concern that the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO) does not have the necessary influence, via budget or
oversight, to compel its member organizations to complete necessary
research and development; and the JPDO's progress, plans and budgetary
needs for the future.
Authority of the Joint Planning and Development Office
Based on the recommendation of the Commission on the Future of the
United States Aerospace Industry, the Joint Planning and Development
Office was created in 2003 as part of the Vision 100--The Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act and was tasked with ``improving the level
of safety, security, efficiency, quality and affordability of the
National Airspace System and aviation services.'' These goals were to
be overseen by the multi-agency Senior Policy Committee made up of the
FAA Administrator, the NASA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and other
designees.
Unfortunately, the language included in Vision 100 does not go far
enough to ensure the success of the JPDO and our Nation's Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS). For example, nowhere in
the bill does the language provide the necessary authority to any
single person or body to complete this critical undertaking. Instead,
the JPDO and its parent FAA are left to ``pass the hat'' amongst the
relevant Federal agencies in order to provide the necessary funding for
critical research and development activities. Perhaps in the nascent
stages of the development of a modernized system this architecture will
be sufficient, but as we attempt to move forward with implementation
there must be a clear authority figure in the administrative branch
capable of directing other government entities to conduct the necessary
research, regardless of the designated agencies willingness to do so.
There is no more telling example of this than NASA's projected support
for the JPDO and NGATS.
With the confirmation of Dr. Michael Griffin as NASA Administrator
in April of 2005, NASA made dramatic changes to its structure, by
transferring millions of dollars from science and aeronautics programs
in order to beef up the space exploration budget. The consequence of
this act, especially for NASA aeronautics research, was a reordering of
priorities. Specifically, NASA has moved away from its traditional
aeronautics research and has decided to focus more on fundamental
disciplines. This change in NASA's focus will affect the JPDO by
limiting the degree to which NASA research will be carried out and thus
negatively impacting the ability to timely field the technology called
for in emerging JPDO planning.
NASA is the most logical research organization to conduct much of
the needed tasks for JPDO, yet with the combination of the change in
NASA research philosophy and the current structure of the JPDO, there
is no mechanism the JPDO can use to ensure NASA completes the required
research.
We encourage this Committee to examine the interagency structure of
the JPDO and make adjustments that would allow for more authority to be
held by the Secretary of Transportation in order to ensure that other
government agencies conduct needed research. Without such a change, the
American people will be forced to wait longer than necessary to reap
the benefits of a safer, and more efficient air traffic system.
Progress in the Modernization of the National Airspace System
Mr. Chairman, the debate we must have is not whether we should
modernize, but rather how, when and at what cost we will be able to do
so.
To this point, the JPDO has received funding of nearly $40 million,
to process the mountain of information necessary to design the Next
Generation Air Transportation System. Unfortunately, only now is a
basic concept of operations being publicized for comment.
In order for the JPDO to continue to garner support from Congress
and industry, it is time for the planning of the future system to
become an issue of fact rather than one of speculation.
For the next 5 to 7 years, the JPDO will require a reasonably
modest amount of funding to conduct its basic research and development
work. It is only beyond that window of 5 to 7 years (once equipage is
possible) that large amounts of funding are likely to be needed. As
such, any debate regarding the manner of funding for the JPDO and NGATS
improvements as part of the 2007 FAA reauthorization would be
premature. Rather, these discussions should take place when the funding
needs for the next generation system can be more clearly defined.
In the next 5 to 7 years, the JPDO must develop a clear
architecture for the new system. Specifically, it must identify the
improvements the new system will provide. How can we safely increase
capacity and efficiency of the National Airspace System to keep pace
with growing travel by air? Will air traffic control and separation be
facilitated through the use of satellite navigation coupled with data-
link technology or traditional ground based radar? Will critical
weather data be available on a real-time basis to all in need,
including pilots in the cockpit?
Once the JPDO has established the specific goals for the new system
a discussion of how we will achieve those goals should take place. What
equipment will be necessary? How much will it cost both the government
and the aviation industry to equip? How much will the use of new
technologies save the FAA in the next 20 years? Should equipment be
leased rather than purchased to provide a better mechanism for periodic
upgrade?
Only when we have these areas addressed should we move on to the
final, and in some ways, most difficult question of how the new system
should be financed. Many in Congress and industry have begun to discuss
the means by which to finance the new system, without a clear
indication of how much the system will cost and what the system will
look like. Just as no sensible person would hand a builder a stack of
money before seeing the plans and price for a new home, the aviation
industry should be told of a modernization plan and its time phased
cost before financing can be discussed.
Conclusions
Modernization of the Nation's air traffic control system is an
issue of critical importance to all those involved in aviation. The
current air traffic management system is simply not equipped to handle
the amount of traffic forecast in the years to come. In order to
maintain the health of our just-in-time economy and our Nation's desire
to move freely and without delay, we must ensure that a new air traffic
control system builds capacity rather than constrains use.
The JPDO is at a crossroads in its existence. Faced with uncertain
budgets and a lack of budgetary control over its member agencies it
will be unable to meet the demands of creating the next generation
system within its current architecture. Congress must address the
current structure of the JPDO and strengthen its abilities to ensure
compliance with its basic needs for research and development. Providing
this increased control over the research budgets of the JPDO member
agencies will allow for a more efficient and streamlined R&D and
implementation processes.
The JPDO continues to assemble the pieces of what will become the
Next Generation Air Transportation System, but has yet to clearly
define what the system will be, how it will operate or be equipped and
how much it will cost. Before we reach conclusions as to how the next
generation system will be funded (changes to the AATF, bonding,
leasing) these questions must be answered. Consequently, discussions
relating to changes in the funding mechanism to support the NGATS and
the FAA should be postponed until a point when the critical data needed
to make an informed decision on the future system is available.
______
Prepared Statement of Dave Cote, Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell
While the United States continues to operate the safest and most
efficient air transportation system in the world, anticipated continued
growth in demand for both passenger and cargo services is driving the
need to modernize the system. Requirements to double or triple capacity
over the next 15-20 years dictate a major transformation in both
operational procedures and the supporting technologies. In recognition
of this need, Congress established the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO) in 2003 as part of ``Vision 100'' to bring together key
government and industry stakeholders to lay out a plan for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS).
Over the past 2 and a half years, the JPDO has been effective in
developing the necessary levels of interagency collaboration and in
engaging industry in the process through the NGATS Institute. The
development of the ``vision'' for NGATS, establishing principles and
key capabilities, leading to the current effort to define the NGATS
Concept of Operations is indicative of the success of the JPDO's effort
to date. Honeywell firmly believes in the importance of modernizing the
air transportation system and congratulates the JPDO on its
accomplishments to date.
Now--as the NGATS project shifts to a more detailed definition
phase, it is appropriate to consider ways to adjust the process to
ensure continued success. As we look to the future, Honeywell believes
the focus should be in two key areas: providing the necessary authority
for JPDO to execute its mission and strengthening the role of the
private sector in developing the NGATS.
The JPDO Needs Appropriate Authority to Fully Execute Its Mission
In Vision 100, Congress tasked the JPDO with creating and carrying
out a national plan for the development of NGATS. There is clear
agreement on JPDO's responsibility for laying out the vision for NGATS
and the supporting agencies responsibility for its implementation. The
responsibility for the work that bridges the JPDO's vision to the
agencies implementation is less clear. To be successful, the JPDO must
be given the appropriate level of responsibility and authority for the
planning, and research and development of NGATS. This authority must
extend past the establishment of the vision to include the definition
of the policies, requirements and system designs needed by the
supporting agencies to carry out the NGATS implementation.
The NGATS will be a complex system depending on the integration of
numerous subsystems for successful and efficient deployment and
operation. The JPDO needs to have clear responsibility for the system-
level requirements definition and their integration but this can only
be accomplished with support from the agencies to ensure the alignment
of NGATS roadmaps and enterprise architectures.
In addition, clear JPDO responsibility for and oversight of the
associated research would increase the impact of the limited research
dollars available for this application. The development process led by
the JPDO should identify the research required to support the mid-to-
long-term NGATS critical design decisions. Due to the broad scope of
NGATS and the distributed nature of R&D expertise, this research will
need to be performed across a number of organizations. Coordinating
this research through the JPDO will ensure the necessary topics are
being addressed without duplication of effort and resources.
Strong Industry Engagement is Critical to NGATS Success
Recognizing the public-private nature of the air transportation
system, it is essential to have a strong public-private partnership in
place for the definition of the next generation system. NGATS will be
comprised of both governmental and private sector systems and
operations and its successful implementation will require firm
commitments from a range of industry stakeholders, including users,
labor, and manufacturers. A key characteristic of the future system
will be the migration of functionality, and ultimately cost, from the
ground to the aircraft. Manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft systems
will need to be involved in the design process to ensure the resulting
system architecture decisions are both practical and affordable.
The NGATS Institute was established as a mechanism to facilitate
industry involvement in the NGATS effort. To date, the Institute has
been successful in recruiting hundreds of industry volunteers
representing a broad cross-section of air transportation stakeholders
to support the JPDO's efforts. These volunteers are primarily assigned
to one or more of the JPDO's Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) where they
provide minimal input (normally less than 10 percent) reviewing and
commenting on JPDO work products. During the early phases of the
project, in the definition of the vision and high-level concepts, this
level of participation was both appropriate and effective. As the
project shifts to more detailed design work, the industry contribution
must be strengthened.
Many stakeholders have asked about the benefits of engaging a Lead
Systems Integrator (LSI) in the NGATS effort. While this remains a
possibility for the future deployment phase of NGATS, it is not the
correct model for involving industry in the JPDO's current NGATS system
definition. The near-term work of the JPDO is to establish the system-
level requirements, functional allocation between subsystems, and the
supporting architecture. The involvement of the industry with JPDO in
the NGATS system design is that of a strong supporting partner to
ensure all the necessary experience and ideas are included in the
design decisions. This effort should be non-competitive in nature with
publicly-vetted results.
While our focus is on the development of the U.S. NGATS, we can't
lose sight of the international nature of the air transportation
system. Europe is aggressively moving forward with their Single
European Sky in a strong public-private partnership, both to create a
world-class air transportation system and to increase the global
competitiveness of the European aerospace industry. They are currently
working to define the Joint Undertaking that will be used for the
development phase of the Single European Sky and are actively
recruiting non-EU countries as investing partners in this endeavor.
Other regions with rapid aviation growth, notably China and India, are
interested in international collaboration on future operational
concepts and technology solutions. Strengthening the public-private
partnership in the U.S. will both accelerate the implementation of
NGATS in the U.S. and increase its visibility with international
partners, ultimately supporting continued U.S. competitiveness in the
global market.
Summary
The modernization of our Nation's air transportation system is
critical for continued economic growth and enhanced quality of life.
Honeywell is committed to the successful implementation of NGATS and
stands ready to support the JPDO and its member agencies as they move
forward with the development of this important system.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Marion C. Blakey
Question 1. Currently, pilots can fly Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and
they do not talk to air traffic controllers or file flight plans, etc.
As you work to develop the next generation ATC system, is there any
plan to operationally change VFR as we know it today? If so, what does
the general aviation community think about this?
Answer. One of the principal challenges in the development of NGATS
is to insure the seamless integration of VFR traffic into the airspace
operations of the future. This will include commercial and business
aviation traffic at much higher levels with additional entrants such as
Very Light Jets and Unmanned Aerial Systems. VFR traffic will be
accommodated in the NAS operations of the future. For example, if VFR
traffic needs to fly in the area of heavy IFR traffic, such as the
Class B airspace around some of the Nation's larger airports, they will
be afforded specific areas and corridors which will facilitate their
efficient movement while not limiting the capacity of IFR traffic.
Question 2. If you plan to operationally change VFR--will there be
mandates/necessary equipage changes for the existing (and newly
introduced) general aviation aircraft fleet? What stage are you in the
planning and when will it be developed?
Answer. There may be some additional requirements for equipage for
both safety and security reasons. For example, ADS-B, when fully
implemented, will rely primarily on an aircraft's participation in the
system to insure aircraft and those providing air traffic management
can see and provide separation between aircraft. For national security
reasons, there will be a need to positively identify aircraft that are
not providing position updates. With that in mind, we are looking at
mechanisms to facilitate cost effective equipage of general aviation
aircraft.
Question 3. Given the fact that the JPDO is tasked with developing
plans that ultimately result in a National Airspace System capacity
increase of three times (3x), what is the JPDO doing to ensure that VFR
operations, and the freedoms described above, exist in the future
airspace system? Will the JPDO develop plans and strategies that ensure
VFR operations are not required to file flight plans, remain in
constant ATC communications, or obtain ATC clearance at more airports?
Answer. Requirements for VFR traffic in the NextGen system will be
driven by the type of airspace that aircraft will be operating in. We
are confident we can accommodate VFR traffic in lower density, lower
altitude environments much like we do today. Similarly, to operate in
Class B airspace, which involves higher density traffic, there will be
additional requirements for that airspace.
Question 4. We know you have taken a number of steps, as required
by law, to include industry in the airspace modernization effort
including the creation of IPTs and the NGATS Institute. However, the
mere creation of these entities does not ensure the proper utilization
of private industry. Do you believe the FAA is working effectively with
the aviation community in identifying appropriate costs, initiatives
and time frames in the FAA modernization plan? How do you believe this
effort could be improved?
Answer. We believe that inputs from a variety of industry
stakeholders are crucial in NGATS plan development. General aviation
has been involved in our Integrated Product Teams at the grassroots
level and is serving on our 16 member Institute Management Council
(IMC). The IMC includes representatives from the major stakeholders in
the aviation industry. All have a direct voice into the NGATS planning
process. This includes not only the participation in our IPTs and the
recent GA cost workshop, but also in being asked to provide comments
and input on the Concept of Operations and the Enterprise Architecture
documents.
Question 5. What is the FAA's current timeline for short-term and
long-term modernization efforts? What specific modernization
initiatives could be undertaken immediately? What types of initiatives
would require a longer time frame and why?
Answer. Some of the key enabling technologies have already been
identified. For example, ADS-B is a foundation upon which we intend to
build space-based navigation, via RNAV and RNP procedures. This shift
will allow us to save significantly on ground-based infrastructure
costs. An example of several important enabling key initiatives that
will require longer period for full implementation are En Route
Automation Modernization (ERAM) and System Wide Information Management
(SWIM). ERAM is an open architecture information system that will
enable future capabilities to more efficiently handle traffic growth.
SWIM when it matures will insure everyone is provided a mutual
situation awareness of traffic in the NAS. Together they will give us
the capability for 4 dimensional traffic flow management and will
enable us to increase the capacity of the NAS multifold.